Environmental and Social Monitoring Report (Part 3)

Project Number: 50156-001 January 2020

INO: Muara Laboh Geothermal Power Project (Republic of Indonesia)

Semi-Annual Report (July to December 2017)

Prepared by PT Supreme Energy Muara Laboh for the Asian Development Bank

The Environment and Social 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. Your attention is directed to the “Terms of Use” section of this website.

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. ATTACHMENT 9 ATTENDANCE LIST OF MEETING WITH NGO‐ICS

ATTACHMENT 10 INCIDENT REGISTER JULY UP TO DECEMBER 2017 ATTACHMENT 10 2H 2017

Jul- CORRECTIVE DATE OF ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION PIC STATUS Dec ACTION TARGET

Number of 0 ______Occupational Fatality Incident (Company and Contractor)

Number of 0 ______Occupational Lost Time Incident (Company and Contractor)

Number of 1 ML-IR0178-0001 : 11 Nov 2017 a) Need certified Rig Mgr Done Medically  During installing Quick Lock scafolder as Treated Well Head and wing valve, four inspector / planne Incident people were standing on metal (Company and plank scaffolding. 2 persons Contractor) were working on installing Quick Lock Well Head nuts / b) Need to develop HSE Done bolts and the other 2 persons scafolding tag to installing wing valve. When the identify that wing valve is lowered onto the scafolding’s metal plank scaffolding, the construction is metal plank scaffolding inspected already or suddenly curved and not eventually broken. Four

personnel fell into the c) Need general Rig Mgr Done wellhead cellar. Three persons design for fell in a standing position, and scafolding the other 1 roustabout fell in a construction for sitting position. When the cellar job roustabout stood up, he

complained that his upper d) Provide cellar right-hand felt sore. He then SEML Done cover was brought to the site medic facility for observation and to RSUD Muara Laboh hospital for X-Ray. Results showed no new fracture / dislocation was observed.

Number of First 4 1) ML-IR0160-0001 : 31 Jul Aid Treatment 2018 : DKB driver fell from (Company and his motorcycle after office Contractor) hours near the Kampung Baru Junction (offsite) 2) ML-IR0170-0001 : 31 Aug 2017 : A drilling crew stung by bee on the rig floor 3) ML-IR0181-0001 : 21 Nov 2017  Incident flying object (First Aid) at ML-F (EPC-C) 4) ML-IR0189-0001: 29 Dec 2017  A Well Test crew Jul- CORRECTIVE DATE OF ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION PIC STATUS Dec ACTION TARGET

fell to cellar due to broken wooden plank when tried to close master valve of ML-A2. IP has scratch at cheek. Brought to nearest clinic, received 1st Aid Treatment, confirmed no serious injury, and able to back to work.

Number of High 1 1) ML-IR0177-0001: 03 Nov a) Develop Standard Rig Mgr 15 Nov 17 Done Potential 2017  During POOH, Operation Procedure to setting Serious travelling block hit safety Crown-O-Matic as Incidents or timber bumper of crown value and target to High Potential blocks causing the timber to achieved Near disintegrate and fell to rig Misses/Near floor. Tool pusher instructed b) Develop Daily Rig Mgr 15 Nov 17 Done Hits (Company all floor man to take cover Checklist for Crown- and Contractor) under doghouse. Failure of O-Matic as enforce crown-o-matic lever due to Driller / Toolpusher to do regularly improper connection (loose Crown-O-Matic bolting). checking

c) Make sure Driller / Toolpusher fully Rig 15 Nov 17 Done understand to Supt. Crown-O-Matic Setting & Checking Procedure Number of Near 7 1) Near Miss : 19 Aug 2017: ML- Misses / Near IR0161-0001  Hits (Company Schlumberger Cementing and Contractor) Truck and EPC Dump Truck were almost be in contact 2) Near Miss : 21 Aug 2017  Dump Truck Supplier is stuck & mired 3) Near Miss: ML-IR0174 : 15 Oct 2017  A stone (size approx’ 300mmx400mm) slipped from a slope and rolled down to the excavation area, 1m away from Rekin Engineers who wanted to see the sub grade test (Vane Shear Test). Slope was 4m high and stone was rolled from a position under tarpauline / unseen. 4) ML-IR0173-0001 : 16 Oct 2017  During excavation and installation of HDPE liner, a worker used a stone (approx 10kg weight) to hold the HDPE liner from windblow. Strong wind blew the HDPE, caused the stone to roll into the trench and almost hit a worker's feet. Jul- CORRECTIVE DATE OF ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION PIC STATUS Dec ACTION TARGET

