bukit barisan selatan national park i environmental and social management framework table of...

BUKIT BARISAN SELATAN NATIONAL PARK ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Prepared for:

PROJECT PARTNERS FROM WCS, WWF AND YABI BUKIT BARISAN SELATAN NATIONAL PARK

JL. IR. H. JUANDA NO. 19 KM 1 TANGGAMUS, KOTA AGUNG 35751

LAMPUNG SELATAN INDONESIA

Prepared by:

PT HATFIELD INDONESIA LIPI BUILDING 3RD FLOOR JL. IR. H. JUANDA NO. 18

BOGOR 16122 INDONESIA

NOVEMBER 2019

WCS10041-BG

VERSION 2

DRAFT

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park i Environmental and Social Management Framework

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................III LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................III LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................. IV

LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................... V

DISTRIBUTION LIST ..................................................................................... VII AMENDMENT RECORD ............................................................................... VII

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ...................................1

PROJECT BACKGROUND ........................................................................... 1

ESMF SCOPE AND APPROACH ................................................................. 3

GUIDING PRINCIPLES ................................................................................. 4

Overview of ESMF Methodology .................................................................... 4

2.0 RELEVANT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT ...............................................................................................5

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ....................................................................... 5

SOCIAL SETTING ......................................................................................... 8

VULNERABLE AND RISK .......................................................................... 10

STAKEHOLDER MAPPING ........................................................................ 10

3.0 REGULATORY AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ...................... 10

NATIONAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS ............................................. 10

Constitution of Indonesia .............................................................................. 11

National Environmental Law ........................................................................ 11

Adat/Customary Laws .................................................................................. 11

Land Laws ................................................................................................... 11

Human-Wildlife Conflict ................................................................................ 12

National Social Laws .................................................................................... 12

APPLICABLE IFC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TRIGGERED BY THE PROJECT ............................................................................................ 13

4.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS ................. 16

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................................ 20

4.1.1 Gender Mainstreaming .................................................................. 23

4.1.2 Compliance and Core Labor Standards ......................................... 24

4.1.3 Land Acquisition and Resettlement ............................................... 25

4.1.4 Process Framework ....................................................................... 26

4.1.5 Indigenous Peoples ....................................................................... 27

4.1.6 Minor Temporary Impacts .............................................................. 28

DRAFT

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park ii Environmental and Social Management Framework

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................... 29

SCREENING AND APPROVAL .................................................................. 29

SCOPING ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES ................................ 31

APPLICATION OF SAFEGUARDS INSTRUMENTS, PLANS AND MEASURES ................................................................................................ 32

5.3.1 Environmental and Social Management Plan ................................ 32

5.3.2 Indigenous Peoples Plan ............................................................... 36

5.3.3 Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan ........................................... 36

6.0 CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ...................... 37

7.0 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM ............................................... 40

PROCESS AND GRIEVANCE MECHANISM .............................................. 40

7.1.1 Receive and Record Grievance ..................................................... 41

7.1.2 Grievance Screening and Categorization ...................................... 42

7.1.3 Acknowledgement Receipt and Transparency ............................... 42

7.1.4 Referral to Relevant Authorities ..................................................... 43

7.1.5 Investigation .................................................................................. 43

7.1.6 Follow up ....................................................................................... 43

7.1.7 Grievance Resolution .................................................................... 43

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .............................................................. 43

EVALUATION AND SUPERVISION ............................................................ 45

8.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING ....................................................... 46

9.0 ESMF IMPLEMENTATION................................................................... 48

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................... 48

CAPACITY BUILDING ................................................................................ 49

BUDGET TO IMPLEMENT ESMF ............................................................... 51

DRAFT

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park iii Environmental and Social Management Framework

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Project components and work packets. ........................................................................ 2

Table 2 IFC PSs triggered by the IPZ project. ......................................................................... 14

Table 3 Ten focus villages selected for Project intervention. ................................................... 18

Table 4 Potential environmental impacts of the proposed Components 1, 2 and 3. ............... 19

Table 5 Summary of key environmental and social activities. ................................................. 21

Table 6 Environmental and Social Management Plan capacity requirements. ....................... 35

Table 7 Categories of grievance screening. ............................................................................ 42

Table 8 GRM roles and responsibilities. .................................................................................. 44

Table 9 Quarterly and annual indicators for review. ................................................................ 45

Table 10 Environmental and social monitoring and reporting guideline. ................................... 47

Table 11 ESMF implementation costs. ...................................................................................... 51

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Sub-project screening and approval process. ............................................................ 31

Figure 2 Grievance Redress Mechanism for the KfW BBS Project. ......................................... 41

Figure 3 Institutional arrangement for ESMF implementation. .................................................. 49

DRAFT

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park iv Environmental and Social Management Framework

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A1 Activities Not Eligible for Project Financing

Appendix A2 Baseline Condition

Appendix A3 Process Framework

Appendix A4 General Screening Form

Appendix A5 Site Specific Screening Form

Appendix A6 General Environmental Management Plan

Appendix A7 A Pre-assessment of Potential Risks and Categorization

Appendix A8 Participatory Social Assessement Guidelines

Appendix A9 Key Stakeholders

Appendix A10 List of Consulted Stakeholders

Appendix A11 Stakeholder Consultation Objectives

Appendix A12 Stakeholder Consultation Responses - FGD

Appendix A13 Stakeholder Consultation Responses - Interview

Appendix A14 Questionnaire

Appendix A15 Sign Up Sheet

Appendix A16 Grievance Redress Mechanism Principle and Institutional Arrangement

DRAFT

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park v Environmental and Social Management Framework

LIST OF ACRONYMS AMDAL Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan/Environmental Impact Analysis

ARAP Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan

ATR Agraria dan Tata Ruang/Agrarian and Spatial Planning

ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

BBS Bukit Barisan Selatan

BBSNP Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park

BIG Badan Informasi Geospasial/Geospatial Information Agency

BPN Badan Pertanahan Nasional/National Land Agency

CBO Community Based Organizations

CCA Critical Conservation Area

CF Community Forest

CPA Community Protected Area

CSO Civil Society Organizations

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid

EA Environmental Assessment

EHS Environment Health and Safety

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMP Environmental Management Plan

EPSS Environemntal Prefeasibility and Scoping Study

ES Environment and Social

ESIA Environmental Social Impact Assessment

ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework

ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan

ESMS Environmental and Social Management System

FGD Focus Group Discussion

FMU Forest Management Unit

FPIC Free, Prior, Inform, Consent/Persetujuan Atas Dasar Informasi di Awal Tanpa paksaan

GOI Government of Indonesia

GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism

HA Hutan Adat/Customary Forest

HD Hutan Desa/Village Forest

Hkm Hutan Kemasyarakatan/Community Forest

HPT Hutan Produksi Terbatas/Limited Production Forest

HR Hutan Rakyat/Community Forest

HTR Hutan Tanaman Rakyat/Community Forest Plantation

IFC International Finance Corporation

ILEU Intelligence and Law Enforcement Unit

IP Indigenous Peoples

IPP Indigenous Peoples Plan

IPPF Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework

IPZ Intensive Protection Zone

DRAFT

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park vi Environmental and Social Management Framework

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

IUP Ijin Usaha Pemanfaatan/ Utilization Business License

KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau

KHDTK Kawasan Hutan Dengan Tujuan Khusus/ Forest Areas with Specific Purposes

LARAP Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan

LitBang Penelitian dan Pengembangan/Research and Development

LAC Limit of Acceptable Changes

MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forestry

NGO Non Governmental Organization

NTFP Non Timber Forest Product

NP National Park

OKU Ogan Kemering Ulu

OKI Ogan Komering Ilir

OP Operational Procedure

PAH Project Affected Households

PAP Project Affected Person

PCU Project Coordination Unit

PF Process Framework

PusDikLat Pusat Pendidikan dan Pelatihan/Education and Training Center

PPTKH Penyelesaian Penguasaan Tanah Dalam Kawasan Hutan/ Settlement of Land Tenure in Forest Areas

PERPRES Peraturan Presiden/President Regulation

PID Project Information Document

PMU Project Management Unit

PS Performance Standard

KSDAE Konservadi Sumber Daya Alam Ekosistem

RBM Resort Base Management

RAP Resettlement Action Plan

RPU Rhinoceros Protection Units

RPF Resettlement Planning Framework

RPJMDes Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Desa/Medium Term Development Plan of Village

SMART Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool

SOP Standard Operating Procedures

TOR Terms of Reference

UKL-UPL Upaya Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup dan Upaya Pemantauan Lingkungan Hidup/ Environmental Management Efforts and Environmental Monitoring Efforts

UNDP United Nations Development Programs

WCS Wildlife Conservation Society

WCU Wildlife Crimes Unit

WB World Bank

WBS World Bank Safeguards

WWF World Wildlife Fund

YABI Yayasan Badak Indonesia

DRAFT

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park vii Environmental and Social Management Framework

DISTRIBUTION LIST

The following individuals/firms have received this document:

Name Firm Hardcopies CDs Email FTP

Wildlife Conservation Society - - -

World Wildlife Fund - - -

Yayasan Badak Indonesia - - -

AMENDMENT RECORD

This report has been issued and amended as follows:

Issue Description Date Approved by

1 First draft version 2019-11-05

2 Second draft version of the Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park Project Environmental and Social Management Framework

2019-11-21

Jim Webb Project Director

Ilham Rizki Project Manager

DRAFT

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 1 Environmental and Social Management Framework

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES PROJECT BACKGROUND

The objective of the KfW-funded Intensive Protection Zone (IPZ) project is to conserve “highly threatened

tropical rainforest in the Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park (BBSNP) as priority habitat for critically

endangered species and carbon sink through innovative management concepts and sustainable land use

management in cooperation with local communities and the national park authority” (WCS IPZ project Environmental and Social Management Framework [ESMF] Terms of Reference [TOR]). The Project has been screened and assessed as Category B and all proposed sub-projects will undergo further review and consideration, particularly in relation to potential environmental and social impacts and mitigation measures. As such, the ESMF is guided by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards (PSs) listed in section 3.2. Additionally, national safeguard policies have been considered and documented.

The “Conserving Priority Habitats in the BBSNP” project concerns the management of an IPZ of 100,137 hectares (ha) within the park boundaries..’ This project will complement and support several elements of the required actions for the removal of the site from the in danger list, for BBSNP, and contribute to reducing pressure on the Government of Indonesia (GoI) for action on these issues. This includes species and habitat monitoring, improved law enforcement using a spatial monitoring and reporting tool (SMART) patrol system, clarification of boundary issues, and harmonisation of local spatial planning and licensing with the park buffer zone.

The project also addresses objectives and activities under the National Strategy and Action Plans for Sumatran Tiger, Sumatran Rhinoceros, and Asian Elephant (MoEF: P42/Menhut-II/2007, P44/Menhut-II/2007, P43/Menhut-II/2007, P53/Menhut-II/2007) and human-wildlife conflict (P48/Menhut-II/2008), as well as Indonesian commitments under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) enacted by Presidential Decision 43/1978 through its activities aimed at strengthening controls on the illegal wildlife trade.

The seven-year project (2017 to 2023) is being funded by the International Climate Initiative (Internationale Klimaschutzinitiative [IKI]) of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), through the KfW Entwicklungsbank. The Project Partners consist of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Germany and Indonesia programs, and Yayasan Badak Indonesia (YABI). These partners will provide technical assistance to the BBSNP management authority and other government and civil society stakeholder groups with an interest in the national park and its buffer zone.

The project design is based on a theory of change that involves reducing anthropogenic pressure on priority areas in the BBSNP, improving national park and conservation zone management including establishing an Intensive Management Zone (IMZ), and thereby effectively protect the habitat of endangered species: Sumatran rhinoceros, Sumatran tiger, and Sumatran elephant.

Reducing anthropogenic pressure on priority areas in the BBSNP requires collaboration with the adjacent local communities to improve sustainable land use, and to change attitudes and behaviours towards the endangered species (for example, hunting and poaching). Improving national park and conservation zone management also requires cooperation with the park authority and other users and stakeholders, with multi-facetted strategies, addressed in various activity packets. The project design consists of five components (Table 1).

DRAFT


Table 1 Project components and work packets.

No. Component Work Packages Responsible Project Partner

1 The IPZ is established within the BBSNP and is effectively protected

IPZ planning SMART-resort based management (RBM) system and

capacity Rhinoceros Protection Unit (RPU) patrolling in the IPZ Resort-based patrolling in the IPZ Improve forest crime intelligence gathering and

enforcement

YABI, WCS

2 Establishment and implementation of an IMZ

Strategy to consolidate and breed rhinoceros in BBSNP

IMZ design and management plan, funds through WWF

Translocate rhinoceros to the IMZ planned and to be conducted funds through WWF

YABI, WWF

3 Land-use pressure on the IPZ is diminished through improved land use management and community development

Resort-level strategies for community engagement Capacity to support community-based encroachment

monitoring and reforestation Performance based incentives for BBSNP protection

and restoration Investment and labour for protection and restoration Political and financial support for community-based

interventions Private sector business supports conservation

objectives (WCS)

YABI, WWF, WCS

4 Improved policy framework for species and habitat protection and national and international dissemination of experience

Capacity building and policy alignment (WCS, WWF, and YABI - different roles), including: - National technical learning trips & exchange visits

between BBS, WKNP, GLNP, and other relevant sites (YABI)

- Standardisation and dissemination to PusDikLat, including training modules - SMART (WCS), DNA-based monitoring (WWF) and RPU approach (YABI)

- Study tours – e.g. SMART and IMZ - Support to Joint National Rhino Secretariat (all) - Work with journalists (WWF)

Long term financing for conservation in BBS (WCS)

YABI, WWF, WCS

5 The effectiveness of BBSNP management is improved

Support to BBSNP management and strategy YABI, WWF, development (WCS)

Monitoring and conservation science for management (all) including: - Forest - Camera trap/DNA - Occupancy - Livelihood development impact

Student research grants (WCS)

YABI, WWF, WCS

DRAFT


The project environmental and social management framework (ESMF) and supporting documents provides a discussion on the project context, regulatory framework, impacts and mitigation measures, institutional arrangements, public consultation and information disclosure, grievance redress mechanism, monitoring and evaluation and reporting requirements.

A list of sub-projects that are ineligible for funding under the Tropical Forest Conservation Project is provided in Appendix A1.

This ESMF has been prepared through consultations and will be updated as required to reflect any changes to program investments irrespective of donor, national legislation, the KfW or other donor policies. The ESMF will be publicly disclosed to local communities and the general public.

ESMF SCOPE AND APPROACH The ESMF is prepared to identify, avoid, reduce, and mitigate the risks of the potential social and environmental impacts on the proposed KfW BBS projects. It provides guidance for the KfW BBS Project Management Unit to screen proposals for feasibility studies (providing an ineligible activities that cannot be supported either because of Indonesian legislation or IFC PSs and Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines, guidance for the preparation of a ToR for social and environmental studies under the Feasibility Studies, and guidance on the inclusion of social and environmental aspects into Requests for Proposal, including the ToR of detailed social and environmental assessments to be carried out after bid awards.

The ESMF was prepared in line with the IFC PSs and EHS Guidelines, and in accordance with Indonesian national laws and regulations. Any activity funded by the KfW BBS Project will be implemented in accordance to the principles of sustainable development, including environmental, social, cultural, and economic considerations, as already governed in prevailing laws and regulations. This ESMF adopts GoI’s laws and regulations to the extent that they are consistent with the IFC PSs and EHS Guidelines.

The ESMF is a living document developed in tandem with the project’s detailed design and will be implemented along with the other safeguard instruments such as Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP), Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) and Process Framework (PF). Specific objectives of the ESMF include:

integrating the environmental and social concerns into the identification, design and implementation of all project interventions in order to ensure that those are environmentally sustainable and socially feasible;

ensuring all relevant environmental and social issues are mainstreamed into the design and implementation of the project and also in the subsequent phases of the Project;

considering in an integrated manner the potential environmental and social risks, benefits and impacts of the program and identify measures to avoid, minimize and manage risks and impacts while enhancing benefits;

ensuring compliance with national and KfW requirements, such as IFC PSs and IFC EHS Guidelines; and

guiding development of the detailed action plans for mitigations for the later phases of the project as appropriate to the project components/sub‐components and agreed work packages.

DRAFT


The ESMF sets out the requirements and steps to screen, assess, manage and monitor the mitigation measures of potential environmental and social impacts of the Project, and for the handling of Project consultation processes and grievances. It provides an overview of the types of subproject activities to be assessed, the environmental and social screening process and the subproject‐specific safeguard instruments that will be prepared once the project locations and other details are known. Monitoring and reporting are also addressed to ensure ongoing adherence to environmental and social safeguards.

Guidance is provided to support the implementors: KfW BBS Project staff from WCS, WWF, and YABI with government and community stakeholders ‐ to comply with the Project requirements, procedures and regulations related to environmental management, land acquisition and resettlement (as it relates to restricted access to natural resources and economic displacement), and Indigenous Peoples. The guidance provided is in accordance with prevailing GoI regulations and supplemental provisions of relevant KfW Sustainability Guideline (2016), IFC EHS Guidelines, along with other good practice references.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES This ESMF and associated documents incorporate the following principles:

Every effort will be made to identify environmental and social risks and mitigation measures;

All Project stakeholders will be trained to become aware of potential environmental and social risks and mitigation measures under the Project and carry out their responsibilities under this ESMF; and

Local communities in the Project intervention areas will be engaged in all stages of the sub‐project/activity planning, implementation, management, and monitoring.

Overview of ESMF Methodology In developing this ESMF, WCS engaged experienced consultants to work with the national and field teams to develop a common understanding of ESMF. The team held an inception workshop, conducted field visits and village level consultations including focus group discussions (FGDs) in October 2019. The consultants and the Project Management Unit (PMU) team collaborated on the following key steps to develop the content for this ESMF:

Screening ‐ the process is conducted by considering a project design or plan and its implementation context, along with guiding policies, regulations and standards, to identify potential impacts, risks, issues, and options for mitigation approaches. Results of screening, to be done by the Project team prior to any implementation plan development, will include: an outline of the main area of footprint or the boundary for baseline data; the identification of the Project activities which are most relevant for impact assessment, namely those with most direct potential to impact people or the environment; and the types of impacts anticipated as a result of the initial screening, which are then analysed further as part of the impact assessment, outlined in the ESMF, and in other instruments needed. For example, as this Project is implemented in areas where IP reside and are potentially impacted, an IPPF is required. Similarly, as there will be resource access restrictions and economic displacement resulting from project activities, a PF will be prepared.

Environmental and social baseline development – based on an understanding of the Project area and activities, the baseline data is compiled to provide a starting point upon which the impact of Project

DRAFT


activities can be predicted, assessed and monitored. The baseline data outline is included in the ESMF and developed in more detail in separate documents including the ESMPs for each site. The social baseline includes social, cultural, economic and other data on history, development and any issues that serve as relevant context to understand the Project implementation setting. The environmental baseline is determined by the scope of the Project, but sets out the general bio‐physical, ecological and climatic conditions, highlighting any particular features or vulnerable areas for attention.

Impact analysis and mitigation planning – assessment of potential impacts from Project activities considers both benefits and risks with a level of effort to analyze and plan mitigations that are commensurate with the severity of the potential impact. Screening provides the first level of impact identification and combined with baseline data and the Project description, analyses are carried out to define and assess the potential impacts. Mitigation focuses most on efforts required to avoid or minimize negative impacts, and opportunities to maximise positive impacts are identified. Adjusting or adapting the Project location, activities or strategies to prevent impacts, and to accommodate public input and concerns regarding potential impacts is a process to be carried out by the project teams and described in the ESMF.

Consultation and Disclosure – various methods of consultation used to access information including perspectives or opinions on the Project concept, planned activities, baseline data, issues and potential impacts and mitigation options, to correct, improve and validate the ESMF content. Consultations on the ESMF and Project implementation were held at selected villages, the provincial capital cities in the Project area, and at the national level to obtain participants’ feedback on the Project design, mitigation measures and grievance mechanism. Input from the consultant team was also incorporated into the ESMF to inform and adapt project activities.

Developing a Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) – discussions of current or previous communications processes and handling of grievances, to develop a formal mechanism which will be conveyed to stakeholders, which field teams are to be trained to use, and which will be monitored by management and donors on a periodic basis. The GRM in the ESMF may be adaptively modified or updated during Project implementation to ensure its applicability and effectiveness.

2.0 RELEVANT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The GoI began to focus on conservation when government representatives participated in the 7th International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) technical meeting in New Delhi, India on November 25-28, 1969 where they presented papers entitled "Nature Reserves and National Parks in Indonesia: Conditions and Problems" and "Nature Conservation Education in Indonesia". Subsequently, the Directorate of Nature Protection and Preservation developed a plan to promote conservation areas in Indonesia with the assistance of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 1974.

Laws and regulations have noticeably evolved since these events when Law No. 5/1990 concerning Conservation of Biological Natural Resources and their Ecosystems replaced several antiquated laws and regulations dating from the Dutch East Indies government. Starting in the 1990s, several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) initiated programs to conserve nature in the country and to save wild animals threatened with extinction.

DRAFT


The Republic of Indonesia Law No. 41/1999 outlines the legal framework for forestry management of national parks and stipulates that: i) the main purpose of national park management is the preservation of biodiversity and park ecosystems with limited use for education, research, aquaculture activities, and nature tourism; ii) national parks are managed by the National Park Authority under the Ministry of Forestry; iii) a zoning system will used for the management of national parks; and iv) there are no zones within national parks that are designated for settlements, rice fields, resource harvesting, or other productive land uses.

Lampung Province

Lampung Province has five distinct topographical zones: i) hilly and mountainous; ii) rolling hills, iii) alluvial land, iv) tidal marsh land; and v) river basins. Mountain slopes are steep and rugged, with slopes in excess of 25% and heights greater than 300 meters above sea level (masl). These areas include the Buki Barisan mountain range and its notable peaks: Mount Tanggamus, Mount Pasawaran and Mount Rajabasa. The other peaks in the northern extend of this range include Mount Pugung, Mount Pesagi and Mount Sekincau which are dominated by primary and secondary forest vegetation. Baseline condition of Lampung Province provided in Appendix A2.

Tanggamus Regency

Tanggamus Regency, where BBSNP is located, is a division of the South Lampung Regency and was established by Law No. 2/1997 Establishment of Tulang Bawang Level II District and Tanggamus Level II Regency. Tanggamus Regency encompasses tropical coastal waters and plains where temperature average 28o Celsius and the regency extends up Mount Tanggamus to more than 2,000 masl where average temperatures are distinctly cooler. Rainfall is relatively high, close to 3,000 millimeters (mm) per year particularly in areas with hilly and mountainous terrain. The regency also has abundant surface and ground water resources and surface water drainage is dominated by the Sekampung and Semangka rivers.

Pesisir Barat Regency

Pesisir Barat Regency is the newest district in Lampung Province resulting from the expansion of Lampung Barat Regency, which was approved under Law No. 22/2012 concerning the Establishment of the Pesisir Barat Regency of Lampung Province. The climatic conditions in the regency are influenced by its natural setting which is adjacent to the Bukit Barisan Mountains and bordered by the Indian Ocean on the west. The regency can be topographically delineated from sea level – an area which covers the entire western portion of Pesisir Barat District (Pesisir Utara District, Pesisir Tengah District and Psisir Selatan District) – to the hilly terrain with heights between 600 masl to 1,000 masl and includes the BBSNP.

Lampung Barat Regency

West Lampung Regency is located in Lampung province and the district capital is located in Liwa. This regency was created according to Law No. 6/1991 dated August 16, 1991 which was the result of the division of North Lampung Regency. This regency is dominant with hills and beaches along the west coast of Lampung and mountainous areas, along the Bukit Barisan range. The regency includes volcanic peaks reaching elevations of 1,000 masl. In some places volcanic activity and geothermal generation are active.

DRAFT


Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park

Based on information from the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (DJPHKA) at the MoEF, BBSNP encompasses 356,800 ha of land and 21,600 ha of waters. The bulk of the park (290,800 ha) is located in Lampung Province of which 280,300 ha is located in the administrative area of West Lampung. Landscape conditions in the park range from high to low elevation mountain rainforests and extend into areas with distinct lowland vegetation and coastal forest vegetation.

To improve management effectiveness, the BBSNP area is divided into zones. Currently, the zones in the BBSNP region are changing because some forest areas which were designated a jungle zone (including the Sekincau region) are being re-classified as rehabilitation zones due to the high rate of deforestation and forest degradation.

Changes in the boundaries of the BBSNP have caused changes in the status of residential areas and residents' agricultural land. An asynchronous determination of the boundary alignment causes differences in the perception of the boundary location between the BBSNP and the local communities. This was observed particularly with the residential areas in the Mount Sekincau area which had previously been settled during the BRN trans-migration prior to the area being designated as a national park.

Biodiversity updates

Based on the fourth technical report KfW-IKI, no direct rhinoceros were sighted from the 79 camera traps that were installed in the IPZ in December 2018 and retrieved in May 2019. No evidence of rhinoceros activity has been found since this time although data processing is not yet completed.

The Project has been working with the BBSNP management authority to conduct a fecal-DNA survey for Sumatran elephants. Field data were collected from 2017 to 2018 to estimate the: 1) population size; 2) sex ratio; 3) distribution; and 4) genetic diversity using a combination of spatially-explicit capture-recapture and non-invasive genetic molecular techniques.

Related to conflict and post-conflict aspects, several aspects need to be considered: the parties involved in handling conflict; conflict handling funds; conflict handling team; compensation scheme for losses caused due to conflict; and post-conflict reporting and monitoring. Activities already conducted by Project staff include:

Surveys and monitoring conducted for elephants inside the Forest Management Units (FMU) IX North Kota Agung;

Ground-truthing survey conducted for land cover used by elephants in the FMU IX;

Two tree houses constructed to monitor wildlife, especially for one herd of elephants that consists of 12 individuals; and

Eleven RPUs operate in the BBSNP to patrol, survey, monitor, support the ILEU with information regarding illegal activities and mitigate human-wildlife conflict.

As a result of monitoring activities, the Wildlife Crime Unit (WCU) and Intelligency and Law Enforcement Unit (ILEU) provided data to government agencies that led to one investigation and the apprehension of three suspects for illegal trading of two greater mouse deer at Kota Agung seaport in Lampung province.

The PMU arranged several plans for further activities related to human-wildlife conflict including:

DRAFT


Training for law enforcement officials and WCS will be conducted the training;

The workshop concern to the management strategy and the writing of the IPZ management strategy is now underway and will be completed in the next reporting period; and

Catch and translocate animals to the Sumatran Rhinoceros Sanctuary (SRS) in Way Kambas.

SOCIAL SETTING

Tanggamus Regency

The population of Tanggamus Regency was estimated in 2017 to be 586,624 consisting of 305,594 male and 281,030 female residents based on a growth rate of 1.08% from 2016. While the average population density in the regency in 2017 was 126 people/km2, the population density in the 20 sub-districts ranged from 1,224 inhabitants/km2 in the Gisting sub-district to 73 people/km2 in the Kecamatan Limau sub-district. Healthcare facilities in Tanggamus Regency include two hospitals, two maternity hospitals, 23 public health centers, 672 health posts, 19 health clinics / clinics, and 198 public health posts.

Pesisir Barat Regency

Schooling facilities in the regency are extensive and include elementary schools to senior high schools/madrasah Aliyah as well as Islamic schools which support the Muslin majority in the population (98 percent). Health care in Pesisir Barat Regency can be assessed by the increase in the number of infants immunized since 2017. The poverty rate – 390,875 Indonesian rupiah per month - in the regency decreased slightly from 15.91% in 2016 to 15.61% on 2017.

Lampung Barat Regency

Data from the academic year of 2015 to 2016 indicate that the 113 pre-school educational facilities (kindergarten), 198 elementary schools (SD), 34 junior high schools (SLTP), and 14 senior high schools (SLTA) in the regency appear to be adequate in the public and private sectors.

Regency health facilities includes one district hospital, 15 community health centers, and 244 Posyandu which are staffed by 13 physicians, 112 nurses, and 114 midwives.

The majority (98.67%) of the population in the regency is Muslim. The Ministry of Religious tallied the number of places of worship constructed by government and NGOs: 735 Mosques, 122 little Mosques, eight churches, five Pura, and four Vihara.

Ten focused villages in the IPZ area

Between 27 July 2018 and 14 August 2018, WWF conducted a rapid assessment of livelihoods and encroachment patterns based on 300 out of a total 5,125 households. Households were selected from communities living around the forest and who utilize forest products and environmental services and with the goal that 20% to 30% of respondents would be housewives and teenagers. The survey was conducted through interview in respondent’s house or in their fields.

