RP1498 v1 REV MAN AGEMEN T AN D P ROTECTION OF KEY B IOD IVERS ITY AREAS IN B ELIZE P ROJ ECT Social Safeguards Operational Policy 4.12 LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION PROCESS FRAMEWORK July 31st, 2014 1 Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2 The Project Context and Objective ............................................................................................................... 1 Project Activities ........................................................................................................................................... 2 Project Activities restricting access ............................................................................................................. 10 Potential Positive Impacts on Livelihoods................................................................................................... 12 Selection Process to Access Livelihood Restoration Support ..................................................................... 14 Measures to Assist Affected Persons .......................................................................................................... 17 Approaches to Consultation........................................................................................................................ 17 Consultations with Indigenous Communities ............................................................................................. 18 Measures to Address Potential Conflict ...................................................................................................... 19 Administrative and Legal Procedures ......................................................................................................... 20 Monitoring Arrangements .......................................................................................................................... 20 The Involuntary Resettlement Policy Framework ....................................................................................... 21 Annex 1: Map of Chiquibul Forest and Adjacent Communities .................................................................. 22 Annex 2: Stakeholder Consultations ........................................................................................................... 23 1.1 Inception Workshop .............................................................................................................................. 23 1.2 Field Visits Notes ................................................................................................................................... 38 1.3 KBAs target areas selection process ..................................................................................................... 44 1.4 Participants List for Validation Workshop............................................................................................. 49 1.5 Toledo Consultation Workshop ............................................................................................................ 67 1.6 Indigenous Leaders Consultation .......................................................................................................... 76 1.7 Summary of Concerns from all consultations & Response ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Introduction Experience indicates that involuntary resettlement and adverse impacts on livelihoods as a direct result of development projects, if unmitigated, could give rise to severe economic, social, and environmental risks and increased poverty. The World Bank has developed Operational Policy 4.12 to ensure that the production systems of those affected are not dismantled and to reduce the potential for impoverishment of those impacted. (a) As it pertains to impacts on livelihoods, this policy covers direct economic and social impacts that result from either Bank-assisted investment projects and/or are caused bythe involuntary taking of land resulting in the involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced persons1 A process framework is prepared when World Bank supported projects may cause restrictions in access to natural resources in legally designated parks and protected areas. The purpose of this frameworkis to establish a process by which members of potentially affected communities participate in design of project components, determination of measures necessary to achieve resettlement policy objectives, and implementation and monitoring of relevant project activities. The Project Context and Objective The proposed project is part of the World Bank’s Country Partnership Strategy for Belize (CPS FY12 -FY15), which focuses on supporting the Government of Belize to achieve “Inclusive and Sustainable Natural Resource- Based Growth and Enhanced Climate Resilience.” The design of the CPS was based on (a) wide Government and non-government stakeholder consultation in Belize, (b) the need for selectivity in the areas of intervention, (c) an evaluation of other donor programs to ensure the CPS fills key gaps/complements other donor programs in order to most effectively address the country’s development challenges, and (d) the Bank’s comparative advantage and the potential impact it could have given the importance of natural resources in Belize’s development and growth prospects. This project seeks to protect the natural capital of Belize, and thereby help to improve the country’s growt h prospects and accrue benefits to the poor who often depend on natural resource-driven sectors. It will support many of the measures identified in the First National Communication on climate change, such as the introduction of forest management plans, the promotion of agro-forestry, the restoration of abandoned agricultural lands, the development of management plans for protected areas, and the development of a national forest fire management plan. 1 This policy also covers impacts caused by the involuntary taking of land resulting in relocation or loss of shelter, loss of assets or access to assets. As it pertains to this project, 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 neither land acquisition nor resettlement will occur as a result of direct project activities. Measures and procedures to address these potential impacts are addressed directly by this project’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy Framework. 1 The Project’s Development Objective (PDO) is to strengthen natural resource management and biodiversity conservation in Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) of Belize. These threats include:  illegal logging, hunting, farming, and extraction of non-timber forest products (NTFP);  inadequate management structures, institutional arrangements, policy and legislative instruments, and capacities for forest governance, including understanding and application of sustainable forest management (SFM), sustainable land management (SLM), biodiversity conservation and sustainable human development;  Poverty; and  Limited awareness among resource users and resource managers that the potential benefits from the management and protection of Belize’s natural capital could be harnessed for human development, and the advancement of Belize and Belizeans. Project Activities 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. 