RP1498 v2 REV MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS IN BELIZE PROJECT INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK July 31st, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....iii A.INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1 Background………… ........................................................................................................................................ 1 B. Description of Project ............................................................................................................................... 1 C. Overview of Implementation Arrangements ............................................................................................ 4 D.Principles and Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 5 Legal Framework. .......................................................................................................................................... 7 A. National Law. ............................................................................................................................................ 7 B. Legal recourse for grievance redressal ................................................................................................... 10 C. Gaps between Belizean laws and Bank’s resettlement policy ................................................................ 10 PREPARATION OF INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLANS............................................................. 14 TIMING……………. ......................................................................................................................................... 14 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, DEGREE OF IMPACT AND ENTITLEMENTS ............................................................... 15 CONTENT………… .......................................................................................................................................... 16 Verifiable Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation Implementation of RAPs. ......................................... 17 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE ................................................................................................. 18 Grievance Redress Mechanisms ................................................................................................................. 18 Institutional arrangements and sources of funding .................................................................................... 20 Annex 1: Map of Chiquibul Forest and Adjacent Communities .................................................................. 23 Annex 2: Stakeholder Consultations ........................................................................................................... 24 1.1 Inception Workshop .............................................................................................................................. 24 1.2 Field Visits Notes ................................................................................................................................... 37 1.3 KBAs target areas selection process ..................................................................................................... 43 1.4 Participants List for Validation Workshop............................................................................................. 48 1.5 Toledo Consultation Workshop ............................................................................................................ 66 1.6 Indigenous Leaders Consultation .......................................................................................................... 75 1.7 Summary of Concerns from all consultations & Response ................................................................... 80 i ABBREVIATIONS: R&R - Resettlement & Rehabilitation AP - Project Affected People PF - Policy Framework ARP - Abbreviated Resettlement Plan RP - Resettlement Plan KBA - Key Biodiversity Area PMU - Project Management Unit PSC - Project Steering Committee WB - World Bank NPAS - National Protected Areas Secretariat MFFSD - Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development PACT - Protected Areas Conservation Trust OP/BP - Operation Policies & Bank Procedures GRA - General Registry Act HTPA - Housing and Town Planning Act LPA - Law of Property Act RLA - Registered Land Act ii GLOSSARY “Compensation� means the reparation at replacement cost as determined in this Policy Framework in exchange for assets acquired or affected by ‘affected persons’. “Displaced Persons� means APs who are forced to relocate from their previous location because (i) all of their land, buildings, and assets are acquired or their livelihood activities are displaced or, (ii) because the amount of land or buildings acquired renders the remaining portion economically unviable or uninhabitable. “Land Acquisition� means the process of acquiring land under the legally mandated procedures of eminent domain. “Project Affected Person� (AP) means the people directly affected by land acquisition through loss of part or all of their assets whether temporarily or permanently including land, houses, other structures, businesses, crops/trees, or other types of assets. “Replacement Cost� is defined as, in the case of urban areas, the pre-displacement market value of land of equal size and use, with similar or improved pubic infrastructure facilities and services and located in the vicinity of the affected and plus the cost of any registration and transfer taxes. “Resettlement� means the relocation of displaced persons into new residential locations. iii A. INTRODUCTION Background Belize’s natural resources are critical to the health of its economy and well-being of the most vulnerable population. As a result, Belize has signed a signed a Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) with World Bank for the Financial Year, 2012-2015 which supports the country’s efforts to adopt a sustainable natural resource-based economic model, while enhancing Belize’s resilience to climate change and natural hazards. To this end, the Government of Belize through the Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development, with the assistance of the World Bank has received funding from the Global Environment Facility “GEF� to develop and implement the project entitled “Management and Protection of Key Biodiversity Areas in Belize.� The Project Development Objective (PDO) is to strengthen natural resource management and biodiversity conservation through the mitigation of threats to Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) in Belize. Furthermore, project activities will seek to improve the management of the target protected areas through support for activities such as delineation of protected areas boundaries, enforcement and monitoring. Project preparation activities have suggested that there are activities occurring within one or more of the target sites that may not be consistent with the protected area designation. This project has not been designed to address this specific issue but may result in recommendations due to land tenure assessment within protected areas to be considered by the Government of Belize. As such, it is not contemplated that land acquisition or resettlement will occur as a result of direct project activities. However, the Government may choose to pursue this line of action independently, taking into consideration the recommendations from the assessments to be conducted during implementation of the project. Furthermore, the community based activities and livelihood opportunities to be implemented under the project may serve to buffer any socioeconomic impacts that may occur as a result of GOB’s interventions. B. Description of Project Project activities will be aimed at helping to reduce deforestation rates and fragmentation pressure in targeted KBAs and enhance sustainable forest management practices; improve the protection of forest reserves and reduce forest fires; improve local livelihoods through community-based sustainable use of ecosystem goods and services; strengthen legal and administrative frameworks for protected areas (PAs); manage protected areas (PAs) in the KBAs more effectively; strengthen capacity for compliance monitoring and enforcement of key agencies responsible for the environment and enhance the coordination among Government agencies charged with conservation; enhance effectiveness of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) System; and mainstream climate change considerations into the National Protected Areas System Plan (NPASP). 1 The Project will finance the following four components: Component 1: Supporting Forest Protection and Sustainable Forest Management Activities in Key Biodiversity Areas (1.1) Forest protection (1.1a) Support for the review of the Belize’s land tenure legislation with a view to identifying potential improvements to such legislation; (1.1b) Support for training required to promote a REDD+ program; and (1.1c) Support for the development and establishment of a fire incidence rapid response team, including through preparation of a work plan and the provision of training and required equipment (e.g., fire rakes, fire swatters, nomex clothing, etc). (1.2) Sustainable forest management: contributing to reduction of emissions from deforestation and degradation and increase in sequestration of CO2. Sustainable forest management with local communities in targeted areas will be achieved through (1.2a) Rehabilitation of critical areas of high conservation values through identification, development and implementation of community-based Sub-projects, incorporating climate change mitigation and resiliency measures; (1.2b) Implementation of Sub-projects for sustainable harvesting and marketing of non-timber forest products (such as xate, cohune nut, bay leaf, and popta seeds) and for other community-based forestry opportunities, including, but not limited to, assessment and identification of opportunities for community-based forestry, stakeholder mapping and mobilization, identification of potential products, marketing and product development, training on product development, market analysis and development, and development of business plans; (1.2c) Support for identification and implementation of activities raising awareness on sustainable forest management; and (1.2d) Support for the development and implementation of sustainable forest management plans, including through assessing existing forestry standards (e.g., reduced impact logging tool, M&E tool, voluntary code of conduct) for monitoring and evaluation, existing tools and programs to reduce illegal logging, and for the establishment of an forest information system (FIS) including collection and management of information on change in forest cover, degradation, illegal activities, fire, sustainable forest management, REDD+, and a data sharing protocol with environmental impact assessments and provision of training on such FIS. Component 2: Promoting Effective Management of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs): Effective management is critical to mitigate threats to the KBAs. (2.1) Improving management of the KBAs: (2.1a) Support for the implementation of recommendations set forth in the PA Rationalization Exercise, including development of procedures, guidelines, criteria and corresponding regulations for the declaration, re-alignment and de-reservation of PAs and operationalization of Belize’s comprehensive PAs legislation to integrate those PAs which are currently managed under different legislative acts; (2.1b) Support for the development and effective implementation of PA management plans in the targeted Project Sites, including through identification of management needs, development of a geographic information system (GIS) database and application for data management and analysis, provision of natural resource management training and mentoring, and capacity building of Protected Areas Co-management Organizations; and (2.1c) Support for updating the National Protected Areas System Plan (NPASP) to take into account considerations of climate change mitigation and resilience. 2 (2.2) Monitoring and compliance of PAs: (2.2a) Support for reviewing the legal framework for the protection of biodiversity and forests with a view to identifying potential improvements to such legal framework, including an analysis of and proposed updates to Belize’s Forest Act and Wildlife Act; (2.2b) Support for implementation of monitoring and compliance in the Project Sites through demarcation of Project Site boundaries, establishment of a Compliance and Monitoring Unit, development and implementation of an operational plan for ensuring compliance with protected status of PAs, provision of training, equipment and transportation for the Compliance and Monitoring Unit; and (2.2c) Support for the development and establishment of a biodiversity monitoring system for KBAs and for increasing biodiversity monitoring capacity, including through support for implementation of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Program in the Project Sites, incorporation of biodiversity information into FIS for the Project Sites, development of biodiversity monitoring guidelines, identification of a biodiversity monitoring field crew, and provision of monitoring tools and training on biodiversity monitoring to stakeholders. Component 3: Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building for Enhanced Enforcement of Environmental Regulations This component will promote enhanced coordination and provide training among Government agencies charged with environmental management. This is critical for the long-term protection of areas through proper natural resources management, which includes climate change mitigation, and biodiversity conservation. (3.1) Increased coordination for balancing environmental management and development: (3.1a) Support for the establishment of a departmental committee for the promotion of a balance between environmental management and development needs, and (3.1b) Strengthening of compliance monitoring capacity of staff in the MFFSD’s Department of the Environment and other key agencies including provision of equipment and training in thematic areas such as compliance monitoring, use of new equipment, site inspection techniques, environmental audits, interpretation of lab analyses, and water quality monitoring. (3.2) Strengthening and improvement of environmental screening tools and processes. (3.2a) Support for the establishment of a standardized environmental impact assessment (EIA) program and protocols for enhanced environmental screening and scoping, including revising Belize’s existing EIA program, updating the EIA manual, and mainstreaming the EIA processes into relevant institutions and entities; (3.2b) Support to improve the capacity for decision-making in the EIA process, including through the development and implementation of an information management system for EIAs, the definition of roles and responsibilities of Belize’s National Environmental Assessment Committee (NEAC) and other key agencies in the EIA process, an assessment of the EIA process with a view to improving such process with a focus on stakeholder involvement, and the review of, and development of proposed amendments to, Belize’s EIA regulations to include other environmental tools and processes; and (3.2c) Training for staff in the MFFSD’s Department of the Environment and other key agencies on other environmental management tools, instruments and concepts to enhance the environmental screening and clearance process. Component 4: Project management, monitoring and assessment This component will support the Project Implementing Agency Group (PIAG) to undertake 3 (4.a) project management and implementation support including technical, administrative and fiduciary support and compliance with environmental and social safeguards, (4.b) monitoring and evaluation, data collection, stakeholder involvement and coordination. C. Overview of Implementation Arrangements The Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development (MFFSD) is responsible for the overall implementation of the project while PACT will serve as the fiduciary manager of grant funds on the behalf of the Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture (MNRA) will be a key executing partner as the Ministry is a key agency in the public administration structure of Belize, and is responsible for the land distribution and management in Belize. The PIU within the MFFSD is responsible for the compliance with environmental and social safeguards including any actions under this framework including the implementation of RAPs under this framework. The Project Steering Committee (PSC) will support project implementation by providing guidance on national policy, and on strategic approaches for successful project implementation. The PSC will be chaired by the Chief Executive Officer 1 of the MFFSD, and comprised of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of key government ministries including the Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture, Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, Ministry of Labor, Local Government, Rural Development and National Emergency Management, Ministry of Tourism and Culture and Ministry of Human Development, Social Transformation and Poverty Alleviation. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will provide technical oversight for project implementation and will act as the selection committee to screen and recommend applicants for the project management unit and consultants to be financed under the project. The TAC will be comprised of the Chief Forest Officer, Chief Environmental Officer, Chief Agricultural Officer, a representative from the Lands and Surveys Department, Principal Climate Change Officer, Economist, Ministry of Economic Development, NPAS Program Director, and the Executive Director of the Association of Protected Areas Management Organizations (APAMO). The National Protected Areas Secretariat (NPAS) is the body currently responsible for coordinating the implementation of the National Protected Areas Policy and System Plan (NAPSP) and has been designated as the unit that will house and oversee coordination of the project. NPAS provides project coordination support to projects related to implementation of the NAPSP. A Project Management Unit (PMU) will be established within the NPAS to carry out the day-to-day management of the project, including coordination, supervision, monitoring and quality assurance. The PMU will be comprised of a Project Manager and a Project Officer who will work with the Department of Environment and the Forest Department to prepare all project documentation required by MFFSD, PACT, and the World Bank. In addition, each Department will identify a Technical Officer to provide technical support to the PMU, either from its current pool or from new hire that will be financed from allocations for implementation of project activities. The PPMU within the MFFSD is 1 The CEO of Government Ministries is the equivalent of Permanent Secretaries in the English speaking Caribbean. 