Study result indicate that educational level of most respondents is at the elementary school level (29%) although almost 25% of respondents never received a formal education. The study found that 85% of respondents know that there is a national park surrounding their villagesand that 93% of respondents understand that farming inside the national park is illegal. However, only 44% of respondents are aware of the location of the BBSNP boundary. In the Margomulyo and Tebaliyokh villages, all respondents were

DRAFT


aware of the BBSNP and know that farming inside the park is illegal. This high awareness level in these two villages may be an outcome from the awareness programmes carried out by the BBSNP together with WWF, WCS, and YABI. Nonetheless, 65% of respondents claimed that they have never obtain information about BBSNP management and its zonation.

The study also assessed monthly household expenditures. The findings indicate that household expenditure in the IPZ area ranges from Rp 163,312.5 (approximately 10 EUR) to Rp 1,758,000 (approximately 110 EUR) with an average of Rp 443,351 (approximately 28 EUR) per household per month. Based on these findings, the communities in the IPZ area, on average, have higher expenditures than the poverty threshold of Lampung Province which is Rp 402,307. However, the cost of living in several communities is high due to food and other vital living expenses so these communities may be categorized as poor and near poor. Rice is the largest expenditure in these households and average monthly expenditure is Rp 354,586 which is approximately 78% of their monthly household expenditure. The high dependency on buying rice is due to the limited extent rice fields compared to plantation crops such as coffee, cocoa particularly in Margomulyo , Ulok Mukhti, and Paku Negara villages.

Indigenous Peoples

There are several IPs identified within the IPZ project area. The IFC PSs underscore the requirement to identify IPs, consult with them, ensure that they participate in, and benefit from the KfW-funded project(s) in a culturally appropriate way and that adverse impacts on them are avoided or, where not feasible to avoid, then minimized or mitigated. For purposes of this policy, the term “Indigenous Peoples” is used in a generic sense to refer to a distinct, vulnerable, social and cultural group possessing the following characteristics in varying degrees:

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

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

Customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and

An indigenous language, often different from the official language of the country or region.

Ethnic Lampung, commonly called Ulun Lampung or Lampung people, historically occupied the entire Lampung Province and part of the provinces of South and Central South Sumatra which encompasses the Martapura area, in Muaradua at Ogan Komering Ulu (OKU), Kayu Agung, Komering at Ogan Komering Ilir (OKI), Merpas in the south of Bengkulu and Cikoneng on the beach West Banten. Ethnic Lampung uses a local language and has its own script. In the Lampung ethnic community, it is divided into two neighborhoods or adat units, among others Lampung society with Pepadun and Saibatin communities. The Saibatin community is well known for its aristocracy while the customs of the Pepadun community, which emerged later, followed the practices of the Abung people and had democracy values as opposed to the aristocracy values held by the Saibatin community. The Saibatin Lampung people are often also called Coastal Lampung because most of them reside along the east, south and west coastlines of Lampung Province.

DRAFT


VULNERABLE AND RISK Several of the forest areas designated by MoEF have not yet been completed established as forest areas, and even some of these areas have not been demarcated on the field. In several areas designated as forest areas, settlements, arable land, community fields and community activities have existed prior to the forest area being designated such under the national regulation. As a result, conflicts on the use of the area have arisen between the community and the area manager.

In the management of conservation areas, problems arising as a result of the gap between Forest Area Determination Regulations (criteria, requirements and regulations relating to the determination of forest areas) and the determination of forest areas have the potential to be a source of conflict in forest management. This dynamic causes the efforts to protect and secure forest areas to be have limited effect and, in the end, efforts to enforce the law against disturbance of forest areas are weakened. Agreement from each party on spatial planning for the co-existence of community areas, forest areas and non-forest areas is a possible solution to this problem.

STAKEHOLDER MAPPING Stakeholder mapping of all relevant stakeholders, including impacted people, government agencies and other institutions such as NGOs with activities in the project area, local media, religious and customary (adat) leaders, academics in relevant disciplines, and others were identified by the Project teams in Lampung Province.

Following an initial one-to-one stakeholder engagement, WCS convened a one-day landscape-focused roundtable in Bandar Lampung on 16 October 2017. This meeting represents a major milestone in bringing together, for the first time, the key stakeholders associated with the national park and the coffee farmers to discuss the issues facing the BBS landscape and the smallholder robusta coffee bean farmers, as well as the role of different stakeholders in developing and implementing solutions.

On December 8th 2017, an official inception meeting including the national park management, provincial and national governmental officials and many key stakeholders was held in Bandar Lampung, Sumatra. The provincial government, the Director General from the MoEF and the national park management with the NGO partners expressed support to the Project goals during this meeting.

WCS, WWF and YABI have started to socialize the Project among their own stakeholders of the Project activities and jointly towards key stakeholders like the BBSNP regarding the Project outcomes and activities.

3.0 REGULATORY AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

NATIONAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS The Bukit Barisan Selatan protected area was designated in 1935 as a wildlife sanctuary through Besluit Van Degouvernoor-General Van Nederlandsch Indie Number 48 Stbl 1935 named South Sumatra I (SM SS I). On April 1, 1979, the status was changed to a Nature Conservation Area, then designated as a National Park through the Minister of Agriculture's Decree Number 736 / Mentan / X / 1982 - 14th October 1982.

Following the issuance of the Presidential Decree on illegal logging and sawmill eradication in 2005, there was an integrated effort from the provincial and district governments, as well as from the provincial departments of justice, police and forestry to eradicate these activities in the national park.

DRAFT


Constitution of Indonesia

The Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia states that the conservation of natural resources includes sustainable management while maintaining and improving the value and diversity of national parks as Nature Conservation Areas that contain native ecosystems and are managed through a zoning system that is utilized for research, science purposes, knowledge, education, supporting cultivation, tourism and recreation.

The Ministry of Environmental and Forestry Policy, approved by the Decision of the General Director of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation No: SK.152/IV-SET/2015, dated 29 May 2015supported the development of an Intensive Protection Zone (IPZ) as an effort to increase the Sumatran rhinoceros population. The main goal of this policy was to protect and increase the Sumatran rhinoceros population in the BBSNP.

National Environmental Law

Environmental Protection and Management (PPLH) according to Law No. 32/2009 Article 1 Paragraph (2) is a systematic and integrated effort undertaken to preserve environmental functions and prevent environmental pollution and / or damage which includes planning, utilization, control, maintenance, supervision and law enforcement. The law was passed in Jakarta, 3 October 2009 by the President and Minister of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia.

This law clearly states in Chapter 10 Section 3 Article 69 prohibitions on environmental protection and management which include prohibition of pollution, emitting dangerous and toxic substances (B3), dumping waste into the environment, and opening land by burning.

These prohibitions are followed by strict and clear sanctions listed in Chapter 15 regarding criminal provisions, and Articles 97 to 123. Article 103 states: Every person who produces B3 waste and does not implement management as referred to in Article 59, shall be sentenced to a minimum of one year imprisonment to a maximum of three years and a fine from one billiong rupiah to three billion rupiah.

Adat/Customary Laws

Indigenous people have lived in Indonesia since the days of our ancestors. Community customary law is a territorial or geneological unit of society that has its own wealth defined by citizens who can be distinguished from other legal community members and can act inside or outside as an independent legal entity (subject of law) and govern themselves. Every province in Indonesia has customary law community units with their own characteristics that have existed for hundreds of years .

The 1945 Constitution affirmed the existence of IPs. Article 18B, Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution as a result of the second amendment states that the State recognizes and respects the customary law community units along with their traditional rights in accordance with the development of the community and the principles of the unitary state of the Republic of Indonesia.The provisions of Article 18B Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution are strengthened by the provisions of Article 281 Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution that traditional cultural and community identities are respected in line with the times and civilizations.

Land Laws

The Minister of Foresty Regulation No: P.43/Menhut-II/2013 process for demarcating boundaries of working permits for forest utilization, principles for forest management, principles for the release of forest

DRAFT


areas and the management of forest areas with special objectives. Article 1 Clause 5 of the Minister of Forestry Regulation No: P.43/Menhut-II/2013 designates Special Purpose Forest Areas (KHDTK) including Conservation Forests, Protected Forests, and Production Forests for research and development, education and training, as well as for social, religious and cultural interest without changing the main function of the relevant forest area.

Chapter III Article 8 of the President of the Republic of Indonesia Regulation No. 88/2015 on the Completion of Land Tenure in Forest Areas (PPTKH) provides guidance on the types of settlements permissible on land owned in an area after it has been stipulated as a forest area. This includes:

a. Removal of the land from the forest area through changes in forest boundaries;

b. Exchange of forest areas;

c. Provide access to forest management through social forestry programs; and

d. Resettlement.

This regulation includes guidance on building an Acceleration Team to settle land tenure disputes in forested area and how-to organization members of the PPTKH. Article 14 Clause 2 of the same regulation includes the procedure that must be implemented in this process of settling land tenure disputes.

Human-Wildlife Conflict

The Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. P.48/Menhut-II/2008 Guideline for Conflict Management Between Human and Wildlife provides details on handling human-wildlife conflict. Chapter III of this regulation lays the foundation for establishing institutions, specific tasks and procedures related to human-wildlife conflict.

Chapter IV discusses conflict handling procedures such as information flow, information analysis, compensation and also the legal process that must be followed. Chapter V focuses on how a human-wildlife conflict institution or community plans can be established to prevent conflict between humans and wildlife through the provision of data and information on maps in conflict-prone areas, and providing education and community awareness about conflict. Chapter VI details reporting and monitoring stages following human-wildlife conflict incidents.

National Social Laws

Social conflict management is regulated by Law No. 7/2012 concerning Handling of Social Conflict. This law explains that the diversity of ethnic, religious, racial, and Indonesian culture with a population of more than 230 million peopleis the nation's wealth that directly or indirectly makes a positive contribution to efforts to create community welfare.

The President of Indonesia also established laws and regulations regarding public complaints, namely Presidential Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia No. 76/2013 concerning Management of Public Service Complaints. Article 2 of this regulation states that the Complainant has the right to submit complaints about implementing services that are not in accordance with service standards or waive obligations and / or violations of prohibitions by the organizer. This regulation contains the minimum requirements that must be in a public complaints process from the lowest level to the national level. Article 18 Paragraph 1 states that the Minister coordinates the management of complaints nationally.

DRAFT


APPLICABLE IFC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TRIGGERED BY THE PROJECT

The International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) Policy and Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability and Social Safeguard Policies are the basis for sustainable development. The aim of these policies is to prevent and mitigate potential adverse impacts to the environment and communities as a result of development. These policies give the IFC, other lenders and borrowers guidelines on the identification, preparation and implementation of programs and projects so that they are environmentally and socially sustainable.

The IFC has eight Performance Standards (PS):

PS1 – Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risk and Impacts;

PS2 – Labor and Working Conditions;

PS3 – Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention;

PS4 – Community Health, Safety and Security;

PS5 – Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement;

PS6 – Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources;

PS7 – Indigenous Peoples; and

PS8 – Cultural Heritage.

The IPZ project was assessed relative to the IFC PSs and six of the eight PSs are triggered (Table 2). According to IFC the proposed KfW BBS Project activities categorized as B. Note that the IFC PS1 is not triggered by IKI projects but is included in the ESMF because of the environmental and social aspects of the Project.

An ESMF establishes a unified process for addressing all environmental and social safeguards issues on subprojects from preparation, through review and approval, to implementation. Effective implementation of an ESMF will ensure that the substantive concerns of all IFC PS will be satisfactorily addressed.

DRAFT


Table 2 IFC PSs triggered by the IPZ project.

IFC Performance

Standard Objective Trigger Rationale

PS. 1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts

Identify project E&S risks and impacts

Adopt mitigation hierarchy

Anticipate, avoid, minimize, compensate or offset

Improve performance through an Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS)

Engagement with Affected Communities, other stakeholders throughout the project cycle

Includes communications, grievance

This PS is triggered since there are environmental and social impacts associated with project activities, such as patrol activities, law enforcement and community development activities targeting former/current encroachers, poachers and others. The minor construction works financed by the project are not expected to have any environmental impacts as they are limited to rehabilitation of some park/resort facilities within an existing footprint area. Removal of invasive species and reforestation activities are considered positive impacts with minor potential risks if not implemented wisely (for example, selection of tree species may be counter to objectives of developing feed stock for critical species or their prey). The support for land use changes is expected to have a positive impact on forest conditions, with an emphasis on re-establishing critical habitat. However, there are potential negative social impacts such as community discord or tension related to law enforcement, perception of equality in opportunities (for community development), and variable access to participation by marginal groups including women and indigenous peoples (conversely expressed as elite domination at the village level). Potential negative impacts of eco-tourism development are also flagged for consideration during impact analysis.

PS.2: Labor and Working Conditions

Fair treatment, non-discrimination, equal opportunity

Good worker – management relationship

Comply with national employment and labor laws

Protect workers, in particular vulnerable categories

Promote safety and health

Avoid use of forced or child labor

This PS is triggered since the project will employ or support employment of community members in patrol functions, and increase the working effectiveness of the BBSNP authority; project also interacts with key industries affecting labor in the region (i.e. coffee) with international networks, such that protection of worker rights can be highlighted through project effort, for example in the non- use of child labor in coffee production.

DRAFT


IFC Performance


PS.4: Community Health, Safety and Security

To anticipate and avoid adverse impacts on the health and safety of the Affected community

To safeguard personnel and property in accordance with relevant human rights principles

This PS is triggered since the project includes activities that involve labor in: forest patrols; mediating conflict between wildlife and local human populations; law enforcement in potentially confrontational situations (hunting, poaching); and the possible use of pesticides or other products (for removal of invasive plant species in forests) which may be harmful if misused. These activities all contain an element of risk, which can be anticipated so as to avoid adversity.

PS.5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement1

Avoid, minimize adverse social and economic impacts from land acquisition or restrictions on land use

Avoid, minimize displacement

Alternative project designs

Avoid forced eviction Improve or restore

livelihoods and standards of living

Improve living conditions among displaced persons, including adequate housing and security of tenure

This PS is triggered since the project involves working with BBSNP authorities and communities to facilitate the relocation of encroachers’ residences and gardens/crops from forest areas, both in the conservation zone and other areas of the forest estate under BBSNP. Although the community members’ presence and activities (farming, harvesting NTFP and hunting) are mostly illegal activities, the improved enforcement of regulations will mean restrictions on access to some sources of livelihood for select groups. The Village Conservation Agreement Assessment of eight focused villages was conducted in November 2018 and December 2018. The results of the assessment are: There is an area in Tebaliyokh village within the BBSNP

that has been opened up and converted into agricultural farm;

Bumi Hantatai village has 10 sub-villages located within BBSNP; and

Areas within the BBSNP which are close to the Ulok Mukti village have been opened and converted into agriculture farms.

PS.6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources

Protection and conservation of biodiversity

Maintenance of benefits from ecosystem services

Promotion of sustainable management of living natural resources

Integration of conservation needs and development priorities

This PS is triggered as the project activities are concentrated in national parks and protected areas. The anticipated impacts are positive and aim to balance conservation objectives by supporting human development needs. Key activities include reforestation, with consideration of selection of appropriate species; a key impact is increased wildlife and ecosystem services.

DRAFT


IFC Performance


PS. 7: Indigenous Peoples

Ensure full respect for IPs Human rights, dignity,

aspirations Livelihoods Culture, knowledge,

practices Avoid, minimize adverse

impacts Sustainable and culturally

appropriate development benefits and opportunities

Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) in certain circumstances

This PS is triggered due to the presence of IPs in some targeted villages as well as the wider area of influence. While access restrictions apply to all people, certain IPs may be more impacted. It is noted however that local regulations allow access and utilization of resources for certain traditional purposes (linked to identity, health etc.); this effectively protects them but may also create dual systems which may generate local tensions.

4.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS

By nature of the project which is a conservation initiative, it can be expected that positive environmental and social benefits will result by: a) establishing an IPZ and supporting policy, budgetary and scientific activities to manage it; b) reducing anthropogenic activities inside the BBSNP; and, c) providing alternative community livelihoods based on sustainable natural resource management. Key findings of the impact analysis are:

There are net positive environmental impacts anticipated, including on forests, endangered fauna, wider biodiversity values and environmental services. Positive outcomes anticipated are decreased poaching, increased wildlife populations including species currently categorized as endangered, and improved ecosystem services which provide numerous benefits, especially to nearby communities.

Any potential adverse environmental impacts would not be large-scale and can be avoided or minimized through mitigation measures.

Potential social impacts are anticipated, primarily associated with the changes in use of forest areas as a result of the project activities, impacting access to cultivation sites. The effect of law enforcement may be resettlement of people from inside the forest boundaries.

Other potential social impacts that can be anticipated include reduced social cohesion and/or increased tension, due to perceptions of uneven treatment, in law enforcement and community development scenarios, as well as from increased human-wildlife encounters from recovering populations of tigers and elephants with communities proximal to the forest edge of the BBSNP.

For these impacts, it is feasible to implement mitigation measures which reflect IFC guidance and the implementing (consortium members) own policies, as well as good practices from other projects and regions. This includes mitigation approaches that are adaptive and respond to local context, given the diversity of socio-economic and cultural contexts and groups that may be affected by the project activities.

DRAFT


The potential environmental and social risks of the project are mostly associated with Components 1 and 3, and mostly with Component C/3. Some of the activities implemented for Component 3 include:

In June 2018, WWF recruited a consultant to conduct social research including a Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) analysis;

In May 2018, WWF conducted a FGD with the tourism management groups from the Sukamarga and Gunung Ratu villages. The FGD objectives were to conduct a needs assessment and to identify the problems related to the national park management;

In February 2018, WWF hired a biologist and field staff on a temporary basis to conduct a biodiversity survey in Bengkunat Forest;

In February 2018, BBSNP park authority, YABI, WCS and WWF met and agreed on the selection criteria for the 10 villages targeted for intervention by the Project (Table 3);

From January 2018 to June 2018, georeferenced trees tagging was conducted using a Monterra GPS;

From January 2018 to April 2018, WWF implemented sustainable agricultural with 30 farmers from the Sido Makmur Farmer Group in Paku Negara village;

In March 2018, WWF and YABI developed a process to obtain Village Conservation Agreements (VCA) in the 10 targeted villages;

In 2017, WCS continued a series of discussion with traders, roasters, exporters and importers of robusta coffee;

In February 2019, WWF recruited consultants to conduct non-timber forest products (NTFP) surveys;

In 2019, WWF and YABI facilitated the writing of initial VCA drafts for the 10 focus villages;

In the first half of 2019, five awareness campaigns and environmental education activities were conducted to communicate the intrinsic functions of the BBSNP and its biodiversity;

In the second half of 2019, WWF, YABI and the communities produced maps of existing land cover including agricultural land (commodities), residential and infrastructure, rivers, springs, forested area, open land, and bushes in the 10 focus villages; and

In April 2018, WCS continued to engage key stakeholders through roundtable discussions, FGDs, webinars, and one-on-one meetings to advance the strategy to translate the collective statement of intent into field level actions.

DRAFT


Table 3 Ten focus villages selected for Project intervention.

District Resort Subdistrict Village Notes

Margomulyo Semaka Tanggamus Sukaraja Directly bordering the BBSNP. High human-wildlife conflict incidence. Pronounced commitment of community to protect the national park.

Pemerihan Bengkunat-Balimbing

Pesisir Barat Pemerihan Directly bordering the BBSNP. High human-wildlife conflict incidence. High commitment to protect the national park. Former encroachment. Poaching activities. Forest fires suspected to have been set on purpose. 130 ha restored by WWF and various community development programs. Only little progress.

Ngambur Ngambur Pesisir Barat Ngambur Directly bordering the BBSNP. Human-wildlife conflicts, ongoing poaching, yet high level of community participation in conservation.

Ulok Mukti Ngambur Pesisir Barat Ngambur Directly bordering the BBSNP. Human-wildlife conflicts, active encroachment and poaching, high level of community participation in conservation.

Pakunegara Pesisir Selatan

Pesisir Barat Biha Directly bordering the HPT (limited production forest), human- wildlife conflicts, ongoing encroachment and poaching. High community participation. Ongoing conflict over natural resources (the HTR).

Sukamarga Suoh Lampung Barat Suoh Directly bordering the BBSNP. Ongoing encroachment. Roads in the park area, forest fires and a commitment of the community to protect the BBSNP.

Bumi Hantatai

Suoh Lampung Barat Suoh Directly bordering the BBSNP, ongoing encroachment and poaching, roads in the Park area, forest fires and a commitment of the community to protect the BBSNP.

Tebaliyokh Batu Brak Lampung Barat Balik Bukit Directly bordering the BBSNP, ongoing encroachment and poaching, roads in the national park area.

Labuhan Mandi

Way Krui Pesisir Barat Balaik Kencana

Directly bordering the BBSNP. Poaching and non-timber forest products.

Penengahan Karya Panggara

Pesisir Barat Balai Kencana

Directly bordering the HPT, wildlife-human conflicts, ongoing encroachment and poaching, high community participation. Conflicts over natural resources (HTR).

No significant negative environmental impacts are expected in relation to project activities, noting that most activities in Components 1, 2, 4 and 5 entail policy, finance and land management activities that will generate positive impacts. Potential environmental and social impacts from the project are presented in Table 4.

DRAFT


Table 4 Potential environmental impacts of the proposed Components 1, 2 and 3.

Element Activity (Source of Impact) Description of Potential Impacts

Environment Patrol activities (Output / component 1; 1.1)

Primary: Opening access for poachers via patrol routes Temporary camp activities cause damage, e.g. litter, use of wood for

fire and camp construction Secondary: Patrol data may be misused for destructive activities

(encroachment/poaching/logging) Successful patrols will reduce poaching and increase wildlife

populations Increase in presence of better protected pest species such as wild boar Increased risk of conflicts between people and wildlife (resulting in

wildlife translocation and/or risk of injury or death to people and problem animals)

Ecosystem Restoration (Output/Component 3)

Primary: Introduction or increased spread of invasive plant species

(mantangan/Merremia sp and pakisan/Ceratoptoris sp) Planting of non-native species poses a risk of reducing the availability

of native food for wildlife Secondary: Successful restoration activities will increase wildlife populations which

pose a risk of increased conflicts between people and wildlife

Capture and Translocation of Wildlife (rhinoceros) (Component 2, 2.1, and 2.2)

Primary: Risk of injury and/or death (wildlife and humans)

during capture

Secondary: Successful translocation leads to improved security and increases in

wildlife population

Social Patrols and Law Enforcement (Components 1, 1.2, and 1.3)

Primary: Lack/loss of livelihoods as people cannot utilize the land, forest

products, and wildlife inside the BBSNP Loss of dwellings (homes) within the national park Successful patrols will reduce poaching and increase wildlife

populations Protection of key forest ecosystem services that benefit communities, such as flood and landslide prevention

Secondary:

Unfair and unequitable law enforcement leads to social jealousy and triggers conflicts among communities, and between communities and officers

Increased wildlife may increase human-wildlife conflicts (causing damage to crops and death or injury to livestock/wildlife/people)

Increased awareness of local communities to stop utilizing the land in BBSNP

Primary: Reduced poaching, improved habitat quality, safeguarding of

ecosystem services and biodiversity

DRAFT


Element Activity (Source of Impact) Description of Potential Impacts

(Components 1 and 3, 3.1 - 3.4)

Reduced or lost access to areas used for livelihood and possibly other social/cultural purposes

Human resettlement and/or displacement Secondary: Increased wildlife and potential related human-wildlife conflicts

(causing damage to crops and death or injury to livestock/wildlife/people)

Lack/loss of forest-agriculture based livelihoods Changes in livelihood options, including increased eco-tourism and

other diversified livelihood strategies

Community development activities (Components 1 and 3, 3.1 - 3.4)

Primary: Improved awareness and behaviors (stop utilizing the land in BSSNP

through alternative options and removes communities from potential conflict situations with BBSNP authority)

Secondary: Successful implementation leads to sustainable alternative community

livelihoods Perception of injustice regarding consistency of law enforcement and/or

inequitable community empowerment/unfulfilled expectations and jealousy may lead to tension or jealousy among communities

The preliminary identification of potential environmental and social impacts was carried out considering the environmental and social components that are likely to be affected by the project activities. All IPZ sub-projects shall be carefully planned and designed in order to have sound design that avoids creating potential environmental and social impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES

Analysis of the potential environmental and social risks and impacts arising from the project highlights the importance of a multi-dimensional approach for risk mitigation, covering:

Management of direct environmental and social risk and impacts, with a focus on the key activities that may generate impacts: ranger patrols, law enforcement actions outside of the forest, ecosystem restoration (reforestation), controlled animal captures; awareness raising and community development (livelihood) activities;

Cross-cutting issues requiring attention: IPs and gender; and

Stakeholder engagement.

Table 5 presents a summary of the key environmental and social activities and an explanation of impact and risk mitigations; the mitigations are generally built in to project activities but, as described here, they include additional aspects or approaches that complement the planned activities, to provide extra attention as assurance that the anticipated aspect of risk is properly addressed.

DRAFT


Table 5 Summary of key environmental and social activities.

Impact Description Project activities that mitigate the potential impact


Opening new access for poachers via new patrol paths and routes

Intensifying and improving operation of SMART-based Patrol, including finalization of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that includes: Pathway use and limits the creation of new route; Camp construction and management aspects; Rules and systems to ensure confidentiality of data; Flexibility for revision to address future or unforeseen impacts; and Provision of training on the SOP.

Temporary camp activities cause damage, e.g. litter, use of wood for fire and camp construction etc.

Patrol findings data may be misused for destructive activities (encroachment/poaching/logging)

Successful patrols will reduce poaching and increase wildlife populations and potential increased risk of human-wildlife conflicts, (causing damage to crops and death or injury to livestock/wildlife/people)

Awareness program targeting communities; utilizing and broadening use of the existing systems, information and mechanism for reporting and responding to people-wildlife conflict, including: Increase dissemination of information on response process; and Strengthen and expand Rapid Response system / teams.

Conduct a review of options for alternative and complementary actions including lobbying or establishing local regulations that incentivize local communities to handle wildlife encounters in a positive way (for example, replicate other regency regulations compensating for cross loss, if appropriate).

Increase in presence of better protected pest species such as wild boars

Engage with NP personnel and communities to provide education and co-develop solutions if these species become troublesome.

Potential translocation of tigers or rhinos, bears risk of people/ wildlife injury or death / problem animals

Adopt and disseminate an SOP based on good-practice from other contexts

Provide training for relevant parties. Include resources for translocation and reserves for emergency

responses in project budget.

Patrols and law enforcement lead to perception of unfair or unequitable law enforcement, triggering social jealousy and tension among communities, and between communities and officers

Design and deliver a proactive, multi-method communications strategy with tailored messages, methods and materials on: laws, patrols, project activities, changes to be anticipated in law enforcement, community conservation role.

Providing long-term community facilitators and support program for alternative livelihoods (includes developing Community Conservation Agreements and facilitating other processes to address community needs vis a vis BBSNP conservation); ensuring facilitators are trained for effective communication and issues management.

Grievance redress mechanism established and communicated to target audiences.

PS.2: Labor and Working Conditions & PS.4: Community Health, Safety and Security

Improper employment conditions of casual and non-permanent personnel

Ensuring compliant employment contract terms, including provision of information and training.

Developing SOP for patrol activities, to include provision of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for casual and informal workers.

DRAFT


Impact Description Project activities that mitigate the potential impact

PS.5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement

Patrols and law enforcement lead to lack/loss of livelihoods as people cannot utilize the land, forest products, and wildlife inside BBSNP

Develop a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) based on locale and population-specific data, engagement with government to strengthen PPTKH or other relevant committees and guidelines for social forestry schemes and handling of economic and physical displacement.

Providing long-term community facilitators and support program for alternative livelihoods (includes developing Community Conservation Agreements and facilitating other processes to address community needs vis a vis BBSNP conservation); ensuring facilitators are trained for effective communication and issues management. Also includes advocacy and partnership support with local government and community cooperatives.

Changes in livelihood options, including increased eco-tourism and other diversified livelihood strategies

Livelihoods program includes conducting assessments, developing tool kits, providing training programs (farmer field schools), small enterprise feasibility assessments and training (diverse commodities and ecotourism). Program to include attention to potential tertiary impacts of these activities.

Participatory analysis of quota system and LAC (Limit of Acceptable Changes) to determine critical points of ecosystems, wildlife, social, and infrastructure components in tourism destination.

Community tourist education approach through developing visitor materials and guiding system, coordination with agents on tourist do’s and don’ts.

Engaging private sector and other partners on market access to support development of alternative commodities (outreach to educate buyers, etc.).

Physical displacement, loss of dwellings (homes) within the national park areas and buffer areas

As above (RAP, advocacy and partnership support with local government and community cooperatives, long-term community facilitators, and livelihoods program).

Unfair or unequitable treatment of PAPs leads to social jealousy and triggers conflicts among communities, and between communities and officers

As above (design and deliver a proactive, multi-method communications strategy with tailored messages, methods and materials on: laws, patrols, project activities, changes to be anticipated in law enforcement, community conservation role).