Will use sand bag to hold the liner from windblow. 5) Near Miss : ML-IR0183-0001 : 26 Nov 2017  EPC-C Dump truck was slip at the road shoulder near with EPC-C Site Office 6) ML-IR0184-0001 : 04 Dec 2017  EPC-C Dump truck (supplier crash rock) was slip at drainage STA 6000

7) ML-IR0186-0001 : 6 Dec 2017  EPC-C Dump Truck (supplier crash rock) was slipped at drainage channel on front of SEML nursery area Number of 20 1) Minor Environmental Spill

Incident / :12 Jul 2017 : ML-IR0156- Accident 0001  Vibro compactor (Company and SAKAI hydraulic hose was Contractor) failure 2) Minor Property Damage : 21 Jul 2017 : ML-IR0157- 0001  PLTMH cable get caugh cut off while rig mobilization 3) Theft & Crime : ML- IR0158-0001 : 21 Jul 2017  Camera trap lost 4) Minor Property Damage : 23 Aug 2017  ML- IR0163-0001 Property damage due to fallen tree 5) Theft&Crime : 27 Aug 2017 : ML-IR0164- 0001Indicator Lamp of Water Pump was missing. 6) Minor Environmenttal Spill : ML-IR0159-0001 : 30 Jul 2017  Grey water discharged directly to open ditch at Yard#3 7) Minor Vehicular Crash : ML-IR0165-0001 : 1 Sept 2017  Light Vehicle PRA plugged into roadside ditch due to avoid collision with the villager motorcycle 8) Minor Vehicle Crash : ML- IR0166-0001 : 4 Sep 2017  Cement Truck vendor of BAUER for hauling cement bags to Muara Laboh, suddenly truck moved forward and hit the front vehicle 9) Natural Phenomena : ML- Jul- CORRECTIVE DATE OF ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION PIC STATUS Dec ACTION TARGET

IR0167-0001 : 8 Sep 2017  Bangko Putih river flood due to extreme heavy rain and the bridge was blocked 10) Minor Vehicle Crash: ML- IR0168-0001 : 14 Sep 2017  EPC dump truck (base course supplier) BM 9036 TN had single vehicle accident, no one get injured 11) Minor Property Damage : ML-IR0169-0001 : 15 Sept 2017  3” HDPE pipe for utility water supply was leak due to dig by loader bucket teeth 12) Minor Property Damage : ML-IR0171-0001 : 24 Sep 2018  4” HDPE pipe for fire hydrant HYD01 was leak due to dig by bucket teeth of backhoe loader owned by WKS 13) Minor Vehicle Crash : ML- IR0172-0001 : 26 Sep 2018  EPC Dump truck was hauling material from ML- B to Disposal area, suddenly driver loss control and caused single vehicle incident (almost flip over) 14) Minor Vehicle Crash: ML- IR0175-0001: 24 Oct 2017  Side sweep between crane mounted trailer (WKS) and Innova (Rekind) at access road near Yard 2. R/H rear vender and lamp were brushed. Narrow road. 15) Minor Vehicle Crash: ML- IR0176-0001: 25 Oct 2017  LV (BH-9808-GK) suffered cracked at front windshield due to stone thrown by unknown when crossing in front of EPC-C labor camp. 16) Minor Property Damage : ML-IR0179-0001 : 19 Nov 2017  Windshield glass of SDI Slick line Logging Unit in Wellpad ML-E was broken due to throwing by unidentified person Jul- CORRECTIVE DATE OF ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION PIC STATUS Dec ACTION TARGET

17) Minor Property Damage : ML-IR0180-0001 : 19 Nov 2017  Convex mirror was damaged at access road ML-B 18) Minor Property Damage : ML-IR0182-0001 : 21 Nov 2017 :  Demolition of traffic sign at access road bangko putih 19) Minor vehicle Crash : ML- IR0185-0001 : 6 Dec 2017  Rear collision between security patrol car SECURINDO and light vehicle DKB on SEML site office-parking area. 20) Minor Vehicle Crash : ML- IR0187-0001 : 9 Dec 2017  Supplier Dump Truck BM-9463 TS with driver Adek, on the way he look another Dump Truck (BA- 9952 S) have failure engine/stoppage then he took initiative to overtake that stop car. His right tire slipped into the drainage channel.