4 responsible for the compliance with environmental and social safeguards including any actions under this framework. PACT is the fiduciary manager for NPAS and will be responsible for ensuring sound fiduciary management of the project’s resources in accordance with the Project Operations Manual (POM). Its responsibilities will include inter alia financial management and procurement of goods and services. D. Principles and Objectives This Involuntary Resettlement Policy Framework (IRPF) will serve as a guide for the Government of Belize if it is determined that activities occurring with the target sites are not consistent with the protected areas designation and resettlement will be pursued. The IRPF introduces additional compensation measures to achieve compensation at replacement cost together with implementation and consultation arrangements to minimize impacts on those affected by resettlement. In World Bank assisted projects, the Government of Belize (GOB) is expected to take all necessary measures to mitigate adverse social impacts. Therefore, the Policy Framework will supplement existing Belizean law as it pertains to resettlement since it has been identified that project activities will not directly result in the resettlement of persons. By virtue of the protected areas legislation or any other legislation, GOB may also decide to pursue interventions to address activities inconsistent with the protected areas designation of the project target sites. Where adverse social impacts are identified, resettlement and rehabilitation action plans (RAPs) will be prepared based on policies and procedures laid out in this framework. However, every effort will be made to avoid or minimize the need for involuntary resettlement. Therefore, the principle objective of the PF is to ensure that any affected persons will be compensated for their losses and provided with rehabilitation measures to assist them to improve, or at least maintain, their pre-project living standards and income earning capacity. The AP includes the following persons to be identified by the baseline census: (a) The persons whose place of business or employment, and/or land is in part or in total affected (permanently or temporarily); (b) Persons whose houses are in part or in total affected by; (c) Persons whose business are affected in part or in total (temporarily or permanently); and (d) Persons whose crops, trees and fixed assets are affected in part or in total. The principles outlined in the World Bank’s Operation Policies and Bank Procedures 4.12 has been adopted in preparing this Policy Framework (PF). In this regard the following principles and objectives would be applied: (a) Acquisition of land and other assets, and resettlement of people will be minimized as much as possible. Where land acquisition is unavoidable, the specific interventions will be designed to minimize adverse impact on the (AP), especially the vulnerable groups; 5 (b) All AP will be compensated, relocated and/or rehabilitated, if required, so as to improve their standard of living, income earning capacity and production capacity, or at least to restore them to previous levels; (c) All AP residing in, or cultivating land, or having rights over resources within the target area of the socioeconomic survey are entitled to compensation for their losses and/or income rehabilitation. Lack of legal right to the assets lost will not bar the AP from entitlement to such compensation, rehabilitation and relocation measures; (d) Replacement house lots, place of business and land will be as close as possible to the land that was lost, and acceptable to the AP; (e) Land-for-land is the preferred option. The GOB is responsible for all land acquisition and related compensation costs. Compensation in this instance will be made in cash at full market value or may be “land for land� as the government sometimes does. Preference should be given to land-based resettlement strategies for displaced persons whose livelihoods are land-based. This includes indigenous peoples and rural communities strongly dependent on farming for their livelihoods. Where project funds are being used, this will be managed directly by the PMU. For land compensation this will be covered by the [GOB] as appropriate. Payment of cash compensation for lost assets may be appropriate where (a) livelihoods are land-based but the land taken for the project is a small fraction of the affected asset and the residual is economically viable; (b) active markets for land, housing, and labor exist, displaced persons use such markets, and there is sufficient supply of land and housing; or (c) livelihoods are not land-based. Cash compensation levels should be sufficient to replace the lost land and other assets at full replacement cost in local markets. Any expenditure that goes beyond what is generally expected under the project will likely require the approval of the Cabinet. In all instances, displaced people must be informed about their options and rights pertaining to resettlement, consulted on, offered choices among, and provided with technically and economically feasible resettlement alternatives and provided prompt and effective compensation at full replacement cost for losses of assets attributable direct to the project. Form and level of compensation under the project will be the outcome of a negotiated process with the respective property owners as provided for under Belizean law and in compliance with WB OP 4.12 where consultation on resettlement options are required (f) The resettlement transition period will be minimized; land-for-land and/or cash compensation provided to the AP may be completed during the implementation of project activities. (g) Resettlement plans will be implemented following consultations with the AP, and will have the endorsement of the AP; (h) The previous level of community services and access to resources will be maintained or improved after resettlement; 6 (i) Any acquisition of, or restriction on access to resources owned or manage by AP as common property will be mitigated by arrangements ensuring access of those AP to equivalent resources on a continuing basis. Legal Framework A. National Law The Housing and Town Planning Act (HTPA) chapter 182 of the Laws of Belize which was enacted in 1947 is another important piece of legislation to consider as that Act deals with Town and Country Planning and also slum clearance and housing. Sections 60 and 61 of the HTPA set out how land is acquired. Those provisions read as follows: “60. The Minister may purchase by agreement any land to which a scheme applies, which is required for the purposes of the scheme, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, he may purchase any such land- (a) which is required for carrying out the improvement or controlling the development of frontages to, or of lands abutting on or adjacent to, any road, or any proposed road which is to be constructed wholly or partly at the public expense; or (b) which is required for securing the satisfactory development of any land in accordance with the provisions of the scheme in any case where, by reason of the land being held in plots which are of inconvenient size or shape, or of which the arrangement or alignment is inconvenient, or by reason of the multiplicity of interests in the land, or by reason of the fact that the land is being used in a manner or for purposes inconsistent with the provisions of the scheme, it does not appear to be reasonably practicable to secure such development otherwise than by purchase of the land; or (c) which forms the site of a road which is to be used for some other purpose under any provision in the scheme; or (d) which is required for the purpose of providing accommodation for a person whose premises have been purchased for the purposes of the scheme. 61. Where the Minister is unable to purchase by agreement any land which he is authorized to purchase, he may acquire such land in accordance with the Land Acquisition (Public Purposes) Act.� From the HTPA we observe that where land has to be compulsorily acquired, then the Land Acquisition (Public Purposes) has to be employed and assessment of compensation falls to be determined pursuant to that Act. However, if the claim is for compensation which does not stem from 7 compulsory acquisition of land, then the matter is decided by a single judge in accordance with section 70 which states: “70.-(1) Any question arising under this Part as to- (a) the right of a claimant to recover compensation; or (b) the right of the Central Authority to recover any amount in respect of an increase in the value of any property, or by way of a special charge on any property; or (c) the amount and manner of payment of any such recoverable compensation or amount as aforesaid, shall, unless the Central Authority and all persons concerned otherwise agree, be referred to and determined by a judge by notice in writing.� Land tenure in the Laws of Belize Land in Belize is either national lands or private lands. Two types of estates exist: the leasehold interest and the freehold interest. Leasehold is an interest in land for a term or years whereas the freehold interest is what most approximates absolute title and the term can be infinite. National lands may be leased, sold or reserved for public use. The National Lands Act chapter 191 of the Laws of Belize establishes the regime for leasing and disposing of national lands. Any lease of seven years or more is by way of a Minister’s Fiat Lease and when land is sold, the title is by way of a Minister’s Fiat Grant in those areas which are not compulsory registration areas. Where the land being leased or granted falls within a compulsory registration area, then the land leased or granted is registered pursuant to the provisions of the Registered Land Act chapter 194 of the Laws of Belize and a lease certificate (in case of leases) or land certificate (in case of land sold) is issued by the Land Registry. Private lands are dealt with in accordance with the General Registry Act (GRA) chapter 327, the Law of Property Act (LPA) chapter 190 and the Registered Land Act (RLA) chapter 194. The LPA sets out the substantive law relating to interests in land and the GRA which deals with the recording of Deeds of Conveyances (otherwise called common law conveyancing) and the registration of titles under the Torrens type system of registration deals mostly with the procedures with respect to the recording of deeds and the registration of titles. The RLA makes a departure from recording deeds and titles to the registering of land. Its approach focuses on keeping the history of a parcel of land and interest in it rather than inter partes transactions regarding land. The RLA contains both the substantive and procedural law for dealings in lands falling within compulsory registration areas of Belize. When land is registered pursuant to the provisions of the RLA, the provisions of the GRA and the LPA no longer apply and the controlling legislation is then the RLA. 8 Legislation related to resettlement In the HTPA, under the part dealing with slum clearance and housing there are provisions that contain some social welfare aspects that are designed to give assistance to displaced persons. Most notable examples are sections 19(3) and (4) and section 30. These provide as follows: “19 (3) The Minister shall not approve of any scheme unless he is satisfied that- (a) the size of the area is such that the housing conditions therein can be remedied within a reasonable period; (b) in so far as suitable accommodation available for personswho will be displaced by the steps the Central Authorityproposes to take for the clearance and development ofthe area does not exist, the Central Authority will provide,or secure the provision of, such accommodation in advanceof the displacements which will from time to time becomenecessary as these steps are taken. (4) In this section, “suitable accommodation� means, in relation to the occupier of a dwelling-house, a dwelling-house as to which the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say- (a) the house must be a house wherein the occupier and hisfamily can live without causing it to be overcrowded; (b) the local authority must certify the house to be suitable tothe needs of the occupier and his family as regards securityof tenure and proximity to place of work and otherwise tobe suitable in relation to his means; and (c) if the house belongs to the local authority, it must certify itto be suitable to the needs of the occupier and his familyas respects extent of accommodation, having regard tothe standard specified in this Part. 30.-(1) The Central Authority may pay to any person displaced from any dwelling-house or other building in a slum clearance area or a redevelopment area, as the case may be, which has been acquired under this Part as being unfit for human habitation and not capable at reasonable expense of being rendered so fit, such reasonable allowance as it thinks fit towards his expense in removing, and it may also pay to any person carrying on any trade or business in any such dwelling-house or other building, such 9 reasonable allowance as it thinks fit towards the loss which, in its opinion, he will sustain by reason of the disturbance of his trade or business consequent on his having to quit the house or building and, in estimating that loss, it shall have regard to the period for which the premises occupied by him might reasonably have been expected to be available for the purpose of his trade or business and the availability of other premises suitable for that purpose. (2) The Central Authority may also, in cases of special hardship, pay to the owner of any premises acquired for the purposes of this Part such sum as it considers fair and reasonable in the circumstances.� The provision of accommodation to address displacements and payments for relocation and for disturbance in carrying on any business or trade are aspects which could be incorporated into the main piece of legislation dealing with the compulsory taking of land i.e. the Land Acquisition (Public Purposes) Act. To accomplish this however, would require amendment to the existing legislation. It is also noted that the 1992 amendment following upon the San Jose Farmers case never dealt with the issue of compensation within a reasonable time. B. Legal recourse for grievance redressal It is the court system that one ultimately has to turn to for redress. In the case of lands compulsorily acquired for a public purpose however, the process starts with the “Authorized Officer� who is usually the Chief Valuer of the Valuation Unit of the Lands and Surveys Department. Where the Chief Valuer and the person having an interest in land cannot arrive at an agreed compensation, then the matter has to be referred to a Board of Assessment. Survey method to measure loss of assets The rules for assessment of compensation as outlined in section 19 of the Land Acquisition (Public Purposes) Act (discussed above) are what give guidance to a Board of Assessment in its exercise at arriving at what is the measure of compensation payable to the landowner for his loss. It is the Board of assessment which is charged with arriving at total measure of compensation payable. C. Gaps between Belizean laws and Bank’s resettlement policy Gaps are evident in the principles outlined in the Bank’s Operation Policies and the laws of Belize however some of the principles though not mandated in the laws are followed. For example, land acquisition and is always minimized and this is principally due to acquisition costs, as the Constitution and the Land Acquisition Act require that market value be paid for lands compulsorily acquired. Also, the Land Acquisition Act does not limit compensation to only persons having good or proper documentary title; an occupier, which can be a person in adverse possession, is entitled to compensation. Land for land is also the preferred option in Belize to deal with compensation for 10 reasons having to do with the limited annual budgetary allocation to meet claims for compensation and the fact that the government is still a large landowner. Furthermore, the WB Resettlement Policy is supplementary to the provision of domestic legislation related to land acquisition and displacement. The domestic law is clear in terms of the State’s eminent domain and this sufficiently provided for. In terms of consultation, the local contemplates reasonable notice for actions that may adversely affect property owners. The WB policy augments this by outlining specific steps that must be taken in consulting affected persons. The WB policy envisions greater participation of community members especially affected persons in this regard. Similarly, the steps for compensating owners whose lands have been compulsorily acquired are outlined. Other properties such as crops and fences are also addressed. While the valuation process is not specified, the Chief Engineer is permitted to negotiate with affected person. No compensation is contemplated by both local law and WB Policy for persons who do not have legal entitlements. The WB Policy however augments this from a humanitarian perspective and makes provisions for the relocation assistance to be provided in order to minimize injuries to the livelihoods of persons and even improve them where possible. In terms of grievance redress, the relevant laws provide for access to local Courts to resolve claims and other forms of grievance. In practice, the Government Ministries attempts to administratively address issues arising from projects before matters are taken to Court. This good practice will be further enhanced by establishing a more formal administrative grievance redressal mechanism (GRM) under the project. Access to Courts and Office of the Ombudsman will still be an available avenue to aggrieved members of the public and is included in the GRM. The following presents a comparative summary of domestic legal provisions for land acquisition in relation to the involuntary resettlement policy of the World Bank (Source: Valentino Shal, IRPF, BCRIP). Comparison of Local Law and Bank Policy Domestic Legal Provisions Bank Policy Requirements Bridging Measures Land Acquisition  Addresses  Covers involuntary  Compulsory land compulsory taking of land acquisition will be acquisition of land. resulting in based on provision of 1)relocation, or loss of the laws of Belize, shelter, 2)loss of WB Policy 4.12 and assets or access to this Framework. GOB assets; or 3) loss of policy and practice is income sources or that legal acquisition means of livelihood, is very often avoided. whether or not If unavoidable, affected persons must compulsory move to another acquisition will be location. through the participatory process outlined in this Framework. This is to ensure that affected persons are provided with adequate level support. Consultation 11  Publication of  Informed displaced  Affected persons declaration in two persons about their allowed under law to issues of the options and rights make presentations to Gazette in six weeks pertaining to the responsible intervals. resettlement. government agency  Land vested  Consult, offer choices, on impacts and absolutely in the and provide injuries suffered. For Crown at second technically and the BCRIP community publication economically feasible level consultations will resettlement be carried out prior to alternatives. inform affected  Provide timely and communities on the relevant information nature of the project and offer and measures on opportunities to addressing participate in resettlement, planning, compensation and implementing, and grievance redress. monitoring resettlement. Affected persons will be consulted on options and rights pertaining to resettlement as per WB OP 4.12. Legal process to compulsorily acquire land will also be followed Compensation and Benefits  Open market value  Prompt and effective  Local allows for full of land at the time of compensation at full market value of land acquisition. “replacement cost� for to be given to  Alternative practice losses of assets property owner is to provide land as attributable directly to according to specific replacement for land the project. guidelines. This will acquired.  Provide assistance be supplemented by  Compensation value (such as moving provisions of the WB determined by a allowance) during OP 4.12 to ensure full Board of relocation. compliance with Assessment.  Payment of cash Policy requirement to  Claim must be made compensation for lost provide compensation within 12 months assets where at full “replacement appropriate. cost.�  Provide residential  Relocation assistance housing, or housing will be provided for sites, or, as required, those who are agricultural sites for occupying/ 12 which a combination encroaching on road of productive reserves. potential, locational  Loss of other assets advantages, and will be compensated other factors is at at full replacement least equivalent to the cost. advantages of the old  Loss of means of site. livelihood as a direct  Offer support after consequence of displacement, for a project will be transition period. compensated for.  Provide with  Affected people losing developmental property and/or being assistance in addition physically resettled to compensation will be provided measures such as options between cash land preparation, and in-kind credit facilities, compensation. training, or job opportunities.  