2 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) 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 t he 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 (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 (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. The six targeted areas, out of thirty-two terrestrial PAs within the KBAs, were chosen for the Project through a deliberate and consultative process using criteria such as threats, carbon sequestration potential, management capacity, risk factors, socioeconomic status, and economic values of ecosystem services, in addition to a prioritization of terrestrial areas from the 2012 rationalization exercise for the protected areas system commissioned by the Government. The KBAs roughly fall into 2 large blocks and a number of isolated sites. The six target Project Sites are presented in Table 1. Table 1: Selected Priority Sites for the Project Name Category KBA Area (ha) Freshwater Creek Forest Reserve Northern Lowlands 13,370 Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary Northern Lowlands 2,387 Vaca Forest Reserve Maya Mountains Massif 16,367 Chiquibul National Park Maya Mountains Massif 106,785 Maya Mountain North Forest Reserve Maya Mountains Massif 16,847 Columbia River Forest Reserve Maya Mountains Massif 59,973 Some of the project activities will be site specific. These types of activities include alternative livelihood activities, high value restoration, implementation of enforcement activities, demarcation of boundaries and development of databases to support management and decision making within the PAs. The extent to which user access to the designated parks and protected areas will be affected is dependent on the category of protected areas. The Social Assessment exercise will determine how communities use the sites and what type of access will be allowed and/or restricted. Under the National Park System Act, no type of extraction is allowed in National Parks. National Parks can be used for recreational purposes (except recreational fishing) and scientific research. The Chiquibul National Park and the Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary are strictly set aside for conservation of biodiversity. 4 Forest Reserves on the other hand were established for the management of extractive resources. Resource extraction includes but is not limited to hunting, agriculture, fishing, recreation, tourism, education and limited infrastructure. However, the Forest Department recognizes traditional use, and does not intend to cause a shift in tradition through the non-extractive designation, since it seeks to maintain the culture of buffer communities. Traditional extraction by sustainable methods is therefore allowed in some protected areas though further work is required in most of the protected areas to ensure extraction is truly sustainable. Most of the traditional extraction must be non-sustained and based on short-term licensing available from the Forest Department. Identification of resource users: The project team will work with community leaders, and representatives of the Forest Department and Agriculture Departments to identify such resource users. - A social assessment will be conducted to determine the extent of use and the type of activities carried out - Once community use is determined, the project will identify specific uses. This will be done using two important data collection techniques: interviews and observation. This is discussed more in detail in the section titled “Consultation Process”. - Once identified, these users will be provided with a mechanism to benefit from project implementation. - This will be done to help them adopt livelihood activities that fit with their livelihood systems, that are sustainable, and that reduce pressures on the biodiversity of KBAs. These measures are detailed in the section titled “Measures to Assist Affected Persons”. Current Use of Protected Areas by Adjacent Communities The term adjacent communities will be used for the purpose of this document. Based on a collective decision by the participants of the consultation exercises held in Belmopan and Toledo, the term adjacent communities refer to: those communities who have immediate access to; are geographically proximate; and/or have traditionally used the protected areas for extraction or recreation purposes. A second group of users have been identified, these are considered community of influence or secondary users and refer to those communities or citizens of those communities who; have concessions; licenses to use; and/or occasionally use the protected areas for extraction or recreation purposes. These communities are listed in the Culturally Appropriate Community Consultations & Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework. Of the six proposed sites, Vaca Forest Reserve, Chiquibul National Park and Colombia River Forest Reserve have transborder issues since they are on the fringes of the Belize Guatemala border. There are significant cross boundary incursions for illegal logging, hunting, poaching, farming, and looting of archaeological sites. Freshwater Creek: Freshwater Creek Forest Reserve is managed by the Forest Department. It comprises of 33,393 ha. Most residents of adjacent communities work in agriculture, primarily papaya, pineapple sugarcane plantation and production. The forest reserve is not currently used on a regular basis, although a few people occasionally hunt and fish in the reserve. The incursions into the PA have been mainly for agricultural uses, resulting in fragmentation and de-reservation of portions of the reserve. The lands to east of Freshwater Creek are in private ownership by Mennonites who have established New Land, a new community, creating large-scale land clearance for agriculture. No indigenous communities are adjacent to the Freshwater Creek. Table 2: Communities Adjacent to the Freshwater Creek Forest Reserve 5 Community Population District 1 Caledonia 1400 Corozal 2 San Jose/San Pablo 2862 Orange Walk 3 Progresso 1356 Corozal 4 San Esteban 1661 Orange Walk 5 Little Belize 2650 Orange Walk 6 Chunox 1375 Corozal 7 Honey Camp 37 Orange Walk 8 Santa Martha 600 Orange Walk 9 New Land No data Orange Walk 10 Carmelita 1475 Orange Walk 11 Trial Farm 4267 Orange Walk Source: Operational Policy 4.10 Spanish Creek: Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary, declared a protected area in June 2002, is situated along 5 miles of Spanish Creek. Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary is the only wildlife sanctuary among the six target PAs. It is also the smallest of the six at 6,001 acres. It is located in the Belize River Valley in the Belize District. The adjacent communities are primarily of Creole descent with a long history in the logging industry. The PA is considered to be a potential resource for local tourism, with a number of features of touristic value including high bird diversity, and the presence of prominent species such as Morelet’s crocodile and the black howler monkey. The sanctuary was established for the protection of local biodiversity, and to strengthen corridor connectivity between Rio Bravo, the Community Baboon Sanctuary and Crooked Tree Wildlife Sanctuary. Uses within the Wildlife Sanctuary include Non-extractive – tourism, education and research. Rancho Dolores Environmental and Development Co. Ltd. operate the Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary as co- managers with the Forest Department. No indigenous communities are adjacent to the Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary. Currently, the PA is undergoing clearing of the boundary lines and improved signage. The current use includes fishing, hunting, bird watching and extraction of logwood for fence posts and bayleaf for thatch roofs. 