Indigenous Peoples Planning FrameworkFor Ecosystem Restoration Concessions

RP11585/27/2011

Introduction 1. This Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) has been developed for the GEF/WB

project, “Promoting Sustainable Production Forest Management to Secure Globally Important Biodiversity”. As basis for this framework document, a social assessment was carried out in the field during four months, from June to September 2010, with visits to two expired logging concessions seeking ERC licenses in the East Halmahera District (North Mollucas) and the Pohuwato District (Gorontalo, Sulawesi) as well as Focus Group Discussions (FGD) held with participants from indigenous peoples’ organizations, Ministries, government agencies and environmental organizations. This framework document is designed to assist ERC project managers in developing a site specific Indigenous Peoples Plan safeguard instrument that will meet the needs of the GOI, the WB and the project. Technical assistance to a select number of Ecosystem Restoration Concessions (ERCs) is expected to be channelled through the World Bank, which means the project and those select ERCs must adhere to the Bank’s Safeguard Policies: “The objective of these policies is to prevent and mitigate undue harm to people and their environment in the development process. These policies provide guidelines for bank and borrower staff in the identification, preparation, and implementation of programs and projects” (http://go.worldbank.org/WTA1ODE7T0).

Indigenous Peoples Policy Objectives

2. The World Bank’s Indigenous Peoples Policy is found in Operational Plan (OP) 4.10. This policy contributes to the Bank's mission of poverty reduction and sustainable development by ensuring that the development process fully respects the dignity, human rights, economies, and cultures of Indigenous Peoples (IP). For all projects that are proposed for Bank financing and affect IPs, the Bank requires the borrower to engage in a process of free, prior, and informed consultation. The Bank provides project financing only where this consultation results in the affected IPs offering broad community support to the project. Such Bank-financed projects include measures to (a) avoid potentially adverse effects on the Indigenous Peoples’ communities; or (b) when avoidance is not feasible, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for such effects. Bank-financed projects are also designed to ensure that the Indigenous Peoples receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate and both gender and inter-generationally inclusive (http://web.worldbank.org).

3. Safeguard policies concerning the traditional community applies if a project has direct or indirect impacts toward basic rights, livelihood systems, or the culture of traditional community, as well as affecting a place of living, natural resources or culture that was possessed, applied, occupied or claimed by the traditional community as their land.

1

Program Description

4. In Indonesia’s production forests there are areas of high biodiversity value. Sixty million ha of land, about 44% of Indonesia’s national forest estate, is classified as permanent production forest. Production forest is the predominant forest category in the lowlands and in areas where protected area coverage is low. It forms important biological corridors between protected areas, but is also an important habitat in its own right. These areas are outside the traditional protected areas, meaning there is a huge potential for developing alternative models of forest management that integrate economic and biodiversity conservation objectives.

5. As part of the Indonesian MoFr’s committment to promoting sustainable forest management, the licences of over 163 poorly-managed concessions have been cancelled and the operations of others have been suspended since 2002. However, at present nearly half of the production forest estate (i.e. 30 million ha) is not covered by any kind of exploitation licence, making it prone to illegal exploitation. In order to reverse this trend, the Forestry Department has created a new policy framework that allows licenses for ecological restoration to be granted for logged-over concessions. Known as an ‘Ecosystem Restoration’ license (UUHHK-RE) the concession holder has a initial 60 year permit under which the concession holder must return the forests to its ‘natural equilibrium’. There is a moratorium on cutting, but concession holders are allowed to develop non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and Environmental Services such as ecotourism and carbon sequestration. Table 1 presents a list of some ER companies and their proposed activities.1 As can be seen from the list, the majority of applicants plan to use the ERC license as a means to enter the carbon markets. Other uses of the forest zone include ecotourism, biodiversity conservation and education. In those cases where there are IPs, the project holders will need to ensure that IPs rights and needs are taken into account.