Provide infrastructure and public services necessary to improve, restore and maintain accessibility and levels of service. Eligibility  Private lands that  Those who have  Local law and policy fall within the formal legal rights to are similar in this provisions of the land (including instance as legal General Registry customary and entitlements are fully Act, Registry Land traditional rights recognized. For legal Act, Law of Property recognized under the property owners with Act. laws of the country). lost assets, they will  Customary land  Those who do not be compensated tenure. have formal legal accordingly.  Interest acquired rights but have a  Displaced persons through adverse claim to such land or who have no possession assets – provided that recognizable legal (squatting). such claims are right or claim to the  Person having the recognized by law or land they are “ostensible become recognized occupying will be possession or through a process provided with enjoyment of the identified in the resettlement rents and profit� resettlement plan. assistance in lieu of until the contrary is  Those who have no compensation for the proved. recognizable legal land they occupy, and right or claim to the other assistance, as land they are necessary, to achieve occupying. the objectives of WB 13 OP 4.12. Furthermore, all persons are provided compensation for loss of assets other than land.  Persons who encroach on the area after the cut-off date are not entitled to compensation or any other form of resettlement assistance. Resettlement and Costs  Compensation for  Included in the total  Land acquisition and land compulsory costs of the project compensation costs and other properties and part of (monetary and in- near roads acquired resettlement plan. kind) will be covered allowed. by the Government of  Other relocation Belize and other assistance not resettlement costs to provided for. be covered under the project. Grievance Redress  Judicial System  Establish appropriate  Grievance redress  Office of the and accessible mechanism will be Ombudsman grievance developed for the mechanisms. project in addition to  Formal judicial national judicial and process also an grievance redress option under the process being open Project. and available to all aggrieved parties. PREPARATION OF INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT ACTION PLANS TIMING Project implementation will begin with a detailed assessment of the six target sites to determine the land tenure situation and incursions into the protected areas. Furthermore, the number and exact location of persons/families to be affected by project activities and their current use of forest resources/land will be identified through completion of a census. 14 The assessment will also include the development of an action plan to identify options for addressing land tenure issues and incursions into the protected areas. Taking these recommendations into consideration, the Government will need to make a decision on whether it will, during implementation of the project pursue land acquisition for persons holding title lands within the PA boundaries and resettlement of persons who currently have farming or other livelihood activities within protected areas. If it is determined that lands will be acquired to maintain PA boundaries and or persons conducting farming or other livelihood activities will be relocated, the PMU, with the assistance of consultants with prepare and implement action plans to address direct economic and social impacts. This is required only when these impact result from (a) involuntary taking of land resulting in (i) relocation or loss of shelter; (ii) loss of assets or access to assets; or (iii) loss of income sources or means of livelihood, whether or not the affected persons must move to another location; or (b) the involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced persons. These impacts are covered by the Livelihood Restoration Framework (also known as Process Framework). Action Plans should be prepared as early in the process as possible to ensure that land is acquired and social and economic conditions are restored prior to commencement of project activities which include delineation and enforcement of PA boundaries. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, DEGREE OF IMPACT AND ENTITLEMENTS 1. Eligibility In order to be a beneficiary of an Action Plan, all three of the following eligibility criteria must be met: � To live in or own a property or carry out a productive business on the land that will be acquired by the Govt. of Belize; and � To be a title holder, lease holder, use-rights holder or squatter; � To be registered in the social assessment census. Regarding tenancy, although an AP’s tenancy status will not eliminate their right to be an Action Plan beneficiary, it will determine their entitlements. Persons with legal titles or claims are entitled to compensation for the land they lose, and other assistance in accordance (see OP 4.12, paragraph 6), while those persons who have no recognizable legal right or claim are provided resettlement assistance in lieu of compensation for the land they occupy, and other assistance, as necessary, to achieve the objectives set out in this framework, if they occupy the project area prior to a cut-off date established by the Government of Belize. Persons who encroach on the area after the cut-off date are not entitled to compensation or any other form of resettlement assistance. All Action Plan beneficiaries are provided compensation for loss of assets other than land. 2. Entitlements according to degree of impact The entitlement policy aims to enable AP to replace the assets they have lost on account of the project, to recover and to improve upon their pre-project living standards within the shortest possible 15 time. In general, the resettlement & rehabilitation (R&R) package would consist of (a) provision for replacement assets or its cash equivalent, where replacement is not feasible; (b) rehabilitation grants to compensate for temporary disruption in life and economic activities; (c) either employment or training, capital and enterprise support for income restoration in case of loss of livelihoods, and (d) provision for replacement of community facilities and services for affected communities. Although land acquisition may not be required as a result of project activities, if GOB decides to pursue land acquisition this process will be governed by laws of Belize with particular attention to bridging the identified gaps with the World Bank OP 4.12, as identified above. AP losing land may be entitled to the following types of compensation and rehabilitation measures: (a) For the majority of schemes, the land will be reallocated in the immediate vicinity. According to the Land Administration Law, in situations where land reallocation is not possible, the AP will be paid a maximum compensation and resettlement subsidy equivalent to the market value of the land. (b) If land compensation and resettlement subsidies paid are still insufficient to help the AP needing resettlement to maintain their original living standards, the resettlement subsidies may be increased upon approval by the Minister of Natural Resources or Area Representatives. (c) AP will be compensated for the loss of standing crops, fruit or industrial trees, as well as any fixed assets at market prices. AP losing shelter and auxiliary structures will be entitled to the following compensation and rehabilitation measures: (a) AP whose houses are being acquired will be provided replacement housing within easy communing distance of their existing homes, and the new housing will be equal size/quality of the house lost; (b) AP will be provided with compensation at full replacement value, without any deduction for depreciation, for any structures and fixed assets affected by the components; (c) A pre-determined dislocation allowance according to the prevailing rates of the project areas will also be provided. AP losing business will be entitled to the following compensation and rehabilitation measures: (a) The mechanism for compensation loss of business will be: (i) the provision of alternative business site of equal size and accessibility to customers, satisfactory to the AP; (ii) cash compensation to the owner for lost business structure reflecting full replacement cost of the structures, without depreciation and the cost of transfer; and (iii) cash compensation for the loss of income during the transition period. (b) AP will also be provided compensation at full replacement cost, without depreciation for any other fixed assets affected by resettlement. CONTENT The Action Plan will, at minimum, include the following components: 16 1. Description of the specific activities under the project that may require, together with the different means used to obtain this land; 2. A census of persons to affected/displaced by resettlement due to activities not permitted in protected area, involuntary land acquisition including an inventory of lost assets and valuation of these, and socio-economic data; 3. Description of the compensation and other resettlement assistance to be provided; 4. Description of the consultations with affected/displaced persons about acceptable alternatives; 5. Institutional responsibility for implementation and procedures for grievance redress; 6. Arrangements for monitoring and implementation; and 7. A time-bound implementation plan and budget. Verifiable Indicators for Monitoring and Evaluation Implementation of RAPs. Monitoring Evaluation Percentage of individuals selecting cash Proposed use of payments or a combination of cash and in-kind compensation Payment of compensation to APs in Conformance to compensation policies various categories described in the RAP Number of grievances Timeliness and quality of decisions made on grievances Delivery of technical assistance, Facilitation of access to technical and relocation, payment of transitional development assistance and transitional subsistence and moving allowances allowances Delivery of income restoration and Ability of individuals and households to development assistance restore sources of income 17 Public information dissemination and Timeliness, quality, and effectiveness of consultation procedures consultation and information disclosure Actual completion of resettlement activities Completion dates of the RAP activities compared with the RAP time schedule PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE During the preparation phase and upon the identification of the activities that may necessitate IR, public meetings should be held in the areas where resettlement and displacement may take place to introduce to the affected communities, and other primary stakeholders, resettlement policies and procedures. Since the APs may be eligible to benefit from the project activities, information will be given to them and other stakeholders on:  Project components  Project impacts  APs’ legal rights and entitlements  Compensation policies  Resettlement activities  Grievance and redress Mechanism  Implementation schedule  Public consultation and disclosure of information  Organizational responsibilities Following the preliminary introductory meeting, the APs will be again consulted during the process of conducting the socio-economic survey where they will be interviewed and asked to present their ideas, concerns, and preferences on issue regarding land acquisition and replacement, resettlement sites, compensation, and income restoration measures. The APs should be involved in the actual formulation of different options in initial assessment or target sites in addition to the RAP. After the finalization of the RAP it shall be publicly disclosed to all APs and other relevant stakeholders in a meeting. The stakeholders’ points of views will be taken into consideration upon the actual implementation of the RAP. The APs will be given a chance to express their concerns with the implementation of the RAP through the grievances and redress mechanism mentioned above. It will be amongst the main objectives of the monitoring and evaluation phase to ascertain that the APs complaints have been addressed and that they have been informed about the organizational procedures for resettlement throughout the entire process. Grievance Redress Mechanisms A grievance mechanism should be devised in order for the APs to be able to voice their concerns, complaints, or dissatisfaction with any part of the compensation process and seek redress for activities directly implemented by the Government of Belize. Simply, complaints can be made concerning compensation entitlement, types and levels of compensation, compensation policy, acquisition / destruction of land or assets, resettlement, or development or transitional assistance. Grievance redress will be approached both proactively and reactively: 18 Proactive approach: b) Clarification of criteria for eligibility for assistance under the RPF framework c) Establishing a local mediation committee (made up of community leaders, people assembly members, religious persons etc), to review any grievances that may result. Reactive approach: a) Settle disputes amicably b) Since resettlement will be addressed directly by the Government; however, the PMU may assist in settlement of disputes in target sites if called upon. Therefore, if disputes arise that is requested to be settled through support from the project, they will be documented by the PMU and brought to the attention of the Project Steering Committee (PSC). The PSC will then determine if the dispute can be settled directly or if it is necessary to call upon the local mediation committee to review the grievance. c) If compensation-related disputes cannot be solved at the local level, they will follow additional tiers of appeal as described below: Tiers of Responsible party Mechanism Timeframe Grievance Redressal to address Mechanisms grievance First tier Project Management Unit in Oral or written 1 week consultation with Project grievance (free of Steering Committee to cost) address dispute and/or determine line of action Second tier Local authorities in Written grievance 2 week consultation with local level (free of cost) mediation committee Third tier Land Valuation Unit Oral or written 3 weeks grievance (free of cost) Fourth tier Board of Assessment Case submission 3 weeks (free of cost) Fifth tier Ombudsman Case submission 3 weeks 19 (free of cost) Sixth tier Judicial system Contracting a Lengthy process lawyer (high cost) and long delays (to or use of Solicitor be avoided by First General’s Office through Third tier mechanisms) Assistance for Legal Aid Office in Belize Low cost option Lengthy process aggrieved City. and long (to be persons avoided by First belonging to List of other pro bono through Third tier vulnerable lawyers in Belize will be mechanisms) groups for provided for low-income accessing population who cannot legalrecourse. afford legal counsel. It is important that these tiers be established prior to the implementation of any RAPs. Hence, the mediation mechanisms should be available to cater for claims, disputes and grievances at this early stage. Institutional arrangements and sources of funding The following institutions share the responsibility of planning and implementing the abbreviated involuntary resettlement plans that may be triggered concurrently with implementation of the project. Their roles and responsibilities are as follows: Institution Responsibilities Source of funding Project Management 1. Support drafting of Terms of Approved budget Unit (NPAS, MFFSD) Reference for Socioeconomic Study, with support of Census and Physical survey and monitor/ support implementation of Departments of activities Environment and 2. Support preparation action plans Forestry and required consultation processes 3. Disclosure of Action Plans on official GOB website Project Steering 1. Review and approval of Terms of Approved budget Committee Reference for Socioeconomic Study, (PSC)/Technical Census and Physical surveys 2. Facilitate GOB in its decision Advisory Committee making process to determine if land acquisition and or resettlement will 20 (TAC) occur as a result of project activities; 3. Review and approve action plans; 4. Monitor implementation of PMU’s enforcement of framework Lands Valuation Unit, Calculation of replacement cost of land Department budget Lands and Surveys and assets to be acquired Department Board of Assessment The Board holds a public inquiry and No additional budget (i) the Chief Justice or follows the civil procedure rules of the a judge of the Supreme Court with respect to the Supreme Court who conduct of the inquiry. At the shall be the Chairman conclusion of the inquiry, the Board of the Board; (ii) a decides on the amount of member (other than a compensation and the apportionment public officer) appointed by the minister responsible for lands; and (iii) a member nominated by the landowner. National Ombudsman Provide a check on government Own budget activity in the interests of the citizen, and to oversee the investigation of complaints of improper government activity against the citizen. If the Ombudsman finds an appeal to be substantiated, an Ombudsman report is published making recommendations for change Civil society External monitoring of the plan Own funding organizations and/or university Project affected 1. Collaborate with --- people socioeconomic survey, census and other studies 2. Participation in consultations in good faith 21 Although the primary responsibility for implementation of the respective project components lies with the regulatory agencies, the oversight responsibility shall rest with the PMU and the PSC. The PMU is only responsible for the project plan and implementation. The PMU is also responsible for ensuring compliance with environmental and social safeguards. However, the PMU can provide support to the GOB process for resettlement in or around target protected areas with the approval of the PSC and the World Bank. In addition, land management authority should review the scope, quantity of land acquisition, carry on land acquisition registering, handling land acquisition procedures and supervise compensation. The costs associated with mitigation of adverse social impacts on affected people, such as relocation of affected persons will be met by the Government with prior approval of the Cabinet. 22 Annex 1: Map of Chiquibul Forest and Adjacent Communities Source: Friends for Conservation & Development 23 Annex 2: Stakeholder Consultations 1.1 Inception Workshop Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable DevelopmentManagement and Protection of Key Biodiversity Areas Project Preparation Grant Inception Workshop List of Participants Belmopan Hotel November 23rd, 2012 Name of Participant Organization/Department Ricardo Thompson MNRA DeadraHaylock Consultant Janet Gibson WCS Nayari Diaz-Perez PACT Angela Usher PACT Arnoldo Melendez F.C.D Raphael Manzanero F.C.D Victoria Cawich F.D Yvette Alonzo GIZ- Selva Maya Martin Alegria DOE Reynold Cal Runaway Creek Nature Preserve LeonelRequena GEFSGP/ COMPACT Leonide Sosa DOE Wiezman Pat MFFSD Steven Reneau B.W.B/A.S.F Aldo Cansino DOE Jorge Franco DOE Anthony Mai DOE IsaisMajil Fisheries Department Tanya Santos FD Roan Mcnab WCS Amanda Acosta Belize Audubon Paul Walker wild tracks Cecy Castillo UB Jan Meerman Belize Tropical Foundation Studies Oswaldo Sabido Consultant Rasheda Garcia FD Saul Cruz FD 24 Name of Participant Organization/Department Celi Cho DOE Dwight Montero STACA Valdemar Andrade Ministry of Tourism & Culture Elma Kay ERI-UB Maarten Hofman Ya'axché Emily Aldana Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Jose Perez APAMO Arlene Maheia-Young NPAS Rebecca Foster PANTHERA Derric Chan Friends for Conservation and Development Ian Morrison Enviroplan/Consultant Marion Cayetano Development /Consultant Inception Workshop Notes The overall purpose of the Inception Workshop was to reach out the relevant stakeholders so they could get involved in the project preparation process. Among others, this would allow to ensure the complementarities with other relevant initiatives/projects.2 To this end, background materials were sent to the invitees including the draft agenda, a project overview report, and the primary report describing and documenting the key biodiversity areas in Belize3. The workshop was conducted by the consulting team. After introductions, presentations were made regarding the project objectives and beneficiaries. Subsequently the three components were outlined with the purpose of opening up discussions on the substantive themes. Then subgroups were established led by the consultants and participant volunteers. Component 1 and 2 were linked together as several themes run across them. Component 3 run on its own. A recorder documented input by participants, and the results follow. The following Agenda was followed. Agenda: 8:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Registration of workshop participants 9: 00 a.m. - 9: 15 a.m. Welcome and Introductions 9: 15 a.m. - 9: 25 a.m. Workshop objectives 9: 25 a.m. - 9:45 a.m. Overview of Project objectives, outcomes and outputs 9: 45 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. Project Preparation Grant Activities 10:00 a.m.