6 Table 3: Communities Adjacent to the Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary Community Population District 1 Flowers Bank 143 Belize 2 Isabella Bank 121 Belize 3 Rancho Dolores 217 Belize 4 Saint Pauls Bank 153 Belize 5 Willows Bank 185 Belize 6 Lemonal 169 Belize 7 Bermudan Landing 183 Belize 8 Scotland Halfmoon 259 Belize 9 Double Head Cabbage 406 Belize Source: Operational Policy 4.10 Vaca: Vaca Forest Reserve lies on Belize’s western border with Guatemala. It is part of the MMM and an integral part of the Central KBAs. Vaca Forest Reserve includes steep slopes that need to be maintained forested. It is the headwater for the Vaca Dam so maintaining the forest cover is a critical environmental service. The Vaca FR is impacted by the presence of the Chalillo and Mollejon dams. There is significant agricultural activity within the forest reserve. According to Friends for Conservation and Development, the closest communities to the Vaca are Arenal, Succotz and Benque Viejo. FCD has been working with Vaca Farmers Community which includes persons from various communities such as Camp Six and 7miles/El Progresso in the cultivation of produce such as cabbage and cocoyams inside the reserve using eco-agricultural practices. The primary use of the Vaca by external uses has been mostly illegal activities such as extraction of timber, xate, livestock rearing, tourism, hunting and transborder encroachment. No indigenous communities are present. Table 4: Communities Adjacent to the Vaca Forest Reserve Community Population District 1 Benque Viejo 6147 Cayo 2 Arenal 613 Cayo 3 Succtoz 2322 Cayo Source: Operational Policy 4.10 7 Chiquibul National Park: With a total of 264,003 acres, Chiquibul National Park is the largest of the six PAs targeted for this proposed Project within the KBAs and the only national park. It is managed by Friends for Conservation and Development. Chiquibul National Park is one of the six highest priority terrestrial PAs. It protects steep slopes and ensures that the water flows into the Challio Dam, which is used to supply more than 50% of the potable water needs of the country. The largest cave system is located in the national park which attracts a number of tourists. Furthermore, the Caracol Archeological Site is adjacent to the Chiquibul National Park. The road to the Caracol Archeological Site passes through the national park. The Chiquibul Forest Reserve is within the National Park. All three areas are under protection. The Chiquibul forest faces significant cross boundary and trans-boundary pressures. Since the area is unmanned and difficult to access, there are a range of illegal extractive activities occurring. These include hunting, looting of archaeological sites, harvesting of xate, and poaching of macaw parrots. There are approximately four gold mining concessions. Due it is inaccessibility, there are no communities geographically adjacent to the Chiquibul National Park on the Belize side. The nearest communities are approximately 40 miles away. These are Cristo Rey, San Antonio, El Progresso and Barton Creek. San Antonio is the only adjacent community that can be classified as indigenous as the majority of its inhabitants are primarily English or Spanish speaking Yucatecan Maya. While there are no communities immediate to the Chiquibul on the Belizean side, on the Guatemalan side, however, foot trails that lead to the PA have been identified by FCD. Approximately 3000 inhabitants live in the various adjacent settlements on the Guatemalan side of the border. The ethnic makeup of the Guatemalan communities is unknown at this time (see Annex A). Table 5: Communities Adjacent to the Chiquibul National Park Community Population District 1 Cristo Rey 8447 Cayo 2 El Progresso/7 miles 482 Cayo 3 Barton Creek 193 Cayo 4 San Antonio 1847 Cayo Source: Operational Policy 4.10 Columbia River: Columbia River Forest Reserve covers a total of 148,303 acres. It is the southernmost PA in the MMM. It is managed by the Forest Department. It. There are fifteen villages proximate to the Columbia River FR. All are indigenous Maya communities who practice subsistence farming. While these Maya villages continue to practice communal land use, only seven are among the 23 claimants involved in the Maya Land Rights case: Golden Stream, Crique Jute, Indian Creek, Jalacte, San Miguel and San Vicente2. The communities primarily use the Columbia River FR as a source of water. While communities cultivate on the buffer of the PA, they admit that due to the poor demarcation their milpas sometimes encroach in the PA. 2 Essentially, the Maya are requesting that the Government respect their rights as indigenous landowners, and put in place systems which recognize their customary land tenure, including the demarcation of ancestral lands, and mechanisms for dialogue which will bring them into the decision-making process before the issuance of logging and petroleum concessions, and other agreements which could infringe or impact on their rights. The projects Safeguard Instruments have taken into consideration these concerns. 8 Table 6: Communities Adjacent to the Colombia River Forest Reserve Community Population District 1 Santa Elena 200 Toledo 2 Santa Cruz 311 Toledo 3 San Antonio 1204 Toledo 4 Nalum Ca 66 Toledo 5 Crique Jute 223 Toledo 6 San Vicente 388 Toledo Community Population District 7 Indian Creek 722 Toledo 8 Silver Creek 476 Toledo 9 San Pedro Colombia 1703 Toledo 10 San Jose 847 Toledo 11 Jalacte 769 Toledo 12 San Miguel 537 Toledo 13 Golden Stream 349 Toledo 14 Medina Bank 237 Toledo 15 Big Falls 845 Toledo Source: Operational Policy 4.10 Maya Mountains North: The Maya Mountain Forest Reserve is on the easternmost face of the Maya Mountain Massif (MMM). There are six communities that can be considered adjacent to the Maya Mountain Forest Reserve. The livelihoods of the cluster of Mestizo villages bordering the Toledo/Stann Creek Districts depend primarily on agriculture and labour for the banana and citrus industries. The cluster in the central and western parts of the Toledo district is more dependent on subsistence farming. Table 7: Communities Adjacent to the Maya Mountains North Community Population District 1 San Isidro 374 Toledo 9 2 Bladen 466 Toledo 3 San Pablo 1703 Toledo 4 Bella Vista 3,508 Toledo 3 5 Roseville Community * Toledo 6 Trio 899 Toledo None of the identified communities are considered indigenous; all are Mestizo communities with the exception of Mennonite community of Roseville. Within the reserve, some farmers cultivate pineapple; extract materials for thatch houses and posts. There is a private company that owns thousands of acres within the reserve. Project Activities restricting access The following section specifies the activities that will cause restrictions in accessing natural resources in legally designated parks and protected areas and mitigation measures. Traditional users of resources could experiences changes in livelihood strategies due to improved management of the KBA which may affect their traditional use of resources within some of the project’s protected area. The project recognizes this potential impact and has made provisions to support the development of livelihood alternatives that reduce pressures on the biodiversity of KBAs. Component 1: Supporting Forest Protection and Sustainable Forest Management Activities in Key Biodiversity Areas Restriction Who will it impact? Mitigation Measure (1.1) Forest protection: (1.1a) land tenure legislation -Landowners with freehold rights -Identify and adopt alternative land reviewed (landowners incentives) and leaseholders converting title to use freehold -Tax incentives to landowners to reduce deforestation pressure (1.2) Sustainable forest management: (1.2a) Rehabilitation of critical All users; community groups; local -Implement areas of community areas of high conservation values NGO’s sustainable use, based on through identification, approved Community Sustainable development and implementation Use Plans through concession of community-based sub-projects, agreements. incorporating climate change 3 *No censual data available since these communities did not exist at the time of the last population census. 