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

Company Name Location Ha

Business Commodity

Ecosystem Services

Use of Forest Zone

Biodiversity Non-Timber Forest Product

Rimba Raya Conservation

Seruyan, Kalimantan Tengah

101.730 Carbon

Restorasi Habitat Orang Utan (PT RHOI) Indonesia Unit III

Murung Raya, Kalimantan Tengah

68.089 Carbon EcotourismAdopt a tree, adopt a an Orang Utan

Not explained

Rimba Makmur

Kota Waringin Timur and

227.260 Carbon Ecotourism Education and Training

Rotan, jelutung, gemor

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

2

UtamaKatingan, Kalimantan Tengah

Indo Carbon Lestari

Pulang Pisau and Katingan, Kalimantan Tengah

198.200 Carbon*Jelutung, sagu, rubber, damar mata kucing

Ekosistem Katulistiwa Lestari

Kubu Raya, Kalimantan Barat 41.258

Carbon, Payment for Environmental Services (PES)*

Ecotourism

Bamboo, getah jelutung, getah pulai, rubber, crocodile farming,

Restorasi Ekosistem Indonesia (REKI)

Musi Banyuasin, Sumatera Selatan and Batanghari, Sarolangun, Jambi

53.657 + 49.185

Carbon, water Ecotourism

Training and education, Trust fund

Rotan, gaharu, honey, medicinal plants

6. The IP policy emphasizes the importance of IP participation because local knowledge is required to identify, design and plan the implementation of practical mitigation measures. It is especially important as the success of ERCs depends on community support and action, both in implementing mitigation measures and in monitoring their success. As Table 2 below indicates, more often than not, there will be communities living along the boundary of ER concessions. Not to mention those that are living within the concession’s boundaries. In most cases only a small portion of the local communities can be classified as IPs. As will be discussed below, concession holders will need to map out community interactions with the forest concession and then develop mechanisms to reach an agreement on the use of forest resources. The table below is illustrative of the issue and not a list of ERCs necessarily related to this project

Table 2. Ecosystem restoration sites and surrounding communities

Company Name Location Ha No. of Villages Total Population (person)

Rimba Raya Conservation*)

Seruyan, central Kalimantan 101.730

25 51,613

Restorasi Habitat Orang Utan Indonesia Unit III

Murung Raya, central Kalimantan 68.089

5 1,990

Rimba Makmur Utama

Kota Waringin Timur dan Katingan, central Kalimantan

227.260

20 33.427

Indo Carbon Lestari

Pulang Pisau dan Katingan, central Kalimantan

198.20031 58.758

3

Ekosistem Katulistiwa Lestari

Kubu Raya, west Kalimantan 41.258

4 16.888

Restorasi Ekosistem Indonesia (REKI)

Musi Banyuasin, Sumatera Selatan dan Batanghari, Sarolangun, Jambi

53.657 + 49.185

10 24.082

7. The target groups are Indigenous Peoples, but in the case of Indonesia, two broad categories of IPs can be identified:

Masyarakat Adat /Adat communities/Customary law communities

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

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

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

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

Project Development Objective and Project Components

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

9. The project consists of 4 components to be implemented over 4 years: Component 1: Business Development in Ecosystem Restoration Concessions (implemented by Burung Indonesia) Component 2: Policy and Administration of Ecosystems Restoration (proposed to be implemented by Ministry of Forestry). Component 3: Knowledge and Experience (implemented by Burung Indonesia) Component 4: Project Management (implemented by Burung Indonesia)

4

12. Component 1 relates to development of management frameworks and standards for mainstreaming biodiversity considerations into 6 ERCs yet to be identified and component 2 to assisting GOI with ERC policy development. In providing technical assistance Burung Indonesia (the implementing agency on behalf of MoFr) and the ERC license applicant/holder has to follow the guiding principles below. The ERC license holder/applicant has to make sure that support to ERC policy development is carried out in consultation with IP associations such as AMAN and TELAPAK and IPs representatives and the policy should not have adverse impacts to IP’s livelihoods based on Regulatory Impact Assessment of the draft of that policy.

Guiding Principles

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

14. The Harapan Rainforest Ecosystem Restoration Concession is the only concession which is fully operational and as such their experience is central to this document. Nevertheless, there other types of projects such as from PERHUTANI, community forestry, and natural resource management projects with communities living on the borders of national parks which can provide input for this framework. The main lessons is that the process should be clearly defined and monitored properly, involving IPs representatives and IPs supporters NGOs.