- 10: 15 a.m. BREAK 10:15 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. Activity 1: break out groups (3) to provide feedback on project components, outputs and outcome 11: 00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Presentations of results of Activity 1 12: 00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. LUNCH 2 As additional workshops are anticipated, it is important to document the results of the Inception Workshop 3 Meerman, J. 2007. Establishing a Baseline to Monitor Species and Key Biodiversity Areas in Belize. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Unpublished report. 15 pp. 25 1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. Activity 2 2:00 p.m. - 2: 50 p.m. Wrap-up discussion 2: 50 p.m.- 3:00 p.m. Closing remarks Subgroup Topic 1: Component 1: Supporting Forest Protection and Sustainable Forest Management Activities in Key Biodiversity Areas. Component 2: Promoting Effective Management of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) The members of the Subgroup considered it useful to discuss the topic in three sub-topics in order to share their perceptions and expectations. Sub Topic: Status and On-going Activities in the KBAs A. Forest Protection Major issues:  Incursions for extraction especially xate but also wildlife  Illegal activities from Belizeans in Forest Reserves - agriculture; rosewood and nargusta illegal logging; instructed and supervised in the field by Chinese companies [Rather than singling out nationalities maybe we could use the legal term alien?] Among other reasons, Belize, Guatemala, and many others countries are members countries of international organizations. They avoid singling out countries unless the evidence has been established.  Medina Bank / Deep River facing same issue  Chiquibul - similar issues with transboundary activities; illegal panning for gold; looting of Mayan sites; poaching - macaws and other species  Vaca Forest Reserve - local and Guatemalan illegal logging [alien enterprises?]  Belizeans public knows Chiquibul is under siege; FCD has brought the figures;  Now there is new evidence of erosion of genetic pool of timber species  Looking at collaborative effort with CONAP and others  National Security Issue is rolled into this for all PA into Western Border  Chiquibul, El Pilar, Vaca, Deep River situation a little different from North  we cannot stop the situation completely which is why we are looking for ways to containing it  Currently , police and military cooperation with PA managers need special forces Challenges and what is needed-  There is limited man power even with collaboration from other agencies such as police and BDF  Need more conservation posts for Chiquibul area - two outstanding Valentin and one for Columbia need specialized equipment and training apart from man power; these posts important in curbing illegal agriculture  Place an authority on the ground  People change their way of operating illegally  Conflict between co-managers on the ground. Immunities because enforcement and education being  done by same so this project can help to work out a new system in which regulatory agency is strengthened but we can also look at formation of NGO or entity just tasked with enforcement  Forest Governance issues go wider than just enforcement and need to analyze this especially greater transparency  Lack of resources at regulatory agency but also regulations need to be amended to have higher penalties; need more education of laws...people are not aware....only 10% of 1% of population interviewed do not know who is responsible for enforcement 26  Need to empower regulatory agency and take a good look at how co-managers function; need strategies for stewardship/ownership  FD needs to understand that situation has become so complicated; very unlikely that they will ever have the resources...we can look at a GoB/NGO model as in Honduras; one day we might even move to Community Governance e.g. Local Village Councils; need more decentralization  If Project can do economic valuation? - communicate value of PAs maybe to encourage politicians to budget more for PA protection and management; just need to educate public on revenue, jobs etc. that PAs bring and sensitize people on this...don't need to do fancy economic valuation  Strategic for GoB to enter into Landscape Management Program/Strategies at Vaca to promote stewardship - need pilots  Need long term streams to sustain Management of the system/ business models  Working with judges and police to make sure prosecution is effective and higher fines; working with communities...some NGOs deal more with engagement of communities and others more with enforcement; signing contracts with communities so they become stewards  SMART and MIST to track if enforcement is effective - software for testing Things that project can do:  Strengthening of FD is a necessary action but this is not sufficient - needs to take a leadership and coordination role; needs to have a community relationship that commands respect; need a decentralized system; FD needs to coordinate partnerships with NGOs etc. to be effective; extension with training, equipment and support from the PACT; need to legally bestow power on NGOs to do enforcement; need legislative reform; clarification of role of FD because they have a key role in enforcement  Good communication and outreach to public, prosecutors etc. regarding the law but also value of PAs  legislative reform to ensure transparency and modify fines etc  research on all forest species and sustainable extraction levels  Target areas : Columbia and Bladen; Maya Mtn North Forest Reserve and TIDE Private Lands B. Sustainable Forest Management Things that the project can do:  Licensing for logging/ extraction of forest products needs to be looked at including monitoring  number of short term licenses were minimal and process of applying was harder so cut down from 200 to 50 and in forest reserves only long term licenses; fear that we are causing more illegal activity; checkpoints work  Need to also look at system for hunting permits etc., hunting seasons....200,000 animals being hunted annually for consumption; 7% of meat consumption is from game meat; need to take a look at the law and how these are enforced; we tend to prosecute small guys in villages rather than the big guys...enforcement across the board....transparency  Need research - need research on game animals not just charismatic species  Need to remove discretionary power from Ministers e.g. Living Aquatic Resources Act  Need to look at non timber forest products and how these can sustain communities C. Promoting Effective Management of KBAs Things that project can do:  Management Effectiveness Training but also Biodiversity Monitoring (Biodiversity Monitoring and National Strategy for Long term Forest Monitoring need to be implemented - biodiversity monitoring is big gap) and need for direct measurement of how effective we have been in stabilizing or reducing illegal activities e.g. national patrol information system  Need to look at limits of acceptable change 27  Need to look at biodiversity integrity For Sustainability:  Need linkage with Private Sector needed; need to look at incentives so people are encouraged to do things the right way  Need business development support for communities; alternative livelihoods; community approach is key...NGOs need to be working themselves out of a job by creating community stewardship....sustainability needs to be for PA not NGO  Need to look at alternative uses - using it to protected it e.g. via tourism or even oil extraction with proper abatement measures  Need consolidation - use resources wisely and avoid duplication of resources; this is key as part of sustainability  Need institutionalized systems - for training, monitoring and research, licenses  Need good land management - implementation of Sustainable Land Use Policy and need a plan; more sustainable agriculture so need Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development to work closely with Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture Subgroup Topic 2: Component 3. Institutional Strengthening & Capacity Building for Enhanced Enforcement of Environmental Regulations The members of the Subgroup considered it useful to discuss the topic focalizing on specific expected outputs and associated options or suggestions.  A functional Departmental Steering Committee on conservation to oversee the process established o Two models were suggested  TOR for NEAC expanded to include additional responsibilities to meet the above expected outcome.  A committee parallel to the NEAC be established but with the legislated inclusion of only governmental department s but with the power to call on stakeholders (NGOs, CBOs) depending on the issue  Staff in the key agencies of the Government of Belize, charged with safeguarding Belize’s natural resources, are trained and equipped with the necessary assessment and compliance monitoring tools (e.g., Forest Department, Department of Environment, Geology and Petroleum, Lands and Survey, Fisheries Department, Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute, Belize Agricultural Health Authority, etc.). o Methodology for “rapid environmental assessment� developed to make training easier for trainers and trainees  Partnerships with the private sector for monitoring of natural resource use improved o Ongoing training extended to the private sector players to ensure that the process is understood and assistance effective  Collaboration with civil society in natural resource management strengthened. o Funding current available from PACT and NPAS project for local NGO’s, that do not meet criteria, to build capacity (do not need to be addressed through this project)  Forest licensing mechanisms that foster the use of forests in a sustainable manner improved o This output is better served under Components 1 or 2 for harmonization  Co-management agreements for PAs modernized and enhanced. o Co-management recently signed but ongoing review needed for modernization but not an immediate priority 28  Applications designed to automate workflows and registries (including KBAs, PAs, and forest licensing, among others) and (e.g., for tracking of reports and provision of timely feedback about agency response) developed and in use. o Training for people based on the function of the agency  Specialized training provided to agency staff on the use of ICT communication tools developed o Alternative training methods for CBO to ensure valuable contribution to database taking into consideration resource and skills availability. o Coordinate with ongoing initiatives – sustainable forest management (SFM), National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), etc.  EIA preparers’ certification program for enhanced environmental compliance established under the DOE o Qualitative and quantitative criteria established for address structure, grammar, referencing, guidelines for presentation and unification of impacts, mitigation and monitoring across reports o Methodologies for the determination of impacts o Review and modification of existing certification programmes locally and regional as a starting point o Update of EIA preparers guidelines  Clear TORs for the NEAC strengthened o Elaborate on roles and functions o Preparation of an operations manual  The NEAC’s autonomy and transparency of procedures increased by regular updates and publication of the Committee’s decisions (on publicly accessible websites) o Debriefing on ECP at the community level o Communities involved in monitoring o Public press release of NEAC decisions  The discretionary power of the Minister is removed from the EPA and the EIA Regulations o This output was addressed in the 2007 EIA amendment regulations with the inclusion of a tribunal but not the same for forestry and fisheries Other Issues:  Review of EIA to determine if Socio-economic aspects are being properly addressed in EIA or should be removed to be addressed elsewhere  Develop comprehensive environmental quality monitoring procedure and compilation of EIA report data to develop data base  The 2005 NPASP reviewed and updated with relevant climate change issues o Better to address this in component 2 o Ongoing initiatives (Ann Gordon Climate Change Office and CCCCC) Observations from the Inception Stakeholder Workshop Structure of the Workshop was geared at offering an opportunity for the participants to offer their views and submit interventions that would guide the development of the PPG and on to the final ProDoc. Observations:  The interventions offered by participants were mostly given during the breakout sessions.  Participants appeared knowledgeable and willing to offer their technical knowledge and experiences gained from their individual course of professional work either as public service technicians or managers of protected areas 29  The attitude was fairly positive but it was evident from one-on-one comments the project appeared ambitious and there existed an uncertainty as to whether its implementation timeframe would allow for goals to be achieved. Particularly, the project outcome of removal of Ministerial discretion drew many sighs, smiles indicating a belief that the goal was a bit reaching considering Belize’s po litical environment.  The plenary session was not robust as there were no interventions outside what was already offered in the breakout sessions. It can be surmised that while the attitudes were positive there existed a bit apprehensiveness on the part of the few protected areas managers and environmental/conservation technicians that attended as they seemed to want to wait to see what would come out of the consultancy exercise yielding a final project document. The structure of the workshop and its activities did not offer much opportunity to test behaviours or attitudes. It was mostly left to be derived from an observation basis. Contributions from the Stakeholder Representatives that Discussed Component 3 at the Inception Workshop held on November 23rd, 2012 Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs Comments/Suggestions 3.1 Enhanced 3.1.1 A functional Two models suggested coordination Departmental i.TOR for NEAC expanded to include additional among Steering Committee responsibilities to meet the outcome of 3.1. Government on conservation ii.A committee parallel to the NEAC be established agencies charged established but with the legislated inclusion of only with conservation governmental departments but with the power to call on stakeholders (NGOs, CBOs) depending on the issue 3.2.Strengthened 3.2.1 Staff in key Methodology for “rapid environmental assessment� capacity for agencies trained and developed to make training easier for trainers and compliance equiped with better trainees monitoring and assessment and enforcement of key compliance agencies monitoring tools and responsible for capacities environment 3.2.2 Partnerships Ongoing training extended to the private sector with the private players to ensure that the process is understood and sector for monitoring assistance effective of natural resource use improved 30 Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs Comments/Suggestions 3.2.3 Collaboration Funding currently available from PACT and NPAS with civil society in project for local NGO’s, that do not meet criteria, to natural resource build capacity (do not need to be addressed through management the Project) strengthened 3.2.4 Forest licensing This output is better served under Components 1 or 2 mechanisms that for harmonization foster the use of forests in a sustainable manner 3.2.5 Co-management Co-management recently signed but ongoing review agreements for PAs needed for modernization, yet not as an immediate modernized and priority enhanced 3.3 Enhanced 3.3.1 . EIA  Qualitative and quantitative criteria established to effectiveness of the certification program address structure, grammar, referencing, guidelines Environmental for enhanced for presentation and unification of impacts, Impact Assessment environmental mitigation and monitoring across reports (EIA) System compliance established  Methodologies for the determination of impacts  Review and modification of existing certification programmes locally and regionally as a starting point  Update of EIA preparers’ guidelines 3.4 Climate Change 3.4.1 The 2005  Better to address this under Component 2 mitigation and NPASP to capture  Need to consider ongoing initiatives such as the Ann resilience relevant climate Gordon Climate Change Office and CCCCC considerations change issues mainstreamed into reviewed and updated the National Protected Areas System Plan (NPASP) The new frontier is resulting in a shift of the traditional norms and practices in the quest to earning a livelihood for a basic standard of living or to meet commercial demands. With the reduction in the easy access to some raw materials, the methods for extraction are becoming more abrasive, with less regards for the environment and in some instances highly exploitative, registering low on the sustainability gauge. Therefore, new approaches that requires shift in the paradigm for those that have the responsibility for natural resource safeguard for present and future generation to have long term benefits. Following the stakeholders workshop the team of consultants carries out a one week site visit in the north, west and south of the country. The objective of the exercise was to obtain a better understanding of the environmental 31 issues, the implication of the environmental act, environmental protection regulations and the extent of their engagement with the Department of the Environment, Forest Department, Fisheries Department, Geology and Petroleum Department, Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute (CZMAI), Belize Agriculture Health Authority (BAHA). The information will be used increase the understanding of the roles of the regulatory agencies in an effort to make it easier to implement environmental protection measures during project implementation and operation. Sites for visit were selected based on location and land tenure, management and community status to gather as much knowledge on a variety of issues. Areas in the north and west included the largest private and public land holdings, while area in the south captured smaller private and public land holdings in as areas where two indigenous groups exist, lower employment opportunities and co-management agreements with the government of Belize. The table below summarizes the comments and concerns from some of the stakeholders participated during in the information sharing sessions. Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations Fri. November 23, Belmopan Department of the CEO is fully aware of the 2012 Environment project activities and benefits and indicated Martin Alegria (Chief that the preference Environmental would be to concentrate Officer) on converting all files to electronic data. No emphasis of scientific data compilation for Toledo decision making, at this Sundaywood Village Mateo Tosh, Alcalde point. Environmental awareness is through Mon. Nov 26, 2012 - CriqueSarco Village Juan Ch’oc, Chairman engagement with SATIIM. No direct engagement with the DOE Mon. Nov, 26, 2012 - TIDE’s Office Toledo Institute for Development and the Environmental Environment (TIDE) - awareness is through Salim Chan, Marine engagement of SATIIM. Manager No direct engagement James Lord, with the DOE Development Director (Port Honduras 32 Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations Marine Reserve, Environment protection Paynes Creek is through their National Park, TIDE environmental Private Protected conservation initiatives. Lands along Rio Director indicated that Grande River) need did not arise to directly engage the DOE in terms of the Tues. Nov 27, 2012 YCT’s Office Ya’axché Environmental Conservation Trust Protection Act (EPA) and (YCT), Bladen Nature pollution regulations Reserve and Golden Stream Corridor Have not engaged the Preserve - Christina DOE directly in the pass Garcia, Executive for guidance on Director; Lee environmental McLoughlin, protection. EP is done Protected Areas intuitively through Manager; Gail Stott, conservation advocacy Botanist; Tom and alternative Pienkowski, Head livelihoods programmes. Development Officer Currently have a court case pending with the GOB/DOE Tues. Nov 27, 2012 SATIIM’s Office Sarstoon and Temash Institute for Indigenous Management (SATIIM), Sarstoon- Temash National Park (STNP) – Gregory Similar to Ya’axché Ch’oc, Executive Director Wed. Nov 28, 2012 Cayo District Friends for National issues related to Conservation and incursion, encroachment Development, and poaching. Extraction Chiquibul National of NTFP. Remoteness and Park - Rafael limited resources Manzanero, increase difficulties and Executive Director present more challenging to protect and preserve. Promoting and encouraging alternative livelihoods through Thurs. Nov 29, 2012 Orange Walk District farming. Engaging San Filipe boarding Guatemalan 33 Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations communities by Thurs. Nov 29, 2012 La Milpa Field Station Mr. Peralta extending invitation to (Principal, San Filipe share best practices and R.C. Primary School) low impact techniques by small farmers in Belize. Programme for Belize, La Milpa Field No need for direct Station - engagement with the BladimirRogrigues, DOE. Environmental Manager awareness in the primary Thurs. Nov 29, 2012 Gallon Jug school is done through cooperation with PFB with trips to PFB managed access area and representatives of PFB visiting the school at least one per year. Gallon Jug - Alistair According to the rep the Macpherson, General outreach can be Manager increased to once per term or TT/Y. Outreach and site visits are mainly for STD IV and V classes Fri. Nov. 30, 2012 Belmopan Carries out Department of the environmental friendly Environment, Aldo and sustainable practices Cansino, Project to control pollution in Officer the biosphere in its operation. Include logging and milling of timber, agriculture (coffee, sugar cane and cocao) and pasture and eco-tourism destination through tourist accommodations. Did not explore other spinoff consequences in detail, because of the activities, such as fuel storage, waste management, emissions control. Did not engage the DOE or vise-versa. Provided information on data transfer from manual to digital 34 Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations combining files with GIS maps. Discussion on information dissemination was not directly budgeted but nevertheless has a strategy that focused on radio, school presentations, and public events such as expo’s. GIS analysis was limited since database was being populated. Cooperation with NGO for eyes on the ground promoted as much as possible. Limited consolidation of existing EA’s for development of time series data. Extent of progress needs further evaluation. No cross sector access to database but the National Spatial Data Information (NDSI) should help to address this issue. There are a number of related projects in progress (Ozone depleting substances control, Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) and Strategic Approach to International Chemical Management (SAICM)). Recommendations It was clear and evident from the stakeholders’ two forms of projects will be required. The first is type is institutional development that wills benefits mostly regulatory and licencing agencies. The second field of projects are geared towards alternatives livelihoods to reduce pressures on KBA’s. Activities to consider for financing under the first segment includes:  ]Institution Capacity and Development Evaluation involving managerial, technical and financial assessments for managers, technical officers and technicians based on the outcome from diagnosing 35 needs to determine the existing capacity, where training need to be concentrated or the need for increase in human resources to effectively manage projects. Certification for EIA preparers that will have an aim of increasing the quality of the EA reports  ICT training for increase efficiency in monitoring and evaluation of impacts. This will help with a higher level of intervention for corrective measures to be taking at an early stage after conclusion of the evaluation.  Consolidation of EA report to build scientific database on information collected across the country to build time series data necessary to predict trends due to development plans. The efforts will help to develop cumulative impacts that will make it easier for the regulatory agencies to verify information through the EA process and other sources. The initiative can also be combined with development trends such as projected population growth and land use (agriculture, tourism, residential, commercial industrial) that can be used to guide higher decision making helping to meet Horizon 2030 objectives. These initiatives will require the development of institutional memorandums of understanding that would help to foster the relationships. The other segment is the implementation of community based development projects yet to be fully finalized. These may include those projects that provide alternatives that would prevent project with high impacts on the natural biodiversity of the KBA’s identified. Possible projects may include:  Alternative livelihoods - such as agro-forestry/ecological farming  Reforestation of abandon milpa  Forest management through controlled burning  Small scale pasture and aquaculture initiatives  Local craft development with residual timber and NTFP 36 1.2 Field Visits Notes MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS (KBA) PROJECT FOR MINISTRY OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (MFFSD) WITH COORDINATING BODY BEING NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS SECRETARIAT (NPAS) FIELD VISITS TOLEDO DISTRICT CRIQUE SARCO AND SUNDAY WOOD VILLAGES NOVEMBER 26TH, 2012 In attendance: Eduardo Quiroga Natural Resources Management Consultant/Team Leader Jeff Waldon Carbon Accounting Consultant Ian Morrison Environmental Management Consultant Marion Cayetano Social Development Consultant Juan Ch’oc CriqueSarco Village Chairman Mateo Tosh Sundaywood Village Alcalde Absent: DaedraHaylock Communications Consultant Objectives: The trip was organized in order to complete the following objectives:  Understand the communities appreciation of protected areas and the key issue areas for the project  Understand the impact the protected areas have on community life and livelihood  Understand the communities interest in alternative livelihood opportunities  Receive a general appreciation of the area and the community life – with some appreciation for cultural practices, behaviors and attitudes as it relates to natural resources From the Meeting with the Village Chairman Mr. Juan Ch’oc and Village Alcalde Mr. Mateo Tosh, the following were evident:  The community does have an appreciation of the SarstoonTemash National Park (STNP) as important for biodiversity protection.  The residents in the community benefit tangibly when the animals wander outside of the protected areas boundaries and allow for hunting.  The protected areas manager does not provide livelihood opportunities for residents at this time. However, the community believes that it should.  There is currently no telecommunications signal from SMART Cell in the area and DigiCell service does not work in the area at this time. This limits the community ability to participate in any project intervention that utilizes this technology in the course of the work whether it is geared at communications, protection issues for the protected area or otherwise  The community believes that the protected area (STNP) should benefit the community’s livelihood but at this time it does not  It appears to them that foreign nationals have more access to the resources and protected areas than Belizeans 37  There is heavy illegal logging and hunting by foreign nationals  The availability of alternative livelihoods opportunities could assist greatly with managing encroachments on the protected areas  Some legal reform can assist alleviating or managing the pressures faced by the protected areas  Wood carving is an ideal alternative livelihood project in CriqueSarco but needs market development and management.  Any livelihood opportunity identified has to be long term and present real possibilities for maintaining family life  Environmental awareness is carried out via engagement with SATIIM FIELD VISITS PUNTA GORDA, TOLEDO DISTRICT TIDE, SATIIM, YA’AXCHE NOVEMBER, 27TH, 2012 In attendance: Eduardo Quiroga Natural Resources Management Consultant/Team Leader Jeff Waldon Carbon Accounting Consultant Ian Morrison Environmental Management Consultant Marion Cayetano Social Development Consultant Salim Chan Marine Manager – TIDE James Lord Development Director – TIDE Christina Garcia Executive Director – Ya’axché Lee McLoughlin Protected Areas Manager – Ya’axché Gail Stott Botanist – Ya’axché Tom Pienkowski Head Development Officer – Ya’axché Gregory Ch’oc Executive Director - SATIIM Absent: DaedraHaylock Communications Consultant Objectives: The trip was organized in order to complete the following objectives:  General understanding of the area under the protection of the organizations  Scope of Work of the organizations in relation to its protected area and buffer communities  Understand the impacts the buffer communities have on the protected area and vice versa  Understand the organizations’ involvement with the communities either via education projects and/or livelihood opportunities as well as establishing partnership for the protection of the area Toledo Institute for Development & the Environment (TIDE) is responsible for the management of the Port Honduras Marine Reserve, Paynes Creek National Park and TIDE Private Protected Lands along the Rio Grande River Ya’axché Conservation Trust (Ya’axché) is responsible for the management of the Bladen Nature Reserve and Golden Stream Corridor Preserve. 38 Sarstoon and Temash Institute for Indigenous Management (SATIIM) is responsible for the management of Sarstoon- Temash National Park (STNP) From the meeting with TIDE, the below is evident:  The forest faces fragmentation pressures  It is believed the forests should provide more alternative livelihood opportunities for residents of the buffer communities  TIDE manages its forests using the Reef to Ridge concept.  The organization does not want to be seen as a land grabber but instead would like to build capacity of the communities to manage lands at the landscape level  The forest faces logging and hunting pressures. Not many families are involved but they are persistent. The persistence is believed to be owing to the fines not being significant to serve as a deterrent.  Environmental protection and education is via the environmental conservation initiatives.  Need has not arisen to directly engage Department of Environment (DOE) in terms of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA)  The organization is evaluating blue carbon and carbon financing  TIDE sponsors tourism initiative for livelihoods options From the meeting with Ya’axché, the below is evident:  The organization faces similar issues as does TIDE in relation to its protected areas  The organization is operating agro-forestry activities as part of landscape management. The activities are cacao based. Only meeting 10% of demand. Personnel needed to expand operation. Interested in nursery expansion and establishing a demonstration farm  Golden Stream Village is growing 10% per year so the potential pressure presented by the community is intensifying.  The organization is working on honey production  The organization has completed above ground biomass survey for reserves to evaluate REDD potential. Interested in a REDD project  The organization would like to expand this project  Pressures on their lands have eased but maybe owing to the absence of management on Boden Creek Lands.  The organization in the past has little need to engage DOE in relation to environmental protection. Environmental protection is done intuitively through conservation advocacy and alternative livelihood programs.  The organization currently has a court case pending against the DOE From the meeting with SATIIM, the below is evident:  Equally there exists lots of pressures on the STNP  The organization has been working with communities to develop sustainable forestry programs but faces lots of barriers to such implementation  The organization recognizes the opportunities for value added on the sustainable forestry activities or logging activities but the land tenure issues limit the activities of the organization and its ability to help communities  There is a need for better data management that could benefit all protected areas 39 FIELD VISITS CAYO DISTRICT SAN JOSE SUCCOTZ – FRIENDS OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT (FCD) VACA FOREST RESERVE SITE VISIT NOVEMBER 28TH, 2012 In attendance: Eduardo Quiroga Natural Resources Management Consultant/Team Leader Jeff Waldon Carbon Accounting Consultant Ian Morrison Environmental Management Consultant Marion Cayetano Social Development Consultant DaedraHaylock Communications Consultant Rafael Manzanero Executive Director – FCD Objectives: The trip was organized in order to complete the following objectives:  General understanding of the area under the protection of the organizations  Scope of Work of the organizations in relation to its protected area and buffer communities  Understand the impacts the buffer communities have on the protected area and vice versa  Understand the organizations’ involvement with the communities either via education projects and/or livelihood opportunities as well as establishing partnership for the protection of the area Friends of Conservation and Development (FCD) is responsible for the management of Chiquibul National Park (CNP) From the visit with FCD, the below is evident:  The evidence is strong that the Maya Mountain block is under siege.  The area is facing a high prevalence of illegal logging (Mahogany and Cedar) and illegal hunting, poaching from foreign nationals  Farming and fire are also major threats to the protected areas that make up the Maya Mountain block. Chiquibul National Park and Forest Reserve faces much if its challenges and encroachments from foreign nationals, while the Vaca Forest Reserve which is closer to local communities faces illegal hunting and logging on a subsistence level. As well, the reclaiming of lands for farming purposes is a challenge faced from both national and foreign nationals in the Maya Mountain block  Gold panning is a threat as well and there currently is operated one legal operation of gold mining. The concern with this legal mining is the level of monitoring and oversight by the relevant Government department agency(ies).  Agroforestry with Xate has a major crop has potential and would need further assessment  There is need for the identification of sustainable use of the forest options to be identified and implemented. FCD as an organization is trying to examine how it can be the proponent of such programs. Considering that the organization manages public lands, the Forestry Department (FD) would be the gatekeeper to approve any such operations within the protected lands. In the Vaca area on lands already excised from the Vaca Forest Reserve, FCD is playing a role in projects like farming and bee-keeping. 40  Enforcement is a major challenge and needs more support from the BDF, Forest Department and Police. The gap presented by the lack of two outpost monitoring stations to complete the network of monitoring stations is a challenge that needs urgent attention.  National issues related to incursion, encroachment and poaching is rampant and the remoteness of the issue further aggravates the matter and its difficulty to monitor and manage.  There is a need for more resources for patrols and monitoring activities  There is need to engage border communities to extend lessons on best practices and low impact techniques for small farmers. FIELD VISITS ORANGE WALK DISTRICT SAN FELIPE, RIO BRAVO CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AREA (LA MILPA) AND GALLON JUG NOVEMBER 29TH, 2012 In attendance: Eduardo Quiroga Natural Resources Management Consultant/Team Leader Jeff Waldon Carbon Accounting Consultant Ian Morrison Environmental Management Consultant Marion Cayetano Social Development Consultant Peralta Principal – St. Michael’s RC School Bladimir Rodrigues Manager – La MilpaEcolodge and Research Center Allistair McPherson General Manager – Gallon Jug Absent: DaedraHaylock Communications Consultant Objectives: The trip was organized in order to complete the following objectives:  General understanding of the area under the protection of the organization and private landowner and investor  Scope of Work of the organization and landowner in relation to its protected area and buffer communities  Understand the impacts the buffer communities have on the protected area and vice versa  Understand the organization and private landowner’s involvement with the communities either via education projects and/or livelihood opportunities as well as establishing partnership for the protection of the area Programme for Belize is responsible for the management of the private protected area Rio Bravo Conservation & Management Area (RBCMA) which is 3% of the country’s land mass Gallon Jug is a private operation owned and operated by the Bowen & Bowen Group of Companies and currently manages several investment projects on the lands, including ecotourism, coffee cultivation and production, sustainable forestry extraction, along with other activities. 41 From the meeting with Mr. Peralta and PfB, the below is evident:  No need for direct engagement with DOE  Environmental awareness in the primary school is done through the cooperation with Programme for Belize  Trips are facilitated to the protected area of the RBCMA at least once per year. It is believed the outreach could be increased. The site visits and education awareness is primarily centered on the Standard IV and V students  The Organization has a detailed management plan  Conducts ecotourism activities on this area of the RBCMA  Site management includes a compositing toilet and solar energy generation for the La Milpa and Hill Bank sites  Ecotourism program includes environmental education and research with international universities.  Archaeology research conducted on the property via arrangements with a US based university  All of the employees on the protected area site are drawn from the surrounding communities on either areas of the protected area.  In the Southern area, sustainable forestry is conducted as well a carbon sequestration project was carried out  Strong forest fire management program and training for employees  The organization pursued a REDD using VCS  Practice of using wild animals has pets have declined due to environmental education in the schools From the meeting with Gallon Jug, the below is evident:  Conducts environmentally friendly and sustainable practices to control pollution of the biosphere in its operation  Including logging, milling of timber and agriculture (coffee, sugar cane and cacao)  Cattle pasturing is as well conducted as well as is ecotourism activities  Spinoff effects and consequences of operations were not explored in detailed, i.e. due to fuel storage, waste management and emissions control  No engagement on either sides with the Department of Environment  The property has experienced some illegal logging but for the most past the surrounding communities present little conflict  The Gallon Jug would like to support community development for Sylvester village.  