Reduced or lost access to areas used for social/cultural purposes (non-economic values)

As part of the RAP, data collection and consultation to include investigating social and cultural values that may be affected for PAP including IP. Controlled access options (including providing information on options already in law) and other measures to be agreed with PAP and documented in RAP.


Reforestation activities may introduce or increase spread of invasive plant species (mantangan/Merremia sp and pakisan/Ceratoptoris sp)

Develop procedures and training for all relevant parties. Particular aspects to include: confirmation of acceptable species list, exercising care in the use of Multi-Purpose Tree Species, and attention to the source of seedlings, as these can inadvertently introduce invasive species.

Involvement of communities and parks personnel in localized ‘campaigns’ to remove clusters of invasive species is also planned as an occasional measure.

Successful restoration activities will increase wildlife populations which may pose a risk of

As above (awareness program, expanding dissemination of existing materials and procedures, supporting Rapid Response system/teams). Depending if conflicts with tigers or elephants, apply specific mitigation

DRAFT


Impact Description Project activities that mitigate the potential impact increased conflicts between people and wildlife

measures; use lessons learned from other projects in Sumatra; to be updated in this file regularly.


Project area of impact may affect local IP’s historical, economic and cultural interests

Ensuring consultation and activity implementation is consistent with FPIC particularly in Penal Laay, Labuhan Mandi, Paku Negara, Ulok Mukti villages, and with indigenous peoples’ representatives or organizations in Lampung and nationally (where relevant).

IP land tenure and forest usages impacted (reduced or strengthened) by law enforcement activities and livelihoods program.

Including elements specific to IPs in CCAs, project activity plans and monitoring processes, including reporting specifically on engagement with, and impacts on, IPs across key project activities (awareness raising, alternative economic activities and law enforcement).

4.1.1 Gender Mainstreaming The overall objective of mainstreaming gender within projects is to provide a signal that enables to assessment of gender-related changes in society, politics, and economic participation. Gender mainstreaming in projects includes the use of a participatory approach in all project stages. The initial step is to promote a basic understanding of gender mainstreaming to ensure that strategies and actions for ending discrimination at all levels and stages of the project cycle are enacted and take into consideration the needs for both genders, desires, and ambitions when decisions are made and resources are allocated.

In the mostly agrarian Lampung culture, woman typically become household or domestic workers who support their husband or family although, in reality, most of them collect, plant and maintain the farm fields. In Lampung, women typically work at nurturing the family while men work at tasks that are physically demanding.

The project is expected to have programs to support women and men. The components of these programs will be discussed and organized by the community project officer and the program beneficiaries. Woman in Pemerihan village have already established an organization that will seek opportunities to improve alternative incomes for women and their households. While in Bumi Hantatai village, the cocoa farming school involves many households and mostly engages the women in these households. In gender segregated public consultations, it has been observed that participants in the women’s group express many ideas and opinions about the program as the IPZ Project has created new livelihood opportunities.

In general, it is unusual for women to take active roles in project activities and consultation processes, although women in the BBSNP area are, in actuality, key participants, particularly as collectors of damar and other NTFPs, as well as workers in ecosystem restoration, coffee planting and maintenance, and collecting firewood for household energy needs. However, counter to this high participation in project activities, women do not actively participate in decision-making forums. This dynamic is partly attributable to cultural factors and religious beliefs which do not expect women to be outspoken, as well as their role in managing household affairs which often restricts their mobility and ability to participate. Despite this, the Project Partners’ prior experience in the area has successfully involved women in farmer field schools and enabled insights for more effective engagement with women during Project implementation.

DRAFT


The Project endeavors to overcome some of these gender constraints by mainstreaming the following measures with a minimum participation rate of 30%:

a. Representation of women in FGDs, workshops, training and any task force;

b. Representation of women in village development activities, including as community mobilisers, beneficiaries and in community-based monitoring; and

c. Involvement of female community facilitators (possibly from civil society organizations [CSOs]) to facilitate gender balance in project activities and facilitate outreach and awareness raising on conservation education and sustainable livelihood activities. Where possible, the project will include special training on gender participation as part of community capacity building.

In addition, the Project Partners are committed to ensuring:

a. Separate sessions during consultations and community training for women if requested;

b. Attention to women’s participation in grievances or dispute resolution roles, including through local women networks if applicable; and,

c. Gender segregated data on participation in Project activities and outputs to be recorded so that disaggregated summaries gender participation in the Project can be collated and displayed.

4.1.2 Compliance and Core Labor Standards

Where different populations are inducted into the workforce by the partners (WCS, WWF and YABI), sub-contractors and other providers of goods and services, consideration must be given to compliance with local and national labour laws and relevant core labour standards.

With respect to labour and working conditions of women, there must be compliance with core labour standards which includes prohibition of any form of discrimination against women during hiring and providing equal work for equal pay for women and men.

Other workforce considerations as a result of the proposed sub-projects development which may have impact on human resources policies (i.e., working relationship, working conditions and terms of employment, workers’ organizations, non-discrimination and equal opportunity, retrenchment and grievance mechanism), protecting the workforce (i.e., child labour and forced labour), occupational health and safety, workers engaged by third parties, and supply chain are applicable in varying degrees due to differences in local context.

It is important to note that Indonesia has ratified a number of key international conventions labour and working conditions including the 1925 Equality of Treatment for National And Foreign Workers as Regards to Workmen’s Compensation for Accident, 1930 Forced Labour Convention, the 1947 convention on Labour inspection, the 1949 convention on The aplication on the principles of the right to organize to bargain collectively, the 1951 convention on equal remuneration for men and women wokrers for wokrk of equal value, and the 1973 convention on minimun age for admission to employment.

Potential impacts due to an influx of workers to the sub-project sites is likely to be minimal, as is a large urban area with significant pool of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labor to draw on. Nonetheless, contractors should have in-place robust mechanisms related to worker codes of conduct, as well as a grievance redress mechanism for residents to register grievances about worker conduct.

DRAFT


4.1.3 Land Acquisition and Resettlement The Land Acquisition and Resettlement in ESMF is one of IFC PS triggered because people are cultivating land inside the BBSNP and the community members are aware the GoI regulations stipulate this is illegal and punishable by law.

Activity 3 of the IPZ Project - land use pressure on the IPZ is diminished through improved land use management and community development – is applicable to this aspect of the ESMF and activities already implemented by the Project Partners include:

In July 2017, WWF conducted training on ecotourism to engage community members who are encroaching into the national park and to provide alternative incomes. WWF chose ecotourism as an important pillar for reaching this goal.

In September 2017 and December 2017, two trainings were conducted by WWF and the Park Officer forecoguides and program managers on an newly established ecotourism forum;

In Kubu Perahu village, WWF conducted a feasibility study for a stonecraft program together with a master craftsman who will also train the people on handicraft and further help with marketing of the products outside the village;

In 2010, 80 families from Pemerihan village agreed to leave the national park area freeing up approximately 400 ha. In the same year, WWF started rehabilitation of this area together with the former community member enchroaching in the national park. Until 2017, WWF was collaborating with communities to restore more degraded, encroached areas; and

From July 2017 to December 2017, WWF restored 65 ha of degraded land consisting of 25 ha in the Ngambur resort, 25 ha in Pemerihan village and 20 ha in the Biha resort. Sixty-five peoples from the villages participated in these activities. The areas have been ready for revegetation.

There is a certainty that the IPZ Program activities may restrict the access of forest dependent communities in nature reserves and/or other protected areas as a result of formalizing forest boundaries and zones within Forest Management Units (FMU). The project will result in direct involuntary resettlement and/or livelihoods displacement. There is also a risk that the IPZ program may exacerbate and affect existing disputes over land rights if no sufficient community participation and dispute mediation is in place during the program implementation. The KfW BBS project will seek to establish participatory approaches in forest boundary demarcation and tenure settlements.

It was still doesn’t know if the GoI is committed to providing support through TNBBS to create alternative livelihoods such as social forestry schemes and forest-partnership (Kemitraan) with forest-dependent communities within and surrounding FMU areas.

Increased land and forest tenurial conflicts have been and will continue to be a major concern for the success of the IPZ. Such conflicts often involve Adat communities (IP) who have claims before establishment of Forest Areas (Kawasan Hutan) and issuance of forest concessions. Since 2012, Indonesia has mobilized significant efforts to identify existing tenurial conflict and other land-use and forestry related conflicts, as well as develop relevant policies and regulatory frameworks. The IPZ will take into account an indicative tenurial conflict map that the GoI has developed, with an inventory of 201 conflicts, mostly in Sumatera (60.7%) and Kalimantan (16.4%). Such identification is currently on-going to further identify tenurial conflicts in forest areas through a joint assessment between the Government and

DRAFT


communities, including Adat (IP) communities and identify ways forward to settle conflicts through consensus.

The ESMF developed under the IPZ has incorporated a Process Framework (PF) to mitigate potential resettlement and access restriction risks resulting from forest tenure settlements and boundary demarcation supported by the IPZ. The PF has been developed in conjunction with the current GoI frameworks on forest tenure settlements, and will seek to address any gaps, particularly with regards to free, prior, and informed consultations with affected parties, compensation and livelihoods restoration.

The progress of the project has already built in activities working with communities to develop alternative livelihood options, supporting processes of participatory planning, providing technical assistance for new crops, commodity supply chains and alternative income generation (for example through ecotourism). Social forestry program options are also part of the project design

Project are working with village communities and local government, (MoEF, local forestry department), to identify and assisting resettlement of encroachers in forest areas. The Project provides support for the development and function of PPTHK teams (Penyelesaian Penguasaan Tanah di Kawasan Hutan or Resolution of land uses in forest areas) and for the development of provincial and local procedures or guidelines on the handling of the cases in the project area.

This may include:

1. Establishing a task force and methods to evaluate HTR (in BBSNP buffer zone);

2. Facilitating partnership approaches;

3. Facilitating licenses for Community Plantation Forest Utilization (IUP HTR)2 and for Community Forest Utilization (IUP HKm)3, including Customary Forest uses;

4. Providing long term, qualified facilitators and access to support (resource persons) that can assist with effective local communication strategies and provide mediation services and advice when needed; and

5. Facilitating community access to support to understand and exercise options under the government’s social forestry regulations and program. This program has been increasingly regarded as a potential alternative to improve community access rights to the forest areas and at the same time, retain and/or return the allocated forest areas into their original functions.

4.1.4 Process Framework A Process Framework (PF) is required as part of the KfW BBS project as there is the potential to restrict access to natural resources as a result of anticipated investments in land use planning, including activities supporting the preparation of land use plans for Community Protected Area (CPAs), and Community Forests (CFs). The purpose of the PF is to establish a process of informed and meaningful consultations and negotiations with members of potentially affected communities. The PF defines the procedures to 2 Community forest plantations (Hutan Tanaman Rakyat - HTR) are state forests that are managed by individuals or cooperatives

to increase quality and potency of forest products (timber and NTFPs). HTRs have a maximum area of about 15 hectares for each license holder or 700 hectares for cooperatives. Individual license holders can form community groups to request a single license; doing so can be faster. The target location for HTRs is in production forests.

3 Forestry partnership (Kemitraan Kehutanan - Kemitraan) are state forest lands managed by community groups or cooperatives to give access and direct benefit to local communities through capacity strengthening in cooperation with concession holders and forest management units (FMUs).4 Target locations for Kemitraan are areas under concession in production forest and in specific area

DRAFT


allow project affected persons (PAPs) to participate in the determination of measures necessary to mitigate or minimize the impacts of restricted resource access.

The PF is prepared to comply with the IFC PS5 on Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement and the GoI laws and regulations. The PF provides guidance for the development of action plans during project implementation that:

Describe the proposed access restrictions to natural resources in protected areas;

Identify and quantify the impacts that those restrictions may have on different segments of the local communities;

Propose, implement and monitor remedial measures to compensate for the loss of those assets and the income associated with them; and

Provide grievance redress mechanisms in order to resolve any issues that may arise due to restrictions of access to resources over the course of the project.

The PF ensures that the views of people whom are likely benefiting from, or negatively affected by the project, especially vulnerable people such as ethnic minorities and women, are included in the planning process. Targeted activities will ensure that all PAPs participate in the process and receive adequate compensation and assistance. The process framework is presented in Appendix A3.

4.1.5 Indigenous Peoples There are two studies to learn about the indigenous people in BBSNP: “Masyarakat Adat (Indigenous People) around BBSNP study” and the social economic studies for villages around BBSNP. Both of the documents also supported by the Minutes of Meeting with three IP communities: Laay, Uru Krui, and Ngambur. All of these IPs have their own distinct language, self-identify, hold customary cultural beliefs, economic social and political institution, and maintain a collective attachment to the natural resource in the IPZ. The IPs that are affected by the project activities are a heterogeneous group, with a history of intermarriage, outward migration, and have a defined cultural identity. As such, the Pesisir or Peminggir IPs are anticipated to be affected by the project activities and these IPs are comprised of 10 clans based on project consultations.

BBSNP together with WWF, WCS, and YABI conducted an ethnography study in October 2018 and November 2018. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive picture of the culture of Saibatin Lampung, an indigenous group living around the IPZ area. FGDs were held in each clan:

The Ulu krui clan on 2 October 2018 involving 15 representatives of traditional leaders;

The Laay clan on 3 October 2018 involving 15 traditional leaders; and

The Ngambur clan on 4 October 2018 involving 15 traditional leaders.

The topics discussed in the FGDs included:

Social systems related to marriage, inheritance systems, relations with the community and customary institutions; and

Cultural arts which consist which can serve as a medium for conveying messages concerning development or environmental preservation.

DRAFT


Tradition, management of natural resources IFC PS 7 requires IFC clients to identify adverse impacts on indigenous communities and develop action plans to conduct informed consultation and participation of affected indigenous communities. In addition, companies are expected to seek the FPIC of communities when:

The Project will impact the lands and natural resources subject to traditional ownership or under customary use;

The Project will require relocation of communities; or

The Project will significantly impact critical cultural heritage of IPs.

The IFC requires FPIC to be established though a good faith negotiation with the indigenous communities. In addition, the Project should document that there is a mutually accepted process for obtaining consent, and should ensure that there is evidence that the parties agree on the outcome of the negotiations. The Project Partners are currently addressing their approach to consultations to ensure compliance with FPIC principles such that consultations are robust and meaningful..

The project will undertake a process of free, prior, and informed consultations (FPIC) with the affected indigenous communities. These consultations will be conducted to collect data (eg. household economic displacement data as a result of project activities), to share mitigation measures with the community members, to hear and gather their views about the KfW BBS project, to seek community support to the project, and to develop necessary measures to protect IP rights and address their concerns to the future.

4.1.6 Minor Temporary Impacts A minor temporary impact is characterized as a temporary loss of assets or livelihoods following the implementation of project.

In the patrol guard activities, patrol data may be misused for destructive activities such as encroachment, poaching, and logging. The activities can also have secondary (minor) impact if law enforcement is unfair and inequitable and leads to social jealousy which could trigger conflicts among communities, and between communities and officers.

Removal of invasive species and reforestation activities are considered positive impacts with minor potential risks if not implemented wisely. For example, removal of certain tree species may not support objectives of developing feed stock for critical species or their prey. There is also the risk of increased conflicts between people and wildlife resulting in damage in livestock and/or risk of injury or death to people and problem wildlife as well as the loss of forest- or agriculture-based livelihoods. Pest mammal species such as wild boar could also increase due to project activities.

The support for land use changes is expected to have a positive impact on forest conditions with an emphasis on re-establishing critical habitat. There are potential negative social impacts such as community discord or tension related to law enforcement, perception of equality in opportunities (for community development), and variable access to participation by marginal groups including women and indigenous peoples (conversely expressed as elite domination at the village level).

Potential negative impacts of eco-tourism development are also flagged for consideration due to changes in livelihood options including increased eco-tourism and other diversified livelihood strategies. Successful implementation could lead to sustainable alternative community livelihoods although perception of

DRAFT


injustice regarding consistency of law enforcement and/or inequitable community empowerment/unfulfilled expectations and jealousy may lead to tension or jealousy among community members.

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

The purpose of the ESMF is to manage potential adverse impacts by establishing a guidance document which will inform the project partners and the BBSNP management authority to administer mutually agreed sets of environmental and social safeguards procedures and measures. The ESMF will facilitate necessary environmental and social management (including risk management of environmental and social impacts) procedures and measures of proposed sub-project(s) which may be financed by the IPZ project. The ESMF comprises the guidance document required for the ESMP or a limited scope Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA)4 if the scale of potential impacts is complex and other planning instruments (PF) to be applied at project appraisal and formulation when project design details become available. The ESMF is a guidance and decision-support tool for the BBSNP management authority, stakeholders and different populations and has been prepared through consultations including FGDs in Bumi Hantatai, Penengahan, Suka Banjar, and Pemerihan villages. The ESMF and PF will be publicly disclosed to local communities and the general public.

As an overarching guideline document, the ESMF provides assurances that:

The project will consider potential environmental and social issues, especially for different populations who would be directly impacted (positively or adversely) by the KfW BBS project;

The project will consider socio-cultural and gender sensitivities and environmental values prevailing in areas where the proposed KfW BBS project would be implemented;

During project formulation and design, adverse environmental and social impacts may arise during project implementation and appropriate mitigation or enhancement measures need to be designed with a monitoring plan developed to track implementation of site-specific safeguards instruments;

Environmental and social management safeguard instruments such as ESMP or ECoP, and IPPF are suitably prepared and followed; and

Safeguard instruments are compliant with the IFC safeguard policies and procedures as well as national legislation.

This section of the ESMF describes the process for ensuring that environmental and social concerns are adequately addressed through screening, institutional arrangements and procedures used by the project for managing the identification, preparation, approval and implementation of sub-projects.

SCREENING AND APPROVAL Environmental and social screening is designed to identify and document potential adverse impacts arising from proposed sub-projects. Environmental and social screening informs decision-makers about the need to implement measures or actions [if any] which avoid, minimize, mitigate or compensate for adverse impacts. Sub-projects are categorized according to the screening procedure depending on the

4 A limited scope ESIA applies to a Category B project in that the scope is narrower than for a Category A project. This limited

scope ESIA could be equivalent to an UKL-UPL in the national legal framework.

DRAFT


type, location, sensitivity and scale of the project and the nature and magnitude of its potential environmental and social impact. A sample of environmental and social safeguard screening form is in Appendix A4. The screening and review process will be conducted by environmental and social safeguard specialists. While risks associated with various sub-projects may vary, all of them are expected to fall under Category B as any sub-project in Category A will be ineligible for funding. The screening and approval process is described in Figure 1.

Screening and categorization of sub‐projects are based on potential environmental and social impacts: According to the KfW Sustainability Guideline, the initial screening process will classify the projects according to their potential environmental and social adverse impacts into either Category A, Category B+, Category B, or Category C according to the following definitions:

i. Category A projects: Diverse, significant adverse risks and impacts on human populations and/or the environment and that can’t be managed through standard solutions and state of the art technology. Category A projects need to undergo a full ESIA process per the KfW Sustainability Guideline and are not supported under this KfW BBS project.

ii. Category B projects: Potential limited adverse environmental or social risks and/or impacts that are few in number, generally site‐specific, largely reversible, and readily managed through standard solutions and state of the art technology. Category B projects must implement mitigation measures as foreseen in the site‐specific ESMP.

iii. Category B+ projects: Substantial impacts and risks that occur in single areas and show a higher risk than Category B projects but not as diverse and unprecedented as for Category A projects. Category B+ projects should as a minimum undergo an “Rapid Environmental and Social Assessment” (Rapid ESA) for the identified risks and areas/topics of concern and address those through a fit‐for‐purpose site‐specific ESMP tailored to the identified impacts and receptors. For some Category B+ projects full‐fledged ESIA and ESMP can be required, especially if demanded by national law.

iv. Category C projects: Minimal or negligible adverse risks or impacts on human populations and/or the environment. Category C projects must implement mitigation measures as foreseen in the ESMP or ECoP.

The BBSNP management authority completes the initial screening with the project partners who are responsible for proposed sub-projects identification and screening and ensuring that adequate environmental and social safeguards performance instruments are implemented. Once proposed sub-project locations are identified, the BBSNP management authority will prepare proposed sub-project(s) descriptions, conduct site-specific environmental and social screening of proposed sub-project(s) (Appendix A5), and assess requirements for necessary environmental and social management measures and plans (i.e., ESMP/ECoP). At the implementation phase, national consultants could be contracted to support BBSNP management authority staff who are responsible for completing the screening safeguards forms.

A standard appraisal and mitigation matrix will be part of the specifications for the partners and will form the basis of regular monitoring. The ESMP matrix based on the sectors and consisting of schedule, and potential environmental and social impacts, if any, due to the project, mitigation measures, operation and supervision.

DRAFT


Figure 1 Sub-project screening and approval process.

SCOPING ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES As established in the EIA regulation, the environmental studies shall be preceded by a scoping exercise in order to identify the environmental and social components that shall be focused in the EIA, approaches and methodologies to be adopted and the Terms of Reference (TOR) to be followed. In the case of the Category A projects, an Environmental Prefeasibility and Scoping Study (EPSS) shall be submitted to local Environmental Agency and/or Ministry of Environmental and Forestry, including the TOR for the EIA, while for Category B projects, only the TOR shall be submitted for approval.

The structure of the EPSS is defined in the EIA Regulation/AMDAL Regulation refer to Indonesian Government Regulation No. 27/2012 Environmental Permit and Government Regulation No.16/2012 Guideline for Preparing Environmental documents, it includes a brief description of the project and the environmental and social conditions of the project area, identification of the potential impacts as well as any fatal flaw. The EPSS shall be submitted to a public participation process.

Based on the screening form and field appraisal (when required), the impacts are classified based on their risk category and a decision is made as to whether the sub-project will:

a. Require an EIA study and/or RAP, since the impacts qualify as being high-risk and significant and may result in land acquisition and/or involuntary resettlement;

b. Require only an EMP, since the impacts are not significant and can be easily addressed through the implementation of a mitigation and management plan during construction and operation of the sub-project; or

c. Not require any safeguard measures, as the impacts are considered minimal.

As mentioned, the screening process will identify the nature of potential impacts, both positive and negative (adverse), that the potential sub-project(s) could generate within its region of influence (ROI). This will inform the selection of safeguards instruments that would be required to assess the potential

DRAFT


impacts in further detail. The choice of safeguards instrument or measure primarily depends on the degree of significance of anticipated environmental and social impacts as well as the associated environmental and social risks.

Scoping confirms the key environmental and social issues, risks and potential impacts identified during the screening process. The scoping stage can highlight potential issues at an early phase of sub-project development to allow planners and decision-makers to design changes which will mitigate potential environmental and social impacts and, possibly, the project location(s) to be modified.

APPLICATION OF SAFEGUARDS INSTRUMENTS, PLANS AND MEASURES

All sub-projects activities will require safeguards instruments such as limited scope ESIAs, ESMPs, and IPPFs within clearly delineated sub-project footprints. The details are described in the below sub-sections.

5.3.1 Environmental and Social Management Plan

5.3.1.1 Environmental and Social Management Plan Objectives

The objective of the ESMP is to respond to the environmental and social needs of the KfW BBS project in a simple, responsive and cost-effective manner that will not unnecessarily overload or impede the project cycle. The ESMP outlines the measures needed to address the issues identified in the ESIA. Moreover, the ESMP demonstrates proposed monitoring activities that encompass all major impacts and identify how they will be integrated into project supervision. General environmental management plans is presented in Appendix A6. The following activities to be carried out are outlined in the ESMP:

Main environmental and social mitigation measures;

Environmental and Social training and capacity program; and

Environmental and social monitoring.

The ESMP is also considered the base of the environmental and social audit of selected projects and an assessment of the potential impacts and mitigation measures. The ESMP is prepared based on the existing environmental and social situations and the auditing requirements and includes the following elements:

Site-specific environmental and social screening review and assessment of key environmental issues;

Identify linkages to other safeguard policies relating to the project;

Ensure adequate consultation during the assessment process;

Develop an Environmental and Social Monitoring Plan; and

Develop methodologies and procedures to be applied in context of the ESMP.

The ESMP is prepared in compliance with the Indonesia forestry and environmental laws, and IFC PS1, PS2, PS4, PS5, PS6 and PS7 and EHS Guidelines. The ESMP provides tools for the evaluation and management of the impacted environmental and social parameters and they are:

Natural Resource, Forests and Biodiversity Areas;

DRAFT


Construction waste;

Accidental risks; and

Land use.

The risks and negative impacts of the proposed KfW BBS project can be minimized by addressing mitigation measures during the project operation phases. Appendix A7 presents matrices detailing representation of the environmental and social impacts. These environmental matrices show the expected impacts covered by the projects, sector wise, and list the mitigation measures proposed to be implemented during and after implementation of the sub-projects.

5.3.1.2 Environmental and Social Management Plan Implementation Arrangements

Implementation of environmental and social safeguards captured in the ESMP will be nested within the Project Coordination Unit (PCU), under the Joint Secretariat of project partners and the Forestry Department at the Balai level (Kota Agung/ BBSNP). This structure and its personnel report to a project Steering Committee, as shown in Figure 2. These will report to the Project coordinator and counterpart in the Balai (BBSNP head) through the PCU. Some key features of the project management arrangements are:

Project Steering Committee

The Project Steering Committee will include the BBSNP Head and Project Partner Leaders of WWF Germany and WWF Indonesia, WCS and YABI as well as local government representatives, who will be invited on a case-by-case basis. Local representatives from KfW will be invited as permanent observers. It will provide advice and input to project work plans and strategies, and assist with coordination over policy development and inputs from the project, as well as ensure coordination between the Project Partners at the landscape level. A key function of this committee will be to approve Project reports and to formally approve a single joint annual work plan and budget for the project that aligns with the BBSNP annual workplan. The Project Steering Committee meets annually and upon request.

BBS Joint Collaborative Management Secretariat (“BBS Joint Secretariat”)

The project will support the re-design and operation of the BBS Joint Collaborative Management Secretariat (Sekretariat Bersama Pengelolaan Kolaborasi; “BBS Joint Secretariat”), created on 18 February 2013 on the basis of a National Park Head’s decision letter (Surat Keputusan 18/BBTNBBS-2/2013). The secretariat’s primary purpose is to manage overall collaboration between multiple conservation NGOs and the National Park authority. The BBS Joint Secretariat, through the PCU, will ensure coordinated implementation of the work plans (including the ESMP implementation) and sharing of information, a common approach to law enforcement and community issues, coordinated planning, and optimal use of the available resources of all the members of the group. The secretariat consists of the Project Coordination Unit, the BBSNP Head and the project managers from the project partners. The secretariat is expected to meet quarterly to review information on threats and interventions, develop and revise work plans, and facilitate coordination between the project partners and other organizations working with the park. The BBS Joint Secretariat will be coordinated by the park, with the support of the Project Coordinator.

DRAFT


Project Coordinator (with the support of the Project Coordination Unit)

The project coordinator will work full-time for the project and will play a central role for this project, including ultimate responsibility for overseeing ESMP implementation. His/her responsibilities are:

Project facilitation and liaison: coordinate the key personnel from the Project Coordination Unit, like the Project Finance and Administration Coordinator, coordinate with the project partners and BBSNP to develop joint annual project work plans, emphasizing a fully integrated approach; support project partners in communicating project progress to the Joint National Rhino Secretariat, Ministry of Environment and Forestry (Directorate-General of Natural Resource and Ecosystem Conservation ("DG KSDAE"), and the BBSNP Management Authority), local government; and, coordinate with other conservation and development projects being developed and/or implemented in the BBS landscape to ensure a complementary approach.

Project monitoring, reporting and planning and overall risk management of the project: in collaboration with the Project Coordination Unit and the implementing project partners and their respective project leaders to track and monitor project progress against Key Performance Indicators; facilitate quarterly BBSNP Joint Secretariat meetings; produce quarterly and annual technical and financial progress reports, based on project partners and BBSNP inputs; facilitate frequent and clear communication between project partners; and, support implementation of the project communication strategy.

Technical duties: organize and accompany donor, government and other interested party visits to the project site and accompany them in the field; and, monitor project-related grievances and handle these with Project Partners as needed.

Environmental and Social Management Plan Capacity Arrangements

Institutions involved in project planning, implementation and management including the ESMP mitigations are WWF, WCS, YABI, BBSNP and any parties contracted to them for project purposes. A general capacity assessment conducted for the ESMP focuses on their respective functions, roles and responsibilities with regard to ESMP (Table 6). It is important to note that the ESMP is something new to all parties, such that familiarity is only beginning to be established, and levels of understanding vary depending on individuals as well as organizations. The content of ESMP requirements is not entirely new, but some approaches and requirements will require time to become mainstreamed in the thinking and work processes used by each, as well as at the share project level.

DRAFT


Table 6 Environmental and Social Management Plan capacity requirements.

Area Roles and Responsibilities Capacity Needs Assessment

BBSNP – Provincial and Balai levels

Strategic policy directions, planning, budgeting and setting overall targets.