15. Before providing technical assistance to the 6 ER concession license holders/applicants Burung Indonesia will ensure that IPs have been consulted by the ERC manager and actively engaged in all decision-making processes, especially when the ERC intervention poses potential adverse impacts to them as a community. The project must, with absolute certainty, assure that the IPs do not suffer adverse effects during or after project implementation, as well as receive culturally compatible social and economic benefits.

16. The participating ERCs must ensure at all times that the development processes implemented by the project foster full respect for the IPs' dignity, human rights and cultural uniqueness.

17. Broad community support from all affected IPs must be determined in accordance with their respective laws and practices, free from any external manipulation, interference and coercion, and obtained after fully disclosing the intent and scope of the project activity, in a language and process understandable to the community. The conduct of field-based investigation and the process of Free and Prior Informed Consultations, will take into consideration the primary and customary practices of consensus-building.

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

5

19. The IPs should be consulted to ensure that their rights will not be violated and that they are compensated for the use of any part of their domain, in a manner that is acceptable to them.

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

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

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

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

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

Indonesian Regulations Related to Rights to Information and IPs

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

26. Ecosystem Restoration (ER) is governed by the Minister of Forestry Regulation No. P.61 Menhut-II 2008, “On Provisions And Procedures For Issuing Ecosystem Restoration Forest Timber Utilisation Permits For Natural Forests In Production Forests Through Applications” and PP50/2010. Article 1 states:

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

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

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

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

27. Government Regulation, 6/2007, Article 1 No. 14, states that IUPHHK Ecosystem Restoration in natural forest is a business permit that is awarded to develop a site with important ecosystem functions. The functions can be restored through activities, such as

6

maintenance, protection and ER. These activities can include planting, enrichment, pruning, wildlife breeding, re-introduction of flora and fauna for the purpose of restoring biotic elements (flora and fauna) and non-biotic elements (soil, climate and topography), so that an equilibrium within biota and its ecosystem is accomplished.

28. None of the government regulations or decrees that are specifically for ER (PP 6/2007 and PP 3/2008 and Minister of Forestry decee No. 61/2008) addresses the rights of traditional communities. Nevertheless as Table 3 indicates, there are legal mechanisms that recognize the communities’ right to information before a development program or project is implemented in their region, and freedom to agree or disagree without any pressure.

Table 3. National Laws Relating to Community Rights to Information

Law No. 14/2008 on Public In-formation Transparency

Article 9 requires public entities to publish public six-monthly information periodicals. This information includes information about the public entity, its activities and performance, financial reports and other information regulated by law. This information should be disseminated by means easily accessed by, and in language understandable to, the public. Article 11 also obliges public entities to provide information to the public at all times. This includes listing all public information under their control, outcomes of decisions made by the public entity, and its considerations, as well as all existing policies, including supporting documents such as predictions of annual expenditure and the public entity’s agreements with third parties.

Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry In relation to forestry, communities are permitted to provide input on forestry plans, including project plans relating to state forests. Article 68 paragraph 2 states that communities can be informed about plans for forest allocation, forest product utilisation and forestry information; provide information, suggestions, and considerations for forest development; and undertake supervision of forestry development, either directly or indirectly.

(Source: Steni, 2010, p.21)

29. In addition, the Perhutani objectives (Peraturan pemerintah 14/2001) and Permenhut on Community Forests (Hutan Kemasyarakatan) objectives and facilitation (Permenhut P37/2001) there is sufficient basis that IPs should be sufficiently consulted and IPs livelihood should be supported by the ecosystem restoration business plan and policies. The main challenge is on the detailed follow-up and monitoring system therefore this framework will focus on the process and common agreement between stakeholders involved.

30. The regulations that have potential impact to IP’s livelihoods within the ERCs are stated in table 4 below ( in accordance to PP 6/2007 jo PP 3/2008):

Table 4. Activities that are allowed and not allowed to be undertaken in the ER concession

7

Activities Regulation Allowed Not allowed RemarksEcosystemRestorationactivities

P.61/Menhut-II/2008

- Native species - Non-native species

Utilization of forest area

PP No.6/2007 Article 32

- Cultivating medicinal plants

- Cultivating ornamental plants

- Cultivating mushrooms- Breeding bees- Breeding wildlife- Breeding swallow bird

nests

- No negative impacts towards biophysics and socio-economy

- No mechanical or heavy equipment

- No developing any facilities that change the landscape

Limitation of total area for processing

Non timber products utilization

PP No.6/2007 Article 43 and 49.