The property is pursuing a REDD project using VCS and CCBA Standards 42 1.3 KBAs target areas selection process The target areas within the KBAs for the Project were selected through a stakeholder engagement process. Two workshops were conducted on February 8th, 2013 and February 22nd, 2013. The first was to select possible sites and the second to validate the selection. List of participants at working session February 8th, 2013 - ICT Centre, Belmopan Name of Participant Organization/Department Wilber Sabido Forest Department Hannah St. Luce- Martinez Forest Department AnselDubon National Protected Areas Secretariat Ian Morrison Consultant Tanya Santos Forest Department Judene Tingling Forest Department Saul Cruz Forest Department Fernando Tzib Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture Rasheda Garcia Forest Department Arlene Maheia-Young National Protected Areas Secretariat List of participants at validation session February 22nd, 2013 - Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development’s Conference Room Name of Participant Organization/Department Marion Cayetano Consultant Saul Cruz Forest Department Fernando Tzib Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture Carren Williams Lands Information Centre, Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture Arlene Maheia-Young National Protected Areas Secretariat AnselDubon National Protected Areas Secretariat Jose Perez Association of Protected Areas Management Organizations Anthony Mai Department of Environment 43 A set of criteria was developed to rank all the 32 terrestrial protected areas within the KBAs as identified in the KBAs assessment report from 2007. The set of selection criteria was developed by the National Protected Areas Secretariat in consultation with the Forest Department and the World Bank. The criteria were grouped into 6 categories: threats, carbon, management capacity, risk factors, socio-economic, and economic values as detailed below: 1. Threats  Deforestation  Fragmentation of natural habitat  Anthropogenic fire incidence  Incidence of illegal activities (hunting, logging)  Risk of natural activities (fire, hurricanes) 2. Carbon  Carbon sequestration potential  High possibility of regeneration 3. Management Capacity  Lack of management capacity  Lack of human resources for enforcement, conservation and monitoring 4. Risk Factors  Resistance of communities to participate in Project  Geopolitical factors 5. Socio-economic  Poverty levels  Local community dependence on resources in the PA (uses: subsistence, income generation activities) 6. Economic Values  Watershed catchment/protection  Coastal/river bank protection 7. All criteria received equal weight. After the criteria were enumerated, a working session was held to rank all of the protected areas within the KBAs (list of participants is available in the Project files). Following this session, results from the ranking exercise were compiled by the NPAS and Forest Department into a spreadsheet with the criteria and scoring for each PA. Subsequently, the top scores were analyzed and the top ranking PAs were identified (See Table 1). Results we ranked with (highest possible score 45) and without risk factors (highest possible score 39) because the risk factors were agreed to be contentious. Table 1: Ranking Results for Selection of Target Sites Results before removing risk factors Results after removing risk factors Name of PA Score Name of PA Score Maya Mountain FR 42 Maya Mountain FR 36 Honey Camp NP 39 Columbia River FR 34 Freshwater Creek FR 39 Freshwater Creek FR 34 44 Columbia River FR 39 Honey Camp NP 34 Spanish Creek WS 37 Vaca FR 33 Vaca FR 37 AguasTurbias NP 32 AguasTurbias NP 36 Spanish Creek WS 32 8. After the ranking exercise was conducted, the top seven PAs were vetted as potential candidate sites. Five PAs were chosen from Table 3 and one additional PA - Chiquibul National Park – was included based on information from the PA rationalization exercise. 9. Fifteen criteria (Table 2) were used to guide prioritization of the terrestrial protected areas system within the PA rationalization exercise, allocated to four categories. These criteria were developed with input from Forest Department personnel and through feedback from protected area managers asked to ‘field test’ the assessment, to ensure it provided a valid output. Each of these criteria was rated out of a total possible score of 4, with scores then totaled and averaged per protected area. Prioritization scores ranged from 3.33 out of 4.00 for Columbia River Forest Reserve, considered the highest priority overall within the system, to the lowest score - 1.27 out of 4.00 for Melinda National Park. Table 2: Terrestrial Prioritization Criteria 1.0 Environmental Values 1.1 Watershed Catchment and Protection 1.2 Wetland Flood Sink Function 1.3 Coastal / River Bank Protection 1.4 Steep Slope Erosion Control 2.0 Biodiversity Status 2.1 Global Recognition for Biodiversity Values 2.2 Value for Under Represented Ecosystems or Ecosystems of Limited Extent 3.0 Socio-Economic Value 3.1 Value for Commercial Extractive Use (timber / non-timber forest products) 3.2 Value for Non-Renewable Resource Extraction - minerals 3.3 Value for Non-Renewable Resource Extraction – petroleum 3.4 Importance for Water Security 3.5 Value for Hydro-electricity Generation 3.6 Traditional Resource Use Dependence 3.7 Tourism / Recreational / Cultural Values 4.0 Key Resilience Features 4.1 Forest Connectivity 4.2 Altitudinal / Lateral Connectivity 10. The highest rated overall, greater than 3.00, were Columbia River Forest Reserve and Chiquibul National Park. Below are examples of major rating criteria. 11. Watershed Catchment and Protection, Protected Areas rated as VERY HIGH 45 Chiquibul National Park Columbia River Forest Reserve Maya Mountain Forest Reserve Vaca Forest Reserve 12. Based on Species of Global and National Concern, Protected Areas (Meerman, 2007) Columbia River Forest Reserve Chiquibul National Park 13. Ecosystems<10,000 acres Tropical evergreen seasonal needle-leaved lowland forest, well drained  Vaca Forest Reserve 14. Ecosystems<1,000 and <-5,000 acres nationally Deciduous broad-leaved lowland riparian shrubland in hills  Chiquibul National Park  Columbia River Forest Reserve  Vaca Forest Reserve 15. Ecosystems <1,000 and<-5,000 acres nationally Tropical evergreen broad-leaved lowland forest, moderately drained, on calcareous soils  Columbia River Forest Reserve 16. Ecosystems <1,000 and <-5,000 acres nationally Tropical evergreen lower-montane broad-leaved forest  Chiquibul National Park 17. Ecosystems <1,000 and <-5,000 acres nationally Tropical evergreen broad-leaved lower montane forest with palms  Chiquibul National Park 18. Forest Connectivity, Protected Areas rated as VERY HIGH  Columbia River Forest Reserve  Maya Mountain Forest Reserve  Vaca Forest Reserve  Chiquibul National Park  Freshwater Creek Forest Reserve  Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary 19. In addition, APAMO also suggested 4 protected areas in greatest need of strengthening: Freshwater Creek Forest Reserve, Vaca Forest Reserve, Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary, and Columbia River Forest Reserve. 20. Subsequently, a validation session was convened to present and discuss the selection process for the 6 proposed target areas (list of participants is available in the Project files). 21. Based on the analyses and validation/ranking exercises, the final consensus list of PAs to be included in the Project were: a. Northern Lowlands KBA  Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary  Freshwater Creek Forest Reserve b. Maya Mountains Massif KBA  Chiquibul National Park 46  Columbia River Forest Reserve  Vaca Forest Reserve  Maya Mountain Forest Reserve 47 1.4 Participants List for Validation Workshop Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable DevelopmentManagement and Protection of Key Biodiversity Areas Project Preparation Grant Validation Workshop List of Participants May 14th, 2013 – George Price Centre for Peace and Development Name of Participant Organization/Department 1 Ashley Camhi Consultant 2 Arlene Maheia-Young NPAS 3 Guadalupe Rosado NPAS 4 Marion Cayetano Consultant 5 Ian Morrison Consultant 6 Christina Garcia Ya'axché 7 Roberta Pennil Ya'axché 8 Leonides Sosa DOE 9 Lee Mcloughlin Ya'axché 10 Wilber Sabido FD 11 Arreini Palacio Belize Audubon 12 Nayari Diaz-Perez PACT 13 Anthony Mai DOE 14 Celi Cho DOE 15 Martin Alegria DOE 16 Victoria Cawich FD 17 Edgar Eck DOE 18 Fernando Tzib Department of Agriculture 19 Monique Shipstern 20 Heron Moreno Shipstern 21 Lynelle Williams TNC 22 Lester Delgado Shipstern 23 Rafael Manzanero FCD 24 Boris Arevalo FCD 25 Carren Williams Lands Information Centre, MNRA 26 Weiszman Pat MFFSD 27 Tanya Santos Forest Department 28 AnselDubon NPAS 29 Natalie Rosado PACT Rancho Dolores Environment and Development 30 Raymond Reneau Group 31 Colin Mathis NCCO 48 Name of Participant Organization/Department 32 Oswaldo Sabido Consultant 33 Jose Perez APAMO 34 Elma Kay ERI 35 Colin Gillett CZMAI The aim of the validation workshop was twofold: To present an overview of project objectives, components and proposed activities and results framework To present the Social Assessment including socioeconomic benefits and sustainable livelihoods framework The workshop participants also engaged in group exercises to identify community based activities within and around the target sites. Figure 1: Social Development consultant presenting social assessment 49 Figure 2: Participants at the validation workshop 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 1.4 Belmopan Consultation Workshop June 3rd, 2014 George Price Center for Peace and Development Belmopan, Cayo List of Participants No. Participant Organization/Village 1 Lester Delgado CSSF 2 Victor Cawich San Pablo Village Council 3 Marlon Garcia San Pablo Village Council 4 Elmer Flores San Esteban Village Council 5 Pascal Walter CSFI 6 Clinton Rhaburn Flowers Bank village 7 Rodney Banner LemonalVillage 8 Arnaldo Melendez Friends for Conservation &Development (FCD) 9 Davis Valdez Progresso Village 10 Esther Aiemesseger CSFI Sartaneja 11 Colleen Joseph Rancho Dolores Village 12 Heron Moreno CSFI- Shipstern 13 Ruth Staine-Dawson National Association of Village Council (NAVCO) 14 E. Alexander S. V. Council, C.M. 15 Dirk Sutherland Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary 16 Pedro Wiens Little Belize Village 17 Patricio Acuna Santa Martha Village, Orange Walk 18 Joel Diaz CSFI 19 Sean Nicolas Bermudian Landing Village 20 TreciaCasasola St. Pauls Bank Village Council 21 Clifton N. St. Pauls Bank Chairperson 22 Weisman Patt MFFSD-SCU 23 Rosalind Joseph Village Council 24 Gloria Banner Lemonal Village 25 Darlene Padron Sustainable Development Unit 26 Aldo Cansino Department of the Environment 27 Raphael Manzanero FCD 28 Derrick Chan FCD 29 Natalie Rosado Protected Areas Conservation Trust 30 Violet Broaster S.C.W.S. 31 Jacob Redcoop Little Belize Village 32 Arlene Maheia-Young NPAS 33 Aretha Mortis NPAS 34 Jose Perez APAMO 35 Natalie Bucknor BEST 62 36 Dwight Neal BEST 37 Lemuel Velasquez BEST 38 Tanya Santos FD 39 Emily Aldana PPU MFED 40 Carlos Monterosso 7 Miles (El Progresso) Village 41 Lin Smith Rancho Dolores Village/Chair 42 AnselDubon NPAS 43 Melanie Smith BEST 63 An overview of the agenda and workshop objectives was provided by the consulting team. The first presentation by was conducted by the Program Director of the National Protected Areas Secretariat who outlined the KBA project, its objects, and its components. The various safeguards to be discussed were introduced. Question: How will the project affect those who use the protect areas? An explanation was provided that the Livelihood Restoration Process Framework has mitigation measures to address this. The Process Framework presentation presented the communities that were selectedand the selection process. The first interactive discussion revolved around the question of what activities are currently carried out by their communities in the protect areas? The responses were provided by the community representatives according to each of the KBAs. In the north, the activities ranged from agriculture to fishing. The Mennonite representatives clarified that they do not extract logs from Freshwater creek but do buy lumber from those that have concessions to extract timber from the KBA. The NGO working in that KBA (Corozal Sustainable Future Initiative) also mentioned that despite current believe that the KBA is in a degraded condition, reconnaissance and stocktaking that has been done recently show that the site is better off than previously anticipated. Since the NGO has been working the area, there has been greater compliance by the communities to protect it. However, New Land, a new community being established on the margins of the reserve is undergoing widespread clearing. The communities of the Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary indicated that a number of communities use the protected area for fishing, birding and extraction of logwood posts. They are concerned that NGO’s come into the area and restrict them from their livelihood activities which they have been practicing since the days of their ancestors. It is a relatively small KBA and the number of persons living in and around it makes it difficult to monitor and comply. However, of recent demarcation and signage has been improving. Chiquibul National Park is being co-managed by Friends for Conservation and Development (FCD). FCD also works with farmers in the Vaca Forest Reserve. There were a wide range of issues and challenges facing these two KBA’s. The Vaca is more used by communities since it is most accessible. The Chiquibul however face another set of threats most of which are imposed by the Guatemalan communities across the Belizean border. It is very difficult to monitor due the geographic layout and expanse of the National Park and the fact the it bordered by the ElijioPanti National Park, the Vaca Forest Reserve, Chiquibul Forest Reserve, the Mountain Pine Ridge and the Caracol Archeological Site. Persons who use the Vacafor extraction of timber resources (concessionaires) come as far away as Santa Familia, Bullet Tree and Calla Creek in the western part of the Cayo District. The Vaca,Challillo and Mollejon Dams are also threats to both of these reserves. The presentation continued with an overview of what activities will be carried out? Who will it affect? Mitigation Measures. Community leaders were asked to relate their experience using the protected areas, when management projects are carried out, how did it affect their livelihood and what measures were put in place to ensure that they had alternative livelihood. 64 The participants shared that projects seldom ask for their input and they are often not consulted from the beginning. In the case of the Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary, the rangers would meet them within the reserve and they would be accompanied out. If they were consulted from the beginning they would know what the rules and rationale for them, and they would comply as they too want to preserve the wildlife and habitat. Also, if they were consulted they would be able to share information about nesting sites, seasons for extraction of animals and plants and they too could serve as community forest rangers. Those from the Vaca Forest Reserve shared that they were given eviction notice by the Forest Department but with assistance from FCD they conducted a series of negotiations and special consideration was given to them to continue cultivating within the reserve. The formalized their group as a farming cooperative and received extension services and project funding to grow their crops using eco-friendly pesticides and eco-farming techniques. They now have a stable market and high quality produce. The presentation continued by outlining the positive and negative impacts of the project. Thereafter, those who would be eligible to obtain benefits from the project were discussed. The participants were pleased to see that a wide range of persons and groups were being considered. The discussion then moved on to the measures to assist affected persons, an extended discussion regarding persons who are conducting illegal activities in the KBA should not be eligible since a project should not give benefits to people who break the law. A question was asked about whether or not Guatemalans would be eligible. While the Social Assessment exercise will determine how communities use the site and what type of access will be allowed and/or restricted, it was explained that under the World Bank guidelines they would still be considered eligible users. It is important not to discriminate users based on their nationality. However, it was stated that the involvement of Government agencies such as the Immigration Department needs to be consulted on this matter. The Grievance redress mechanism was presented next. It was agreed that these are steps that must be taken. A question was posed as to how to address a grievance if it is against the Project Management Unit. The response was that the second tier allows for that to occur and that the person/group or community could request their local representatives to address the issue. Finally, the involuntary resettlement policy was briefly discussed as the project did not expect that anyone would have to be resettled unless the activities were not in compliance with the designation of the protected area. After the break, the presentation moved on to the The Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF). The first question posed was regarding the name of the document. Why IPPF not Community Planning Framework? The name suggested that it will focus only on indigenous people when in fact all ethnic groups must be consulted and given the same courtesy. BEST shared how they came about with their safeguard document and how they holistically addressed community consultations but emphasized indigenous community planning in line with World Bank guidelines. The presenter mentioned that the names of the document can be changed and that the documents will be adapted to address the issues raised as a result of the consultation. Furthermore, the social assessments will determine a final list of communities and exactly how they impact the KBA. 65 As the presentation progressed to discuss the adjacent communities a discussion emerged on what criteria was used to select the communities, discussion on what an adjacent community is. It was important to establish this so that community representatives could confirm that those who appear on the list were actual adjacent communities. The definition was refined and accepted to mean those who are proximate, are traditional users and have access to the KBA’s. Furthermore, it was suggested to divide the groups into primary users and secondary users with the latter being those who are not geographically proximate but use the resource occasionally or own land or concessions within the KBA. The Legal and Institutional framework was presented followed by the consultation Principles. A definition of Free, Prior and Informed consultation was provided. Inclusion as a guiding principle was also mentioned. The objectives and benefits of community consultations closed of the presentation. In the afternoon session, the Environmental Management Framework was presented. The presentation included forest department legislation, safeguard measures, potential subprojects and mechanism for implementation and responsible agencies. The role of the community in monitoring and evaluation of all aspects of the project was discussed. Questions emerged regarding how the subprojects will be selected? It was explained that PACT will provide the financing but a Steering Committee will review the proposals. The proposals will be formulated by the communities and the type of project to be implemented will be decided by the community or group of persons. The day concluded with a summary of the concerns and overview of the project objectives. The participants were reminded that the documents will be online by June 10th 2014 at the websites of the NPAS and World Bank and will be available electronically from the NGO’s working with their community. Any comments and suggestions will be appreciated. 