Human resource allocation and procurement of third-party services.

Technical oversight and support, e.g. on IPZ management, law enforcement (handling encroachers, poachers, hunters), reforestation activities.

Handling of disputes and management of grievances.

Some understanding due to involvement in the ESMP development. Understanding of the country systems on environmental and social management with varying capacities to implement. Requires training on the key provisions in the ESMP as well as additional human resources to support overall safeguards coordination, technical support and oversight. Should appoint a focal point / PIC to interact with project partners based in the same office, particularly to coordinate on risks associated with handling encroachers’ resettlement.

Resort level offices Field supervision of resort area, boundaries and responsible for activities within that area.

Hands-on work with field teams: surveys, patrolling, handling legal cases (poachers), dealing with human-wildlife conflicts, reforestation and encroachers.

Manage grievances and dispute resolution from village community level.

Facilitate some coordination with relevant agencies/offices, research groups and civil society groups.

Some understanding due to involvement in the ESMP development. Understanding of the country systems on environmental and social management with varying capacities to implement. Requires training on the key provisions in the ESMP (especially vis handling of encroachers) and assignment of a safeguards Person-in-Charge (PIC) to monitor and coordinate information on key project activities and be responsible for grievance reporting.

Village level including communities involved in patrols and community development activity

Engage in BBSNP and project activities to support sustainable land use and livelihoods.

Support improved law enforcement through citizen engagement activities.

Assist and support fellow community in finding alternative land options for encroachers / resettlement processes.

Limited understanding and capacity to implement varies. Requires adequate training on the key provisions in the ESMP and mentorship support to ensure that risks are adequately assessed, and impact mitigation measures are implemented in accordance with the ESMP.

Sub-district and Village Governments

Assist in data mobilization and completion of documentation.

Support local law envforcement and mediation efforts, in case of disputes, as required.

Support community members and resort offices to respond to grievances.

Participate and facilitate better integration of planning resources (budgets) and community activities to support conservation objectives (synergy of RPJMDes and Community Conservation Agreements.

Limited understanding of ESMP requirements. Requires capacity building related to environmental and social aspects (through orientation programs, dissemination of brochures and other publications), strengthening coordination for project implementation, dispute settlements, and village-level facilitation to the overall processes and beyond (i.e. community development, livelihoods, etc).

DRAFT


5.3.2 Indigenous Peoples Plan If IPs are impacted by the KfW BBS project, an IPs safeguards planning instrument should be developed based on the IFC PS7. This safeguard policy requires that special measures be established to protect the interests of IPs who can be distinguished by:

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

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

Customary cultural, economic, social or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and

Ethnic language, often different from the official language of the country or region.

There is a potential that a proposed sub-project will have moderate to significant impacts on an IP community if they are subject to involuntary resettlement. Indigenous peoples’ livelihoods and well-being are also under pressure in some areas because of in-migration by other people and allocation of concessions. If ethnic groups are identified in any of the proposed sub-project areas, IFC PS7 general principles will apply to ensure that:

Indigenous minority groups are afforded meaningful opportunities to participate in planning that affects them;

Opportunities to provide such groups with culturally appropriate benefits are considered; and

Any sub-project impacts that adversely affect them are avoided or otherwise minimized and mitigated.

The purpose of the IPPF is to ensure culturally appropriate consultation with indigenous peoples (i.e., ethnic groups) and participation in sub-project development. If based on free, prior and informed consultations where affected IPs conclude that the proposed sub-project will be beneficial to them then, measures and assistance will be developed in consultation with tribal elders, community based organizations (CBO) and independent CSOs/NGOs. The free, prior and informed consultation and planned activities will be documented in the IPPF. Assistance should include institutional strengthening and capacity building of community elders and CBOs working on specific activities (e.g., resettlement, if any) within the sub-project.

If IPs are adversely affected by a sub-project, either by land acquisition or by other induced negative impacts, the IPPF will have to address the impacts with various measures, activities and actions to mitigate adverse impacts. Acquisition of land and other assets would be governed by the RPF.

Implementation of the IPPF would be carried out by the community, assisted by appropriate staff from the BBSNP management authority and the project partners, where available and appropriate.

5.3.3 Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan If less than 200 people are affected by the sub-project, the appropriate safeguards measure is an Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan (ARAP) described more fully in the RPF. The ARAP or Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) is prepared during project implementation, when detailed designs are

DRAFT


available and before project implementation. The ARAP would include: (i) brief description of the sub-project, location and its impacts; (ii) principles and objectives governing resettlement preparation and implementation; (iii) legal framework; (iv) baseline information of PAP and PAH; (v) category of PAP and PAH by degree and type of impacts; (vi) entitlement to compensation, allowances and rehabilitation assistance by category of impacts in a compensation matrix; (vii) information on relocation site together with socio-economic conditions on the PAP and PAH and host communities; (viii) institutional arrangement for planning and implementation; (ix) participatory procedures during planning and implementation; (x) grievance redress procedures; (xi) estimated cost of resettlement and yearly budget; (xii) time-bound action plan for implementation; and, (xiii) internal and external monitoring and reporting procedures, including a terms of reference for external monitoring and evaluation.

6.0 CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE The sub-projects support a participatory and consultative approach involving meaningful engagement with different populations (i.e., ethnic minorities, vulnerable groups, women and female/male youth and children, men, the elderly and disabled, etc.), CSOs, CBOs and other relevant stakeholders. The approach was intended to enhance ownership and general understanding of different populations through public access to information for the ESMF and safeguard management instruments (i.e., PF as necessary), roles and responsibilities, and perceptions as a basis for improving coordination and achievement of the sub-project objectives. The participatory and consultative approach should ensure effective communication and coordination with all stakeholders and different populations at national and sub-national levels (Appendix A8).

The Statement of Principles on IPs and Conservation at the WWF recognizes the right of IPs to FPIC for projects affecting their customary lands and resources. The WWF will not promote or support, and might actively oppose, interventions affecting indigenous lands and resources that had not yet received adequate and meaningful consultations.

The following guiding principles for FPIC must be include in the decision-making process:

a. Consultations must be free from coercion, intimidation or manipulation;

b. Before the allocation of land for certain uses or approval of certain projects. Lead time (the time between the initial project idea and the time it starts to be implemented) must reflect respect for the time requirements of the customary consultation / consensus process.

c. Complete information must be provided on the nature and scope of the proposed project or activity; area to be affected; potential economic, social, cultural and environmental risks and benefits; and the proposed project time frame and the organizations / actors that might be involved.

Information must be in a language that is easily understood by the people affected, delivered in a culturally appropriate manner, and available from independent sources. Communities may also need capacity building on lesser known issues in order to understand the information.

d. Consent requires time and an effective system for communicating among all members of the affected community and making decisions through customary decision-making processes or other processes defined by the community.

Agreement requires that affected people are able to say “yes” or “no” at each stage of the project. Approval must be given or not given by the community; no individual or representative can make

DRAFT


that decision. The agreement must be fair and must be part of an ongoing process of communication and negotiation, not only a one-time action.

Key elements of the procedure FPIC includes:

1. Identifying land holders and customary rights.

Land claims based on customary rights are often not formally recognized by law, fulfilling this element may require support for a participatory community mapping process to document community recognized rights to forests. Mapping must include various groups in the community (which may have differences in knowledge, interests and use of resources) as well as the surrounding community (to validate and agree on boundaries).

2. Identifying and involving appropriate decision-making institutions / authorities in the community.

Communities must be represented by institutions of their own choosing through verifiable processes, which may differ from institutions formed based on government structures. If external facilitation is provided for the approval process, this facilitation must be provided by a neutral body (without personal interest in the results) and specifically in agreement with the community.

3. Identify and involve supporting organizations.

Involve supporting organizations - such as regional or national representative organizations of indigenous peoples and / or experts or advocacy groups on customary / community rights. Supporting organizations can work with communities to promote a policy framework that allows for their local activities, if they don't already exist or need to be strengthened.

4. Build mutual understanding and agreement on FPIC processes that are appropriate to the local situation.

This element addresses that external part understand the decision-making process by the local community and that the community determines their own processes and expectations about information and support from outside groups.

5. Provide information.

General guidelines on how information should be provided include that it must be:

Open and transparent;

In languages and forms that are appropriate to the local situation; and

Delivered at the right time and in a culturally appropriate way.

General guidelines regarding what information should be provided include:

Balanced treatment of the potential positive and negative impacts of an initiative;

Assessment of costs and benefits, and their distribution;

Alternatives and results from various scenarios; and

Information about community legal rights and legal implications of the proposed project (eg implications for land / resource rights, status of carbon rights).

DRAFT


6. Negotiate and support decision making.

Negotiations consist of a two-way dialogue between the community and advocates or project facilitators (e.g. government, private sector, NGOs) regarding proposals, interests and issues.

7. Document agreement based agreements.

One difference between the FPIC process and the more general consultation is that certain agreements must be documented in a mutually agreed form between all parties.

8. Support and monitor implementation of agreements.

Implementing community agreement agreements may require ongoing technical support or capacity building. Monitoring the implementation of the agreement allows the parties to hold each other accountable for agreed outcomes and adaptively manages if the actual results may differ from projections (eg community costs or benefits). Right-holding communities must be substantively involved in all stages of designing and implementing monitoring agreement agreements, not just collecting paid data.

9. Establish and operationalize conflict resolution mechanisms.

The conflict resolution mechanism provides a process for resolving differences that might arise in the implementation of the agreement. Defining in advance how differences will be communicated and resolved helps to ensure that differences do not grow into broader conflicts that frustrate agreements and projects.

10. Verifying approval.

Verification by third parties that community consent is free, preliminary and based on information guard against manipulation of the FPIC process. The verification process also allows supporters and facilitators to show that they have respected this right in relation to certain initiatives.

The KfW BBS project was first discussed with WCS and the consultant team on 14 August 2019 and again on 17 September 2019 during the kick-off meeting at the WCS office in Bogor, West Java, Indonesia. Subsequently, initial consultations to inform the draft ESMF and PF were held in Lampung Province during the week of 30 September to 04 October 2019 and described more fully in Appendices A9 Key Stakeholder, A10 List of Consulted Stakeholder, A11 Stakeholder Consultation Objectives, A12 Stakeholder Consultation Responses-FGD and A13 Stakeholder Consultation Responses-Interview. Stakeholders and different populations were provided information on project objectives, sub-project descriptions and component initiatives, potential impacts (both positive and adverse effects). A second public consultation meeting is planned for November 2019 to discuss the proposed sub-projects, issues and concerns, the draft final ESMF and PF documents, and related measures. These draft documents will be translated into Bahasa Indonesia and distributed to national, sub-national and local governments, key stakeholders and civil society organizations, and different populations prior to the second public consultation meeting. Initial results suggest that most of the stakeholders and different populations support the proposed sub-project initiatives and/or activities. As sub-projects are formulated, additional consultations will be held with local authorities and different populations who are likely to be directly or indirectly affected from the proposed sub-project(s). Written records of the consultations are appended in Appendices A14 Questionnaire and A15 Sign Up Sheet.

DRAFT


7.0 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM The Project’s Grievance Redress Mechanisms (GRM) comprises of four-tier system, i.e. village, district/city, provincial and national level. Basically, the GRM of KfW BBS Program will use existing mechanisms that have been applied in each institutional authority (OPD). Therefore, the stages and the time period for handling grievances will depend on the existing mechanism. The institutional authority in every level is responsible to handle the grievance and conflict resolution.

The grievance process will be divided into three categories: 1) grievances related to land and territorial issues, 2) grievances related to the human-wildlife conflict, and 3) others including those related to the program. Therefore, at the national level the submission of grievances can be through a website that has been available and managed by Director General of Law Enforcement (DGLE), Director General of Social Forestry and Environment Partnership (DGSFEP), and Information Management and Documentation Officer (PPID). The PPID has mandated by the ministry will be responsible for handling grievances at the national level.

All grievances that transferred to the district, provincial and national levels will be documented through the PPID System managed by the PPID. The grievance handling and reporting is coordinated by the Regional Secretary (SEKDA) at each level. In terms of recording, monitoring and reporting, SEKDA will be assisted by Dedicated Functions that are recruited from the KfW BBS Project.

Aggrieved Project Affected People (PAPs) and Project Affected Households (PAHs) can submit their grievance directly to the authorized institution (OPD) at each level or facilitated by the assigned person employed by the Project Partners. That person will ensure the grievance will be delivered to the appropriate institution to handle.

Grievance mechanism needs to be shared with and explained to the local communities including IPs and Adat Community, Regional Organizations (or Organisasi Perangkat Daerah/OPD).

PROCESS AND GRIEVANCE MECHANISM This process and grievance mechanism will includes: a) receive and record grievance; b) screen and categorize grievances; c) acknowledge receipt and its follow up action; d) refer to the relevant ministries, for non KfW BBS grievances, e) investigate, for KfW grievances, which includes field visit for verifying and validating grievances; f) act/follow up and g) conclude described in Figure 1.

A grievance is the submission of information verbally or in writing from an aggrieved PAP or PAH to the agency in charge, regarding the alleged occurrence of violations, potential and/or impacts in the field of environment and/or forestry from the business and/or activities at the planning, implementation and/or post implementation.

The time period for resolving grievances is dependent on the mechanisms available at each relevant institution. In principle, the grievance resolution is obligate follow the key principles that are mention in Appendix A16.

The aggrieved could be individuals, groups of people, legal entities, or government agencies that complain of alleged environmental and social impact from the implementation project.

DRAFT


The GRM for the KfW BBS project is summarized in Error! Reference source not found.. The institutional arrangements for the GRM are listed in Appendix A16 Grievance Redress Mechanism Principle and Institutional Arrangement.

Figure 2 Grievance Redress Mechanism for the KfW BBS Project.

At the national level, the GRM can be directly carried out on a web-based basis through:

Information Management and Documentation Officer (PPID);

Director General of Law Enforcement (DGLE); and

Director General of Social Forestry and Environment Partnership (DGSFEP).

7.1.1 Receive and Record Grievance

7.1.1.1 Receive the Grievance

Stakeholders can submit a grievance, directly or indirectly, through a number of ways:

Personally;

Electronic;

By phone;

Social media (Whatsapp, Line, text messages); and

Face to face meetings.

DRAFT


Grievances can be submitted to the authorized institution (OPD) or to a dedicated function. The authorities receiving the grievance from stakeholder at each level voluntarily with regard to several key principle that has been mentioned above (Appendix A16 Grievance Redress Mechanism Principle and Institutional Arrangement). Grievances submitted through a dedicated function will be forwarded to the institutional authority (OPD). Dedicated functions also have a responsibility to assist, assist and monitor grievance reported to the authorities.

7.1.1.2 Grievance Records

The grievance will be recorded in the grievance list within a set time after being received. A recording officer will be assigned to receive any grievance and may delegate the responsibility to the other staff, but eventually will be responsible for:

Managing the grievance process to ensure the prescribed steps are followed;

Investigate the grievance;

Consult with division or related parties within the organization;

Ensuring problem-solving action;

Track the progress of individual grievances;

Collate and provide feedback to the person who registered the grievance;

Document resolution actions; and

Obtain the necessary approval from, and/or report to management.

Although no response is required for anonymous grievances, these will be recorded and reported with other grievances to facilitate continuous improvement.

7.1.2 Grievance Screening and Categorization All grievances will be screened based on the category of the grievance and the management approach will also determine which level of government is involved from the outset (Table 7).

Table 7 Categories of grievance screening.

Categories Issue/Grievance

Land and territory issues Covers all issues related to land and administrative areas of the boundary.

Human-wildlife conflict Covers all issues related to human-wildlife conflicts at district/provincial level.

Other Grievances Covers all other issues that are happen during the project implementation.

7.1.3 Acknowledgement Receipt and Transparency The aggrieved PAP or PAH will receive a receipt with an incident number upon submission of a grievance. In addition to getting a receipt for the grievance, the grievance processing process will be explained to the aggrieved PAP or PAH.

DRAFT


7.1.4 Referral to Relevant Authorities All grievances will be addressed initially at the local level and resolution will be sought through the village and sub-district levels. Unresolved grievances will be screened by a PMU personnel who is proficient with GoI regulations and transferred to the appropriate authority either at the central government level or district government level based on the categories in Table 7.

7.1.5 Investigation The authorized grievance officer will lead a grievance inquiry, if needed, including collecting relevant documents, conducting field visits, consulting appropriate internal staff, contacting external stakeholders, and other activities. The investigative findings will be used to document the decision-making process and inform the proposed improvement.

7.1.6 Follow up Grievances that have been investigated will be followed up by the authorized team in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations in Indonesia and refer to the IFC EHS Guidelines.

The PMU should assign a suitable specialist to be able to provide grievance progress status to any aggrieved PAP or PAH when needed.

7.1.7 Grievance Resolution The grievance resolution process is based on existing mechanism under GoI regulation that applies in the authorized institution and considers existing the local grievance mechanisms such as musyawarah,

customary council meeting, etc. regarding the social and tenurial conflict that might occur as impact of the KfW BBS Project.

If the aggrieved PAP or PAH accepts the proposed resolution, the agreed action is taken. The grievance officer is responsible for actioning the resolution and setting the deadline for implementing the resolution. This is recorded in the grievance record with supporting documentation.

After a successful resolution, the grievance will be officially closed. This process involves having the aggrieved PAP or PAH sign the settlement form to document the satisfaction with the resolution action, documenting the action taken, and closing in the grievance registry.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Specific to the GRM, the roles and responsibilities, as well as capacity assessment of key staff involved in the operation and management of grievance mechanisms are shown listed in Table 8.

DRAFT


Table 8 GRM roles and responsibilities.

Position/ Role Responsibilities Institutional Capacity Assessment

PPID ▪ Management of the national registry ▪ Finalization and implementation of

safeguards plans ▪ Finalization and implementation of the

GRM ▪ Technical Assistance ▪ Handling the grievance process at

national level; ▪ Updating grievance handling based on

PID system.

▪ Set up and maintenance of PID system that includes conflict resolution and GRM (national registry).

▪ Capacity and mechanism for Benefit Sharing Mechanism has not yet been established.

Director General of Law Enforcement

▪ Grievance recording, screening, investigating, handling, and reporting.

▪ Publish the grievance process and results.

▪ Reporting system is in place. ▪ Under-staffed and may not be able to

respond in timely manner. ▪ May not be familiar with PID system.

SEKDA (Provincial and District)

▪ Responsible for Implementation and achievement of KfW BBS Project in the province.

▪ Coordinate the GRM that include records, follow up, monitor, and report.

▪ High initiative for hosting GRM. ▪ Lack human resources and equipment. ▪ GRM is not yet supported or formalized by

Governor’s Decree. ▪ May not be familiar with PID system.

Lampung Environmental Agency (Dinas

Lingkungan

Hidup)

▪ KfW BBS Project implementation. ▪ Grievance handling.

▪ Operates grievance reporting system (Posko Pengaduan).

▪ Lack the capacity for social safeguards required for conflict resolution.

▪ May not be familiar with PID system.

Institutional Authority (OPD)

▪ Implementing KfW BBS Project at the district or city level and project site.

▪ Grievance handling

▪ Capacity may be limited to receiving and archiving reports. Except for plantation agency, OPDs may not have experience in GRM and conflict resolution.

▪ FMU may need to increase network for conflict mediation.

Customary Council

▪ Grievance Mechanism for customary/ IP’s customary land/ assets.

▪ Capacity for conflict resoultion using customary knowledge/law.

▪ May not be able to address conflicts outside the customary communities.

Village governance

▪ Implementing KfW BBS Project at the district or city level and project site.

▪ Grievance handling.

▪ Capacity may be limited to recording conflict (may not be familiar with PID system).

▪ Resoultion is normally done by compromise among conflicting villagers.

▪ May not have capacity for addressing conflicts / grievances on issues beyond village jurisdiction.

DRAFT


EVALUATION AND SUPERVISION Dedicated function will review internal and external qualitative and quantitative indicators with management and externally with appropriate community stakeholder groups. Dedicated function will conduct quarterly reviews of quantitative indicators and report them to monthly management team meetings. Quarterly and annual indicators are presented in Table 9.

Table 9 Quarterly and annual indicators for review.

Time Period Objective Recommended Indicator

Quantitative indicator review per 4 months

▪ Assess whether grievance are correctly classified;

▪ Identify trends in the grievance; and

▪ Ensure grievances are addressed.

▪ The total number of grievances received by the level and type of grievance;

▪ Number of open grievances by level and type of grievance;

▪ Closing period by level and type of grievance;

▪ Repeated grievance monitoring from the same stakeholders; and

▪ Monitoring of grievance trends.

Review of annual grievance procedures

▪ Assess compliance with the grievance process;

▪ Evaluate progress towards achieving goals; and

▪ Identify improvements and update grievance procedures.

▪ Compliance with the process;

▪ Completeness of grievance records (logs);

▪ The number of grievances received by the level and type of grievance;

▪ The number of open grievances by level and type of grievance;

▪ Closing period by level and type of grievance;

▪ Repeated grievance monitoring from the same stakeholders;

▪ Monitoring of grievance trends;

▪ Qualitative assessment of stakeholders' awareness of a grievance mechanism through stakeholder engagement processes; and

▪ Qualitative assessment of grievance mechanism credibility through stakeholder engagement.

Details of the process such as who is responsible for receiving and responding to the grievances

and external parties who may receive grievances from local residents;

When stakeholders who submit a grievance can receive a response; and

Protection to ensure confidentiality.

These GRM also apply to Project contractors and sub-contractors who work at the Project site.

DRAFT


8.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING Environmental and social monitoring will be an integral part of the WCS, WWF and YABI team and National Park supervisory work over the course of project implementation. The Project Staff (WCS, WWF and YABI) team and the National Park Environmental and Social (E&S) Officer will be responsible to ensure that contractors are familiar with the ESMF and instruct their personnel on the compliance with the ESMF and the ESMP. The PMU will assign a sub-project5 coordinator E&S safeguard specialist who will conduct regular on-site monitoring of civil works to verify contractors’ adherence to the requirements set out in the ESMP. Figure 2 depicts the IPZ Project implementation stages, monitoring and reporting.

Monthly, quarterly- and semi-annual monitoring reports will be undertaken as per specific activities in order to:

Improve environmental and social management practices;

Ensure the efficiency and quality of the environmental and social assessment processes;

Establish evidence- and results-based environmental and social assessment for the sub-projects; and

Provide an opportunity to report the results of safeguards, impacts and proposed mitigation measures’ implementation.

Monitoring will focus on three key areas, including:

(i) Compliance Monitoring: to verify that the required mitigation measures are considered and implemented. During the sub-project preparation phase, compliance monitoring activities will focus on ensuring effective ESMF implementation and respect of procedures. During the implementation phase, compliance monitoring would include inspections during construction of the Component 1 and 2 sub-projects4.

(ii) Impacts Monitoring: during implementation, monitoring of sub-project4 initiatives and/or activities’ impact mitigation measures should be the duty of the sub-project coordinators and the PMU. It is expected that the ESMP will be included in the contract to oblige the contractor to the ESMP compliance. PMU will monitor to ensure that works are proceeding in accordance with the agreed mitigation measures in the ESMP/ESMF.

Monitoring and evaluation of the social impacts will measure the following:

Impacts on affected individuals, different populations, households and communities to be maintained at their pre-project standard of living, or better;

Gender differentiated impacts to be avoided, minimized or addressed; and

Management of disputes or conflicts.

(iii) Cumulative Impacts Monitoring: impacts of the sub-project initiatives and/or activities on the environmental and social resources for the communities surrounding the BBSNP will also be monitored in consideration of other developments which might be established.

Table 10 provides a preliminary ESMP monitoring checklist that can be refined during implementation.

5 Sub-project term in this ESMF document has the same meaning with KfW BBS Project activity

DRAFT


Table 10 Environmental and social monitoring and reporting guideline.

Task Reporting Frequency Notes

Updating of the ESMP, including development of site-specific community engagement plans, communication and community participation strategies

Project Coordinator and team

Periodic Some guidelines and training materials to be developed

Dissemination of ESMP (include preparatory meetings)

Project Coordinator and team

First six months following ESMP approval by KfW and IKI at BMU

In collaboration with BBSNP

Training on ESMP Preparation of a training plan and

budget Plan, deliver and manage the training

courses Follow-up

M&E Manager/ Project team


Consultant may be engaged different approaches tailored to audiences

Development of monitoring tools specific to key activities in ESMP (detailed versions of results framework indocators): Patrols; Law enforcement; Reforestration; Community development/CCA and

livelihoods; and Grievance log.

M&E Manager/ Project team


Monitoring methods and tools to be developed, format to concur with requirements

Periodic monitoring and reporting on Grievances Redress Mechanism (GRM) and complaints handling

Project coordinator Bi-annually or as needed

Grievance mechanism to be revised as needed

Reporting unexpected incidents or non-compliance

Project coordinator As needed

Preparation and submission of annual reports on safeguards

Project coordinator Bi-annually Disclosure of progress reports and/or final evaluation to be cleared with KfW

DRAFT


9.0 ESMF IMPLEMENTATION INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR PROJECT

IMPLEMENTATION The MoEF through its local office is the principal implementing institution responsible for the policy development and monitoring regarding biodiversity conservation and environmental awareness building and serves as the focal point for various internal funds. The MoEF is also responsible to ensure that the national policy and legislation on environmental safeguards are implemented.

The KfW BBS Project Management Unit at the BBSNP will be responsible for leading the implementation of the IPZ Program (Figure 3). Of note, the BBSNP team does not have an Environmental and Social Unit. In case this unit is established, it shall be involved in the implementation of the ESMF and included in the capacity building initiatives.

The main responsibilities of the IPZ team or Project Partners will include: i) ensuring proper fiduciary management (financial management and procurement); ii) overseeing the preparation and implementation of annual operating plans; iii) managing the project monitoring system (collecting and processing data and reporting, including through annual reports); v) ensuring compliance with the project legal agreements (including subsidiary agreements); vi) ensuring IFC PS compliance; and vii) providing strategic communication for the Project.

A subsidiary agreement will be signed between the Project Partners to outline financial and procurement arrangements for proper implementation of KfW BBS sub-projects as well as monitoring and reporting responsibilities and to standardize criteria for environmental and social screening process for KfW BBS sub-projects.

The BBSNP Officer, under the authority of the MoEF, is responsible to the management of Conservation Areas within the BBSNP.

A key objective of IPZ is to strengthen the capacity of National Park and BKSDA personnel, which would include strengthen the capacity in environmental and social management. The project coordinator will provide technical assistance to the KfW BBS Project during the screening of sub-projects, preparation of ToRs for EA studies, facilitation, coordination, review of EA studies and EMPs, monitoring and evaluation of all the sub-projects. Components 1 and 2 – renovation sub-projects in existing buildings – will comply with the environmental and social safeguards under the IFC EHS Guidelines.

DRAFT


Figure 3 Institutional arrangement for ESMF implementation.

CAPACITY BUILDING The lack of application of environmental and social safeguards instruments may not be due to education levels – a capacity assessment was not conducted to assess this aspect - however PMU staff have had limited exposure to donor-funded projects that included the application of environmental and social instruments. To address this lack of experience, the project will allocate a traning to the project staff budget (see Section 9.3) for environmental and social safeguard. The Project staff training participants will provide hands-on mentoring and ensure environmental and social safeguards instruments (ESMF and PF) are properly monitored and reported during Project implementation.

It is imperative that institutional and capacity development are provided for environmental and social safeguards guidelines, safeguards frameworks, capacity building trainings, coordination between different organizations, awareness-raising campaign(s), and other measures for ensuring the knowledge gaps are addressed as expeditiously as possible for development of sub-projects. A capacity building training program should be implemented based on two themes:

DRAFT


a. Basic Training on Environmental and Social Awareness. This would be mandatory training for sub-project coordinator personnel and stakeholders including local government, BBSNP personnel and select communities. Training material and content will vary with topics to address key project issues related to IPZ, forest and surrounding land use, law and its enforcement, and grievance handling. The role of stakeholders, special approaches to ensure inclusion (awareness of gender and IP issues), and knowledge and a fundamental understanding of the potential environmental and social impacts should be included.

b. Technical Training. Technical Training consists of various thematic materials. The participants for the technical training would be local land office personnel, representatives from various line agencies from the project target areas, field teams, civil society and consultants involved in the Technical Assistance. Training materials can include a series of regular trainings planned by the PMU with BBSNP. Trainees will be provided with materials as determined by the project activity, i.e. FPIC procedures, for conducting community meetings and developing the Community Conservation Agreements, resettlement and livelihoods (with emphasis on processes for engaging IPs, current/desired land uses and practices; communication and facilitation techniques for key issues; on reforestation (species, techniques); on SMART patrol SOP, grievances redress mechanisms, project monitoring and reporting.

In addition to the training sessions for project personnel, thematic workshops should be implemented based on the needs assessment of the Project Partners regarding Project activities. Workshop participants can be from the consortium, local communities and all levels of government. Workshop themes may include the Project Partners’ community programs and discussion on common obstacles faced by BBNSP on topics including conservation measures and boundary delineation.