10 mitigation and resiliency measures - sub-projects are community driven and designed - better land use practices for protected areas such as the Maya Mountain North FR. (1.2b) Sub-projects for sustainable extractors -Management of traditional harvesting and marketing of non- community resource extraction timber forest products (such as xate, cohune nut, bay leaf, and - sub-projects are community popta seeds) and for other driven and designed community-based forestry opportunities (1.2d) development and loggers Implement areas of agro-forestry implementation of sustainable as an interim measure in impacted forest management plans, areas to re-establish forest cover including through assessing existing and engender social support, based forestry standards (e.g., reduced on approved Community impact logging tool, M&E tool, Sustainable Use Plans. It is critical voluntary code of conduct) for that these uses retain the forest monitoring and evaluation, existing canopy for future biological tools and programs to reduce corridor functionality. illegal logging, Other restrictions Traditional users of resources could -Ensure that traditional users of experiences changes in livelihood resources whose livelihoods are strategies due to improved affected will benefit from a management of the KBA which livelihood restoration plan, may affect their traditional use of consisting of technical assistance resources within some of the and funds to develop a sustainable project’s protected area. livelihood subproject -In the case that indigenous users of forest resources are affected, free, prior and informed consultation will be required for Livelihood Restoration Framework Operation Policy 4.12. Component 2: Promoting Effective Management of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs): Effective management is critical to mitigate threats to the KBAs. Restriction Potential Impact Mitigation Measure (2.1) Improving management of the KBAs 11 (2.1a) declaration, re-alignment -Farmers who cultivate within the -Farmers invited to participate in the and de-reservation of PAs protected area livelihoods restoration plan -extractive users - Implement areas of community sustainable use -Private sector (resort/lodges) impacts the PA through extraction of resources and recreational uses (2.2) Monitoring and compliance of Pas (2.2b) demarcation of Project Site -families/people who are unaware -Farmers invited to participate in the boundaries that they have farming activities livelihoods restoration plan within the protected area -Involuntary Resettlement Plan Other restrictions Both 2.1 and 2.2 will impact -Villages near PAs with boundary In compliance with OP 4.10, “free, prior communities who may have inconsistencies and informed consultation” (see definition farming activities within the below) will be required in order to receive boundaries of the PA’s. -Users of communal lands the Bank’s no objection for the management plans in indigenous areas, such as Maya Mountain North, Colombia . River and Vaca Reserves. Indigenous communities, especially those who practice communal land use, will participate fully in the design and development of the management plans that will govern southern reserves. This consultation process will be documented, summarized in the management plan and will include clear evidence of consultations. Component 3-Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building for Enhanced Enforcement of Environmental Regulations 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. Component 4 correspond to the Project Management, monitoring and assessment. None of the proposed activities under this component should pose restriction nor impact livelihoods. Potential Positive Impacts on Livelihoods The positive impacts from carrying out Components 1-4 are wide ranging but result primarily through three channels: decreased deforestation and illegal wildlife harvesting through reduced illegal trespass for hunting or land clearing; protection of KBA forest resources through fire protection; and restoration of degraded sites through reforestation. The socio-economic assessment will result in the identification of specific project activities that could be implemented and the potential socio-environmental impacts that those activities could have, including the livelihood activities that will be impacted, and the options that the Project could offer as 12 sustainable alternatives. The support of the community leaders and residents will be sought through meetings and discussions to identify those who would be directly impacted by the Project and what actions will need to be taken to ensure positive social and environmental benefits. Policy actions: 1.1.a. Changes in the current land tenure legislation will positively impact livelihood activities. The land tenure legislation which will be reviewed to provide tax break incentives for landowners who maintain forest cover. This will encourage practices such as agro-forestry/ecological farming and reforestation of abandoned milpa which will influence decreased deforestation through land clearing reductions. Sub-projects: 1.2.b. will support implementation of sub-projects for sustainable harvesting and marketing of non-timber forest products and for other community-based forestry opportunities. Possible sub-projects may include:  Agro-forestry/ecological farming, silviculture  Reforestation of abandoned milpa to forest status,  Forest management through controlled burning,  Small scale pasture of game (such as deer & gibnut) and aquaculture initiatives, and  Local craft development with residual timber and NTFP Market and non-market benefits: There are both market and nonmarket benefits accountable to these channels. Market benefits include those changes to the ecosystem that contribute to higher rents earned by land users or land owners. Examples of market benefits include carbon storage that may attract carbon credits both from avoided deforestation and reforestation of degraded lands, higher land values through greater investment in secure tenure areas, increased use of agroforestry practices that generate rents for land users, greater and more accessible quantities of NTFPs most notably cabbage palm, bush meat, and medicinal plants that are used by local communities and/or marketed and sold outside of local areas (these can have both market and nonmarket benefits to local communities), tourism income that derives from higher quality plant and animal diversity and abundance, reduced fire timber losses measured in terms of the value of forests saved by greater control and fire education programs, and more sustainable logging practices that increase the rents from forest land uses. These market benefits are easier to value than the host of nonmarket benefits expected from the Project (although some of these nonmarket benefits are not necessarily captured by Belize itself). For example, the Project will increase the quality of wildlife habitat and water quality, allow populations of certain endangered animals noted in the Project, such as the Jaguar and different species of monkeys, to recover through decreased illegal hunting and habitat destruction, increase the quality of natural resources in sustaining local populations through, for example, bush meat, greater biodiversity will occur that may be valued not only by Belizean citizens but also the rest of the world, and lower greenhouse gas production and a contribution to climate maintenance and reductions to carbon emissions. Many types of nonmarket benefits are difficult to value without targeted surveys and other data collection. However, for some of the nonmarket benefits, the market benefits that are easily valued provide at least a lower bound value. Table 2 presents a classification of the types of benefits expected from the activities listed in the first column taken from the project components. It is important to note that protection of the native primary forest in Belize is a key feature that cuts across many benefits. Protection is afforded through project components including reductions in land clearing and squatting for slash/burn agriculture and grazing, reductions in illegal hunting, and reduction in illegal harvesting including unsustainable forest management practices such as selective harvesting. Protection of primary forest results in many market and nonmarket benefits as shown in the first row of the table. However, because many activities set forth in the project are related, the table indicates the core market and nonmarket benefits that must be estimated so that double counting of benefits does not occur. For example, the reduction of both habitat loss and illegal hunting will lead to greater 13 biodiversity and wildlife preservation, and as such this is likely to cause increased tourism revenues per hectare of forested area protected. It is most conservative to assume that many will affect the same area as is assumed to equal decreased deforestation. This is a necessary assumption because the project activities for each component, with the exception of reforestation of degraded lands, will likely affect most or the entire same forestland base. It is also important to realize that these benefits are generated annually but are related to the land use change assumptions, including