1.5 Toledo Consultation Workshop June 6th, 2014 Nazareth Retreat Center Forest Home Village, Toledo District List of Participants No. Name Position Organization/Community 1 Rodolfo Morales Chairperson Trio Village, Toledo District 2 Maximilano Makin Chairperson San Pablo Village, Toledo District 3 Juan Rax Alcalde San Pablo Village, Toledo District 4 Pablo Choc Chairperson Indian Creek Village, Toledo District 66 5 Linus Choc Chairperson Silver Creek Village, Toledo District 6 Domingo Teul Vice-Chairperson Silver Creek Village, Toledo District 7 Alfredo Teul Treasurer Silver Creek Village, Toledo District 8 Pedro Cal Chairperson San Vicente Village, Toledo District 9 Sebastian Cab Alcalde San Vicente Village, Toledo District 10 Rafael Tzub Alcalde San Jose Village, Toledo District 11 Diego Oh Chairperson Na LuumCaj Village, Toledo District 12 Rudolfo Oh Alcalde Na LuumCaj Village, Toledo District 13 Abelino Zuniga Vice-Chairperson Medina Bank Village, Toledo District 14 Orlando Chan Alcalde Bladen Village, Toledo District 15 Zulma Portillo Community Member Bella Vista Village, Toledo District 16 Elmer Requena Terrestrial Biologist Toledo Institute for Development and Environment (TIDE), Hopeville Area, Toledo District 17 Mark Miller Executive Director Plenty Belize, Jose Maria Nunez Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District 18 Christina Garcia Executive Director Ya’axché Conservation Trust, 2 Alejandro Vernon Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District 19 Roberta Pennell Development Officer Ya’axché Conservation Trust, 2 Alejandro Vernon Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District 20 Zee McLoughlen PA Manager Ya’axché Conservation Trust, 2 Alejandro Vernon Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District 21 BartholomewTeul Programme Manager Ya’axché Conservation Trust, 2 Alejandro Vernon Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District No. Name Position Organization/Community 22 Pantaleon Escobar Project Coordinator Humana People to People 23 Mario Chavarria Executive Director Toledo Development Corporation, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District 24 Thomas Tillett Project Coordinator Toledo Cacao Growers Association, George Price Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District 25 Tomas Caal Chairman, Pro-tem Friends of Lu Ha, Punta Gorda Committee Town, Toledo District 26 Christoper Nesbitt Director Maya Mountain Research Farm, San Pedro Columbia Village, Toledo District 27 Celini Logan Farm Coordinator Maya Mountain Research Farm, San Pedro Columbia Village, Toledo District 28 Yanira Pop Forest Officer Forest Department 29 Raul Chun Forest Officer Forest Department 67 30. Aretha Mortis Office Administrator National Protected Areas Secretariat, Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development 31. Guadalupe Rosado Communications Officer National Protected Areas Secretariat, Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development 32. Arlene Maheia-Young Program Director National Protected Areas Secretariat, Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development 32. AnselDubon Program Officer National Protected Areas Secretariat, Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development The consultation in the Toledo District included both non-indigenous communities representing the Maya Mountain North and indigenous communities representing Columbia Forest Reserve (CRFR). The consultation was conducted in four languages: English, Kekchi, Mopan and Spanish. Figure 3: Mayan Translator conveying message in Kekchi for the community representatives The Toledo Cacao Growers Association took the opportunity to give an overview of their organization as Cacao is considered a viable option for alternative livelihoods. The purpose of presentation was also to give community participants the idea of how community agro-forestry helps in maintaining biodiversity while promoting sustainable livelihoods. The presentation highlighted that there is a huge local and international (export) market for Belizean cacao. -Buyers want 1 million pound of dried cacao but TCGA is only supplying 250,000 pounds. In 2013 an outbreak of disease caused a reduction in production by half. 68 25 % of locally produced cacoa goes to local markets and the rest goes to international markets. Price has increased from 8 cents a pound to 2.65 cents for dried cacao beans. Exports are based on seasonal contracts 85% and the contracts are negotiated on world market price. TCGA is getting prices above world market. The TCGA representative stated that cacoa is a family friendly crop since children and adults participate and benefit. The current focus is on product quality and expansion. The organization intends to improve yield through technology. It has drying facilities in several villages; expanding drying facilities in villages (to facilitate drying from farmers in other villages). Some of the villages adjacent to the KBA are already involved in cacao growing and other expressed interest. An overview of the KBA project was conducted by the Program Director. A concern from San Vicente was that it has expanded after the designation of the protected area and stated that they need land for agriculture and wanted to know if they will be able to have activities within the protected areas, not only cacao but also crops like corn, etc. It was explained that through the project, there may be opportunities such as those that exist in Vaca Forest Reserve for small farmers; however this would have to be done after the development of a community sustainable forest management plan for the area. -Mr. Requena from TIDE stated that such a project should have come about from 1990s. “It is great initiative where government, NGOS and community people are coming together to plan and better use the PAs�. There is broad support the plans for the project but there is need for engagement with communities currently using the resources. The project has identified the challenges but there is need for prior communication. Figure 4: Representative from TIDE expressing his support for the project 69 Nah LumKa- some community members are lease owners near the Columbia River forest reserve. Question: Will the project open the lines for the protected areas-meaning clearly demarcate the boundary? It was explained that the project activities include clear demarcation of the boundaries of the protected areas. Trio Village- these are important facts for them because they also are very close to the Maya mountain forest reserve and use the area for fishing, agriculture crops such as pineapple and extraction of house posts. A presentation was conducted on the Livelihood restoration framework by the Consultant. -The new definition was discussed and all were in agreement that the definition adequately reflects what an adjacent community is. As part of the presentation an extended discussion was conducted on which communities have direct access to the protected areas? Columbia River Forest Reserve: Nah LumKa-very close to Columbia River Forest Reserve Santa Elena/Santa Cruz communities manage the Rio Blanco National Park which is very close to CRFR and they have a vested interest in it. Pueblo Viejo-does not have immediate access but should be considered as people use the FR occasionally. San Antonio-portion of Columbia River FR de-reserved. The representative mentioned that Crique Jute should be included since they also use the reserve. Concern-Indian Creek farmers are within the protect areas boundary due to the boundary curving. Community involvement is essential since they know exactly which areas they are using. It is essential to involve when the social assessment and community mapping is done and to conduct activity to demarcate the protected area. 70 Figure 5: Alcalde of Indian Creek voicing his concern regarding demarcation of protected areas boundary Golden Stream is only 15 minutes away from the protected area. Big Falls village, Hicatee and Silver Creek are also users. The project needs to take closer look at communities that may be using the areas. It was explained that social assessments will be conducted to determine level of use and final listing. San Pedro Columbia-30 persons using the area as primary source of water. San Miguel-next to CRFR and Jalacte should be included. Maya Mountain Forest Reserve: Trio, Bella Vista, San Pablo, San Isidro, Bladen (Toledo) and a new Mennonite called Roseville (behind Redbank) all use the MMN. There is also a private land owner in the area-12,000 acres- Stoufer estate. Concern-how will the project address issue of de-reservation? Concern - the problem of political interference-Maya mountain forest reserve under high threat from de- reservation. Response-through the system wide impacts- ensuring the implementation of the NPAS bill and development of regulations for processes such as de-reservation as outlined in the National protected areas system plan. Impact for 2.1a-this will impact success of the project as de-reservation will negatively affect communities using the areas. As part of the presentation, a discussion regarding livelihood required blocks of communities to discuss: From your experience using the protected areas and when projects relating to protected areas management has been implemented: How has your livelihoods been affected? 71 What measures were put into place to ensure that you have alternative and sustainable livelihoods? Group work collected. Presentation continued to discuss livelihood options and sub-projects. Question: What does small scale pastures have to do with protect areas management? Small scale-sheep and deer and gibnut can be used along with agroforestry systems; rather than hunting deer-small scale pasture can support diversification of income. Include lands and agriculture departments in the project that may be promoting other initiatives that are not in compliance with the project. - Establish Guidelines for silvipastoral systems. Villager of San Pedro Columbia stated that agro-ecology can include conversion of land to forested land with medicinal plants. Really liked that the project is addressing conversion of abandoned milpa to forested areas The villager further stated that concerns are not static concerns; they are vital due to growth in population where PAs will be under increased threats due to land for agriculture; address bad agricultural practices-from citrus, milpa etc. They are open to supporting the project. San Pedro Columbia –reiterates that they fully support the project. Good initiatives for sub project-community need to decide what is needed. Recommendation –to Plan follow up community consultation on the safeguards. Only alcalde/chairpersons are invited at national level but at the local level the communities need to be consulted directly. Consider needs of the communities to have livelihood opportunities in the project area. The communities know what they need. The project needs to look at communities at a larger scale-access roads, local development perspective and whole picture of the community. Management system for communal land needs to be clearly outlined. Presentation of Community Consultation process framework: Preparation of documents and need to get document in format and level that they can understand and comprehend (technical). Language and complexity-documents should be summarized and translate (there are no recognized written forms of the Maya languages). Transportation-bus should be chartered to mobilize communities or leaders so that they do not have to limit their participation time to be on schedule with the village transportation where it exists. Discussion: What is the culturally appropriate way to consult communities adjacent to MMFR and CRFR? Trio village chairperson- Congratulate and applauds the approach Ya’axché takes in working with their communities-near MMFR. They come and meet the people in the community. Ya’axché representatives 72 mentioned that they do not have an official consultation protocol- they only have reports on the consultations. It is done as due diligence with trio and Bella vista to see if community forest concession can be established in Maya Mountain North. Each time they asked what people would like to know and they followed up and kept in constant contact with villagers. Best way to send information: Reach out to the chairperson and Alcalde – at least 21 calendar days in advance-before the meet with the end of the month-set time. Some community conduct communal cleaning (fajina) done every three months and conduct meeting after. Indian creek and San Jose villages meet end of every month; this is combined with collection of water fees. After or during-they give information on the community; this is a good way of keeping people informed. Bladen village -meet once a month on the last Sunday of every month due to community working on farms etc. Most Chairpersons and Alcalde have cell phones; San Vicente and Jalacte have Guatemalan cell service. It was mentioned that information can be sent through organizations such as Humana gets information to communities because they have structures in communities. Radio-discussion shows to discuss and explain to broader communities. Working through the NGO community has been a plus. BEST has community coordinators. TCGA-has a network for farmers through drying centres–extension officers, farmer leaders. Weekly meeting with members -producing cacao. At the village level, first contact should be the two leaders-Alcalde and chairpersons. Meet with elected leaders 2-3 weeks prior to consultations. Question: What is the most effective way to reach out to the women? PulcheriaTeul-gives very useful information. In Bladen-go through the chairperson-Ms. Pauuis female and she contacts the females. In communities where male chairpersons-women and men are invited together. In San Vicente-mostly men having meeting. If women’s meeting the facilitator must be a female. Female school principals can be used. Indian creek- more women starting to come out of the shyness in attending meetings. Medina Bank has a female Alcalde. Women groups-let them know the project will benefit women also. Certain issues may be considered – male or female relations. Livelihood activities for male or female can be discussed separately. Focus on activities for families Discussion on Grievance mechanism 73 Local level committee –not only for grievance but also for the general implementation of the project. Might need to be looked at along with rural development due to sustainability after the project. Question: who is the final authority in villages? Community, alcalde or chairman? The Alcade but in consultation with the Chairman. In 2015 –new alcaldes will be selected (2 years) ; 3 years for village councils (1 more year-2015). It is important for projects to exist beyond the political structures of the villages. Most of the time there is loss of information due to change in leadership; session with interest groups and broader community; important point-some persons may have agenda-but the community would be able to buffer against individual positions or interest. Communities to see how the project fit into the community-community development plans and project fit into overall plan-where community wants to go. Often times, plans are developed but not implemented. It is important to have local representatives at decision-making level. Decentralized management of projects; involve communities in decision-making throughout the process and meaningfully. Recommendation is to have NAVCO on TAC or to have local level committees to provide advice on the sub-projects. Presentation continued on how local committees will be established; and its functions including addressing grievance. It was reiterated that issues must be addressed at the local level-first. The day concluded with a summary of the concerns and overview of the project objectives. The participants were reminded that the documents will be online by June 10th 2014 at the websites of the NPAS and World Bank and will be available electronically from the NGO’s working with their community. Any comments and suggestions will be appreciated. 74 1.6 Indigenous Leaders Consultation June 27th, 2014 Toledo Institute for Development and Environment’s (TIDE) Conference Room Hopeville Area, Toledo District List of Participants No. Name Position Organization/Community 1. Pablo Mis Programme Coordinator Maya Leaders Alliance; Toledo Alcalde Association 2. Martin Chen Chairperson Maya Leaders Alliance 3. Candido Cho Leader Maya Leaders Alliance 4. Adriano Mas Member Maya Leaders Alliance 5. Alfonso Cal Second Alcalde Golden Stream Village, Toledo District President Toledo Alcalde Association 6. Ignacio Sho First Alcalde San Marcos Village, Toledo District Deputy Leader Toledo Alcalde Association 7. Vicente Sackul First Alcalde Laguna Village, Toledo District Member, Executive Board Toledo Alcalde Association 8. Louis Pop First Alcalde Golden Stream Village, Toledo District 9. Jose Che First Alcalde San Pedro Columbia Village, Toledo District 10. Bartholomew Teul Programme Manager Ya’axché Conservation Trust, 2 Alejandro Vernon Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District 11. Ronald Neal Intern Maya Leaders Alliance 12. Timoteo Mesh Intern Maya Leaders Alliance and Toledo Alcalde Association 13. Natalie Bucknor Consultant BEST 14. Melanie Smith Consultant BEST 15. Dwight Neal Consultant BEST The meeting was attended by a total of 12 participants including leaders from the Maya Leader Alliance and the Toledo Alcalde Association. The meeting was conducted in English and Maya and a translator was present to translate from English to Ketchi and vice versa. The project description, objective, components and selected KBA’s were presented from the Environmental Management Framework. The presentation continued with the Livelihood Restoration Framework. A question was asked by TAA, what the involvement does the Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development have in project? The response was that the Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development will be implementing the project and is currently preparing for the project 75 to begin. The question was asked regarding why they are doing a consultation on the documents? It was explained that World Bank funding require that projects have applicable safeguards in place before the project begins. The TAA representative then stated that the Ministry is basically obligated by the World Bank to develop the framework but this is not normally how they [the Ministry] do their work. The adopted definition of adjacent community was discussed. There were no concerns or comments. The presentation continued with the potential impact of the project and the mitigation measures. The first concern regarding activity 1.1a was presented by Pablo Mis of the Maya Leader Alliance. The legislation on land tenure will be revised but there are various difficulties with that aspect since there is no documentation of land distribution and land use is not properly document, so it would be difficult to use that as a basis for how the land tenure legislation revision. When asked by the consulting team how is the land distributed and used in communal lands, since at this point the system is not clear. For example, it is difficult to determine how someone becomes a communal land user? Why would a user lose their benefits? What are the rights and responsibilities of the users? Is there documentation anywhere on that? The respondents indicated that that reflects the position of the Prime Minister. He has expressed the same things. It is clear that the document is saying one thing and the government’s position is something else. The genuine position of the Maya communities is to have established boundaries of the Maya community. Currently a lot of communities now keep their boundaries clean. Even so, the Maya never gave up their rights to the Protected Areas. The MLA representative also informed the team that the TAA had drafted the Alcaldes Jurisdiction Bill 2011, a document which articulates the requirement for land use and it also responds to the other questions. However, no response has been received from local government since 2011 when it was submitted. A question was posed by the consulting team to the participants about how communities who currently use the protected areas will be affected by the project especially since not all communities use the PA communally? The response was that the Alcaldes Jurisdiction Bill articulates the governance and process of how the system works but that has not been embraced by the government. These were the same issue brought up in the REDD+ process, they stumbled on it. It is not so much how communities will be affected but more that threats can be mitigated when government and Maya communities are able to sitand work something out. The Government does not recognize communal land use. The Government does not talk about Maya land rights. Therefore, the Maya people believe that government is not accountable, so, this and any other framework is not binding. The way to mitigate threats to the communities is to recognize communal land use. When the discussion moved to 1.2 another concern was lodged. How would the project ensure that the sub- projects or funding actually benefit the community? Mr. Caal, the President of the TAA, shared that he has a lot of experience with projects that are implemented spending millions of dollars and the community did not benefit. (a few were discussed). He further stated that they identify key development areas but these do not benefit. The presentation skipped to the measures to assist affected persons component to show the project will ensure input from the onset. It was also mentioned by the facilitator that the project is yet in the planning stage and it is at this stage that the foundation must be set to ensure that communities benefit and that they have input on how the project will be implemented. 