ATTACHMENT 11 CAMERA TRAP LOCATIONS SEML CAMERA TRAP INSTALLATION

No Camera Trap Code No Series Closed Location Coordinate Documentation Installed Download

47 m UTM 0737719, 1 SEML CT-005 B141005548 Access to Intake#1 5-Sep-17 10-Oct-17 20-Nov-17 11-Jan-18 9819346 1403 mdpl

47 m UTM 0737730, 2 SEML CT-004 B141005566 Access to Intake#1 5-Sep-17 10-Oct-17 20-Nov-17 11-Jan-18 9819335 1408 mdpl

47 m UTM 0737679, 3 SEML CT-002 B141005573 Access to Intake#1 5-Sep-17 10-Oct-17 24-Nov-17 11-Jan-18 9819311 1387 mdpl

47 m UTM 0736513, 4 SEML CT-001 B141005553 Adjacent to ML-F 15-Sep-17 15-Oct-17 5-Dec-17 23-Jan-18 9819645 1459 mdpl

47 m UTM 736727, 5 SEML CT-007 B141005546 Adjacent to ML-H 9819098 22-Sep-17 1-Nov-17 5-Dec-17 23-Jan-18 1586 mdpl

47 m UTM 736665, 6 SEML CT-006 B141005541 Adjacent to ML-H 22-Sep-17 1-Nov-17 5-Dec-17 23-Jan-18 9819045 1549 mdpl

47 m UTM 736719, 7 SEML CT-008 B141005531 Adjacent to ML-H 22-Sep-17 1-Nov-17 5-Dec-17 23-Jan-18 9819066 1599 mdpl

47 m UTM 736853, 8 SEML CT-009 B141005337 Adjacent to ML-H 22-Sep-17 1-Nov-17 5-Dec-17 23-Jan-18 9819134 1542 mdpl

47 m UTM 736686, 9 SEML CT-010 B141005537 Adjacent to ML-H 22-Sep-17 1-Nov-17 5-Dec-17 23-Jan-18 9819083 1573 mdpl ATTACHMENT 12 STAKEHOLDER MEETING CSR 2018 ATTENDANCE LIST

ATTACHMENT 13 SEML SOCIO‐ECONOMIC PROFILE AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITIES AFFECTED

SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY PROJECT LAND ACQUISITION REVISED FINAL REPORT PT Supreme Energy Muara Laboh Geothermal power plant development project 1st phase 90MW (250MW installed capacity)

2911

2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Supreme Energy Muara Laboh is developing a Geothermal Power Plant Project in Muara Laboh, located in South Solok Regency in West Sumatra. Currently the project is in the exploitation phase. Financial Close has been reached early 2017 after financing agreement was signed with JBIC, ADB and a series of commercial banks. Cconstruction has now commenced with Commercial Operation planned to startin 2019. Like other geothermal developments, the project requires a comparatively small footprint, for Stage 1 development only 71 hectares. The company has so far acquired 141 hectares of land, granted to PT SEML by virtue of location permit issued by the Solok Selatan Regent (Decree No 540-94-2013). The land, designated by the government as other use area (APL=area penggunaan lain) was formerly developed as tea plantation by the Dutch Eastern Indies Company around 100 years ago. After Independence, around the 1970s, PT Pekonina restarted operation of the tea plantation under the right to cultivate (HGU) scheme while the national government had ownership of the land. After the company ceased its operation around 30 years ago, the land was returned to the government, and has since been used by the local communities for irrigated rice and dry land farming. PT SEML identified 202 households and a few farming groups whom they compensated on a ‘willing buyer-willing seller’ basis. There was no involuntary relocation as all affected households have been compensated above the market price and approximately 10 times the taxable value (NJOP). At the time of compensation, no detailed socio-economic study was undertaken by SEML, however the land acquisition process is documented and was based on fair and open negotiations between PT SEML and affected people, including oversight by the government and local elders. PT SEML instructed Inti Hexa Semesta to develop a Community Development Program with those communities affected by the land acquisition. In 2015, IHS undertook a study with the 75 households who reside in the nearby villages in ring 1. An Integrated Social Development Program (ISDP) was developed based on the findings of that study. The ADB social audit corrective action plan recommended the need of a comprehensive socioeconomic baseline and survey profiling and vulnerability assessment of all of the affected 202 households that have been compensated as part of the land acquisition process for the project. The present study carried out by PT Greencap/ESC, namely Socio-Economic Survey and Vulnerability Assessment (SESVA), covers the remaining households in the other villages in the vicinity of the project. In addition to the socioeconomic profile and vulnerability assessment, the present study also includes identification of livelihood and skills development opportunities to understand current needs for and community perception on livelihood and skills training and consultation with government and educational institutions to understand current available facilties that are on offer to support livelihood and skills development training. The results will be used to refine the Company’s own Integrated Social Development Program (ISDP). The SESVA study has been carried out from December 2016 to April 2017, covering a total of 133 households affected by SEML land acquisition, 4 (four) targeted focus group discussions with potentially vulnerable segments of the community and traditional Minang women leaders and 6 (six) key informant interviews with relevant government and other educational institutions. The field activities were carried out as per following:

SESVA Final Report Oktober 2017 Sent to Client i

1. Scoping Visit (26-30 December 2016) 2. Socio-Economic Profile and Vulnerability Survey (1-7 February 2017), and 3. Focused Group Discussion (FGD) and Key Informant Interview (KII) (12- 17 March 2017).

The findings of the study are as follows: Socio Economic Profile

• The poverty line for Solok Selatan Regency for 2015 is Rp 292,292 per month which is almost Rp 100,000 lower than that of the Province while around Rp 40,000 lower than the rural average across Indonesia. • The majority of the respondents identified as ethnic Minang (93%). The rest are Melayu (3%), Javanese (1%) and other ethnic groups (1%). In actual fact the Melayu themselves are a subgroup of Minang. People from Java and other parts of Indonesia migrated to the area because of several reasons including working in Dutch plantation in Pekonina and economic reason. The Town of Muara Laboh is in fact an old Dutch Town. • SESVA survey respondents are mostly men and women of 40 to 60 years old. Most of them felt healthy during the survey and very few indicated feeling unwell. Members of families range from 4 to 5 members, which is slightly bigger than the national average of 3.9. The dependency ratio of SESVA respondents is 43%, which is lower than the national dependency rate of 51%. • In terms of literacy and educational attainment, most of all men and women survey respondents indicated that they can read, only older group of people, mainly women, who are perceived having literacy difficulties (illiterate). Household members aged 20 and older (up to the age of 49) more than half both male and female have finished senior high school or have attained tertiary education. Women seem to be in general better educated than men and higher in tertiary ratio. The older or senior people have only completed primary school or not finished school. • Majority of those who look for works are men between 20 and 30 years old, while total labor participation of the respondents is 60%. • 93 households still have land within PT SEML area (indicated to be about 245 ha according to the survey), mainly in the form of dry land (84%) and wet land (13%). 9 out of 133 households used the compensation money to buy new land (in total 5 ha or 0.04 ha on average per household), in the form of dry land (69%) and wetland (39%). 17 out of 133 households indicated that they own or sharecrop other land of 8 ha. • In regards to land ownership and status, majority of the remaining land are without papers (50%), with village head notice (30%), and only a few said they had a land title /certificates (12%). 34% of households indicated they inherited the land, while 18% bought the land.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx ii

Perception toward the Project

• The Project Affected Households (PAHH) within the SESVA scope have not all been aware of the Company’s Grievance Mechanism. Some of them are aware that there are grievances raised by communities toward SEML. Majority of the respondents also implied that lodging grievance not difficult. The response time from SEML and its main contractor toward the grievances are considered quite fast as well as the responses and resolutions to the grievances. SEML employees assigned for grievance handling mechanism are more well- known than third party people appointed by SEML for GM contact. • In terms of the Project’s land acquisition, majority of the land acquisition affected households are happy with process and found it to be fair and that they would do it again if they were to return to that time. Small percentage of PAHH said the price was low and that they had no choice but to let go. • The number of PAHH who work for SEML or its suppliers/contractors is very low, nonetheless the percentage of local workers compared to migrant workers is higher (SEML monthly report). Almost half of the respondents were aware of SEML CSR programs despite the number or level of participation and beneficiaries of the PAHH in the program is low as well as their satisfaction. • In terms of SEML Community Committee, almost half of the respondents were aware of the Committee. (Note that SEML’s community engagement until recently focused mainly on ring 1 villages, which are the 5 villages that surround the project).