reduction in deforestation expected each year, the area protected by fire each year, and the area reforested on degraded lands. Table 8: Benefits of Proposed Project by Activity Proposed Activity Market Nonmarket Protection of primary forest Tourism, NTFPs, forest Plant and animal biodiversity, (decrease in deforestation)* harvesting revenues watershed quality, endangered and threatened wildlife species protection, NTFPs (medicinal plants) Fire suppression and Reduction in losses to timber, Protection of primary forest management agriculture, cattle KBA policy reform and Protection of primary forest Protection of primary forest monitoring** Tenure legislation reform to Higher land value and Protection of primary forest promote reforestation investments Forest plantation Carbon credits for new growth in Climate maintenance (reduced global establishment on degraded established plantations, warming) lands harvesting returns Ensuring greater local Protection of primary forest Protection of primary forest involvement Notes: * includes reductions in land clearing and squatting for slash/burn agriculture and grazing, illegal hunting, and illegal harvesting including selective harvesting; **includes enforcing sustainable forest management principles, delineating and enforcing KBA boundaries, reform of government tenure and protected area policies, coordination of government levels. Indirect costs: The Project will involve both direct actions that the Belizean Government must take to implement the Project, as well as indirect costs (negative impacts) associated with avoided deforestation. Table 3 identifies where indirect costs are expected to arise. In the Project, It is important to be as conservative as possible in estimating indirect costs because enhancements in NTFPs and local management of lands in the long run under sustainable forest management goals of the proposal will more than compensate for short run losses. Table 9: Indirect Costs (Negative Impacts) from Proposed Project Activities Proposed Activity Indirect Costs (Negative Impacts) (project components) Protection of primary forest (decrease in Lost rents from using forests by local populations or deforestation) harvesting in areas newly protected and enforced Fire suppression and management KBA policy reform and monitoring Additional costs of sustainable forest management Tenure legislation reform N/A Forest plantation establishment on degraded N/A lands Ensuring greater local involvement N/A Selection Process to Access Livelihood Restoration Support 14 Figure 2 shows the communities that are adjacent to the target protected areas within the KBAs. During project implementation, through a social assessment tool, the project will assess the extent to which the residents of the adjacent communities use the protected areas for their livelihood and cultural activities. Figure 1: The Target KBAs for the Proposed Project The support of the community leaders and residents will be sought through meetings and discussions to identify those who would be directly impacted by the project and what actions will need to be taken to ensure positive net benefits. Interviews will be conducted with community leaders and field-site observations will explore the extent to which the protected areas are used and how they are used. They will also determine the kinds of project activities that could be implemented and the potential impacts that those activities could 15 have, including the livelihood activities that will be impacted, and the options that the project could offer as sustainable alternatives. In the case of Maya communities, the Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework will be applied. In the context of Operational Policy 4.12, the project will seek to identify families that rely on forest resources and particularly the resources within protected areas. The target persons who are eligible could only be identified through on the ground assessment of the users of the resources. Such assessments may find that some of the users come from communities that do not directly buffer the protected areas. Such persons and their families will still be eligible to benefit from the activities of the project. Table 10: Eligible Land Tenancy Eligibility Eligible Land Tenancy Agricultural Permanent Comments Products Structure (Infrastructure) Joint ownership of private Eligible Eligible The Bank considers this an optimal lands by a group arrangement in terms of sustainability. Individuals cultivating on their Eligible Eligible privately-owned land (joined by a cooperative for product sale stage) Individuals cultivating on State Eligible Eligible Customary for the majority of land in owned land – Lease Belize. There is always a legal agreement between the State and beneficiaries. Customary land ownership by Eligible Eligible Communal land is eligible to engage a community or group in livelihoods subprojects. Two known ethnic groups currently practice communal land use; Mennonites and the indigenous Maya. Informal Occupation on Eligible Eligible Eligible with permission to conduct National Lands – with livelihood activity with legal permission permission from owner or Government. Informal Occupation on Not Not Not recommended. However, can be National Lands - without recommended recommended used under extraordinary tenure circumstances especially when these persons do not have access to land but have been granted permission to use land. Persons who have resided on national laws undisturbed for 30 16 years or more can apply to be recognized as the legal landowner Individual ownership of land Not Not Not recommended. However, can be for joint use by a group recommended recommended used under extraordinary circumstances especially when members of the group do not have access to land. Eligible participants must be registered as a “legal entity”. Measures to Assist Affected Persons Step 1: Project implementation will begin with a detailed socio-economic assessment of the six target sites. 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 survey. Step 2: The Forest Department and the project management team will meet with the potentially affected communities and their residents about the array of project activities and get their input on potentially viable livelihood activities that the project can support using the guidelines provided in the Project’s communication strategy. Potentially displaced person will be convened to ensure that they provide input. The eligible livelihood activities should take into consideration the livelihood systems in the affected communities and households, and the opportunities for females to be direct beneficiaries of the project. It will also get their input on how the protected areas can be preserved to provide ecosystem functions while enabling achievement of national development objectives and facilitating local development. Step 3: The result of these meetings will be the identification of a menu of current livelihood activities in buffer communities and within KBAs. It will also generate a list of alternative activities that are viable in the context of the KBAs generally and the target site and buffer areas specifically. These will serve as the starting point for discussions on alternatives that could be offered by the project. The Forest Department and PMU should be open to additions to the menu of current activities (sustainable or not) and to the menu of alternatives (sustainable options only). Step 4: Through community consultations, the target population, their community leaders (alcalde and chairperson), the project management unit, with assistance from representatives from other implementing agencies such as the Agriculture Department and Rural Development Department will explore the menu of options available to the target areas. Through a majority vote, the community will select those that could best expand the options for the target population in the various project areas. The implementing agency and the target populations will agree on project activities that will need to be endorsed by the PSC. Step 5: Once endorsed it could be submitted to PACT for the procurement