76 Returning to the project components- it was highlighted in the section on other restrictions that in the “case that indigenous users of forest resources are affected, free, prior and informed consultation leading to broad community support will be required for Livelihood Restoration Framework Operation Policy 4.12�. The main concern was that the term free, prior and informed consultation should read, consultation and CONSENT. The participants stated that in their experience the government consistently uses consultation to mean that it was presented and marks it off on their checklist. Consent is more binding; it means that there is more serious commitment. Consultation does not give a solid establishment. In the case of Canada’s indigenous peoples, they are based on consent. Consent mean agreement, consultation merely indicates that you were informed and your concerns were noted. The current court case of SATIIM vs. US Energy shows how consultation and consent are two different things. Component 2.1 was presented. The participants mentioned 2.1a-declaration, re-alignment and de-reservation of PAs is very good, since communities want to keep the area under protection. The Alcalde of Santa Cruz asked if any of the projects will help communities to demarcate their boundaries. The response was that it was not known, since the projects have to be community-driven, so once it falls under any of the components then it will be eligible. The presentation was skipped to possible sub-projects to give an overview of what type of sub-projects would be implemented. On the same topic, the consulting team was reminded by the participants that the Maya communities are still using organic customary practices and their practices already have some built in environmental safeguards. The first presentation concluded with a review of eligibility, the grievance redress mechanism andmention that if necessary the involuntary resettlement plan will come into effect. A presentation on the community consultation framework followed. At the onset of the presentation, it was explained that the document has two components: Section 1 discusses how adjacent communities in general will be consulted and section 2: discusses how indigenous communities in particular will be consulted. It was also explained that in the Belmopan consultation the concern that the document focuses only on Indigenous Peoples when in fact there were other ethnicities participating in the project led to the restructuring of the document. The Legal and Institutional framework was mentioned. The only inputwas that even though there are two types of local leaders both leaders try to find equity and equal rights. The presentation moved on to the adjacent communities identified by the various consultation. The only concern was that Big Falls should be a primary user not a secondary user, therefore, should be moved from Table 3 to Table 2. The presentation then moved onthe indigenous people’s consultation process,the TAA presented the consulting team with a copy of their approved consultation protocol which outlines the process and protocols for getting participation from the indigenous Maya of the south. The consultants assured the TAA that the document will be updated to ensure that they align as much as possible with both Government policies and the TAA’s consultation protocol. 77 The presentation continued with the planning process, the disclosure mechanism and a quick reminder that there is a grievance mechanism in place. The floor was open for additional comments. The main concern centered around two main issues: consultation and commitment. The first issue was that their experience working with Government has not been positive. It is not clear how binding Governments decisions will be in this project. There was no indication of what will happen if GOB does not adhere to its agreements with the communities. Another question was asked about how the REDD+ will support the project. The consultants shared that this project has various components that will support the REDD+. It is unclear if the REDD+ will happen and similarly they went through the same exercise with the communities as the KBA project is now doing. A concern was brought up regarding equal representation. It was noted from the literature that there is a steering committee made up of CEO’s and technical people. Where is the community representation on that committee? The consulting team mentioned that a representative group such as APAMO has been considered to sit on the PSC. However, the participants stated that they [APAMO] represents the environmental community. There should be representatives of communities as well as ‘indigenous communities’. This will ensure that Mayan concerns are highlighted at that level. When government and technical persons do not agree with Maya Leaders then there is discouragement on the part of leaders. The document states that there will be a mediation committee at the community level? How inclusive will that be? What representation will they have on the Steering Committee level? For example, the REDD SC is a body of key stakeholders to advise project management unit not just CEO’s. The final and very extensive discussion revolved around the issue of consultation. The participants felt that even with the consultations that have been done, the indigenous communities have not been adequately represented. Communities need to understand the project. They need to discuss how they will contribute to making it work and how projects will affect/benefit them. One Alcalde asked if there will be individual consultations in communities and he would like to see consultation done at community level. The consultants were reminded that even though documents were sent to the MLA and TAA not all Alcalde were able to access it electronically and some had only seen the document prior to the meeting. As a result, the documents have not been digested. One suggestion was to have a focus group working session be conducted with leaders and community members of the adjacent communities. Another suggestion proposed that the meeting be with all Executive members of the MLA & TAA since not all were able to come because of it being a work day and because of flooding of some rivers. This meeting should include representatives of adjacent communities. An all-day session should be held. Saturday is better day for meetings. Letter will be sent to head of TAA & MLA. Letter will be sent to head of TAA & MLA. The continuous consultation is important so that everyone is aware. At the community level, there are community meetings. Once the leaders consult with their people andback to the project then freeproper and consultation would not be another checklistinstead it will be dialogue. Mr. Caal mentioned that projects can be successful if they ensure wide and equal representation. Some of their members don’t fully understand what the KBA project is about sothat when they leave the assemblythey go backtheir community with the correct information. He did not feel that with the discussion throughout the morning was extensive enough to provide them with the information to go back to their community. 78 Next session should be a full working day so as to receive feedback on documents for adjustments. It was suggested that the next consultation could be done as early as July 26th 2014, in Golden Stream or San Pablo. It was further suggested that this meeting be done with the Ministry so that there is dialogue between government and the Maya communities. This is especially important so that when the project begins there has been already certain level of commitment between both. Principles of the Toledo Alcades Association Consultation Framework The consultation framework applies to policy initiatives, legislative proposal, administrative measure, development, economic project, or any other action that may affect the lands, territories or well-being of the Maya people. - Process must be culturally appropriate, timely, meaningful, in good faith and meet international normative standards, particularly the requirement of free, prior and informed consent. - Consultation must begin at the planning stage and continue throughout the life cycle of the proposed action or activity. - Customary rules must be respected, including deliberative communication methods, it includes, but not limited to seeking permission to enter village lands for the purpose of resource use or extraction, or to gain access to cultural sites. Preliminary information must be provided at the earliest time possible. - Maya people reserve the right not to accept any of the initiatives or other action that contravenes their consultation framework. - The TAA/MLA Consultation framework makes it abundantly clear the making contact and exchanging information with the Indigenous Leaders does not mean consent. After receipt of request to consult, the TAA shall inform the proponent if the request is accepted and, together with the proponent, develop a mutually acceptable consultation schedule. - At the Toledo Alcaldes Association, the General Assembly is the fundamental authority for decision making. The executive body carries the decision of the assembly. The individual Alcaldes register their vote on an issue based on the directive of the village meeting on a specific issue. - Where relocation or settlement becomes necessary as part of a mitigate measure the ESCEI must include a clear Settlement Action Plan and Livelihood Restoration Plan of the affected village. 79 Figure 8: Participants who attended consultation 1. 1.7 Summary of Concerns from all consultations & Response # Stakeholder concern Response/action 1 In the Belmopan consultation held on June It was suggested that ‘adjacent communities’ should mean 3, 2014 there was a concern about how the communities that are geographically proximate and/or have communities were selected/or would be traditionally used the PA, and/or have direct access to the selected as beneficiaries? This was an PA. As a result, it was agreed to use the definition and to also important question since it would differentiate communities in a listing of primary and determine whether or not the list of secondary users. adjacent communities adequately reflected the communities who use the PA. It was also reported that soon after project implementation and before management plans are prepared, detailed social assessments will be conducted for each protected area. The Social assessments will result in a final list of communities selected as beneficiaries. Furthermore, specific tasks to be undertaken in the social assessment are included but not limited to those listed on page 23 of the IPPF. 2 The land tenure legislation component was At the workshop, Forest Department personnel clarified that questioned since it can be assumed that it the project implicitly states that the part of the legislation to means the current land tenure process will be reviewed is the taxation system or specific clauses in the be reviewed. (landowners tax incentives) legislation which act as disincentives for persons who maintain forest cover and the current system of taxing landowners’ high rates if they leave the land ‘undeveloped’. Project Component 1.1a states: one key factor driving 80 deforestation in Belize is the existing land tenure legislation, which requires that titled lands be cleared by owners to be considered ‘developed’. This creates incentives for landowners to clear the land in an effort to meet the requirements of ‘development’ without which landowners are charged a higher land tax. 3 Participants discussed the practice of During the workshop, it was communicated that the project projects coming into communities to is still in the design phase and that the consultation process enforce laws without their knowledge of the will be throughout the project cycle and based on the new laws and without their consent. They consultation protocol outlined for the project and the also shared experiences regarding projects communications strategy. being implemented where the agencies predetermine what will be done and who It was also identified that the sub-projects will be community will participate. These project works with driven to address needs identified at the local level. communities on a ‘trial and error’ system making it difficult for communities to be The MFFSD has agreed to establish local level committees open to other projects. (identified in the grievance mechanism) that will serve as working groups with membership from the adjacent The Alcades Association was concerned that communities for each protected area which may be affected there is a precedence of projects destined by project interventions. It will also include, but not be for development areas but in reality the limited to, representatives from the District Association of funds does not reach the communities. A Village Councils (DAVCO). The Local level committees to be concern was brought up regarding equal established for the two southern sites, Colombia River Forest representation. It was noted from the Reserve and Maya Mountain Forest Reserve will include literature that there is a steering committee representatives from the Indigenous communities to be made up of CEO’s and technical people. identified by the TAA and/or MLA. Where is the community representation on that committee? The consulting team The local level committees will serve as a formal group to mentioned that a representative group such advise not only on the project issues, but issues related to as APAMO has been considered to sit on the land tenure and project issues and to foster dialogue. This is PSC. However, the participants stated that similar to what has been established for the REDD+ project. they [APAMO] represent the environmental community. There should be Additionally, and to further engage the local level representatives of communities as well as communities, the Technical Advisory Committee will meet ‘indigenous communities’. This will ensure with the local level communities to address specific issues that Mayan concerns are highlighted at that that may arise. level. When government and technical persons do not agree with Maya Leaders then there is discouragement on the part of leaders. 4 A recurrent topic was that of livelihoods Through the presentations it was clarified what mitigation disruption. measures will be taken into consideration and what type of projects would be eligible under the alternative livelihood and forest community management sub-projects. Furthermore, the Livelihood Restoration Framework, which will be implemented through the project, was prepared to mitigate impacts on livelihoods. As a result, affected parties will be eligible for support from the livelihood subprojects. 5 The Indigenous Leaders were not in The Government of Belize, due its ongoing litigation with the agreement with the principle of Maya Land Rights case is not in a position to require consent 81 consultation. They felt that it should read from Indigenous groups or communities as part of the 4 consultation and CONSENT as this is seen overall consultation framework. However, the Government is as more binding for both parties. The committed to meaningful consultation and the inclusion of example between SATIIM vs. US Energy all relevant comments and recommendations from below is outlined. communities. The plan is to do this at all levels for the overall project and the sub-projects we intend to implement. 6 The title of the Safeguard document Suggestions were made to rename the document to reflect Indigenous People Planning Framework was that it is a community consultation process. The example of questioned at the Belmopan consultation BEST’s culturally appropriate community consultation since it implied that it will focus only on document was expressed and it was agreed to adopt the indigenous peoples when in fact the project name. was serving most of the ethnic groups in Belize. 7 The TAA/MLA explained that at the The Ministry, through the RPP process has communicated to community level, there are community the MLA and TAA that projects like REDD+ and KBA will have meetings. Once the leaders consult with added benefits such as improved dialogue and collaborative their people and back to the project then planning, social and environmental safeguards, improved free proper and consultation would not be land use, forest and land governance reforms which are another checklist instead it will be dialogue. needed. However, for us to realize benefits we need to make investments in time, effort and financial resources during project implementation. Therefore, specific community level consultation will be pursued during implementation before project activities/components are carried out. 8 A recommendation was made for a full At the start of project implementation the Ministry will seek working day so as to receive feedback on to engage a Community Liaison for non-indigenous documents for adjustments. It was communities and an Indigenous Peoples’ Liaison, with suggested that the next consultation could financial support from the project to work with the th be done as early as July 26 2014, in Golden communities and IP groups such as MLA and TAA to ensure Stream or San Pablo. It was further effective participation and representation during project suggested that this meeting be done with implementation. the Ministry so that there is dialogue between government and the Maya As indicated in the workshops with the communities, the communities. This is especially important so safeguard instruments are not static documents and they will that when the project begins there has been be revised as necessary. already certain level of commitment between both. Furthermore, as stated above in response to comment # 7, at the start of project implementation, the Project Unit will work with communities, NGOs and TAA/MLA to organize specific community meetings to discuss the overall project and update the communities on the social and environmental safeguard documents. The Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development remains committed to maintaining and strengthening the dialogue and finding solutions to forest loss and degradation that is in the best interest of 4 The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples requires States to consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them (article 19). States must have consent as the Objective of consultation before any of the following actions are taken: • The adoption of legislation or administrative policies that affect indigenous peoples (article 19) • The undertaking of projects that affect indigenous peoples’ rights to land, territory and resources, including mining and ot her utilization or exploitation of resources (article 32) 82 both indigenous peoples and the national government. However, achieving this will no doubt require further dialogue and maintaining a commitment to sustainable development for all citizens. Therefore, the Ministry will ensure that the structures and methodology employed in the project will include broad participation and employ the most culturally appropriate system to obtain community and stakeholders support. 83