The PMU should assign staff responsible for periodically reviewing training program activities and for proposing future programs in a work plan. The training development will be planned and implemented with the LitBang (research and development), Training Department of Forestry Department/BBSNP, or other partners and consultants as needed. Possible training topics include:

Social and environmental issues linked to BBSNP and PMU. SMART patrol, law enforcement; reforestation; IP and gender awareness.

Indonesian governance framework and legal requirements as applicable to the IMZ and IPZ, resettlement and treatment of encroachers under evolving forestry regulations.

SOPs and/or other guidelines developed for key project activities. An example is an SOP for SMART patrol already under development.

Farmer field school sessions for targeted community groups.

DRAFT


BUDGET TO IMPLEMENT ESMF ESMF implementation cost will include the development of the specific site-specific safeguard instruments, including staff costs, travel, consultation workshops, translation and trainings that already included in the ESMP. The total indicative cost is estimated at 264,550 USD (Table 11), which will be supported by a combination of the Project and counterpart financing; from the project management component.

Table 11 ESMF implementation costs.

No. Activity Annual

Rate (USD)

Timeline (Years)

Sub-total (USD)

1 RPU Patrolling in the IPZ 30,000 5 30,000

2 IPZ component socialization research 30,000 4 30,000

3 IPZ component socialization materials production 45,000 4 45,0000

4 SMART-RBM System Set Up and support for NP development 9,000 1 9,000

5 Capacity to support community (encroachment monitoring and reforestration) 30,000 4 30,000

6 Development of the RAP 50,000 1 50,000

7 RAP monitoring 12,000 4 12,000

8 Extra government engagement on resettlement 12,000 4 12,000

9 Annual M&E for the implementation of the safeguard instruments 7,500 3 7,500

10 Annual public consultation on safeguard instruments including the GRM 6,000 3 6,000

11 Translation of safeguard instruments 3,000 1 3,000

12 Annual training workshop 6,000 3 6,000

13 Contingency (10%) 24,050

Total 264,550

DRAFT

APPENDICES

DRAFT

Appendix A1

Activities Not Eligible for Project Financing

DRAFT

Appendix A1 Activities not Eligible for Sub-project Financing

To avoid adverse impacts on the environment and people, the following activities are explicitly excluded

from sub-project financing:

Production or trade in any product or activity deemed illegal under host country laws or

regulations or international conventions and agreements, or subject to international bans, such

as pharmaceuticals, pesticides/herbicides, ozone depleting substances, polychlorinated

biphenyl (PCBs), wildlife or products regulated under the Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species (CITES);

New or expanded settlements, construction or facilities within protected forests and proposed

protected forests;

Requirement for large scale land acquisition of currently-occupied state or indigenous land (for

agriculture, plantations, etc.) by local people (individually or collectively);

Causing the loss or damage to cultural properties, including sites of archaeological (prehistoric),

paleontological, historical, religious, cultural and unique environmental/natural values;

New road construction, road rehabilitation, road paving, or any form of pathway improvement

within the existing primary natural forest and proposed protected forest;

Large-scale construction that potentially has significant negative impacts on the surrounding

environment and would require ESIA or AMDAL process and permits;

Commercial logging operations in natural forests;

Conversion of High Conservation Value (HCV) forests;

Purchase of logging equipment for use in natural forests area;

Labour and working conditions involving harmful, exploitative, involuntary or compulsory forms

of labour, forced labour, child labour or significant occupational health and safety issues;

Exclusion of poor or marginalized population groups;

Do not provide equal pay for equal work for women and men;

Include the payment of compensation for land or asset loss from the proceeds of the KfW

financing;

Trade in any products with businesses engaged in exploitative environmental and social

behaviour; and

Category A sub-projects.

DRAFT

Appendix A2

Baseline Condition

DRAFT

Appendix A2 Baseline Condition of Lampung Province

Lampung Province has a total area of 35,288 square kilometers (km2) is located on the southeastern-

most area of Sumatera Island. The province includes the islands of Sebuku, Sebesi, Sertung, and

Rakata in the Sunda Strait. The provincial capital city of Bandar Lampung was created when the twin

cities of Tanjung Karang and Teluk Betung merged into one city. Lampung Province is bordered by the

South Sumatera and Bengkulu provinces in the north, the Sunda Strait in the south, Java Sea in the

east, and the Indonesia Ocean in the west. Geographically, Lampung Province is located at Longitude

(east-west) 1030 40’ E to 1050 50’ E and Latitude (north-south) 60 45’ S to 30 45’ S.

Administrative - Lampung Province consisted of 13 districts and two municipalities as of 2013.

According to Home Affairs Regulation No. 39/2015, the total land area of each district is: Lampung

Barat (2,142.8 km2), Tanggamus (3,020.6 km2), Lampung Selatan (700.3 km2), Lampung Timur

(5,325.0 km2), Lampung Tengah (3,802.7 km2), Lampung Utara (2,725.9 km2), Way Kanan (3,921.6

km2), Tulang Bawang (3,466.3 km2), Pesawaran (2,243.5 km2), Pringsewu (625.0 km2), Mesuji (2,184.0

km2), Tulang Bawang Barat (1,201.0 km2), Pesisir Barat (2,907.2 km2), Kota Bandar Lampung (296.0

km2), and Kota Metro (61.8 km2).

Climate and Biophysical - Lampung Province has a tropical climate characterized by dry and rainy

seasons. Humidity in Lampung Province ranges from 72% to 86% with average temperatures ranging

from 21oC to 34.1oC. Due to its tropical climate, the province averages 65% exposure to solar radiation

per year, while rainfall ranges from 34 millimeters (mm) to 397 mm per year. The southernmost portion

of the Barisan Mountains run the length of the province from the northwest to the southeast. This

mountain range includes the peaks of Mountain Batai (1,682 m), Mount Tebak (2,115). The highest

peak in the province is Mount Pesagi at 2,262 m and Mount Krakatau in the Sunda Strait is also located

in the province. The mountainous spine of the province is flanked by a narrow coastland on the

southwest and by rapidly descending highlands on the northeast. The eastern lowland area of the

province stretches from the mountain foothills to a belt of swamps in the eastern coastlands.Three

significant rivers – the Sekampung, Seputih, and Tulangbewang – descend the eastern slopes of the

mountains and drain into the Java Sea. Tropical lowland evergreen rainforests extend from the foothills

of the mountains to coastal swamps where mangrove and freshwater swamp forests are located.

Social – Lampung Province is a multi-ethnic province with three major ethnic groups: Javanese,

Lampungese and Sundanese; of which the Lampungese are the ethnicity native in the province.

Lampung Province population was estimated in 2018 at 8,370,485 consisting of 4,286,676 males and

4,083,809 females. This number increased from 7,608,405 people (3,916,622 males and 3,691,783

females) in 2010 by percentage of 1.16%.

Agriculture and Economics – Most of the population is engaged in agricultural activities. Key crop

outputs include rubber, tea, coffee, soybeans, sweet potatoes, corn, peanuts, copra and palm oil.

Wetland paddy production reached approximately 1.9 million tons during 2018 while chili production

reached 600,283 quintals. Fruit production is also a mainstay of agricultural activities in the province

with banana production reaching approximately 14,385.6 tons. In 2008, Lampung Province produced

approximately 190,340 tons of oil palm and 110,570 tons of coffee. The largest production region for oil

palm is Tulang Bawang District which yielded approximately 23.3% of the total provincial production.

The greatest yield of coffee beans comes from the Lampung Barat area which accounts for

approximately half (47.6%) of the provincial output. Due to the extensive coastline, deepsea fishing is

also an economic mainstay in the province while important industrial activities include wood carving,

food processing, cloth weaving, mat and basket making and the production of handmade paper.

DRAFT

Appendix A3

Process Framework

DRAFT

LIPI Building 3rd Floor, Jl. Ir. H. Juanda No. 18, Bogor 16122, Indonesia • Tel: +62 251 8324 487 • Fax: +62 251 8340 414 • www.hatfieldgroup.com

PROCESS FRAMEWORK FOR CONSULTATIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS

WITH MEMBERS OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED COMMUNITIES

DRAFT

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................1

1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................. 1

1.2 PROJECT DESIGN AND COMPONENTS .................................................... 1

2.0 INDONESIA LEGAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................2

3.0 IDENTIFICATION AND EIGIBILITY OF DISPLACED PERSONS .........3

3.1 DEFINING DISPLACED PERSONS .............................................................. 3

3.2 ELIGIBILITY .................................................................................................. 3

3.3 ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY ............................................. 4

3.4 CONSIDERATIONS FOR VULNERABLE GROUPS ..................................... 4

3.5 PROJECT ACTIVITIES PHASES .................................................................. 4

4.0 LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION ...............................................................5

4.1 COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION ENGAGEMENT ............................................ 5

4.2 BUILDING COMMUNITY AWARENESS ....................................................... 6

4.3 DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS .............................. 6

4.4 OTHER ALTERNATIVES LIVELIHOODS ..................................................... 7

4.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS AND MONITORING ............................................... 7

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS .................................................8

6.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS AN GRIEVANCE REDRESS .....................8

6.1 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION DURING PROJECT PREPARATION ........................................................................... 8

6.2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................... 8

6.3 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM ......................................................... 9

DRAFT

1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Process Framework (PF) for the Intensive Protection Zone (IPZ) project was prepared with support

of the project partners consisting of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Wildlife Fund

(WWF) and Yayasan Badak Indonesia (YABI). Given that the IPZ project may potentially limit access

to natural resources in protected areas, the IFC Performance Standard 5 on Land Acquisition and

Involuntary Resettlement is triggered. The purpose of the PF is to establish a process by which

members of potentially affected communities can participate in the design of project components, the

determination of measures necessary to achieve resettlement policy objectives, and the implementation

and monitoring of relevant project activities.

1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The project development objective (PDO) is the “conservation of highly threatened tropical rainforest in

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park (BBSNP) as priority habitat for critically endangered species and

carbon sink through innovative management concepts and sustainable land use management”.

1.2 PROJECT DESIGN AND COMPONENTS

The project design is based on a theory of change that involves reducing anthropogenic pressure on

priority areas in BBSNP, improving national park and conservation zone management including

the establishment of an Intensive Management Zone (IMZ), and thereby effectively protect the habitat

of endangered species (Sumatran rhinoceros, Sumatran tiger, and Sumatran elephant) is effectively

protected.

Reducing anthropogenic pressure on priority areas in the BBSNP requires collaboration with the

adjacent local communities to improve sustainable land use, and to change attitudes and behaviors

towards the endangered species (ex. hunting and poaching). Improving national park and conservation

zone management also requires cooperation with the park authority and other users and stakeholders,

with multi-facetted strategies, addressed in the five activity components (Table 1).

Table 1 Project components and work packets.

No. Component Work Packages Responsible

Project Partner

1 The IPZ is established

within the BBSNP and is

effectively protected

IPZ planning

SMART-resort based management (RBM) system

and capacity

Rhinoceros Protection Unit (RPU) patrolling in the

IPZ

Resort-based patrolling in the IPZ

Improve forest crime intelligence gathering and

enforcement

YABI, WCS

2 Establishment and

implementation of an

IMZ

Strategy to consolidate and breed rhinoceros in

BBSNP

IMZ design and management plan, funds through

WWF

Translocate rhinoceros to the IMZ, funds through

WWF

YABI, WWF

3 Land-use pressure on

the IPZ is diminished

Resort-level strategies for community engagement YABI, WWF,

WCS

DRAFT

2

No. Component Work Packages Responsible

Project Partner

through improved land

use management and

community development

Capacity to support community-based encroachment

monitoring and reforestation

Performance based incentives for BBSNP protection

and restoration

Investment and labour for protection and restoration

Political and financial support for community-based

interventions

Private sector business supports conservation

objectives (WCS)

4 Improved policy

framework for species

and habitat protection

and national and

international

dissemination of

experience

Capacity building and policy alignment (WCS, WWF,

and YABI - different roles), including:

- National technical learning trips & exchange

visits between BBS, WKNP, GLNP, and other

relevant sites (YABI)

- Standardisation and dissemination to

PusDikLat, including training modules - SMART

(WCS), DNA-based monitoring (WWF) and RPU

approach (YABI)

- Study tours – e.g. SMART and IMZ

- Support to Joint National Rhino Secretariat (all)

- Work with journalists (WWF)

Long term financing for conservation in BBS (WCS)

YABI, WWF,

WCS

5 The effectiveness of

BBSNP management is

improved

Support to BBSNP management and strategy YABI,

WWF, development (WCS)

Monitoring and conservation science for

management (all) including:

- Forest

- Camera trap/DNA

- Occupancy

- Livelihood development impact

Student research grants (WCS)

YABI, WWF,

WCS

2.0 INDONESIA LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The Minister of Foresty through Regulation No: P.43/Menhut-II/2013 established the boundaries

arrangement of working permits for forest utilization, principles approval for forest management,

approval principles for forest area release and forest area management on forest areas management

with special objectives.

According to Article 1, Clause 5 of the Minister of Forestry Regulation No: P.43/Menhut-II/2013, Special

Purpose Forest Areas (KHDTK) including Conservation Forests, Protected Forests, or Production

Forests can be specifically designated by the Minister for reseacrch and development, education and

training, as well as for social, religious and cultural interest without changing the main function of the

relevant forest area.

Chapter III, Article 8 of the Presidential Regulation of the Republik Indonesia No. 88/2015 on the

Completion of Land Tenure in Forested Areas (PPTKH) details the types of settlement options for

ownership and utilization of land that has been stipulated as a forest area:

DRAFT

3

a. Remove the land from the forest area thorugh changes in forest boundaries;

b. Exchange of forest areas;

c. Provide access to forest management through social forestry programs; and

d. Resettlement.

This chapter of this regulation also stipulates the need to build an Acceleration Team for land tenure

settlement in forested areas and how to coordinate the organization members of the PPTKH. Article 14

Clause 2 details the steps that must be implemented in this process.

3.0 IDENTIFICATION AND EIGIBILITY OF DISPLACED PERSONS

3.1 DEFINING DISPLACED PERSONS

According to the World Bank’s Operational Policy (OP) 4.12, the term “displaced persons” is

synonymous with “project affected persons (PAP)” or “project affected communities (PAC)” and is not

limited to those subjected to physical displacement. However, project activities are not expected to

result in the physical relocation of persons or communities, and any potential, temporary or permanent

land acquisition would be covered by a Resettlement Planning Framework (RPF). In terms of this PF,

PAC refers to those persons who lose “access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting

in adverse impacts on their livelihoods”. The project will need to assess PAC who would be eligible for

livelihood support based on the loss of access as a result of restrictions carried out under the project.

3.2 ELIGIBILITY

Individuals and communities that are the focus of this PF are those using natural resources in or from

designated community protected and forest areas. The PACs who depend on access to natural

resources in these protected areas and utilize resources for their livelihoods as per the World Bank’s

OP 4.12, suggests three criteria for eligibility:

(i) Those who have legal rights to land and/or natural resource use in protected areas

(including customary land, traditional and religious rights recognized under the laws and

regulations of the government of Indonesia [GoI]);

(ii) Those who do not have legal rights to land at the time the cut-off date begins but have

potential legal claim to such land or assets provided that such claims are recognized under

the laws and regulation of GoI or become recognized through process identified in the

resettlement plan; and

(iii) Those who have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land they are occupying.

The eligible PACs living within or in the vicinity of the protected forest areas will be identified through a

participatory process to determine the exact number and scope of impacts to be compensated by the

project. Special consideration and priority will be given to the vulnerable groups including the poor,

ethnic minority groups, landless, elderly and female-headed households. Non-local community

members accessing the areas for illegal purposes such as logging and/or wildlife hunting are not eligible

for project benefits.

DRAFT

4

All PACs must be consulted to identify project adverse impacts and, through a collaborative approach,

to establish the eligibility criteria for mitigation or/and compensation measures. The project will work

with PACs and co-managers, representative of local community organizations, local leaders to define

the eligibility criteria for project assistance and to define a cut-off date in a particular manner, once they

are identified. The project will ensure to provide culturally appropriate information for indigenous people

affected and ensure linkages to the project’s Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) and any

Indigenous Peoples Plans (IPPs). Any illegal encroachment, occupation or exploitation of the natural

resources of a protected area after a pre-established cut-off date will not be eligible for any type of

livelihood-related compensation or other assistance (consistent with the World Bank’s OP 4.12).

Additional eligibility criteria for occupants or neighbors of protected areas needing special consideration

related to livelihoods will be discussed with relevant stakeholders and will be part of a protected area

management plan.

3.3 ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY

Although relatively minor negative impacts due to IPZ sub-components are expected, the project will

endeavor to assist PACs to improve their livelihoods or at least restore to pre-project levels where there

will be restrictions on forest resource use. Two types of PAPs have been identified:

1. Those who currently (illegally) encroach in the community protected areas and community

forested areas for the purpose of agricultural cultivation, and

2. Those who regularly (illegally) enter the CPAs and CF for the purpose of poaching and

collecting any other forest products.

The project participatory process will involve consultation with community representatives in areas

where people are negatively affected by project activities. The Village Development Plan (VDP) and

Co-management Plan (COP), will identify the numbers of PACs, the type of impact and their eligibility

to participate in alternative livelihoods activities or be compensated. Draft VDPs and COPs will be

discussed at public meetings with PACs so that informed decisions can be made about the options

available to them. Mitigating strategies will be based on the promotion of alternative livelihood initiatives,

capacity building of self-help organizations and community based defined productive activities.

3.4 CONSIDERATIONS FOR VULNERABLE GROUPS

The poor, indigenous people, elderly, and women in the local communities are likely to be particularly

vulnerable as they are often more heavily dependent on agriculture, forest product collection and have

less diversified income sources. To minimize effects on vulnerable groups, if impacts are not already

avoided, the project will firstly ensure these groups have access to project related information including

livelihoods assistance and secondly, alternative livelihood activities carried out in communities will

ensure the inclusion and participation of vulnerable groups. To ensure women participate in the project,

livelihoods support will be directed towards the affected household rather than just the affected person.

Women will be able to apply for alternative livelihood assistance that they lead and manage. Livelihood

activities under this PF will be linked to the project’s IPPF and/or IPP as appropriate.

3.5 PROJECT ACTIVITIES PHASES

The project, in a consultative manner, will conduct activities to define access restriction to illegal or/and

customary activities in the protected areas and will evaluate the impact on local livelihoods in

consultation with the affected people and relevant stakeholders. The project will strive to avoid, and if

DRAFT

5

not possible, minimize or mitigate impacts, such as phasing in mitigation measures. For example,

information based on spatial planning, mapped demarcation of protected areas and consultation, will

be provided to ensure communities are fully informed on the delimitation of forest management. The

project will ensure to initiate any access restrictions once the project alternative livelihoods are already

initiated. For instance, if agricultural land will become part of the forest management activity, the support

needed for the impacted households or individuals will be provided to ensure they can transition their

livelihoods and not be worse off as a result of the project. Thus compensation and livelihood restoration

measures will begin ahead of any potential project impacts.

4.0 LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION

The overall aim of the restoration and mitigation measures is to compensate for and diversify the

livelihoods of the persons affected by forest resources restriction. The project will support the

development of modalities that provide an alternative livelihood opportunity for PACs. The process of

developing these alternative livelihoods will be participatory and will be underlined by equity and

community driven decision-making. The aim will be to develop livelihood alternatives through a guided

process, with, for example, a plan to support the development of products and services through to

distribution. The process to achieve this will start with mobilizing affected community members to ensure

that they have the space and opportunity to consider the options available to them. Mitigation measures

to address the livelihoods of both indigenous and non-indigenous communities must support long-term

sustainable livelihood development. As mentioned, any impacts to indigenous peoples must also be in

line with the project’s IPPs.

4.1 COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION ENGAGEMENT

Community members facing access restriction will be supported to mobilize themselves to identify

viable livelihoods activities in a participatory manner. The approach will ensure equity in the process

and that all affected users including vulnerable groups, such as women, elderly and IPs, have the

opportunity to become involved in, and benefit from, alternative livelihoods assistance being provided

by the project. Once eligible people for assistance support due to resources restriction have been

identification in a participatory process, activities will continue as follows:

(i) PAC assessment that will assist the mapping of their resources and assets, identify and

diagnose constraints and impacts due to access restrictions from household to community

level, and identify the required support;

(ii) Define the training and capacity building to sustain their affected livelihoods and way of

transitions to alternative livelihoods (ex. resin, field school and ecotourism); and

(iii) Define co-management arrangements and alternative livelihood activities to be supported

including pertinent training.

Indigenous communities will be engaged and their participation promoted to define alternative

livelihoods that are culturally appropriate. The project will consider their agreements reached with the

participation of their local leaders supporting the preparation of appropriated material for project

communication. Furthermore, impacts to IPs will need to be properly captured in an IPP to ensure free,

prior and informed consultation with IPs.

Based on the information provided above, therefore it is critically important to:

DRAFT

6

(i) Consider beneficiaries (from villages, communes, etc.) as equal partners and stakeholders in

the management of forest resources, with special attention to IPs, for whom their views will be

considered and respected;

(ii) Observe beneficiaries’ information requirements of IPs and other vulnerable members including

women;

(iii) Approach the different local organizations that may differ from place to place; and

(iv) Recognize that engaging local communities is a time consuming process and that it requires

time, consistency and a good planning.

4.2 BUILDING COMMUNITY AWARENESS

The project will provide guidance to facilitate participation with special attention provided to IPs to

ensure culturally appropriate information is provided. Awareness-raising through information sessions

before starting formal consultations will be undertaken will take the form of community meetings,

informational presentations and dissemination of informational materials, among others. The

awareness-building process will include:

a. An ongoing process, with sub-projects developed to support alternative livelihoods within the

communities where dialogues and learning events among the participating communities will be

undertaken. The project will support local leaderships when developing training and mentoring

of community leaders. Community leaders will also play a key role in supporting the

implementation activities for the PF;

b. Consultations will entail meetings and focus groups discussions to address potential adverse

impacts of forest management and to observe the traditional practices that could be supported

by the project. Communities will be informed about the potential access restrictions in

workshops, community meetings and focus group discussions, ensuring gender-balanced

participation. The result of the information collected will be considered in the design of activities

and in the information materials prepared for the project;

c. The new defined areas for forest restoration along with the designed protected areas will be

mapped and the plans for their management will be provided, including the local legislation and

the World Bank’s policy requirements.

4.3 DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Given the facts that the project is going to strengthen landscape planning and the ability to manage

natural resources, there is likely to be some restrictions of access to forest resources that may affect

local communities. For this reason, Community Protected Area Management Plans (CPAMPs) should

be developed through consultation with communities to identify areas of restriction and alternative

livelihoods. The project will strive to integrate these CPAMPs into broader Commune Development

Plans, to ensure local-level planning takes into account forest protection and any restrictions that may

be in place. Expertise to support IPZ staff and local authorities on developing participatory plans may

be required. Accurate and sufficient baseline information will be essential not only to provide a basis for

planning, but also for effective management of implementation, monitoring and evaluation and capacity

DRAFT

7

building of the village and its members. In general, development of alternative livelihoods and

integration into Commune Development Plans will necessitate:

a. Consultations with the community and relevant stakeholders;

b. Identification of restrictions and impacts of these restrictions;

c. Strategic analysis of community development both for CPA and for the commune;

d. Assessment of current programs and community plans and whether or how they can be

strengthened;

e. Selection and development of project activities; and

f. Establishment of monitoring system to ensure livelihoods of impacted people are restored.

CPAMPs will be developed with full participation from local communities to ensure communities get to

express their opinions on the choice of project activities and investments. The form of community

participation can vary, depending on specific or impacts being considered, and participation for IPs will

need to be on the basis of the IPPF and the principle of free, prior and informed consultation. The

Program project team will be responsible for the consultative design of CPAMPs, liaising with the

commune, and for selecting partners and contractors to carry out specific activities as needed.

4.4 OTHER ALTERNATIVES LIVELIHOODS

Alternative livelihood and livelihood restoration programs will be developed and incorporated into the

CPAMPs and Commune Development Plans as relevant. To appropriately and adequately compensate

households whose livelihoods will be adversely affected by access restrictions, the project will work with

communities and other stakeholder to develop alternative livelihoods. Successful implementation of the

project in the long-run will rely on the cooperation with local communities on CPAMPs, as well as with

local authorities in order to design and organize alternative livelihood measures to ensure livelihood

restoration of local people. Measures to develop alternative community and individual livelihoods will

be identified with the participation of the affected communities, which will focus on establishing

alternative livelihood and livelihood restoration activities that are environmentally sustainable and

culturally appropriate. The aim will be to identify alternative livelihood activities which fit local natural

endowments, benefiting eco-protection and restoration, positive for increasing local living standard,

maintain local traditions and conforming to development plans of local government.

4.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS AND MONITORING

All eligible households affected by access restrictions as a result of project activities will be covered by

the mitigation measures developed in the PF/Action Plans. The forest co-management model at the

community level includes four main steps:

1. Identify and establish representative institutions for involved stakeholders (village and

commune, forest management board). Identify the roles, duties and rights of the stakeholders

in forest management.

2. Negotiate and obtain agreement among the stakeholders on forest protection and management

issues in order to get consensus and collaboration of all stakeholders.

DRAFT

8

3. Implement co-management following the agreed CPAMPs, for example in forest patrolling and

protection, community livelihood development, management of forest products utilization,

management of forest environment services and forest land planning.

4. Monitoring and evaluation by participation of all stakeholders to ensure living standards of those

impacted are restored.

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

The project will be implemented over a period of six years. Institutional arrangements for implementation

will follow the government’s institutional structure, with the WCS as the Executing Agency (EA), WWF

and YABI as Implementing Agencies and KfW Germany will oversee the financial services support.

Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with line ministries implementing sub-components will ensure

clarity on roles and responsibilities. The EA and IA will establish an implementation project team with

experts with technical, administrative, environmental and social safeguards, procurement and finance

expertise. WCS, WWF and YABI already have safeguard focal points working on the IPZ project and

sub-projects. Strategic direction and guidance for the management and operation of the project will be

provided by a high-level Project Steering Committee, chaired by the MoEF.

6.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS AN GRIEVANCE REDRESS

6.1 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION DURING PROJECT PREPARATION

During public consultation the Joined Project Unit (WCS,WWF and Yabi) will get consultation from other

Partners as MoEF (ministry of Environment and Forestry) , TNBBS office , and also other local NGO.

The project will be consulted about benefit and Impact to the TNBBS.

6.2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

The IPZ and sub-project will adopt meaningful consultation and stakeholder participatory approach and

will be consistent with the IPPF/IPPs in instances where IPs reside and are impacted. During project

screening (project area selection process) communities, teachers, parents and local authorities will be

consulted about benefits and potential impacts. A social assessment will be conducted in target areas

where potential impacts on IPs, land and other resources are identified. At least two public consultation

meetings will be conducted. The IPZ and sub-project activities, project impacts and mitigation measures

will be presented during the first meeting. Then, the second public consultation meeting will be

conducted to determine whether there is support for the project activities and mitigation plans.

Prior to consultations, the Project Partners will send notice to the communities informing their leaders

that they will be visited by the respective focal person and local authorities and that consultation will be

conducted to seek input on the project intervention and to determine potential adverse impacts as well

as possible support from the project in order to address the potential impacts. The notice will request

that communities invite representatives from farmers, women association, village leaders and/or other

groups as necessary so that they have the opportunity to express their views with regards to the

proposed activities.

DRAFT

9

During the consultation, detailed procedures would be determined on a village-by-village basis to

determine the potential impact and possible support under the IPZ project and sub-project. Further, a

grievance mechanism will be established to address concerns and complaints to ensure affected people

can voice their concerns; particularly on land acquisition and livelihood loss. If a beneficiary community

includes ethnic minority communities that do not belong to the ethnic majority group in the community,

their representatives will be included in the conflict resolution mechanisms. This will ensure cultural

appropriateness, and community involvement particularly with the ethnic groups in the decision-making

processes.

In the process, free, prior and informed consultations will be undertaken in a language spoken by, and

at a location convenient for, potentially affected IPs, consistent with the project IPPF. The views of IPs

are to be taken into account during implementation of the IPZ project and sub-projects, while respecting

their current practices, beliefs and cultural preferences. The outcome of the consultations will be

documented into the periodical reports and submitted to the KfW for review.

If IPs are identified during implementation of the IPZ project and sub-project, an updated social

assessment shall also be carried out to monitor the positive and negative impacts of the project, and

obtain feedback from the project-affected IPs. Monitoring is crucial to ensure affected livelihoods are

appropriately restored. Based on the outcome of the social assessment, further measures may be taken

to ensure full benefits and mitigation of anticipated negative impacts. If necessary, additional activities

for institutional strengthening and capacity building of IP communities living within the project area shall

be carried out. If unexpected impacts are more significant than expected, IPP and/or Resettlement

Action Plans (if appropriate) may need to be updated.