and financial arrangements to be made. Approaches to Consultation Consultation Principles: Free, Prior and Informed Consultation The World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.10 requires an engagement of such peoples in a process of free, prior, and informed consultation. Free, prior and informed consultation is defined as follows: 17 Free: the engagement should be free of coercion, corruption, interference and external pressures. Community members should have the opportunity to participate regardless of gender, age or standing. Prior: the engagement should be during the design phase and prior to the execution of any implementation activities. Times of engagement should be mutually agreed in advance. Informed: information used in consultation should be timely, sufficient, and accessible and should cover the potential impacts of the project whether positive or adverse. Consultation: the consultation process is to be carried through in good faith, is meaningful and that it meets the conditions set out by the consultation principles, and established steps must be followed prior to initiation of consultation activities. There are activities such as legislative reform and training in sustainable forest management that could have system wide impact. The project will need to undertake consultations at the site level for the site specific activities and nationwide for activities that will have system wide impacts. Inclusion: The other critical aspect is that any such consultations must be carried out in a manner that is gender and culturally appropriate. Culturally appropriate is defined as ensuring that information is provided in the appropriate language, traditional decision-making processes are respected and seek to maximize community input into the process regardless of age or gender. Consultations with Indigenous Communities The World Bank recognizes that the identities and cultures of Indigenous Peoples are inextricably linked to the lands on which they live and the natural resources on which they depend. These distinct circumstances expose Indigenous Peoples to different types of risks and levels of impacts from development projects, including loss of identity, culture, and customary livelihoods. In considering the objectives, approach and potential impacts of the project, the consultation protocol is being expanded to include and consider non-indigenous communities as well since the principles also apply to them. This protocol is to ensure that indigenous peoples and communities impacted by the project will have an opportunity to provide their views and feedback in a culturally appropriate manner during project implementation as well as to ensure access to appropriate project benefits. The indigenous peoples of Belize who could be impacted by both the project’s targeted interventions as well as system-wide ones are the Maya (Mopan, and Kekchi).As indicated in Table 1, other ethnic groups that reside in adjacent communities that could be impacted include the Creole, Mestizo, and East Indians. The World Bank roughly defines indigenous peoples as a distinct, vulnerable, social and cultural group possessing the following characteristics in varying degrees: (a) Self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this identity by others; (b) Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories7 (c) Customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and (d) An indigenous language, often different from the official language of the country or region. This process should be documented and that the presentation carried out in a culturally appropriate manner and present evidence that meeting participants understood the impacts (detailed minutes and video footage, 18 as well as other forms of documentation would be acceptable forms of “evidence” However, any intent to audio or video record consultations must be explicitly stated at the time of the request for consultation or at least with adequate notice). In the Indigenous communities the consultations should ensure that there is dialogue with the local community leaders. Other groups should be included to obtain a wide range of perspective and broad community support, these include but are not limited to several advocacy groups, district level representatives, cultural leaders and political/community leaders. The process will be culturally appropriate using the predominant language of the community as well as the official language of the country. Every effort will be made to be gender and inter-generationally inclusive according to the customs of the community. Apart from the indigenous persons, vulnerable groups will be invited to participate as well. These include those living below the poverty line, the landless, elderly, women and children as well as persons with disabilities, single parents and ethnic minorities. Communication: Access to residents of rural communities is best done through the village council while in urban settings, through the television media. Sending messages through high school children who commute daily to the urban secondary schools, village bus drivers, school principals and through other NGO’s working with those communities serve as an additional option in the Mopan and Kekchi communities of Toledo and Stann Creek. Two week notice is optimal for community consultations. Printed and Visual Resources: The use of PowerPoint presentations in the village meeting sessions will not be practical in many of the village settings. If a prepared presentation is needed, use a flip chart format. Carry handouts to leave with meeting participants. Measures to Address Potential Conflict The grievance redress mechanism (GRM) is being established in order for the project stakeholders (communities, NGOs. etc.) to be able to voice their concerns, complaints, or dissatisfaction with the project and seek redress. Complaints can be made concerning principles, rules, guidelines, and procedures to assess the environmental impacts or measures and plans to reduce, mitigate and/or offset adverse impacts that may be included in the various plans and for the sub-projects. The GRM is to be presented by project staff to community members during the project inception workshop and community consultations and other communications activities for the project. The project staff will become familiar with the GRM and be trained in conflict resolution to be able to participate in on resolution of minor problems that may arise during project implementation. Grievance redress will be approached both proactively and reactively: Proactive approach: a) Widespread disclosure of project background, potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures b) Establishing a mediation committee (made up of community leaders associated with the specific sub- project and staff of the Project Management Unit (PMU)), to review any grievances that may result from the sub-projects. Reactive approach: 19 a) Settle disputes amicably b) If disputes arise, they will be documented by the PMU and brought to the attention of the Project Steering Committee (PSC). c) When a complaint is documented, the PMU will acknowledge its receipt in a correspondence that outlines the GRM and provide the contact information and timeframe for responding to the matter. d) Subsequent to documenting the complaint, the next step is to determine whether a complaint is eligible for the grievance mechanism, in addition to its seriousness and complexity. The PMU, in the process of identifying the complexity of the grievance should evaluate the situation and utilize the following approach:  Hold a meeting with the aggrieved party (ies) to clearly identify the complaint and circumstances surrounding it to present to the PSC for review;  Discuss proposed solutions;  Defer to a third party for independent recommendations. e) The PSC will then determine if the dispute can be settled directly or if it is necessary to call upon the mediation committee to review the grievance. f) If disputes cannot be solved at the local level, they will follow additional tiers of appeal as described below: Tier Responsible party Mechanism Timeframe to