Vulnerabilities

• Vulnerability is assessed based on a number of security aspects, i.e. food, social, economic, environment, health and other aspects, gender, educational attainment, and satisfaction with SEML land acquisition. Households assessment toward the various vulnerability indicators is as follows o None of the surveyed households reported to have experienced starving. o In terms of social security, the majority do not actively participate in village organizations. In events of family or neighborhood matters and conflicts the community appears to still have strong support from family and village apparatus. o In terms of economic security, only a few reported to be unemployed. 5 households were identified as potentially vulnerable in terms of debt pressure (that is monthly installments versus household income). o More than a third of households collect wood for firing their cooking stoves. o Only a few houses had either roofs made from thatched straw and or wooden planks or earthern floors. o In regards to environmental security, only 1 household reported that his/her family was affected by natural disaster. o In the aspect of health security, 15 households indicated that one of their family members had a major health problem and in terms of sanitation and access to water, 17% use river water for defecation and 5% use communal toilet.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx iii

o Genderwise, 24 women between 27 to 58 years old indicated completed if ever only primary school and not working. o In terms of educational attainment, 12 youngsters (between the age 20 and 30) identified only finished primary school and not married. Two out of the 12 were reported to having difficulties in reading. o In terms of satisfaction of the price of SEML land acquisition, 5 households indicated that they were not satisfied.

• Based on the above vulnerability indicators, 18 households have been identified as vulnerable or potentially vulnerable, they either apply to more than one of the vulnerability indicators (6 households) or have a low per capita income (11 households) or high debt pressure versus income (1 household). A total number of 19 households were also identified as vulnerable because they tick two vulnerability indicators. These households could be potentially vulnerable or become vulnerable when a sudden change of life happens, such as for example an illness that prevents the main breadwinner to continue to work or becoming unemployed for a variety of reasons. Skill and Livelihood Development (Capacity Building)

• Like other newly split and established regency, Solok Selatan try to improve economy, revenue and welfare of the people. Government institutions such as social, labor and transmigration agency provides capacity building program to workers although it is limited. A number of educational institutions such as Vocational High School or SMK are available in the Regency especially around the Muara Laboh vicinity. Community Academy, a Diploma 3 certificate, is established by the Regency government in collaboration with Politeknik Negeri Padang. SEML may cooperate or partner with relevant government agencies and local vocational educational institutions to implement its skill or capacity and livelihood development program. • The main pressing security issue that might thwart capacity building program is livestock theft. Livestock theft is alarming that even though the Project affected people suggested support to livestock program, they are still worried with theft especially if livestock farms are far from where they live. • The project affected people have lack of trust toward the village elites and they are pessimistic to work in a group based on previous capacity building implemented by the Government in the region. • The future skill and livelihood development program should consider the following aspects: Individual or bundled base program rather than group base; Needs base; Sustainability; Communal Base, Gender equality; Flexible mode of debt/loan payment; Assisting the families/households who support vulnerable people; and Partnership and engagement with local stakeholders.

In general, the Project affected people have eagerness to improve their livelihood and economic condition. During FGD, they suggested capacity building through training and skill development in agriculture, livestock, furniture/carpentry, business development, cooking, food industry, and embroidery; provision of capital; and provision of capital goods.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx iv

