KALAHI-CIDSS National Community- Driven Development Project

External Monitoring Report on Involuntary Resettlement

Midterm Report December 2017

Philippines: KALAHI-CIDSS National Community- Driven Development Project

Prepared by Jane DC. Austria-Young for the Department of Social Welfare and Development and the Asian Development Bank

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Asian Development Bank ACT Area Coordinating Team AP Affected Persons CDD Community Driven Development CEAC Community Empowerment Activity Cycle CEF Community Empowerment Facilitator DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development ESMF Environmental and Social Management System Framework ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan FPIC Free Prior Informed Consent GRS Grievance Redress System KC-NCDDP Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan (Linking Arms against Poverty)– Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (KALAHI–CIDSS) National Community-Driven Development Project LAR Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation LGU Local Government Unit MIAC Municipal Inter-Agency Committee M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MCT Municipal Coordinating Team NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples NPMO National Program Management Office NTWG National Technical Working Group RF Resettlement Framework RP Resettlement Plan RPMO Regional Program Management Office SRPMO Sub-Regional Program Management Office TA Technical Assistance

This external monitoring report is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature.

In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EXTERNAL MONITORING FOR INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT AND LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ...... 4 A. Background: Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation Issues in Community Driven Development Projects, Region XI: New Bataan, Compostela Province ...... 4 B. Activities Conducted ...... 5 II. PROCEDURES IN DOCUMENTING LAND ACQUISITION REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ...... 5 A. Highlights and Key Results of the Data Gathering Specific to LARR ...... 6 B. Issues Identified ...... 7 ANNEX 1. Sample LARR Instrument ...... 9 ANNEX 2. Sample ESMP Addressing LARR Concerns ...... 10 ANNEX 3. Data Gathering Instruments ...... 11

I. EXTERNAL MONITORING FOR INVOLUNTARY RESETTLEMENT, AND LAND ACQUISITION, RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION

A. Background: Land Acquisition Resettlement and Rehabilitation Issues in Community Driven Development Projects, Region XI: New Bataan, Compostela Province

1. One of the distinct features of Community Driven Development programs is that they finance subprojects that are identified by local communities. As a result, since specific subprojects have not yet been determined at the onset of the program, for example, at the Municipal Orientation, it is not clear in the beginning whether there are subprojects that will result in the displacement of people or disruption of their economic activities. The most common subprojects in KALAHI–CIDSS (KC) National Community-Driven Development Projects (KC-NCDDP) that require land are multi-purpose buildings, tribal halls, day care centers, health stations, and other rural infrastructure. In subprojects that are initiated by communities, there are usually individuals who are willing to donate a parcel of land to benefit the whole community. In order to assess compliance with the Environmental and Social Management System Framework (ESMF) Land Acquisition Resettlement and Rehabilitation (LARR) framework, KC-NCDDP undergoes the process of external monitoring to independently evaluate the mainstreaming of the following safeguard principles:

(i) All affected persons are informed and consulted on proposed subprojects during the different stages of the CEAC process; (ii) Compensation and assistance have been provided and supporting legal documents executed prior to subproject implementation; and (iii) Specific arrangements between the land donor or affected person and the barangay, municipality and/or community have been documented and complied with.

2. The external monitoring exercise aims to (i) assess the extent to which LARR safeguards have been implemented in accordance with the policies and procedures described in the KC- NCDDP’s Resettlement Framework (RF) and/or ESMF, (ii) evaluate the extent to which its objectives are being met, and (iii) determine the need for corrective or mitigation measures. The process focuses on KC-NCDDP subprojects in ADB-prioritized areas that required land acquisition, or where productive assets or livelihoods were affected during their implementation. Specifically, the objectives of the LARR external monitoring activity are as follows:

(i) Verify internal monitoring information; (ii) Assess the capacity of the executing and implementing agency to handle involuntary resettlement screening and impacts, including a thorough review and verification of internal monitoring systems and findings; (iii) Assess cases of voluntary donation to ensure that (a) the donation is indeed voluntarily, (b) the donor is the legitimate owner of the land being donated, and (c) the donor is fully informed of the nature of the subproject and the implications of donating the property; (iv) For projects that triggered the involuntary resettlement safeguard and thus required the preparation of a Resettlement Plan preparation, verify whether the overall project and resettlement objectives are being met in accordance with the resettlement plan;

(v) Assess the extent to which implementation of the resettlement plan (including its updating) complies with the Project’s ESMF; (vi) Determine if the livelihoods and the standard of living of affected persons, including those of the displaced persons, are restored or improved; and (vii) Identify problems or potential problems, including methods of responding immediately to mitigate unintended outcomes, and provide suggestions for improvements in future project planning and implementation.