- Rattan, sagoo, nipah and bamboo, including planting, harvesting, enrichment, maintaining, and product marketing activities

- Sap, bark, leaves, fruit or seeds and eaglewood, including harvesting, enrichment, maintaining, and product marketing activities

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

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

Ecosystem services utilization

PP No.6/2007 Aricle 33

- Water flow service and water

- Ecotourism- Biodiversity protection- Saving and protecting the

environment- Absorbing and/or storing

carbon

- No changes to the landscape

- No damage to environmental elements

- And/or not reducing its main function

Timber utilization

PP No.6/2007 Article 31, and 45

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

- 20 (twenty) cubic meters for every household.

- Timber collected is not to be used for any commercial purposes.

29. The above limitations will have an impact on community groups that utilize the concession area and its products, both timber and non-timber, including water. There are communities

8

that utilize the forests for agricultural purposes but this is not reflected in the ER regulations. Also, activities undertaken by communities that are using land inside the concession needs further clarification, along with the actual impact of these activities for the ecosystem and the accomplishment of equilibrium within the production forest.

Institutional Setting

30. The project implementer is Burung Indonesia. Burung Indonesia will provide technical assistance to 6 ERC license holders/applicants for them to better manage ERCs while taking into account IP livelihood interests. As part of this project Burung Indonesia as implementing agency will prepare MOUs, acceptable to the World Bank and MoFr, with participating ERCs to be signed by the project Steering Committee. The ERC license holder/applicant will need to prepare an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP) based on this IPPF and World Bank OP 4.10 before TA can be provided by the project, in cases where the social assessment shows IPs are present in or around the ERC in question.

Procedures

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

32. Selection of ERCs for TA. It is expected that by mid 2012, licenses for several ERCs will have been granted to allow the application of standards developed by the project in specific areas. The project work specifically in 6 ER concessions to apply these concepts. The concessions will be selected on the following basis: the management plans has submitted to the Government in support of the application for

the license fall short of the full integration of the multi-use restoration concept; the concession area contains globally important biodiversity; the concession company has expressed a commitment to proceed with the management

approach of the project; The concession company must agree to implement the safeguard policies in the ERC as

described in the safeguard instruments for this project.

33. MOU. The project will work under memoranda of understanding (MOU) between the project Steering Committee and the ERC license applicant/holder, on terms acceptable to the Bank. Commitments will be made under these MOUs for companies to incorporate biodiversity management and community benefit sharing into the management plans, and annual work plans for the concessions. Under these agreements, the project will provide TA to identify the opportunities for payments for ecosystems services and for small business in non-timber forest products, and will make recommendations for maximizing the returns from

2 See for example: Free, Prior, and Informed Consent: Principles and Approaches for Policy and Project Development, Bangkok, February 2011 RECOFTC and GIZ; Bernadius Steni, Beyond Carbon: Rights Based Safeguard Principles in Law (Jakarta, Perkumpulan HuMa 2010).

9

these sources of income to be incorporated into the technical operational plans for the concession area. Recommendations will also be made on community participation in protection and restoration activities, small business opportunities using concession resources, and benefit sharing of payments for environmental services. The ERC license holder/applicant will agree to adhere to the environmental and social safeguards, and prepare the site specific ESMP and IPP and/or site specific ARPF as required.

34. Baseline assessment. The ERC license holder/applicant will undertake the baseline assessments as follows:

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

b. When categorizing the community groups based on origin, it is necessary to distinguish between indigenous people and new migrants. Community groupings based on place of living are determined by the distance of their houses to the ERC location. For categorizing community groups based on socio-economic conditions important divisions include land ownership outside the ecosystem restoration area, level of household income and livelihood sources. Community groupings based on the level of interaction with the ER area are determined by the activities inside the ER area, such as gardening or farming, collecting forest products and mining.

c. The basis to identify IPs communities are: i. Self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and

recognition of this identity by others;ii. Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral

territories in the project area, and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories;

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

iv. An indigenous language, often different from the majority in the area.v. In the case of Indonesia, please refer to explanation of target groups on page

four of this document. d. After categorization, the management of the ERC may determine which community

groups will be prioritized for discussion concerning the possibility of limitations to access in the ERC area, including any possible impacts, and their solutions.