6.3 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM

At the beginning of implementation, the grievance redress committees will be established at commune,

districts, and provincial levels as appropriate, built on the existing structures. At the village level, the

existing grievance mechanisms that is chaired by a village chief, elder and/or spiritual/tribal leaders, a

process largely acceptable to local communities, will be strengthened as the first tier conflict resolution

mechanism. This arrangement ensures that an existing system is available to resolve grievances or

complaints that may occur during and after project intervention. The grievance mechanism will be

applied to persons or groups that are directly or indirectly affected by a project, as well as those that

may have interests in a project and/or have the ability to influence its outcome either positively or

negatively. The project team will provide training and support to strengthen these existing structures for

effectively and collectively dealing with possible grievances that may be raised by PACs.

The project will, in consultation with IPs, ensure that grievance mechanisms are appropriate and are

fully consulted with IPs. When possible, regular grievance mechanisms of Indonesia will be followed,

with the first instance being the village level, then the commune level, the district level and finally the

provincial level, and these will be strengthened to ensure they can effectively deal with IP concerns. If

project sub-components involve land acquisition, a Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) will be

established for the IPZ project and sub-project, based on the RPF and closely linked to this IPPF or

IPPs as appropriate.

In the target areas where IP are affected directly or indirectly, all complaints shall be discussed among

the villagers in the presence of traditional village leader or elder and negotiations is carried out in the

community or village where the affected person and PAH live. Where necessary, the IPZ project and

sub-project proponents will provide assistance so that the rights of indigenous minorities are protected.

DRAFT

Appendix A4

General Screening Form

DRAFT

1

Appendix A4 General Environmental Assessment Policy Instrument: Screening Form

This form is to be used by the Implementing Agency to screen potential environmental and social

safeguards issues of a sub-project, determine the Category classification, which IFC Performance

Standard are triggered and the instrument to be prepared for the sub-project.

Sub-project Name

Sub-project Location

Sub-project Proponent

Sub-project Type/Sector

Estimated Investment

Start/Completion Date

Questions

Answer If Yes

IFC

Performance

Standard

triggered

If Yes

Document

requirement N/A Yes No

Are the sub-project impacts likely to have

significant adverse environmental impacts that

are sensitive, diverse or unprecedented?1

Please provide brief description:

IFC PS 1

Assessment

and

Management of

Environmental

and Social Risk

Category A

Ineligible for

funding in the

IPZ Project

Are the sub-project impacts likely to have

significant adverse social impacts that are

sensitive, diverse or unprecedented2?


IFC PS 1

Assessment

and

Management of

Environmental

and Social Risk

Category A

Ineligible for

funding in the

IPZ Project

1 Examples of projects where the impacts are likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are sensitive,

diverse or unprecedented are large scale infrastructure such as construction of new roads, railways, power plants, major urban development, water treatment, waste water treatment plants and solid waste collection and disposal etc.

2 Generally, sub-projects with significant resettlement-related impacts should be categorized as A. Application of judgment is necessary in assessing the potential significance of resettlement-related impacts, which vary in scope and scale from sub-project to sub-project. Sub-projects that would require physical relocation of residents or businesses, as well as sub-projects that would cause any individuals to lose more than 10 percent of their productive land area, often are categorized as A. Scale may also be a factor, even when the significance of impacts is relatively minor. Sub-projects affecting whole communities or relatively large numbers of persons (for example, more than 1,000 in total) may warrant categorization as A, especially for

DRAFT

2

Questions

Answer If Yes

IFC

Performance

Standard

triggered

If Yes

Document


Do the impacts affect an area broader than the

sites - beyond the existing IPZ - or facilities

subject to physical works and are the significant

adverse environmental impacts irreversible?


IFC PS 1

Assessment

and

Management of

Environmental

and Social Risk

Category A

Ineligible for

funding in the

IPZ Project

Is the proposed sub-project likely to have

minimal or no adverse environmental or social

impacts?3

Please provide brief justification:

IFC PS 1

Assessment

and

Management of

Environmental

and Social Risk

Category C

No action

needed

beyond

screening

Is the sub-project neither a Category A nor

Category C as defined above?4


IFC PS 1

Assessment

and

Management of

Environmental

and Social Risk

Category B

Limited

Scope ESIA

or IEE or

ESMP

Will the sub-project likely have adverse impacts

to the human or natural environment that are

modest, confined to a small region and are

temporary or short-lived which are easy and

inexpensive to control?

IFC PS 1

Assessment

and

Management of

Environmental

and Social Risk

Category B

Limited

Scope ESIA

or IEE or

ESMP

Do sub-project documents clearly state that no

buildings will be constructed?

IFC PS 1

Assessment

and

Management of

Environmental

and Social Risk

Category B

Limited

Scope ESIA

or IEE or

ESMP

projects in which implementation capacity is likely to be weak. Sub-projects that would require relocation of Indigenous Peoples, that would restrict their access to traditional lands or resources, or that would seek to impose changes to Indigenous Peoples’ traditional institutions, are always likely to be categorized as A.

3 Examples of projects likely to have minimal or no adverse environmental impacts are supply of goods and services, technical assistance, simple repair of damaged structures etc.,

.

DRAFT

3

Questions

Answer If Yes

IFC

Performance

Standard

triggered

If Yes

Document


Does the sub-project document specify that

there will be no use of any hazardous materials?

IFC PS 1

Assessment

and

Management of

Environmental

and Social Risk

Category B

Limited

Scope ESIA

or IEE or

ESMP

Will the sub-project involve the conversion or

degradation of non-critical natural habitats?


Performance

Standard 6

Biodiversity

Conservation

and Sustainable

Management of

Living Natural

Resources

Limited

Scope ESIA

or IEE or

ESMP

Will the sub-project involve the significant

conversion or degradation of critical natural

habitats5?

Performance

Standard 6

Biodiversity

Conservation

and Sustainable

Management of

Living Natural

Resources

Category A

Ineligible for

funding in the

IPZ Project

Will the sub-project adversely impact physical

cultural resources?6


Performance

Standard 8

Cultural

Heritage

Category A

Ineligible for

funding in the

IPZ Project

Does the sub-project involve involuntary land

acquisition, loss of assets or access to assets,

or

loss of income sources or means of livelihood?


Performance

Standard 8

Cultural

Heritage

Abbreviated

Resettlement

Action Plan

5 Sub-projects that significantly convert or degrade critical natural habitats such as legally protected, officially proposed for

protection, identified by authoritative sources for their high conservation value, or recognized as protected by traditional local communities, are ineligible for Bank financing.

6 Examples of physical cultural resources are archaeological, paleontological or historical sites, including historic urban areas, religious monuments, structures and/or cemeteries particularly sites recognized by the government.

DRAFT

4

Questions

Answer If Yes

IFC

Performance

Standard

triggered

If Yes

Document


Will the sub-project have the potential to have

impacts on the health and quality of forests or

the rights and welfare of people and their level

of dependence upon or interaction with forests;

or aims to bring about changes in the

management, protection or utilization of natural

forests or plantations?


Performance

Standard 6

Biodiversity

Conservation

and Sustainable

Management of

Living Natural

Resources

Category A

Ineligible for

funding in the

IPZ Project

Will the project have the potential to have

significant impacts or significant conversion or

degradation of critical natural forests or other

natural habitats?

Performance

Standard 6

Biodiversity

Conservation

and Sustainable

Management of

Living Natural

Resources

Category A

Ineligible for

funding in the

IPZ Project

DRAFT

Appendix A5

Site Specific Screening Form

DRAFT

1

Appendix A5 Site Specific Environmental and Social Safeguard Screening Forms

These forms will be filled by the IPZ Project Partners during the identification of the sub-project as part

of the annual work plan. The Environmental and Social Safeguard Screening From will be properly filled

in, signed and attached to the sub-project proposal which to be reviewed by National Park E&S Officer

and/or MoEF.

FORM A: Project Concept Safeguards Checklist

Resort:

District:

Location – sketch map attached

(Mark )

YES NO

Village: Landmark Reference (details):

TYPE of works/activities (Mark )

Patrols Public facilities improvement

Reforestation Capture and translocation of wildlife

Located near important cultural sites

Located within National Park Located within or near a natural habitat site

Brief description of works/activities: (i.e., wide of area, need/purpose of works, proposed works [list/explain activities], number of villages [approx. population] to benefit):

Checklist Yes No Explanation/Comments

1. Will the works require any households to move structures (include houses and farmland?

2. Are the works, located in or near a cultural/heritage area?

3. Are the works, located near or in National Park Core Zone, Jungle Zone?

4. Will the works require NEW building infrastructure to be constructed?

5. Will the works potential introduce invasive plant and/or animal species to the area?

6. Will the works be located near a river, stream or waterway?

7. Based upon visual inspection or available literature, are there areas of possible geologic or soil instability?

8. Will any of the works require the use of toxic chemicals?

9. Has hazardous waste such as asbestos been used in the construction, repair or maintenance of the building?

DRAFT

2

10. Other information: map, additional issues or impacts etc. should be specified on the attached sheet: List attachments

Distribution of ESMF Initial Screening Form:

Distributed to Yes No Date

WCS

WWF

YABI

National Park

MoEF

Others (list below)

ESMF Initial Screening Form compiled by:

Name: Position:

Signature: Date:

ESMF Initial Screening Form verified by:

Name: Position:

Signature: Date:

Attachments (For map, sketches, other information, issues, potential impacts, etc. as mentioned in item 10 above)

As required

DRAFT

3

FORM B: Land Acquisition & Resettlement (LAR) Screening Form for Resorts

Resort:

District:

Location – sketch map attached

(Mark )

YES NO

Village: Landmark Reference (details):

TYPE of works/activities (Mark )

Relocation of encroaching residences from forest area

relocation of gardens/crops from forest area

Brief description of works/activities: (i.e., wide of area, size of public facility, need/purpose of works, proposed works [list/explain activities], number of villages [approx. population] to benefit):

LAND ACQUISITION AND RESETTLEMENT (LAR) SCREENING

Screening Questions Yes No Explanation/ Comments

1. Is land acquisition likely to be necessary?

2. Is the site for land acquisition known?

3. Is the ownership status and current usage of the land known?

4. Will easements be required to access the sub-project site?

5. Are there any non-titled people who live or earn their livelihood at the site or within the grounds of the national park to be improved?

6. Will there be loss of housing?

7. Will people lose access to facilities, services, or natural resources?

8. Will any social or economic activities be affected by land use-related changes?

9. If involuntary resettlement impacts are expected:

a) Will coordination between government agencies be required to deal with land acquisition?

b) Are there sufficient skilled staff in the Executing Agency for resettlement planning and implementation?

c) Are training and capacity-building interventions required prior to resettlement planning and implementation?

INFORMATION ON AFFECTED PEOPLE

Is an estimate available for the number of households that will be affected by the sub-project? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, approximately how many households?

Are any of the households vulnerable i.e. households that (i) are headed by divorced or widowed females with dependents and low income; (ii) include disabled or invalid persons; (iii) include persons falling under the indicator for poverty, or the landless; and/or, (iv) are elderly with no means of support?

[ ] Yes [ ] No

DRAFT

4

If yes, approximately how many households?

If yes, briefly describe their situation:

Are any of the households from ethnic minority groups? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, briefly describe their situation:

PROJECT CATEGORIZATION FOR RESETTLEMENT IMPACTS

Based on the definition of impacts in the Environmental and Social Operations Manual, what is the category?

[ ] CATEGORY A – significant resettlement impact, not eligible for funding under the IPZ Project

[ ] CATEGORY B – marginal or non-significant resettlement impact, an ARAP is required

[ ] CATEGORY C – minimal or no resettlement impact, no resettlement is required, generic social impact mitigation specifications will apply

Distributed to Yes No Date

WCS

WWF

YABI

National Park

MoEF

Others (list below)

LAR Screening Form compiled by:

Name: Duty:

Signature: Date:

LAR Screening Form verified by:

Name: Duty:

Signature: Date:

DRAFT

Appendix A6

General Environmental Management Plan

DRAFT

Appendix A6. The Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) Monitoring table (Matrices of Impacts and Mitigation Plans, from te ESMP)

ESMP ESMP Monitoring

Social & Environmental

Impacts / Risks Mitigation measures Feasibility of mitigation Resources Responsibility Schedule Evidence of completion

Completion Status: evidence/date/staff name

IFC Environmental and Social Performance Standards


Opening new access for poachers via new patrol paths & routes.

Intensifying and improving operation of SMART-based Patrol, including finalization of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that includes:

pathway use and limits the creation of new route;

camp construction and management aspects;

rules and SYSTEMS to ensure confidentiality of data;

flexibility for revision to address future or unforeseen impacts;

Provision of training on the SOP.

Project activity; Feasibility confirmed based on existing practices and examples.

Set up SMART-RBM system and capacity

Project Staff (WCS, YABI, WWF) with BBSNP personnel Specific responsibilities to be defined by Project coordinator.

Yr 1 – Yr 6; SOP in Yr 1; training annually

SOP developed and implemented; training records; Patrol effectiveness evaluation.

The Patrol Standard Operation Procedures (SOP) at BBSNP already exists and has been documented, but the points governing the opening of the new patrol line, the risks and mitigation have not been included in the Patrol SOP.

Even so, patrol activities always follow the existing line (both the wildlife activity and illegal lanes) so as not to open new patrol routes.

The Activities that will be carried out in the future are:

Revise the BBSNP SOP patrol

Identify new illegal routes.

Temporary camp activities cause damage, e.g. litter, use of wood for fire and camp construction etc.

The BBSNP SOP Patrol has also not included the governing points on temporary camp for patrol and surveys.

So far, patrol activities have been carried out using old used temporary camps or ex-hunter camps.

Camp material uses old materials that can still be used. After use the temporary camp, cleaning is done and carrying out waste batteries.

The activities that will be carried out are:

Revise BBSNP SOP;

Mapping existingcamp locations and giving them

1

DRAFT





to all survey and patrol teams;

Designing an ideal camp that can minimize the use of wood

Patrol findings data may be misused for destructive activities (encroachment/poaching

/logging)


RPU Patrolling in the IPZ

BBSNP and partners have agreed on an SOP and implemented a data management flow.

Operators whose data managers have also been appointed by BBSNP.

Nevertheless, the application of the SOP still needs to be improved.

In the future the activities that will be carried out are:

Monitoring the implementation of data management SOPs at BBSNP and partners

Training of all parties related to data management SOPs to improve quality in the management and implementation of SOPs

Successful patrols will reduce poaching and increase wildlife populations and potential increased risk of human-wildlife conflicts, (causing damage to crops and death or injury to livestock/ wildlife/ people).

Awareness program targeting communities; Utilizing and broadening use of the existing systems, information and mechanism for reporting and responding to people-wildlife conflict, including:

increase dissemination of information on response process;

Strengthen and expand Rapid Response system / teams.


Support the Park to plan and operationalize the IPZ.


Project staff under PCU’s Communications and Livelihood Coordinator.

Specific responsibilities to be defined by Project Coordinator.

Yr 1- Yr 6 Awareness-raising records and materials;

Conflict records (data and analysis– beginning vs. regular monitoring results);

KAP survey results; RRT training records.

Several activities that have been carried out to minimize this risk are:

Installation of GPS Collar on elephants for monitoring movement of elephant groups and possible conflicts (match funding);

A conflict monitoring team has been formed and a patrol schedule is coordinated by BBSNP.

Training for the community to handle elephant conflicts.

Possible activities within the project (depending on the

2

DRAFT





design and approval of the new logframe and project workplan) could be:

Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of handling humanelephant conflicts, and awareness to the target community.

Determine steps that need to be done. Remark: If thosethreats and activities regarding Human-Wildlife conflict are not incorporated in the new project workplan due to other scopes, than the above mentioned mitigation measures will be put on hold unless the project partners find matching funds.

Conduct a review of options for alternative and complementary actions including lobbying or establishing local regulations that incentivize local communities to handle wildlife encounters in a positive way (for example, replicate other regency regulations compensating for cross loss, if appropriate).

Additional (ESMP) activity, feasibility confirmed based on existing resources, capacity and availability of local and international examples.


Indicative budget $30.000

Project Staff (WCS, WWF, YABI)

Specific responsibilities to be defined by Project Coordinator.

Yr 1-Yr 2 (review); Yr 2 – Yr 5 (implement initiatives)

Report of the review; Recommendations of review will be implemented as follow up activities in the following annual work plan.

There is a Forestry Minister Regulation No. 48 of 2008 which regulates guidelines

for dealing with human and animal conflicts, including

those which also regulate

compensation.

The implementation still faces many obstacles. Need coordination and discussion with relevant parties to discuss further management

including appropriate solutions.

Increase in presence of better protected pest species such as wild boars.

Engage with NP personnel and communities to provide education and co-develop solutions if these species become troublesome.

Project activity;

Feasibility confirmed based on existing practices and examples.

Support the Park to plan and operationalize the IPZ


Project Staff (WCS, YABI, and WWF) with BBSNP personnel.

Yr 2- Yr 6 Wildlife monitoring data are used for management plans; IMZ management plan includes action on pest species records of training.

Data monitoring only available for 3 key species (tigers, rhinos, elephants), and not yet for other animals that have become pests such as wild boars and monkeys.

Working with pest species in the community programme is right now beyond the scope of this project. We will closely monitor the topic and decide about necessary activties in the

3

DRAFT





livelihood output as needed and report here in this table

Potential translocation of tigers or rhinos, bears risk of people/animal injury or death / problem animals.

Adopt and disseminate an SOP based on good-practice from other contexts.

Project activity; Feasibility confirmed based on existing practices and examples, reference material available.

Strategy to consolidate and breed Rhino in BBS


Project Staff (tigers – WCS; rhinos - YABI)

Yr 2- Yr 6 SOP available and implemented; record of training.

Standard Operation Procedures for the Sumatran rhino translocation in Kalimantan have been approved by the DG of KSDAE, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, applied in Kutai Barat, East Kalimantan.

Activities that will be carried out are adaptation and dissemination of existing SOPs to be adapted with conditions in BBSNP as well as detailed training will be conducted to the Team that will be involved.

Provide training for relevant parties. Include resources for translocation and reserves for emergency responses in project budget.

The BBSNP Team and partners will visit Kutai Barat to learn from the experience of the translocation process in Kutai Barat.

Patrols and law enforcement lead to perception of unfair or unequitable law enforcement, triggering social jealousy and tension among communities, and between communities and officers.

Design and deliver a proactive, multi-method communications strategy with tailored messages, methods and materials on: laws, patrols, project activities, changes to be anticipated in law enforcement, community conservation role.


As an additional or expanded activity (for ESMP), additional resources may be required for complementary action- research to develop, deliver and assess/adjust tailored social behavior change activities under the communication strategy.

Socialize IPZ components of the NP management plan to local stakeholder, with progress updates

Implement an outreach program to engage encroachers and community figures in discussion on encroachment and build awareness of the ecological and economic rationale for the Park.

$30,000 for research based Design of strategy and materials; and $45,000 for materials production.

Project staff under PCU’s communication’s and Livelihood Coordinators; WWF, YABI (village livelihoods facilitators).

Yr 2 (develop strategy); Yr 2-Yr 6 delivery / use of wider methods; KAP baseline and repeat survey for monitoring Yr 3 and Yr 5 or mid-way and project end.

Strategy documented;

Materials available;

Training records (targeting front line persons);

KAP results and focused analysis (evaluation reports) on effectiveness of communications in changing KAP / behaviors of target groups.

Surveys on Knowledge, Attitude and Practice, and preparation of communication strategies have been carried out.

Programs with communities and the development of key messages are being developed and will begin to be implemented in the following period.

The activity that will be carried out is implementing a more effective communication program in the community by referring to the communication strategies that have been prepared.

Providing long-term community facilitators and support program for alternative livelihoods (includes developing Community Conservation Agreements and facilitating other processes to address


Develop resort-level strategies for community engagement

Capacity to support community-based encroachment monitoring and reforestration

Project Staff (WWF, YABI) Specifically the Livelihood Coordinator.

Yr 1 – facilitators recruited Yr 2 – Yr 6, trained and in place in villages.

Facilitator training records;

Facilitator work plans and evaluations;

Village activity records (minutes of meetings, photos etc.);

CCAs.

Facilitators working in the target villages have been placed.

Previously, they had been trained with the facilitation and methodology of

4

DRAFT





community needs vis a vis BBSNP conservation); ensuring facilitators are trained for effective communication and issues management.

Political framework for species and habitat conservation is improved, financing sustained and good practices scaled up nationally and internationally

sustainable livelihood assessment (SLA).

A plan for facilitation activities has been prepared in 10 target villages. Participatory assessment process is being carried out in the target villages to develop future economic development programs in the village.

Grievance redress mechanism established and communicated to target audiences.

Additional (ESMP) activity, feasibility confirmed based on existing resources and capacity.

Relates to all activities. Project Coordinator, PMU Yr 1 – Yr 6 Documentation of mechanism and outreach materials;

records of training;

Complaints log

The Grievance redress mechanism has not been developing with the community. This mechanism will be develop during the facilitation process of the Village Conservation Agreement.

PS.2: Labour and Working Conditions & PS.4: Community Health, Safety and Security

Improper employment conditions of casual and non- permanent personnel.

Ensuring compliant employment contract terms, including provision of information and training.

Project activity/function; Feasibility confirmed based on existing practices and examples.


Support the park to develop a NP management strategy, annual work plans for each resort, and to allocate Park resources in support

Project Staff (WCS) and BBSNP.

HR departments of YABI, WWF, WCS.

Yr 1- Yr 6 Employment contracts Will be discussed with all partners and ensure that the conditions of contract of staff are in accordance with the standards of feasibility and work regulations in Indonesia.

Developing SOP for patrol activities, to include provision of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for casual and informal workers.


Additional (ESMP) resources may be required to support PPE provision until budgeted for by GoI/BBSNP.


Support the park to develop a NP management strategy, annual work plans for each resort, and to allocate Park resources in support

Indicative Budget $9000

Yr 2 Training records;

Evidence of PPE;

PPE in BBSNP annual budgets

Several activities will be carried out in the next period:

Identify risks and develop occupational health and safety plans about patrols.

Provision of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) needed in accordance with the risks that may occur.

Incorporating Occupational Health and Safety (K3) and PPE in the Patrol SOP.

PS.5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement

Patrols and law enforcement lead to lack/loss of livelihoods as people cannot utilize the land, forest products, and wildlife inside BBSNP.

Developing project Resettlement Action Plan (RAP), based on locale and population-specific data, engagement with government to strengthen PPTKH or other relevant committees and guidelines for social forestry schemes and handling of

As an additional or expanded activity (for ESMP), additional resources may be required to support data collection, planning and documentation of the RAP. Feasibility confirmed based on availability of resources, relevant examples and


Indicative budget $30.000

Project Staff (WWF) Specifically the Project Coordinator and Livelihood Coordinator.

Yr 2 (plan developed) Yr 2- Yr 6 (implementation)

RAP document, with completed baseline and community / FPIC consultation records;

Record/minutes of meetings on/with provincial PPTKH;

Guidelines (draft or final;

The process of preparing programs for economic development plans, village institutions, as well as conservation and restoration of ecosystems is ongoing with the community.

5

DRAFT





economic and physical displacement.

previous engagement with stakeholders on this topic.

Evidence of advocacy on resettlement handling);

Records of resettlement process in the project areas during 2019 (Project Affected People (PAP) household monitoring data per village)

Providing long-term community facilitators and support program for alternative livelihoods (includes developing Community Conservation Agreements and facilitating other processes to address community needs vis a vis BBSNP conservation); ensuring facilitators are trained for effective communication and issues management. Also includes advocacy and partnership support with local government and community cooperatives.

Project activity;


Socialize IPZ components of the NP management plan to local stakeholder, with progress updates.


Yr 1 – facilitators recruited;

Yr 2 – Yr 6, trained and in place in villages

Facilitator training records;

Facilitator work plans and evaluations;

Village activity records (minutes of meetings, photos etc.);

CCAs.

see above

The Community facilitators have been placed in one of the target villages and are responsible to work with 1-2 target villages of the project.

They all have been trained with facilitation techniques and SLA methodology (sustainable livelihood assessment).

Participatory village assessment process is being carried out to develop economic development programs in the village.

Changes in livelihood options, including increased eco-tourism and other diversified livelihood strategies.

Livelihoods program includes conducting assessments, developing tool kits, providing training programs (farmer field schools), small enterprise feasibility assessments and training (diverse commodities and ecotourism). Program to include attention to potential tertiary impacts of these activities.

Project activity;



Capacity to support community-based encroachment monitoring and reforestration.

Political framework for species and habitat conservation is improved, financing sustained and good practices scaled up nationally and internationally.

Project Staff (WWF)

Specifically the Livelihood Coordinator

Assessment report (key commodities and ecotourism feasibility results);

Program implementation plan (details);

Training material and records

Participatory assessment is still being carried out for livelihood programs (including ecotourism, farmer field schools, business unit development, and livelihood alternatives).

Participatory analysis of quota system and LAC (Limit of Acceptable Changes) to determine critical points of ecosystems, wildlife, social, and infrastructure components in tourism destination.



Political framework for species and habitat conservation is improved, financing sustained and

Report on tourism feasibility including LAC analysis; community and local govt meeting records

There has not been a Limit of Acceptable Changes (Participatory Analysis of Quota System) for ecotourism activities in BBSNP An assessment is planned at the moment in the draft version of the new work plan.

6

DRAFT





good practices scaled up nationally and internationally.

Community tourist education approach through developing visitor materials and guiding system, coordination with agents on tourist do’s and don’ts.



Political framework for species and habitat conservation is improved, financing sustained and good practices scaled up nationally and internationally.

Visitor education materials;

Guiding system; Promotion materials

Tourist guideline (include code of conduct)

Tourism management plan report

Ecotourism development activities that have been carried out are the formation of ecotourism groups, tour guide training, and institutional assistance, and the creation of promotional materials.

For the new developed work plan we are aiming to develop ecotourism strategy and some investments in ecotourism infrastructure (to be defined and refined).

This incorporates planning processes, tourism packages, and guidelines and of course also mitigation measures if there is a potential that tourism might also cause negative effects. An monitoring process of evaluate all measures mentioned above is planned to be established

Engaging private sector and other partners on market access to support development of alternative commodities (outreach to educate buyers, etc.)

Investment and village labour for scheme to reward performance in monitoring boundaries and regenration in abandoned encroachments.

Project Staff (WWF and WCS)

Y 2 – Yr 6 Meeting / workshop records with private sector

For coffee and cocoa commodities, intensive discussions with the private sector have been conducted for market access, farmer formation, and support for conservation.

Physical displacement, loss of dwellings (homes) within the national park areas and buffer areas.

As above (RAP, advocacy and partnership support with local government and community cooperatives, long-term community facilitators, and livelihoods program)..

As an additional or expanded activity (for ESMP), additional resources may be required to support data collection, planning and documentation of the RAP, and supervision / attention to implementation of physical resettlement (monitoring outcomes requires additional resources.

Capacity to support community-based encroachment monitoring and reforestration. Indicative budget $30,000; RAP data collection $12,000; Extra government engagement on resettlement $12,000)

Project Staff (WWF)

Project Coordinator

Yr 2 (plan developed);

Yr 2- Yr 6 (implementation)

RAP document, with completed baseline and community / FPIC consultation records;

Record/minutes of meetings on/with provincial PPTKH;

Guidelines (draft or final; evidence of advocacy on resettlement handling);

Records of resettlement process in the project areas during 2019 (PAP household monitoring data per village).

Baseline data activities on people residing in BBSNP will be carried out by the Team in the Village supported by the local government Team and BBSNP.

The results of this data will be used to conduct consultations to find the best solution.

No RAP document available. The development has been planned in the draft version of the new work plan and budget plan (to be submitted in early 2019).

7

DRAFT





Unfair or unequitable treatment of PAPs leads to social jealousy and triggers conflicts among communities, and between communities and officers.

As above (Design and deliver a proactive, multi-method communications strategy with tailored messages, methods and materials on: laws, patrols, project activities, changes to be anticipated in law enforcement, community conservation role).


Socialize IPZ components of the NP management plan to local stakeholder, with progress updates.


Indicative budget $30,000 for

Research based design of strategy and materials; and $45,000 for materials production.)

Project staff under PMU’s Communications Manager and WWF (village livelihoods facilitators).

Yr 2 (develop strategy); Yr

2-Yr 6 delivery / use of wider methods; KAP monitored

yr 3 and Yr 5

Strategy documented and implemented; materials available;

Training records (targeting front line persons);

KAP survey results and focused analysis on effectiveness communications methods in changing KAP / behaviors of target groups;

Grievance log.

Communication strategy has been just developed, including the dissemination of the implementation of patrols in BBSNP to the community

Revision and implementation of the strategy will happen in 2019 and ongoing.

Reduced or lost access to areas used for social/cultural purposes (non-economic values).