3. As part of the overall safeguards monitoring and evaluation framework, the KC-NCDDP National Program Management Office (NPMO) has engaged the services of a consultant-expert on indigenous peoples and involuntary resettlement to conduct an external monitoring review of the program’s compliance with indigenous peoples and LARR safeguards. The consultant examined the efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the different safeguards instruments, including the Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP), Resettlement Plan, and applicable land acquisition documents. At the end of the monitoring activity she will provide recommendations for best practices for acquisition procedures and ensure that any negative impacts are avoided, minimized or properly managed.

B. Activities Conducted

Table 1: Field Visit to Compostela Valley, Region XI

Subproject Date Site/Location Activity April 17, 2018 DSWD Regional KII with the Deputy Regional Program Manager) Office (Davao City) FGD with DSWD field office staff and assistant regional director

Apo View Hotel, FGD with Regional Program Management Office and Sub Regional Davao City Program Management Office

April 18, 2018 New Bataan KII / Courtesy Call with the Municipal Mayor FGD with Municipal Inter-Agency Committee FGD with Area Coordinator Team

Andap, New Bataan Site Visit 1: Andap SubHealth Station Site Visit 2: Andap National High School Site Visit 3: barangay hall and legislative building

April 19, 2018 Tandawan, New FGD with local officials and tribal leaders Bataan FGD with Community Volunteers Subproject visit to community activity center)

April 20, 2018 NCIP Nabunturan KII with Mr. Augustus D. Basa, NCIP CDO II / Provincial COMVAL FPIC Focal Person

II. PROCEDURES FOR DOCUMENTING LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT

4. KC-NCDDP falls under Involuntary Resettlement Category B, which means that a proposed project includes involuntary resettlement impacts that are not deemed significant. A

5 resettlement plan, which includes assessment of social impacts, is required.1 Potential impacts can be determined once the community has identified a subproject. There are mechanisms in the program that ensure involuntary expropriation of land and physical or economic displacement are avoided. The CEAC process ensures that all affected persons are informed and consulted regarding a proposed subproject. They are also provided appropriate benefits and compensation, including relevant legal documents which are prepared prior to project implementation. 5. Since subprojects were identified by the communities, there was no involuntary taking of land or displacement. The most common subprojects in KC-NCDDP that require land are multi- purpose buildings, tribal halls, day care centers, health stations, and other rural infrastructure. Because these projects involve a transfer of ownership of physical real estate, communities need to be aware of the appropriate LARR instruments to use to ensure that all the documentation requirements are complied with.

Table 2: Community Subprojects with Appropriate Land Acquisition Instruments in Region XI Compostela Province

Barangay/Municipality Identified Subproject Land Acquisition Instrument Andap, New Bataan Cycle 1: barangay hall Brgy. Council Resolution authorizing the use of government lot

Cycle 2: Two classrooms at DepEd Certification for Lot Use Andap National High School

Cycle 3: Sub-health station Brgy. Council resolution authorizing the use of government lot

Tandawan, New Bataan Cycle 1: Community Activity Brgy. Council resolution authorizing the Center use of government lot

Cycle 2: Corn mill building and Usufruct with construction agreement facilities

Cycle 3: Multi-purpose pavement Usufruct with construction agreement with storage facility

A. Highlights and Key Results of the Data Gathering Specific to LARR (i) No instances of displacement were reported during the external monitoring visits.

(ii) Before initiating subprojects, site validations were conducted and approved by concerned government agencies.

(iii) Internal monitoring systems are in place in RPMOs and ACTs.

(a) LARR-specific data is regularly uploaded to a Google Drive database and can be accessed online. (b) A community development officer scorecard was developed with monthly performance ratings, which includes monitoring of LARR instruments.

1 ADB Safeguard Categories. https://www.adb.org/site/safeguards/safeguard-categories

(iv) Safeguards are in place to protect persons who voluntarily donate part of their property to facilitate the construction of a subproject.