address grievance First tier Project Management Unit in Oral or written 1 week consultation with Project Steering grievance (free of Committee to address dispute cost) and/or determine line of action Second tier Local authorities in consultation Written grievance 2 week with local level mediation (free of cost) committee Third tier Ombudsman Case submission 3 weeks (free of cost) Fourth tier Judicial system Contracting a lawyer Lengthy process and long (high cost) or use of delays (to be avoided by First Solicitor General’s through Third tier Office mechanisms) Assistance for Legal Aid Office in Belize City. Low cost option Lengthy process and long (to aggrieved persons List of other pro bono lawyers in be avoided by First through belonging to Belize will be provided for low- Third tier mechanisms) vulnerable groups for income population who cannot accessing legal afford legal counsel. recourse. Administrative and Legal Procedures MFFSD through the Project management Unit will be responsible for project management, administration, coordination and monitoring as well as implementation of safeguards instruments. Legal support, as for all government activities, will be sourced from the Attorney General’s Ministry. Monitoring Arrangements MFFSD through the PMU will be responsible for the overall monitoring and evaluation of the project, therefore the M & E plan will form a part of the annual work plan of the PMU. PACT and the Departments of Environment and Forestry will also provide support to the monitoring of project activities, especially as it relates to the sub-projects. 20 The PMU is also responsible for ensuring that the project activities, including sub-projects are being implemented in conformity with the World Bank and Government of Belize’s social and environmental safeguards. Monitoring and evaluation of project implementation will be conducted through: (a) activities of the Project Management Unit and PACT; (b) monthly progress reviews by the Technical Advisory Committee and Project Steering Committee; (c) bi-annual progress reviews during Bank supervision missions; and (d) mid-term review of project implementation to be conducted jointly by the MFFSD, NPAS, PACT, the project steering committee, technical committee, the PMU, and the World Bank. The Involuntary Resettlement Policy Framework It is not contemplated that land acquisition or resettlement will occur as a result of project activities. However, the Government may choose to pursue this line of action independently as the Forest Department has been monitoring this issue and may take into consideration the findings from the soc-economic assessments to be conducted during implementation of the project. Furthermore, the community based activities and livelihood opportunities to be implemented under the project will guide displaced persons/families to identify options for alternative livelihoods. However, if it is deemed necessary, the PMU will prepare and Involuntary Resettlement Action Plan to address direct economic and social impacts. 21 Annex 1: Map of Chiquibul Forest and Adjacent Communities Source: Friends for Conservation & Development 22 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 23 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.4 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 Belize5. 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 4 As additional workshops are anticipated, it is important to document the results of the Inception Workshop 5 Meerman, J. 2007. Establishing a Baseline to Monitor Species and Key Biodiversity Areas in Belize. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Unpublished report. 15 pp. 24 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 25  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 26  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 27  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 28  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 political 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 29 Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs Comments/Suggestions 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 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  Methodologies for the determination of impacts established  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 30 Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs Comments/Suggestions 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 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 that the preference Martin Alegria (Chief would be to concentrate Environmental on converting all files to Officer) electronic data. No emphasis of scientific data compilation for 31 Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations decision making, at this point. Environmental Toledo Mateo Tosh, Alcalde awareness is through Sundaywood Village engagement with SATIIM. No direct engagement with the DOE Juan Ch’oc, Chairman Mon. Nov 26, 2012 - CriqueSarco Village Environmental awareness is through engagement of SATIIM. No direct engagement with the DOE Toledo Institute for Development and the Mon. Nov, 26, 2012 - TIDE’s Office Environment (TIDE) - Salim Chan, Marine Environment protection Manager is through their James Lord, environmental Development conservation initiatives. Director Director indicated that need did not arise to (Port Honduras directly engage the DOE Marine Reserve, in terms of the Paynes Creek Environmental National Park, TIDE Protection Act (EPA) and Private Protected pollution regulations Lands along Rio Grande River) 32 Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations Have not engaged the DOE directly in the pass for guidance on Ya’axché environmental Conservation Trust protection. EP is done (YCT), Bladen Nature intuitively through Reserve and Golden conservation advocacy Stream Corridor and alternative Preserve - Christina livelihoods programmes. Garcia, Executive Currently have a court Director; Lee case pending with the McLoughlin, GOB/DOE Protected Areas Tues. Nov 27, 2012 YCT’s Office Manager; Gail Stott, Botanist; Tom Pienkowski, Head Development Officer Sarstoon and Temash Institute for Similar to Ya’axché Indigenous Management (SATIIM), Sarstoon- Temash National Park (STNP) – Gregory Ch’oc, Executive Director National issues related to incursion, encroachment and poaching. Extraction of NTFP. Remoteness and Friends for limited resources Conservation and increase difficulties and Development, present more challenging Chiquibul National to protect and preserve. Park - Rafael Promoting and Manzanero, encouraging alternative livelihoods through 33 Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations Tues. Nov 27, 2012 SATIIM’s Office Executive Director farming. Engaging boarding Guatemalan communities by extending invitation to share best practices and low impact techniques by small farmers in Belize. No need for direct engagement with the DOE. Environmental awareness in the primary Mr. Peralta school is done through (Principal, San Filipe cooperation with PFB R.C. Primary School) with trips to PFB Wed. Nov 28, 2012 Cayo District managed access area and representatives of PFB Programme for visiting the school at Belize, La Milpa Field least one per year. Station - According to the rep the BladimirRogrigues, outreach can be Manager increased to once per term or TT/Y. Outreach and site visits are mainly for STD IV and V classes Carries out environmental friendly and sustainable practices to control pollution in the biosphere in its operation. Include logging and milling of timber, agriculture Thurs. Nov 29, 2012 Orange Walk District (coffee, sugar cane and Gallon Jug - Alistair cocao) and pasture and San Filipe Macpherson, General eco-tourism destination Manager through tourist accommodations. Did Thurs. Nov 29, 2012 La Milpa Field Station not explore other spinoff 34 Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations consequences in detail, because of the activities, such as fuel storage, waste management, emissions control. Did Department of the not engage the DOE or Environment, Aldo vise-versa. Cansino, Project Officer Provided information on data transfer from manual to digital combining files with GIS Thurs. Nov 29, 2012 Gallon Jug 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 Fri. Nov. 30, 2012 Belmopan 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 35 Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations (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 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 36  Forest management through controlled burning  Small scale pasture and aquaculture initiatives  Local craft development with residual timber and NTFP 37 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 38  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  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 39 Ya’axché Conservation Trust (Ya’axché) is responsible for the management of the Bladen Nature Reserve and Golden Stream Corridor Preserve. 