As part of the RAP, data collection and consultation to include investigating social and cultural values that may be affected for PAP including Indigenous Peoples. Controlled access options (including providing information on options already in law) and other measures to be agreed with PAP and documented in RAP.

As above; additional (ESMP) activity; feasibility confirmed.


Indicative RAP budget $30,000; additional

Data collection $12,000; and extra government engagement $12,000)

Project Staff (WWF) Yr 2 Documentation of IP consultations and agreements; Material included in RAP and IP section of CCA if appropriate.

Basic understanding about indigenous communities affected by our project activities is available through workshops and surveys (FPIC principles followed).

RAP is not available and has not been planned in the current workplan and budget plan. But has been incorporated into the new draft version which will be submitted early 2019.


Reforestation activities may introduce or increase spread of invasive plant species (mantangan/Merremia sp and pakisan/Ceratoptoris sp).

Developing procedures and training for all relevant parties. Particular aspects to include: confirmation of acceptable species list, exercising care in the use of

Multi-Purpose Tree Species, and attention to the source of seedlings, as these can inadvertently introduce invasive species.



Capacity building and policy aligmnet

Project Staff (WCS and WWF) with BBSNP.

Yr 2 – Yr 6 Species list;

Documentation of procedures;

Purchase order/supplier agreements stating local sources;

Documentation of training;

Photographs of field activities.

The Standard Operation Procedures not yet developed. These will incorporate the procurement of seeds to avoid the development of accidentally invasive species.

Involvement of communities and parks personnel in localized ‘campaigns’ to remove clusters of invasive species is also planned as an occasional measure.

As above. Until this semester, there has been no planning for handling invasive species in a participatory manner with the community. Also training on how to handle invasive species to local communities.

8

DRAFT





Successful restoration activities will increase wildlife populations which may pose a risk of increased conflicts between people and wildlife.

As above (awareness program, expanding dissemination of existing materials and procedures, supporting Rapid Response system/teams). Depending if conflicts with Tigers or Elephants, apply specific mitigation measures; use lessons learned from other projects in Sumatra; to be updated in this file regularly

Project activity;



Awareness-raising records and materials;

Conflict records (data and analysis);

KAP survey results; RRT training records.

Human-Wildlife Conflict mitigation is right now not well represented in the work plan and budget plan.

The project partners use right now other small funds to specifically invest in minor activities (like GPS collars to get better data about movements) to cope the Human-Elephant-Conflicts in this area.

The project partner are right now discussing to include some mitigation measures into the new work plan and budget to be submitted early 2019.


Project area of impact may affect local IP’s historical, economic and cultural interests.

Ensuring consultation and activity implementation is consistent with FPIC particularly in Penal Laay, Labuhan Mandi, Paku Negara, Ulok Mukti villages, and with indigenous peoples’ representatives or organisations in Lampung and nationally (where relevant).





Performance based incentives for Park protection and restoration

Project staff under PMU’s Communications Manager and Livelihoods Coordinator; WWF (village livelihoods facilitators).

Yr 1 – Yr 6 Documentation of consultation and agreements with IPs;

The Survey of indigenous peoples (interviews and Focus Group Discussion) to have a better understanding of the culture of Indigenous Peoples (Saibatin Lampung) around IPZ in BBSNP related to natural resource management has been carried out. No specific activities with indigenous people have been carried out so far.

IP land tenure and forest usages impacted (reduced or strengthened) by law enforcement activities and livelihoods program.

Including elements specific to Indigenous Peoples in CCAs, project activity plans and monitoring processes, including reporting specifically on engagement with, and impacts on, Indigenous Peoples across key project activities (awareness raising, alternative economic activities and law enforcement).




Performance based incentives for Park protection and restoration

Yr 2 – Yr 6 Documentation of FPIC and IP issues included in LG/Forestry Dept consultations;

Community Conservation Agreements (documents);

Village Development Plans and/ or social forestry implementation plans include adat areas/forest or interests as agreed with communities.

Not yet started and implemented

9

DRAFT

Appendix A7

A Pre-assessment of Potential Risks and Categorization

DRAFT

1

Appendix A7 A Pre – Assessment of Potential Risks and Categorization for IPZ Project

Generic environmental and social issues and environmental and social impact characteristics were assessed to determine the social and environmental

categorization. The environmental and social issues were defined according to the IFC Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines, Ministry of

Environment and Forestry Regulation (MoEFR) No. 32 / 2009 Environmental Protection and Management. This national regulation as a systematic and

integrated effort undertaken to preserve environmental functions and prevent environmental pollution and / or damage which includes planning, utilization,

control, maintenance, supervision, and law enforcement.

Environmental and social impact characteristic define as per IFC Interpretation Note on Environmental and Social Categorization (2012):

Potential adverse risk/impact:

o Significant, for Category A

o Limited, for Category B

Irreversibility.

Unprecedented.

Area of Impact.

Measured Mitigation Readiness.

Table A7.1 Social and environmental categorization basis.

No. Generic

E&S Issues Description

Potential Adverse Impact Irreversibility Unprecedented

Area of Impact

Measured Mitigation Readiness Significant Limited Negligible

1 Air Emissions and Air Quality

Based on the proposed project activites, impacts to air emissions and ambient air quality are not anticipated.

- - - Not Applicable

Not Applicable Not Applicable

Not Applicable

2 Noise There is no potential source of noise from the project activites e.g.: boiler, steam turbine and generator.

Based on the proposed project activites, impacts to noise are not anticipated.



Not Applicable

DRAFT

2

No. Generic



Area of Impact


3 Odour There is no potential source of odour from the project activities, e.g.: chimney from industrial area.

Based on the proposed project activities, impacts to odour are not anticipated.



Not Applicable

4 Wastewater and Water Quality

Domestic wastewater (black and grey water) treatment has not been mentioned yet in any documents. Generally, domestic wastewater is treated using individual septic tank.

Based on the proposed project activities, impacts to wastewater and water quality are not anticipated.



Not Applicable

5 Water Consumption and Conservation

There is no potential impact of water consumption from the project activites.

Based on the proposed project activities, impacts to water consumption and conservation are not anticipated.



Not Applicable

6 Hazardous Materials Management

Based on the proposed project activities, impacts to hazardous materials are not anticipated.



Not Applicable

7 Waste Management

Based on the proposed project activities, impacts to waste management are not anticipated.



Not Applicable

8 Soil and Land

Based on the proposed project activities, impacts to soil and land are not anticipated.



Not Applicable

9 Energy Consumption

In general, energy consumption mostly related with operation phase with generic

- - - Not Applicable.


Not Applicable

DRAFT

3

No. Generic



Area of Impact


and Conservation

activity of process heating and process cooling; and related to auxiliary system, generating compressed air; Heating, Ventilation and Conditioning (HVAC) system; or lighting system.

Based on the proposed project activities, impacts to energy consumption and conservation are not anticipated.

10 Labour and Working Conditions

The project will employ or support employment of community members in patrol functions, and increase the effectiveness of the BBSNP authority; the project will interact with key industries that have international distribution and affect labour availability in the region (i.e. coffee plantations) such that protection of worker rights can be highlighted through project effort, for example in the non- use of child labor in coffee production.

However, there are potential negative social impacts such as community discord or tension related to law enforcement, perception of equality in working opportunities (for working opportunities).

Based on the interview with the partners, during the project there is no labour and working conditions issues for the project.

On the other hand, to tackle the labour and working process will be conducted by each project partner.

- - Y Not Applicable

Unprecedented Project site area (main project and supporting facilities) and associated facilities, and surrounding villages.

Policy framework (policy, guideline, plan, procedure) related to labour and working conditions.

DRAFT

4

No. Generic



Area of Impact


Based on the above description, the labour and working conditions issue anticipated as negligible.

11 Community Health, Safety and Security

The project includes activities that involve labour in:

forest patrols;

mediating conflict between wild animals and local human populations;

law enforcement in potentially confrontational situations (hunting, poaching); and

The possible use of pesticides or other products (for removal of invasive plant species in forests) which may be harmful if misused.

These activities all contain an element of risk, which can be anticipated so as to avoid adversity.

No community health, safety and security issue for the Project.

Based on the interview and document review, impacts to community health, safety and security are anticipated to be negligible.



Policy framework (policy, guideline, plan, and procedure) related to community, health and safety.

12 Occupational Health and Safety

Based on the interview and document review with the project partners, impacts to occupational health and safety are not anticipated.


Unprecedented Project site area (main project and supporting facilities) and associated

Policy framework (policy, guideline, plan, and procedure)

DRAFT

5

No. Generic



Area of Impact


On the other hand, the occupational health and safety issue needs to be developed on this project and sub-project activities.

Based on the above description, the occupational health and safety issue anticipated as negligible.

facilities, and surrounding villages.

related to occupational health and safety.

13 Land Acquisition and Resettlement

The project involves working with BBSNP authorities and communities to facilitate the relocation of encroachers’ residences and gardens/crops from forest areas, both in the conservation zone and other areas of the forest estate under BBSNP. Although the community members’ presence and activities (farming, harvesting NTFP and hunting) are mostly illegal activities, the improved enforcement of regulations will mean restrictions on access to some sources of livelihood for select groups.

So far, no involuntary displacement or resettlement is required for the project.

- Y - Not Applicable

Unprecedented Project site area (main project and supporting facilities) and associated facilities.

Policy framework (policy, guideline, LARAP, and procedure).

14 Biodiversity and Natural Resources

The project activities are concentrated in national parks and protected areas. The anticipated impacts are positive and aim to balance conservation objectives by supporting human development needs. Key activities include reforestation, with consideration of selection of appropriate species; a key impact is increased wildlife and ecosystem services.

- - - Not applicable

Not applicable Not applicable

Not applicable

DRAFT

6

No. Generic



Area of Impact


Based on the proposed project activities, adverse impacts to biodiversity and natural resources are not anticipated;. most likely related to positive impacts.

15 Ecosystem Services

Environmental setting of non-timber forest products is utilized by surrounding communities, e.g.: Damar resin.

The government has established a forest area where the community takes Damar resin to become a Limited Production Forest area.

Potential negative impacts of eco-tourism development are also flagged for consideration during impact analysis.

Based on the above description, the ecosystem service issue anticipated as negligible.



Not applicable.

16 Indigenous Peoples

In some targeted villages as well as the wider area of influence. While access restrictions apply to all people, certain IPs may be more impacted. It is noted however that local regulations allow access and utilization of resources for certain traditional purposes (linked to identity, health etc.); this effectively protects them but may also create dual systems which may generate local tensions.

No identified potential adverse risk or impact related to IPs.

- - Y Not applicable

Unprecedented Not applicable

Not applicable. DRAFT

7

No. Generic



Area of Impact


17 Livelihoods Decreasing livelihoods is not identified in this. Most likely related to positive impact.


Unprecedented Not applicable

Not applicable

18 Cultural Heritage

No identified potential adverse risk or impact related to cultural heritage.

- - - Not applicable

Not applicable Not applicable

Not applicable

Based on the description above, therefore the Project is categorize as:

Table A7.2 Project categorization.

Project Type Project

Categorization Remarks Relevant E&S Issues Criteria Basis

Moderate: Project with anticipated insignificant adverse impact on the environment and social.

B Category B projects will require the preparation of Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) with environmental mitigation and monitoring programs required to obtain environmental clearance.

Land acquisition and resettlement.

Limited potential adverse risk/impact with small – scale area of impact and readiness of measured mitigation.

DRAFT

8

As part of the review of environmental and social risks and impacts of a proposed investment, the IFC

uses a process of environmental and social categorization to reflect the magnitude of risks and

impacts. The resulting category also specifies IFC’s institutional requirements for disclosure in

accordance with IFC’s Access to Information Policy. These categories are:

Category A: Business activities with potential significant adverse environmental or social risks

and/or impacts that are diverse, irreversible, or unprecedented.

Category B: Business activities with potential limited adverse environmental or social risks and/or

impacts that are few in number, generally site-specific, largely reversible, and readily

addressed through mitigation measures.

Category C: Business activities with minimal or no adverse environmental or social risks and/or

impacts.

Category FI: Business activities involving investments in financial institutions (FIs) or through

delivery mechanisms involving financial intermediation.

This category is further divided into:

FI–1: when an FI’s existing or proposed portfolio includes, or is expected to include,

substantial financial exposure to business activities with potential significant

adverse environmental or social risks or impacts that are diverse, irreversible, or

unprecedented.

FI–2: when an FI’s existing or proposed portfolio is comprised of, or is expected to be

comprised of, business activities that have potential limited adverse environmental

or social risks or impacts that are few in number, generally site-specific, largely

reversible, and readily addressed through mitigation measures; or includes a very

limited number of business activities with potential significant adverse

environmental or social risks or impacts that are diverse, irreversible, or

unprecedented.

FI–3: when an FI’s existing or proposed portfolio includes financial exposure to business

activities that predominantly have minimal or no adverse environmental or social

impacts.

DRAFT

Appendix A8

Participatory Social Assessement Guidelines

DRAFT

1

Appendix A8 Participatory Social Assessment Guidelines

Community consultations will be based on free, prior and informed consultation to gauge support for

the proposed sub-projects. Objectives of community consultations are to: (i) provide background

information to various stakeholders and different populations; (ii) receive feedback from civil society

organizations (CSOs) including non-government organizations (NGOs), community based

organizations (CBOs), local leadership and other publics on issues and perceived concerns; and,

(iii) discuss methods and resources to maximize the proposed sub-project initiatives and activities’

environmental and social performance. These participatory and consultative meetings will provide PPID

with an opportunity to discuss grievance redress mechanisms and monitoring for those different

populations and communities which may be impacted adversely from implementation of the proposed

sub-projects.

Ensuring that the sub-projects’ impact assessment includes a participatory and gender-responsive

social analysis is an important element of each stage or level of the project lifecycle. The starting point

for effective gender mainstreaming in infrastructure sub-projects is to undertake the required gender

analysis once specific proposed sub-project initiatives and/or activities’ locations have been identified.

A gender analysis typically involves examining potential impacts of the project intervention on women

and men and may include the collection of sex‐disaggregated or gender‐sensitive data. A gender

analysis examines the different roles, rights, and opportunities of men and women and relations

between them (i.e., the economic and social relationships between females and males which are

constructed and reinforced by social institutions). It also identifies disparities, examines why such

disparities exist, determines whether they are a potential impediment to achieving results, and looks at

how they can be addressed (USAID 2011). Measures must be proposed to address these issues, along

with specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound (SMART) indicators to monitor the

intended social benefits and development outcomes and risks of the sub-projects.

Conducting a gender analysis when designing a new project or activity will help to:

Analyze gender roles in project design;

Identify root causes of existing gender inequalities in that context so that they can be addressed

in the project design;

Identify different needs and priorities of men and women in both the near and long term;

Collect sex‐disaggregated baseline data;

Avoid perpetuating traditional power imbalances; and

Enhance the likelihood of strong and sustainable project results.

As indicated, the project aims to reducing anthropogenic pressure on priority areas in the BBSNP,

improving national park and conservation zone management including establishing an Intensive

Management Zone (IMZ), and thereby effectively protect the habitat of endangered species (Sumatran

rhinoceros, Sumatran tiger, and Sumatran elephant) is effectively protected. The objective of the project

is: Conservation of highly threatened tropical rainforest in the BBSNP as priority habitat

for critically endangered species and carbon sink through innovative management

concepts and sustainable land use management in cooperation with local communities

and the national park authority.

DRAFT

2

Component 2 of the project ‘Establishment and Implementation of an IMZ’ will help to increase the

Sumatran rhinoceros population in the BBSNP. Relatedly, Component 3 of the project ‘Land-use

pressure on the IPZ is diminished through improved land use management and community development’

will help to reduce illegal poaching and encroachment risk and support scalable resilient approaches

for improve the biodiversity found within the BBSNP.

During the initial interim period preceding the project, no noteworthy economic or political changes have

occurred at either the national level or provincial level, which might be seen as a major risk to the

planned project outcomes.

As part of the IPZ socialization process, the Head of BBSNP will disseminate material that explains the

purpose and function of the IPZ. The specific IPZ socialization activity will be updated as necessary

during the development of the IPZ management strategy.

Currently, two main approaches to achieving sustainable outcomes with the BBSNP authority have

been prioritized for attention from the outset. These are:

Ensure a smooth and gradual hand over of NGO partner roles and responsibilities to the

BBSNP particularly for the SMART patrol system in the BBSNP. An integral part of this process

will be the ongoing and capacity building support that WCS and YABI provide. This would

include providing accredited training syllabuses specifically produced for each of the main

components of SMART. The accreditation part is important because it means that trained civil

servants will receive career points.

Ensure the completion of a comprehensive protected area financing analysis for the BBSNP by

2018 that provides a compelling argument for allocating sufficient funds to cover the costs of

forest and wildlife protection and related activities including education and awareness raising

and community-based forest management initiatives. After this, WCS would work towards

transitioning from project to government funding for the core activities. DRAFT

Appendix A9

Key Stakeholders

DRAFT

Appendix A9 Key Stakeholders

The MoEF supports the IPZ project and actions to improve participation, public consultation and

information disclosure. Implementation relies on national strategies, legislation and procedures and will

be supplemented - as necessary - by IFC Performance Standards for participation, consultation and

disclosure concerning the safeguards aspects of the sub-project as described in the ESMF.

Components 3, 4 and 5 will pursue a process of meaningful consultation and engagement that includes

national and local government, and relevant stakeholders. Similarly, the sub-projects, once defined, will

support consultative decision making by ensuring public access to information on environmental and

social aspects. In addition to ensuring that free, prior and informed consultation (FPIC) activities are

undertaken in relation to potential environmental and social impacts, the consultation process will also

inform and explain the proposed sub-project initiatives to affected communities, gather information from

impacted populations, and conduct gender sensitive awareness raising.

Table A9.1 lists national and local government bodies, key stakeholders, various public entities and

different populations who may be involved directly or indirectly in Components 3, 4, and 5.

Table A9.1 Stakeholders and various public agencies.

No. Entity Key Stakeholder

1 Government and regulatory agencies

MoEF, BBSNP, Badan Informasi Geospasial (BIG) / Geospatial Information Agency, Badan Pertanahan Nasional (BPN) / National Land Agency, Badan Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam Ekosistem (BKSDAE) / Ecosystem Natural Resource Conservation Agency, Badan Perencana Pembangunan Daerah (BAPPEDA) / Regional Development Planning Agency , Badan Layanan Umum (BLU) / Public Services Agency, Badan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah (BPLHD) / Regional Environmental Management Agency, OPD, and PPID.

2 Private sector companies

Private sector companies with the technical expertise and capacity, engineering capability to implement the sub-projects. These may include both national and international companies.

3 Civil society organizations

International, national and regional non-governmental organizations (e.g., Korut, Yasasn Alas Indonesia, Lembaga Konservasi 21, and Repong Indonesia).

4 Local stakeholders Local civil society organizations including community-based organizations (CBOs), village and regional level committees, cultivation commitees, regional and national Adat committees, 30 Household Heads, 10 Household Heads, street management committees, religious institutions and other local groups.

5 Academic and research institutions

Environmental research groups, universities and technical institutes (e.g., University of Lampung, University of Indonesia)

6 Beneficiaries and affected communities and households

Sub-project beneficiaries will be consulted at community level during the preparation phase. In addition, potential sub-project affected households will be consulted on the potential impacts and mitigation measures. Particular attention will be given to different populations (i.e., ethnic minorities and vulnerable groups – women and female/male youth and children, men, the elderly and disabled, etc.) to enhance their benefits and avoid or mitigate adverse impacts.

7 Ethnic peoples If proposed sub-project initiatives are planned in areas where ethnic group’s communities are located then, a process of free, prior and informed consultation will be undertaken with communities in the region of influence.

DRAFT

Appendix A10

List of Consulted Stakeholders

DRAFT

Appendix A10 List of consulted stakeholders.

Date Stakeholders Methodology Location

1 October 2019

Community consisting of two women, two men and two youth from Bumi Hantatai Village

Visual observations, interviews and discussion of personal information, knowledge of the IPZ project, current condition and potential social impacts

Bumi Hantatai Village

Community consisting of two men and two youth from Penengahan Village


Penengahan Village

2 October 2019

Community consisting of two women, two men and two youth from Sukabanjar Village


Sukabanjar Village

Community consisting of two women, two men and two youth from Pemerihan Village


Pemerihan Village

3 October 2019

Focus Group Discussion with two women and two men from Bumi Hantatai Village, two women and two men from Penengahan Village, two women and two men from Sukabanjar Village and two women and two men from Pemerihan Village.

The BBSNP officer and project partners (WCS, WWF, and YABI) officer also joined the discussion.

The main objective of the discussion was to gather public opinions related to IPZ project activities.

Focus Group Discussion in three separate sessions:

1. Women consultation

2. Men consultation

3. Combined consultation between women, men, BBSNP officers and project partner representatives

Sunset Beach Hotel, Krui, Pesisir Barat Regency, Lampung Province

DRAFT

Appendix A11

Stakeholder Consultation Objectives

DRAFT

1

Appendix A11 Stakeholder Consultations

Importance of Stakeholder Consultations

Public consultations occur at all stages of sub-project preparation and planning of feasibility studies and

detailed design. Public participation and consultations take place through individual, group or

community meetings. Additionally, different media may be used (e.g., public notice boards, official

invitation letter, electronic communication including internet websites, email or cell phone) to

disseminate information. To ensure that IFC consultation and disclosure policies are followed, project

affected people (PAP) and communities (PAC) in the region of influence are engaged through free, prior

and informed consultation to gauge support for the proposed sub-projects. In this manner, stakeholders,

various publics and different populations are consulted during several stages of sub-project preparation,

including:

Project Identification: preliminary consultations were conducted during identification of

Component 1 whereby local government authorities were consulted to ensure that the IPZ

project aligned with national policies and legal frameworks, sectoral and local plans and

strategies. Relevant stakeholders were consulted during development of the ESMF.

Documented records of engagement and consultations are documented in Appendices A11

and A12: Stakeholder Consultations. Similar consultations will be held for each sub-project

when they are identified.

Project Preparation: consultations will be conducted during preparation of the feasibility and

design studies to: (i) obtain detailed background information; (ii) conduct environmental and

social surveys; and, (iii) informing as well as collecting opinions of key stakeholders, various

publics and different populations on potential environmental and social impacts;

Project Implementation: for sub-projects under IFC Category A that might be nationally

controversial, a Communication Plan including a grievance redress mechanism will be

developed for the proposed sub-project(s) and implemented prior to implementation.

Participation of local leaders in disseminating information and resolving any disputes will be

important. However, it should be noted that the proposed sub-projects can be categorized

under IFC Category B; Category A projects will not be funded under the IPZ project.

Monitoring and Reporting: national and local level government, stakeholders, various publics

and different populations should participate throughout the proposed sub-project development,

implementation and operational period. Participation mechanisms should be assessed during

the feasibility and design phase.

Site-Specific Contextual Gender Information

The Ministry of Woman Empowerment and Children Protection of the Republic of Indonesia, concerning

Gender Mainstreaming (INPRES No. 9/2000) aims at reducing the gap between Indonesian women

and men in accessing and obtaining development benefits, as well as to increase participation in and

control over the development process. The guidance in this regulation created momentum for the

advancement of women and the promotion of gender equality, which recently extended to gender-

inclusive planning and budgeting. There has been a shift in socio-cultural norms and values to better

protect the rights of women and men as reflected in several laws that have been revised. There are

also signs, however, of an emergence of religion-inspired discriminatory legislation at the local level.

The challenge now is to strengthen the implementation of gender mainstreaming by improving

legislative and policy frameworks, to enforce coordination of gender mainstreaming efforts among

DRAFT

2

national ministries and all levels of public institutions, and to replicate good practices displayed

throughout Indonesia.

Indonesia’s Gender Development Index shows that challenges remain to achieving gender equality.

The 2010 Human Development Report (HDR), commissioned by the United Nations Development

Programme, ranked Indonesia 108 out of 182 countries according to a Human Development Index

(HDI), which measures development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment

and income. The report also highlighted Indonesia as a country with the greatest progress in recent

decades, along with China, Nepal, Lao PDR and the Republic of Korea. The HDI, however, does not

measure the degree of gender equality within these development indicators. The Gender Development

Index (GDI) aims to show inequalities between men and women in the following areas: health,

education, and standard of living. Although Indonesia ranked 93 out of 155 countries in 2009, there has

been a consistent improvement in Indonesia’s GDI rank although the country still faces challenges in

achieving gender equality in all key development indicators. [Note: the GDI is the HDI adjusted

downwards for gender inequality. This means that GDI falls when the disparity between the

achievement levels of men and women increases. If there is no inequality, the HDI and the GDI will be

equal (UNDP.org, 2010)].

An initial round of stakeholder consultations for the ESMF development was held in Krui, Pesisir Barat

Regency, on 3rd October 2019. To ensure gender-specific project concerns were captured, discussions

with residents were gender segregated. In general, female respondents supported and welcomed the

project and believed it will improve their quality of life. Human-wildlife conflicts close to the harvest

season often occur although they may occur throughout the year. Women are worried about their

husbands and children who work in and play around the farmland. Female respondents also said that

they have enough space and freedom to express their opinions in the community.

The abovementioned gender-related findings can be further interpreted and put into actionable

recommendations for the sub-projects, including:

Inclusion of gender considerations in early stages of the project is highly recommended. This

can be done by engaging gender expertise at project design and as an integral part of the

implementation team. The link and information exchange between IPZ Project Partners and

gender focal points from both national and sub-national government entities and CBOs should

be strengthened. Once the proposed sub-project locations have been identified then, sufficient

time and budget should be set aside to conduct a thorough gender-related analysis;

Ensuring equal participation amongst men and women in the planning process remains the key

to informed sub-project development. Consultation with communities should be handled to avoid

raising expectation. The community should be well informed about how the sub-project(s) will be

implemented, what the outputs will be and what the expected benefits are (i.e., the reason for

doing the sub-projects);

The shift in decision making and balance of power between men and women is a gradual process

which demands effort to be invested in further capacity building, knowledge and awareness-

raising amongst women and, which should be done by involving men so as to gain their support

for more inclusive decision-making. The sub-projects could contribute to this gender

mainstreaming process and women’s empowerment in an incremental manner; and

Suggested the role of community monitoring and reporting (particularly, women’s potential

involvement) should be well reflected in the terms of reference and tender documents to ensure

community concerns are addressed.

DRAFT

Appendix A12

Stakeholder Consultation Responses - FGD

DRAFT

1

Appendix A12 Stakeholder Consultations Responses – Focus Group Discussions

Community focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted over a four-hour period on 03 October 2019 in Krui village, Pesisir Barat Regency (Table A11.1).

The participants consulted during the FGDs were Javanese, Malay and Sudanese ethnicities.

Table A12.1 Stakeholders’ responses during the FGDs.

Project Issues Responses

Women Group (eight participants) Men Group (eight participants) Mixed Group (25 participants)

Issues related to BBSNP boundary enforcement.

We are concerned that we will lose our farmland.

We are afraid that in the future, we will no longer be able to maintain our farms in the current field location.

The IPZ boundary should be socialized properly.

We are concerned that we will lose our farmland.

The boundary of IPZ should be socialized properly.

Agree that people are not allowed to own land in the national park area.

Based on GoI regulations, anyone who owns land must pay the land ownership tax. How should they pay taxes on land owned in the national park?

Forest rangers cannot to blame about the lack of clarity on the national park boundary line as there are some boundaries without signage.

Issues related to changing economic conditions.

Most of the villagers carry out gardening activities within the national park as their main source of income. The project activities will have an impact on their livelihoods.

Incomes will be reduced.

Increased uneployment because of lost farmland

Most of the villagers carry out gardening activities within the national park as their main source of income. The project activities will have an impact on their livelihoods.

Incomes will be reduced.

Loss of dwellings.

Transmigration for the PACs.

The project will provide training on alternative economic programs.

The community hopes that solutions and alternatives will be offered if they have to move.

People are looking for a solution such that in the future, residents will not have land in the national park but are still allowed to collect non-timber forest products.

Issues related to changes in ecosystems and conservations.

Actually, we are happy for the IPZ implementation.

We have a strong wish that our children will still be able to see the protected animals in the future.

Human-wildlife conflicts will increase.

we will feel fear and worry when we are around or close to National Park or IPZ boundary lines

Human-wildlife conflicts will increase.

In Pemerihan vilage, we still using our previous graveyard which is located inside the National Park.

Indirectly, the IPZ activities will be increase the wildlife population and it will make us fear and worry when we are around or close to National Park or IPZ boundary lines.

Good for reforestration process

Wildlife population will increase.

Need public notification about the human-wildlife conflict program in all communities.

The communities around the national park boundary need information about the mitigation measures for human-wildlife conflict/avoidance.

There was a forum or community group - Forum Sahabat Gajah - that looked at human-elephant conflicts in the Pemerihan village.