(a) In all the subprojects visited, land owners verified that they voluntarily donated land for the project. All donors were legitimate owners of the property they donated and they were fully informed of the nature of the subproject and of the implications of donating the property. (b) There were no reports that land owners were forced to sell or donate their property for subprojects. Land owners stated they realized the benefits the projects would bring their communities and so had no reservations about donating their land. (c) Barangay Sub-Project Management Committees ensured that agreements between the land donor and the barangay or municipality were documented and legal requirements concerning the transfer of land ownership were completed, or at least well underway, prior to subproject implementation. (d) The DSWD, LGU and Community Association execute a Mutual Partnership Agreement that serves as a MOA where the responsibilities of each party are defined, including operational and maintenance expenses such as fees and taxes and completion of the transfer of ownership and registration of donated lots.

(v) There are institutional arrangements for enforcing LARR policies and guidelines for handling involuntary resettlement and land acquisition in projects.

(a) The RPMO provides regular technical and coaching sessions to address LARR concerns. There is clear guidance from the RPMO to the area and municipal coordinating teams for how to address LARR concerns. (b) ACTs, especially the community empowerment facilitators, are well versed in LARR policies; they have developed their own checklist to use as guidance for addressing safeguards issues concerning LARR. ACTs work closely with the LGU, or seek guidance from more knowledgeable individuals when they experience technical difficulties.

B. Issues Identified (i) There is no consolidated guidance note or manual for the processing of LARR instruments. ACTs must pore through various manuals provided by the project to find guidance on LARR policies.

(ii) There are no LARR-related informational materials that are community friendly and easy to use.

(iii) There were cases of disputes over land ownership involving non-IPs residing in IP communities, but they were settled though negotiations or legal proceedings.

(iv) Lack of orientation on LARR

(a) LARR was only briefly discussed during ACT orientations. (b) Due to limited time during municipal orientations, the LARR framework was not thoroughly discussed.

(c) There is inconsistency in the LARR documents attached to requests for fund release due to the lack of LARR orientation to newly hired staff prior to deployment. . (d) There is a need for more trainings for community development officers, specifically concerning LARR issues. (e) There is a lack of easy-to-follow technical guidance for how to prepare the different LARR instruments.

(v) The process of complying with the LARR documentation requirements is laborious. One of the requirements, annotation, is a tedious procedure. As agreed with the NPMO, in lieu of annotation, a barangay resolution indicating that the BLGU will facilitate and allocate funds for annotation and copy of barangay annual investment plan showing funds allocated for annotation will be attached to the request for fund release.

6. The final report will capture the details of each of the findings as well as articulate the challenges faced in implementing the program. The report will also provide recommendations for carrying out land acquisition procedures and avoiding or minimizing negative impacts due to LARR.

ANNEX 1. Sample LARR Instrument

ANNEX 2. Sample ESMP Addressing LARR Concerns

ANNEX 3. Data Gathering Instruments

Guide Questions for Focus Group Discussion on Community-Based Monitoring on IR/LARR 1. How can you ensure that the documents needed to process a subproject are in line with what is required by law? 2. Have there been concrete steps taken to ensure there are no undesirable effects on the livelihoods of those who donate their land to be used in subprojects? 3. Has the BSPMC used force or coercion to persuade land owners to donate land for subprojects? 4. What are the problems or hindrances to LARR safeguards that should be addressed for each phase of project implementation? 5. Did the BSPMC coordinate with community members in the barangay? What form did that cooperation take? 6. How did the Area Coordinator, Community Facilitator and LGU help the community to fulfill the documentary requirements of LARR safeguards?

Guide Questions for Key Informant Interview with LARR Complainants 1. What are your concerns in relation to land or land ownership in the ______subproject? 2. Who has the responsibility to respond to your concerns or complaints? 3. How have you been affected by what has transpired? 4. What solutions could you suggest that would help resolve your concerns or complaints? 5. Who do you think could offer the most help in resolving your concerns or complaints? 6. How will finding a solution to your concerns or complaints benefit the project?

Guide Questions for Key Informant Interview with the RPMO and ACT 1. Do the members of the ACT have the skills to facilitate and process the LARR-related safeguard documents? 2. Have the ACT and community been adequately oriented on how to complete the all the documentation required for the successful completion of a subproject? 3. What assistance does the regional office provided to expedite LARR processes? 4. Is there coordination among the ME, CapBuild and SDU in each region to ensure that ACTs and communities are fulfilling project requirements properly? 5. How have grievances that were raised been resolved?