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

35. Impacts on IPs. In order to ensure there are no negative impacts on IPs’ communities, it is necessary to understand their level of dependency on the forest, what forest products that

10

they utilize, customary laws, local knowledge (indigenous knowledge) concerning the forest ecosystem, population and their distribution in relation with other groups.

36. Management of the ERC will affect the traditional community when the activities that are undertaken inside the ER area have an impact on their livelihoods. Table 5 below can be used for analysing possible impacts on IPs.

Table 5. Examples of possible impacts on indigenous communities in an ER concession

Ecosystem RestorationActivities

Changes in access that may occur

Positve Negative

Boundary demarcation Access to the ER area for the indigenous community will be limited.

Livelihood sources may be reduced

Inventory of potential forest resources, through groundcheck and ethno-ecology studies.

Interactions between the indigenous community with ER management may become more intensive.

Recognition of the use of indigenous knowledge

Uncertianty in recognizing property rights of indigenous knowledge

Utilization of non timber forest products

The indigenous community and ER management may utilise the same commodities leading to competition for the same natural resource.

Possible collaboration in utilising the same natural resources.

Competition may occur when utilising the same natural resources.

37. The preliminary impact assessment will be followed by two studies:a. Social assessment studies on the impact. After an initial study has identified any

potential impacts, more in-depth studies are needed to ascertain social impacts. For example, in Table 5, the boundary demarcation may mean the livelihoods of the IPs will be negatively affected. Therefore, further study is needed to better understand IP activities in the ER concession area, for example, the number of community members that will be affected if access is restricted, the affect that this will have on household incomes, and the impact this will have for women and other vulnerable groups. When avoidance is not feasible, the study will need to recommend how to mitigate, or compensate for such effects.

b. Study on forest zone usage and forest products and the impacts on ecosystem restoration. The study’s objective is to observe and analyze the impacts of any activities that may be undertaken by the local community within the ER area, including impacts on the biodiversity and biophysical conditions (rivers, water sources, forest vegetation coverage, soil condition and micro climate). After analysis, the level or magnitude of impacts on the ERC area, including any short, medium or long term consequences will be determined. Such a study will determine the activities

11

that can be undertaken without any impacts on the ERC site, and those activities that must be discontinued.

38. Indigenous Peoples Plan. The final step is the creation of an IPP. Based on above assessments the IPP should include practical guidelines and frameworks on common development with IPs. The manager of the ERC area will need to facilitate discussions with communities concerning strategies to reduce any negative impacts due to the implementation of access limitation to the ERC area. Discussions should be participatory:

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

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

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

d. Providing complete and relevant information, which includes concept and planning, as well as the review of the results concerning the potential impacts during and after the implementation of ER activities. This information must be in a language that is easily understood by the impacted community.

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

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

g. If the manager of the ERC area has differences or disagreements with any affected communities concerning the management of negative impacts due to access limitations, the manager of the ER area must conduct negotiations with the local community to resolve the differences or disagreements.

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

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

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

12

Type of Activity

Forms of access

limitation

Community groups affected

by access limitation

Possible impacts for

communities

Criteria of target groups

to be facilitated

Options for managing

negative impact forms

Illegal gold mining (PETI)

Prohibited Miners (labor, collector, secutity, investor)

Losing income sources

Labor and investor

Raising awareness

Developing environmently friendly mining practices for villagers

Plantation or agriculture activities inside the area

All plantations are closed, including those in the surrounding areas that have critical ecosystems

Farmers Prohibited farmers will lose their income sources

Farmers possess no land in their village

Farmers have no other income sources

Developing partnerships in agroforestry

Developing activities in the village to provide alternatives for income sources.

Coordination, Supervision, Monitoring and Grievance Mechanism

39. Part of IPP is the establishment of periodical meeting with IPs and others local stakeholders. This will become a monitoring forum. The meeting, supervision activities will be done periodically (frequency to be established during Project implementation) by the Burung Indonesia through their area representatives, who will involve the local IP representatives in these meetings/visits..

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

41. Local communities and their supporter and other interested stakeholders may raise a grievance at any time to the ERC license holder/applicant, which will have in place and notified to IPs and local communities -- as part of the IPP -- a contact point, process for addressing complaints and a follow-up procedure.

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

13