DRAFT

2

Project Issues Responses

Women Group (eight participants) Men Group (eight participants) Mixed Group (25 participants)

What Kind of policy you are the expected on the lives of the project

Appropriate and tranparent land compensation process.

There will be an agreement that we can still collect NTFPs inside the national park

We will still be permitted to stay within the National Park Area.

The communities hope to be included in conservation activities organized by the team.


Resettlement provided.

More intensive rangers patrol throughout BBSNP and also surrounding villages.

Increased collaboration with stakeholders.

Ecosystem restoration will involve the community in the process.


DRAFT

Appendix A13

Stakeholder Consultation Responses - Interview

DRAFT

1

Appendix A13 Stakeholder Consultations Conducted

Consultations were conducted during the field program and site visits during the week of 30 September

to 04 October 2019. During these consultations, meetings, discussions and interviews were conducted

to gather community perceptions on the IPZ project. The IPZ project has employed a number of

Community Officers (CO) to conduct regular engagement with the stakeholders at the project site. This

interview process followed by the consultant team was flexible, open and not structured as a formal

setting. Interview questions focussed on individual information in such as personal life history, socio-

economic condition, livelihood, sacred place or local cultural heritage and knowledge of conservation

programs as well as flora and fauna conservation. Communities’ interviews consisted of two women,

two men and two youths.

Stakeholders consulted in Bumi Hantatai village

Consultations were held on 01 October 2019 in Bumi Hantatai village (Table A13.1).

Table A13.1 Stakeholders comments from Bumi Hantatai village.

Topics Responses

Residents’ Identities The respondents included three women, two men and two youths who are knowledgeable on the history of this villlage.

Most respondents have a high school education.

Kinship with the village where the community live

The residents in Bumi Hantatai village are generally a mix of Lampung (Malay) and Javanese. Javanese people came to Lampung aorund 1905.

The respondents were quite satisfied with the development of infrastructure in their village.

The youth respondents are not entirely satisfied with the development in the village because they compare their village with infrastructure developments in other areas closer to the regional government center.

Most of the village residents have land in the BBSNP and some of their houses are inside the BBSNP boundary. These lands have been managed and occupied by their families for four or five generations.

Socio – Economic Conditions Most of the villagers are as farmer. Agricultural crops include: coconut, nutmeg, durian, langsat, and cocoa. Some of the villagers also have a paddy fields.

All respondents stated they have one to two hectares per farmer.

The respondent’s monthly incomes range from 500,000 to 2,000,000 rupiah. Some have part-time or temporary daily side jobs although the respondents did not quantify the income from these jobs.

The respondents were quite satisfied with the development of infrastructure in their village.

Residents do not yet have an alternative income source should the farmland they manage within the national park area be returned to the state.

They have sold products that they harvested in their own neighborhoods, to village market and to middlemen in the village or from other villages.

The existence of sacred sites around the village

There are sacred sites in Bumi Hantatai village named Ngedukuk Sakti in Paninjauan. One sacred site is the cemetery of the first

DRAFT

2

Topics Responses

people who came to Bumi Hantatai village. There is also a cemetery for local noble people on the outskirts of the village

The cemetery of village ancestors is often used by non-family members to pray for personal purposes.

Knowledge of conservation programs

Mostly the villagers are aware of the conservation program that already been introduced by YABI but were not aware that WWF and WCS are project partners.

All the villagers think that the IPZ will not disturb their main livelihoods because, in general, they know that IPZ activities have a positive impact.

Villagers feel that there are no IPZ programs implemented in Bumi Hantatai village and hopes the villagers will be included in the IPZ project programs.

Other information The primary tree species harvested inside the National Park for wood that is used for construction purposes in the village are Ambonia Pitch Tree (Damar) and Silk Tree (Sengon).

Villagers are accustomed to conflict with wild boars but not with other wildlife.

Stakeholders consulted in Penengahan village

Consultative interviews in Penegahan village were conducted after the site visit to Bumi Hantatai village

(Table A13.2). As the consultant team arrived in the evening, women respondents were not available.

Participants for the consultation consisted of one village head (male), three men and two youths.

Table A13.2 Stakeholders comments from Penengahan village.

Topics Responses

Residents’ Identities The respondent include four men and two youths who are knowledgeable on the history of this villlage.



Village residents in Penengahan village area generally a mix of Lampung (Malay), Javanese, Minang (West Sumatera) and Indigenous People (Laay).

Generally, the villagers were quite satisfied with the extent of infrastructure development in their village.

Some of the villagers have land within the BBSNP, but no residential buildings are located within the BBSNP boundary. The lands that they manage and occupy has been occupied by their families for four or five generations.

Socio – Economic Conditions Most of the villagers are Damar resin tappers. The tappers are allowed by the BBSNP management authority to tap Damar resin inside the national park boundary. Some of the villagers have farmland around the village outside the BBSNP area. The agricultural crops that they grow in their farmland include coconut, durian, stink beans, rice (paddy fields) and langsat.

Some villagers also cultivate rattan and honey.

DRAFT

3

Topics Responses

The respondents’ monthly income range from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 rupiah. Some have part-time or temporary daily side jobs although the respondents did not quantify the income from these jobs.

The community hopes that the BBSNP management authority will allow the villagers to continue to collect NTFPs from the national park area besides Damar resin such as durian, rattan, brown sugar and langsat.

All respondents stated they have one to two hectares per farmer.

They have sold products that they harvested in their own neighborhoods, to village market and to middlemen in the village or from other villages


There are sacred sites in Penengahan village named Darahi, Ulok Banding and Pekon Lom.

The sacred sites are cemeteries that are visited by the villagers before Ramadhan and during Eid Al-Fitr day for pilgrimage.


Most of the villagers know the conservation program and the three project partners: YABI, WWF and WCS.

All the villagers think that the IPZ will not disturb their main livelihoods because, in general, they know that IPZ activities have a positive impact.

Other information Some of the villager also harvested the primary tree species for wood that is used for construction purposes in the village are Ambonia Pitch Tree (Damar) and Silk Tree (Sengon) outside the BBSNP area.

Some of the villagers also laying traps for songbirds.

Villagers still often encounter several wild animals including wild pigs, tigers, long-tailed macaques, deer and many birds.

Stakeholders consulted in Sukabanjar village

Consultative interviews were held at Sukabanjar village on 03 October, 2019 (Table A13.3). Participants

for the consultations consisted of one woman, two men and two youths. One BBSNP officer also joined

the discussion at the village head’s house with the consultant team and project partners.

Table A13.3 Stakeholders comments from Sukabanjar village.

Topics Responses

Residents’ Identities The respondents consisted of one woman, two men and and two youths who are knowledgeable on the history of this villlage.

Most respondents have an elemantary school education.


Resident in Sukabanjar village are generally a mix of Sundanese (West Java) people who came from Banten Province and Javanese people. The Sukanjar village head is Sundanese who came from Banten Province.

Sundanese and Javanese people have been living in Sukabanjar village for 26 to 32 years and most of them were born in Lampung.

Generally, the villagers are not satisfied with the development of infrastructure in the village.

DRAFT

4

Topics Responses

The respondents stated that the village wants to receive more programs from the local government to enhance their farming activities.

Socio – Economic Conditions Most of the villagers are farmers. Agricultural crops grown include coconut, stink beans, coffee, palm oil, cocoa and durian. There are also paddy fields in the village. Honey is also cultivated in the village.

Currently, the village has a program for processing coconuts and produces coconut oil and virgin coconut oil.

The respondents’ monthly income range from 500,000 to 3,000,000 rupiah.

Based on interview known that they have alternative income as a daily construction workers. For instance, if there are residents who are going to build or repair a their house then they will ask the nearest neighbor to be a worker for it. This development activity usually takes around 1-3 months.

All respondents stated they have one to three hectares per farmer.

The villagers sell products harvested from their lands in their own neighborhood, to village market and to middleman in the village or from other villages.


There are sacred sites called Siti the Long Hair and Monument of Syekh Jafar Sidik

Both of these sites are visited by people from outside of the village when they have a wish or want something and praying in that place. In a month there is at least once a prayer come to the sacred place.


Most of the villagers know about the conservation program and the three project partners: YABI, WWF and WCS.

All the villagers think that the IPZ will not disturb their main livelihoods because, in general, they know that the IPZ activities have a positive impact.

WWF delivered alternative economic programs for honey, coconut oil and virgin coconut oil production.

Many of the respondents have farmland within the BBSNP forests that are classified as limited Production Forest. They are allowed to collect forest products and also replant the land that was previously used by logging companies. They are replanting the land with non-timber producing plant species.

Other information Most villagers collect NTFPs including rattan fruit (Jering), resin, rattan, and pomelo (Jabung) in the forest.

The respondents stated that some villagers still set out traps for boars and deer.

Some villagers cultivate long peanut, corn, and tomato as well as wood for building materials (boards and planks) such Acacia, mahogany and silk tree.

Some families maintain chicken and goat (livestock) in the village.

Some of the villagers also set out traps for songbirds.

Villagers still often encounter several wild animals including wild boar and tapir.

DRAFT

5

Stakeholders consulted in Pemerihan village

Consultative interviews were held in Pemerihan village on 03 October 2019 (Table A12.4). The

consultant team specifically conducted interviews in Pemerihan village due to the high incidence of

human – wildlife conflicts reported. During the consultative interviews, the consultant team observed

that one of the villagers stood by with a noise maker in case an elephant came through the village

during the team’s visit. Consultative interviews included two women, one man and two youths.

Table A12.4 Stakeholders comments from Pemerihan village.

Topics Responses

Residents Identities The respondents consisted of two women, one man and two youths who are knowledgeable about the history of this villlage.



Residents in the Pemerihan village are mostly Lampung (Malay) and Javanese people who migrated to Lampung around 1905.

In the western parto of Pemerihan village, there is a wide open access to National Park.

In 2010 approximately 80 familiy agree to leave BBSNP area but their graveyard is still located within the BBSNP.

Residents are not satisfied with the level of development for infrastructure in the village.

Socio – Economic Conditions

Most of the villagers earn their living as farmers. Agricultural plants grown on the farms include pepper, coffee, rubber and corn. Some of the villagers also have a paddy field.

The respondents’ monthly income range from 500,000 to 1,000,000 rupiah. Some have part-time or temporary daily side jobs although the respondents did not quantify the income from these jobs.

All respondents stated they have half to three hectares per farmer.

They used to sell products harvested on their farms in their own neighborhoods, at the village market and to middleman in the village or from other villages.

Currrently, villagers are being supported by an alternative economic program being delivered by YABI. The program established a joint venture fund into which the women in the village contribute from making handicrafts and selling them at the local government exhibition.

Most villagers do not gather forest products.


There are no sacred sites in Pemerihan village.


Mostly the villagers know the conservation program and the three project partners: YABI, WWF and WCS.

WCS is providing technical support to villagers on how to manage human–wildlife encounters with elephants that frequently (approximately every three months) come into the village.

All the villagers think that the IPZ will not disturb their main livelihoods because, in general, they know that the IPZ activities have a positive impact.

They also were helped by the BBSNP program because the program enabled them to gather and cutting invasive species plant (Mantangan plant) in BBSNP and making the leftover into handicraft and Fertilizer.

Other information The main wood that used as building material are Ambonia Pitch Tree (Damar) and Silk Tree (Sengon).

Villagers are used to conflict with wild boars but not with other wildlife.

DRAFT

Appendix A14

Questionnaire

DRAFT

1

Appendix A14 Questionnaire for personal interview during village visit.

KUESIONER

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park Environmental and Social Management System

Dusun Penelitian

Desa/Kecamatan

Tanggal & Jam

1. IDENTITAS RESPONDEN

101 Nama

102 Jenis Kelamin

103 Umur

104 Status Perkawinan Menikah Belum/Tidak Menikah

105 Agama Islam Hindu

Kristen Konghucu

Katolik Lain-lain: sebutkan ..........................

Budha

106 Suku/Etnis

107 Pendidikan Tidak Sekolah SMA

SD Perguruan Tinggi

SMP Lain-lain: sebutkan .........................

2. KETERIKATAN DENGAN TEMPAT TINGGAL DAN KEKERABATAN

201 Apakah bapak/ibu lahir di desa ini? Ya Tdk

202 Berapa lama bapak/ibu tinggal di desa ini?

203 Apakah orang tua bapak/ibu berasal dari desa ini? Ya Tdk

204 Apakah bapak/ibu merasa nyaman tinggal di daerah ini? Ya Tdk

205 Apakah bapak/ibu puas dengan perkembangan desa ini? Sgt puas

Puas Krg puas

Tdk puas

206 Suku/etnis apakah yang pertama kali tinggal di desa ini?

207 Bapak/ibu berasal dari daerah mana? Ya Tdk

208 Apakah bapak/ibu memiliki keluarga yang tinggal di desa ini? Ya Tdk

DRAFT

2

3. KONDISI SOSIAL EKONOMI

301 Berapa jumlah anggota keluarga yang tinggal di rumah saat ini?

302 Dari mana sumber penghasilan utama bapak/ibu? Berkebun/berladang

Buruh tani

Wiraswasta

PNS

TNI/Polri

Serabutan

Lain-lain sebutkan:.................................

303 Rata-rata penghasilan bapak/ibu dalam satu bulan saat ini?

<Dibawah UMR >Diatas UMR

304 Apakah bapak/ibu memiliki sumber penghasilan yang lain?Jika iya, darimana sumber penghasilan tersebut?

1.

Rp.

2.

Rp.

3.

Rp.

4.

Rp.

305 Apakah bapak/ibu memiliki tanah yang digunakan untuk berladang/ bertani? Ya Tdk

306 Berapa jumlah tanah yang bapak/ibu miliki?

307 Jika ya, berapa luas tanah yang bapak miliki? (hektar) Tanah 1

Tanah 2

Tanah 3

Tanah 4

308 Ditanami apakah tanah bapak/ibu saat ini?

Tanah 1

Tanah 2

Tanah 3

309 Apakah status tanah tersebut? Milik sendiri

Sewa

Milik bersama

Pinjam

Lainnya: sebutkan ...........................

DRAFT

3

310 Kemana biasanya bapak/ibu menjual hasil ladang/sawah? ke rumah-rumah (keliling)

Di pasar desa

Di pasar kecamatan

Ke pasar kabupaten

Keluar daerah

Lainnya: sebutkan .......................

4. TEMPAT KERAMAT

401 Apakah ada kuburan di sekitar pekarangan rumah bapak/ibu? Ya Tdk Tdk tahu

402 Jika tidak ada, di manakah letak kuburannya?

403 Apakah di sekitar desa ini masih ada tempat-tempat yang dikeramatkan?

(jika tidak langsung ke pertanyaan 601)

Ya Tdk Tdk tahu

404 Jika ya, apakah nama tempat keramat tersebut?

405 Di manakah lokasi tempat keramat tersebut?

406 Pada saat apa masyarakat mengunjungi tempat keramat tersebut?

5. RESPON TERHADAP PERUBAHAN

501 Dengan adanya rencana program kawasan konservasi di daerah ini, apakah ada gangguan yang mungkin timbul terkait kegiatan mata pencaharian bapak/ibu?

1.

2.

3.

502 Bagaimana cara bapak/ibu mengatasi persoalan tersebut?

1.

2.

3.

503 Apakah bapak/ibu pernah terganggu oleh jenis program yang dilaksanakan oleh BBSNP?

DRAFT

4

6. LAIN-LAIN

601

Untuk pemenuhan kebutuhan sehari-hari, apakah ada kegiatan lain yang berhubungan dengan pemanfaatan hasil hutan yang dilakukan warga desa ini?

Ya (uraikan) Tdk

602 Untuk tujuan pemakaian sendiri atau dijual (dari masing-masing kegiatan berikut ini):

Berburu: ................. Pasang jerat/jebakan: .....................

Mengambil madu: ............. Memanen rotan: ............

Pemanfaatan tanaman untuk obat-obatan : ……. ………

Untuk konsumsi sayur mayur : ………

Untuk konsumsi buah-buahan : ………….

Pemanfaatan kayu untuk bahan bangunan: ............

Lainnya (sebutkan):...........

603 Apakah warga di desa ini melakukan budidaya ? Kebutuhan sayur mayur dan buah-buahan

Kebutuhan kayu untuk bahan bangunan

Kebutuhan protein hewani

Kebutuhan rotan

Kebutuhan madu

604 Adakah daerah khusus di kawasan hutan yang dianggap keramat oleh warga di desa ini? Jika ada, tolong sebutkan daerahnya?

Ya

Daerahnya: .......................................

Tdk

605 Apakah ada satwa tertentu atau tumbuhan tertentu yang dianggap keramat oleh warga di desa ini? Jika ada, tolong sebutkan jenis satwa atau tumbuhan tersebut?

Ya

Sebutkan jenis satwa atau tumbuhan tersebut : ………………………………

………………………………

………………………………

Tdk

606 Jenis tumbuhan (kayu) hutan apa yang dijadikan sebagai bahan bangunan warga di desa ini?

607 Apakah anda pernah bertemu dengan hewan liar?hewan apa, kapan dan dimana?

DRAFT

Appendix A15

Sign Up Sheet

DRAFT

Appendix A16

Grievance Redress Mechanism Principle and Institutional

Arrangement

DRAFT

1

Appendix A16 Grievance Redress Mechanism Principles

GRM is a tool for early identification, assessment and resolution on any grievance on the activities and

physical investment in this project. The objectives of the GRM in this Project are four-fold:

To provide easy access to public especially the affected community members to file grievance

and/or concerns on a particular activity or physical investment (subproject);

To identify and assess the nature of grievance and/or concerns and agree on solution as early

as possible so that constructive inputs can be considered in the design of an activity or a

physical investment;

To avoid stalled activities or physical investment in the later stage due to the ignorance of

grievance, leading to unmanageable and high costs;

To obtain support from the impacted communities for the proposed activities or physical

investment; and

To achieve sustainable tourism development whereby communities have strong ownerships,

participation and get fair benefits from the sustainable utilization of tourist attractions, either

man-made assets, culture and values, and/or natural resources.

GRM in this Project will be important to ensure that relevant concerns and suggestions delivered during

public consultations of the ESMF are incorporated at the planning and implementation stages of any

activities and physical investment under the Project. Effective GRM can accelerate the achievement

and improve the quality of the Project outcomes. It is important for this KfW BBS project to strengthen

the current GRM system that has already in place in various agencies/entities at the national, provincial

and district/city levels to better manage grievance handling resolution processes particularly for those

related to the tourism development.

Although the discussion on GRM in this ESMF is targeted for environmental and social issues, it is not,

however, exclusively implemented for these two issues but for any issues related to the KfW BBS

Project. The GRM covers broader aspects such as technical-related aspects of construction,

environmental and social issues related to subproject construction, social issues that may arise (e.g.

resettlement), and any other grievance directed towards the KfW BBS project. The GRM applies for

grievance handling resolution during project preparation, implementation and completion.

KEY PRINCIPLES OF GRIEVANCE MECHANISM

Key principles of grievance mechanism resolution will be based on the applicable regulations, which as

follows:

Free. The stakeholders can submit the grievance without fees, through diverse channels, which

are available at each different level, namely village, district, provincial and national;

Fairness. Stakeholders who submit grievance must be treated fairly and non-threatening

access, and the follow-up grievance resolution regardless of their origin, ethnicity, religion,

nationality status, social and economic background;

Immediate response. Grievance will be resolved as early as possible, at the lowest levels.

The cases that cannot be resolved at a lower level will be brought to a higher level;

DRAFT

2

Options. The aggrieved PAP or PAH are given various options for settlement and they can be

invited for negotiations to reach an agreed resolution and can be accepted by all parties;

Objective and Transparent. The system for handling Grievance will safeguard the principle of

objectivity, transparency and justice, by having an Independent Advisory Team, which will be

formed based on needs and willingness to help those who grievance at any level.

For the aggrieved PAP or PAH, who are still dissatisfied with the follow-up or settlement provided, can

continue to seek another settlement through the litigation process in accordance with Indonesian laws

and regulations.

GRM STRUCTURE

The Project’s Grievance Redress Mechanisms (GRM) comprises of four-tier system, i.e. village,

district/city, provincial and national level. Basically, the GRM of KfW BBS project will use existing

mechanisms that have been applied in each institutional authority (OPD). Therefore, the stages and the

time period for handling grievances will depend on the existing mechanism. The institutional authority

in every level is responsible to handle the grievance resolution.

The grievance will be divided into three issues, including: grievances related to land and territorial

issues, grievances related to the human – animal conflict, and others including those related to the

program. Therefore, at the national level the submission of grievances can be through a website that

has been available and managed by Director General of Law Enforcement (DGLE), Director General of

Social Forestry and Environment Partnership (DGSFEP), and Information Management and

Documentation Officer (PPID). The PPID has mandated by the ministry will be responsible for handling

grievances at the national level.

All grievances that deliver to district, provincial and national levels will be documented through the PPID

System managed by the PPID. The grievance handling and reporting is coordinated by the Regional

Secretary (SEKDA) at each level. In terms of recording, monitoring and reporting, SEKDA will be

assisted by Dedicated Functions that are recruited from the IPZ Program.

GRM in the lower level may hierarchically relates to the higher levels (and vice versa), depending on

the nature of the grievances and at what level the follow-up. aggrieved PAP or PAH could submit their

grievance directly to the authorized institution (OPD) in each level or facilitated by dedicated function

hired by IPZ Program. Dedicated function will deliver the grievance to the authorized institution to

handle.

Grievance mechanism has been consulted to the stakeholders such as local communities including IP

and Adat Community, Regional Organizations (or Organisasi Perangkat Daerah/OPD).

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

The GRM has been exist at the local to national level. When a grievance cannot be resolved at lowest

level will escalate to the higher level. At the end, the grievance will be transferred to the relevant unit in

MoEF that handles grievances in national level. The unit will adopt key principles by having a dedicated

function who will be available to assist the person(s) raising the grievance(s) and work with all the units.

The institutional arrangement at National level will be coordinated by PPID. At the provincial and district

level the arrangement will be coordinated by SEKDA. SEKDA will have a dedicated function to record,

monitor, and report the any grievance related KfW BBS project.

DRAFT

3

High risk conflicts will be resolved using the following mechanisms:

Conflict reporting can be done using on-line system developed by DG Law Enforcement

(Gakum On-line), Task Force at district and provincial levels (Environmental Agency and

Plantation Agency), and system for reporting tenurial conflict and customary forest (DG Social

Forestry and Environmental Partnership);

Conflict resolution done by Plantation Agency (resolving disturbances to plantation), and

Environmental Agency. Additionally, social Forestry Working Group;

Conflict resolution done by “flying team” from MoEF (e.g., DG Conservation of Natural

Resources and Ecosystem and DG Social Forestry and Environmental Partnership –

Directorate Tenurial Conflict and Customary Forest - PKTHA)

The institutional arrangement is responsible to record the grievance, follow up the action, monitor the

settlement process, and report to the IPZ Program.

IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS AT NATIONAL LEVEL

At the national level, GRM to be hosted under the Directorate General of Law Enforcement on

Environment & Forestry (Ditjen PHLHK or also well-known as Ditjen GAKUM), Directorate General of

Social Forestry and Environmental Partnership (Perhutanan Sosial dan Kemitraan Lingkungan/Ditjen

PSKL), or a new established unit for KfW BBS-GRM under Information Management and

Documentation Officer (PPID), in which PID (Public Information Data System) is placed (Table A16.1).

Table A16.1 National agencies involved in the implementation of the IPZ Program.

National Agency Status Roles

Information Management and Documentation Officer (MoEF)

National Dedicated function of Environmental and Forestry

Management of the National Registry

Finalization and implementation of safeguards plans

Finalization and implementation of the GRM

Technical Assistance

Handling the Grievance process at national level;

Updating grievance handling based on PID.

Director General of Law Enforcement

Authorized Institution

Grievance Recording, screening, investigating, handling, and reporting under the Jurisdiction;

Publish the grievance process and result.

Director General of Social Forestry and Environment Partnership

Authorized Institution

Grievance Recording, screening, investigating, handling, and reporting under the Jurisdiction;

Publish the grievance process and result.

DRAFT

4

IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS AT PROVINCIAL LEVEL

At the provincial level, the responsible party for KfW BBS project implementation is the Provincial

Secretary (Sekda Provinsi Lampung), with the Provincial Environmental Service (Dinas Lingkungan

Hidup) acting as coordinator or undertaking the day-to-day PMU of the KfW BBS project. During the

implementation of the KfW BBS project, the Sekda will be advised by the Provincial Information

Management and Documentation Officer (Pejabat Pengelola Informasi dan Dokumentasi - PPID).

The Regional Information Management and Documentation Officer (PPID) in Lampung, Lampung

Province is a key partner in the implementation of the KfW BBS project (Table A16.2). Grievance that

are submit at the provincial level will follow applicable procedures at each authorized institution (OPD).

The district secretary (SEKDA) will coordinate all activities including handling grievances that have been

and are being handled regarding the KfW BBS project.

Table A16.2 The provincial agencies involved in the implementation of the IPZ Program.

Agency Status Role

Provincial Secretary (SEKDA)

Executing Agency at Province Level

Responsible for Implementation and achievement of KfW BBS project in the Province

The Regional Information Management and Documentation Officer (PPID)

Advisory Providing advice and inputs to local government in relation to KfW BBS project including grievance handling;

Lampung Environmental Agency (Dinas Lingkungan Hidup)

Implementing agency KfW BBS project implementation

Grievance handling

Other Provincial Government Services (OPD)

Implementing Agencies KfW BBS project implementation

Leading consultation processes within their respective jurisdictions;

Grievance handling;

Individual/institutional Provincial Dedicated Function Project assistance, monitoring, recording, and reporting of KfW BBS project implementation.

IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS AT VILLAGE AND DISTRICT/CITY LEVEL

At the district/city level, the KfW BBS project will be carried out by the District Environmental Service

under coordination of District Secretary (SEKDA). Each respective district/city government will be

responsible for the implementation of the KfW BBS project in its region (Table A16.3). At the village

level, the village government, including the local community, is responsible for the emission reductions

in their village region.

The GRM is under the responsibility of each institutional authority (OPD) at the district, sub-district and

village level and handled under the coordination of the SEKDA.

DRAFT

5

Table A16.3 The district/city agencies and village levels involved in the implementation of the KfW BBS project.

Agency Status Role

District/City Secretary Executing Agency at District/City Level and Feld Site

Responsible for Implementation and achievement of KfW BBS project in the District and Field Site

OPD District/City Implementing Agencies Implementing KfW BBS project at District/City and Field Site;

Grievance handling

Customary Council Partner Grievance Mechanism for customary/ IP’s customary land/ assets.

Village Government Implementing Agencies Implementing KfW BBS project at District/City and Field Site

Grievance handling

As noted above, accountability for program implementation, at least for the public agencies, is facilitated

through the national governance system, where district institutions are accountable to the province, and

the province is accountable to the Center. Program activities are largely based on policies and

commitments that have come from the province and district levels. This includes Lampung protection

for conservation area commitments, the Governor’s moratorium on issuing licenses in primary forests,

district-level commitments to sustainable estate crop development, and ongoing sustainability efforts

by the private sector.

At the Project level, grievances which are filed beyond the head of one of the authorities mentioned

above are addressed by the authorized institution (OPD). Grievances typically include decisions

regarding gazettement of state forest area, changes in forest land ownership status, forest area

conversion etc. Grievance redress mechanism process is based on the existing mechanism in each

authorized institution (OPD) and Indonesian Regulation.

For affected customary communities, the grievance mechanism shall follow existing customary law (if

any) or any mechanism provided by local government based on community request. Communities can

raise their grievances to MoEF based on Decree No. 24/Menhut-II/2015 on the Establishment of a Team

for Addressing Environmental and Forestry-Related Grievances. At village level, individual PAPs may

bring their grievances to the village and/or customary leader. If the village/customary leader cannot

settle the grievance, the process will be escalate to higher level.

DEDICATED FUNCTION AND ACCESS POINT

Provincial government organizations generally appoint a Section Head of related agencies to monitor

the program implementation update. The Section Head can also be appointed to receive and follow up

the grievances. He/she can ask to village government to help in connecting to the relevant district

government organizations regarding to the grievances. The connecting point for handling grievances

resolution is the District and Provincial Environmental agencies that handle the environmental issues.

The Grievance Channel must be easily accessed, and it need to disclosure to the public, especially to

the affected community groups. Publications are carried out through multi-media public channels,

including social media, as well as through village offices or village halls in affected villages. This

reception channel can include from or all of the following: telephone, whatsapps, sms, social media,

DRAFT

6

page, or mailing address, which is managed by the regional device carrying out the activity. The

Grievance box is also placed in the district Office of Environmental Services, the Provincial

Environmental Service, and the Ministry of Environment and Forestry.

The KfW BBS project will assign a person as dedicated function, which will ensure that all the submitted

grievances from stakeholders have been resolved by the relevant working units.

DRAFT

bukit barisan selatan national park i environmental and social management framework table of...

Documents