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 40  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 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 41 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.  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 42 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. 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 43 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 22 , 2013 - Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development’s nd 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 44 AnselDubon National Protected Areas Secretariat Jose Perez Association of Protected Areas Management Organizations Anthony Mai Department of Environment 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 45 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 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 46 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 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). 47 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  Columbia River Forest Reserve  Vaca Forest Reserve  Maya Mountain Forest Reserve 48 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 49 Rancho Dolores Environment and Development 30 Raymond Reneau Group 31 Colin Mathis NCCO 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 2: Social Development consultant presenting social assessment 50 Figure 3: Participants at the validation workshop 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 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 63 19 Sean Nicolas Bermudian Landing Village 20 TreciaCasasola St. Pauls Bank Village Council An 21 Clifton N. St. Pauls Bank Chairperson overv iew 22 Weisman Patt MFFSD-SCU of the 23 Rosalind Joseph Village Council agen 24 Gloria Banner Lemonal Village da and 25 Darlene Padron Sustainable Development Unit work shop 26 Aldo Cansino Department of the Environment objec 27 Raphael Manzanero FCD tives was 28 Derrick Chan FCD provi 29 Natalie Rosado Protected Areas Conservation Trust ded by 30 Violet Broaster S.C.W.S. the cons 31 Jacob Redcoop Little Belize Village ulting 32 Arlene Maheia-Young NPAS team. 33 Aretha Mortis NPAS The first 34 Jose Perez APAMO prese ntati 35 Natalie Bucknor BEST on by 36 Dwight Neal BEST was cond 37 Lemuel Velasquez BEST ucted 38 Tanya Santos FD by the 39 Emily Aldana PPU MFED Progr am 40 Carlos Monterosso 7 Miles (El Progresso) Village Direc 41 Lin Smith Rancho Dolores Village/Chair tor of the 42 AnselDubon NPAS Natio nal 43 Melanie Smith BEST Prote cted Areas Secretariat who outlined the KBA project, its objects, and its components. The various safeguards to be discussed were introduced. 64 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. 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 65 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. 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. 66 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 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 67 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 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 68 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 4: 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. 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 69 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 5: Representative from TIDE expressing his support for the project 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. 70 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. 71 Figure 6: 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? 72 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 73 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 74 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. 75 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 76 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 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 77 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. 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. 78 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. 79 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. 80 Figure 8: Participants who attended consultation 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 81 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 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 will participate. These project works with It was also identified that the sub-projects will be community communities on a ‘trial and error’ system driven to address needs identified at the local level. making it difficult for communities to be open to other projects. The MFFSD has agreed to establish local level committees (identified in the grievance mechanism) that will serve as The Alcades Association was concerned that working groups with membership from the adjacent there is a precedence of projects destined communities for each protected area which may be affected for development areas but in reality the by project interventions. It will also include, but not be funds does not reach the communities. A limited to, representatives from the District Association of concern was brought up regarding equal Village Councils (DAVCO). The Local level committees to be representation. It was noted from the established for the two southern sites, Colombia River Forest literature that there is a steering committee Reserve and Maya Mountain Forest Reserve will include made up of CEO’s and technical people. representatives from the Indigenous communities to be Where is the community representation on identified by the TAA and/or MLA. 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 The local level committees will serve as a formal group to they [APAMO] represent the environmental advise not only on the project issues, but issues related to community. There should be land tenure and project issues and to foster dialogue. This is representatives of communities as well as 82 ‘indigenous communities’. This will ensure similar to what has been established for the REDD+ project. that Mayan concerns are highlighted at that level. When government and technical persons do not agree with Maya Leaders Additionally, and to further engage the local level then there is discouragement on the part of communities, the Technical Advisory Committee will meet leaders. with the local level communities to address specific issues that may arise. 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 consultation. They felt that it should read from Indigenous groups or communities as part of the 6 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. 6 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 undert aking of projects that affect indigenous peoples’ rights to land, territory and resources, including mining and other utilization or exploitation of resources (article 32) 83 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 communities. This is especially important so As indicated in the workshops with the communities, the that when the project begins there has been safeguard instruments are not static documents and they will already certain level of commitment be revised as necessary. 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 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. 84