In summary, of the 133 households, around 13.5% have been identified as most likely to be vulnerable while another 14.3% are potentially vulnerable. Whether this vulnerability has been caused due to land acquisition by SEML is not confirmed at this stage. The results of the various parts of the study fit well together and confirm individual findings. The major issues can be summarised are evolving around education, finance and business development. Current CSR and Stakeholder engagement activities of SEML until now have focused mainly on ring 1 PAHH. With the construction stage now started, SEML is expanding this to the other rings and in particular to all of the PAHH that were affected by land acquisition, in particular those that were identified as being vulnerable. To strengthen SEML’s approach a specific livelihood restoration plan for those identified as most vulnerable should be developed that links in with existing government programs in addition to CSR activities that focus on capacity building.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... vi LIST OF FIGURE ...... viii LIST OF TABLE ...... ix LIST OF APPENDICES ...... xi ABBREVIATIONS ...... xii 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 PT Supreme Energy Muara Laboh Project ...... 1 1.2 Land acquisition ...... 1 1.3 Present study aim, target and locations brief ...... 2 2 SEML CSR AND OTHER ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES TO DATE ...... 3 2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility Program ...... 3 2.2 Grievance mechanism ...... 3 3 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY ...... 5 4 METHODOLOGY & APPROACH ...... 6 4.1 Literature review ...... 6 4.1.1 Definition of Vulnerability ...... 6 4.1.2 Indonesian Government Poverty indicators ...... 7 4.2 Scoping ...... 8 4.3 Socio-Economic Survey and Vulnerability Assessment (Questionnaire) ...... 11 4.4 Focus Group Discussion (FGD) ...... 12 4.4.1 Selection Process of Vulnerable Group to be included in FGDs ...... 13 4.4.2 Classification of groups for FGD ...... 13 4.4.3 The implementation of FGD ...... 14 4.5 Key Informant Interview (KII) ...... 17 4.6 Challenges and Limitations ...... 18 4.6.1 Scoping study ...... 18 4.6.2 Household survey for socio-economic and vulnerability assessment ...... 18 4.6.3 FGD and KII ...... 18 4.6.4 Questionnaire and analysis ...... 19 5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE ...... 20 5.1 Demographics ...... 20 5.2 Families, family composition, age structure and gender ...... 22 5.3 Skills and Livelihood ...... 25 5.3.1 Occupations of Household Members ...... 25 5.3.2 Perceived Adult Literacy ...... 26 5.3.3 Educational Attainment ...... 27

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx vi

5.4 Land Ownership and Assets ...... 28 5.5 Income and Expenditures ...... 30 6 COMMUNITY PERCEPTION OF THE PROJECT ...... 31 6.1 Community’s understanding of Grievance Mechanism ...... 33 6.2 Community’s satisfaction with the land acquisition process ...... 35 6.3 Community’s understanding of Current SEML CSR Program ...... 36 6.4 Community’s understanding of Community Committee ...... 37 7 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ...... 40 7.1 Screening of results ...... 40 7.1.1 Food security ...... 40 7.1.2 Social Security ...... 40 7.1.3 Economic security ...... 43 7.1.4 Environmental security ...... 47 7.1.5 Health security ...... 47 7.1.6 Other Vulnerability Indicators ...... 49 7.1.7 Summary of Vulnerability Assessment ...... 50 7.2 Results from FGDs ...... 55 8 SKILLS AND LIVELIHOOD DEVELOPMENT ...... 56 8.1 Review of skill and capacity building program currently on offer by SEML ...... 56 8.2 Results from FGDs and KIIs ...... 57 8.2.1 Existing capacity building program ...... 57 8.2.2 Challenge and limitation of current capacity building ...... 58 8.2.3 Solution for economic and welfare improvement ...... 59 8.2.4 Needs and Expectation ...... 60 9 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 60 9.1 Identified needs from Vulnerability Assessment and SocioEconomic Profile ...... 60 9.2 Identified needs from Community and prioritization ...... 61 9.2.1 Present day CSR program sufficient to cover or what it already cover ...... 63 9.2.2 Availability of local government/public and private educational/vocational trainings for skills development/improvement ...... 64 9.3 Recommendation of the future Community Capacity Building ...... 65 10 CONCLUSION ...... 68 11 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 70

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx vii

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 2-1 Grievance Mechanism ...... 4 Figure 4-1 Human Development Index compared (BPS Sumatra Barat and Indonesia), 2017 ...... 7 Figure 4-2 Map of proposed surveyed project affected land owners for SESVA study ...... 10 Figure 5-1 Domicile of the 133 surveyed households ...... 20 Figure 5-2 Ethnic background of surveyed households ...... 20 Figure 5-3 Jorongs with ethnic groups other than Minan in surveyed households ...... 21 Figure 5-4 Age and gender of respondents 1 and 2...... 21 Figure 5-5 Self-assessed Health status ...... 22 Figure 5-7 Household structure – household members ...... 23 Figure 5-8 Household Members ...... 24 Figure 5-9 The age range of the different family members ...... 24 Figure 5-10 Main (a) and Secondary (b) Occupation of Household Head ...... 25 Figure 5-11 Main (a) and Secondary (b) Occupations of Wife ...... 26 Figure 5-12 Other household members main economic activity, N=16 ...... 26 Figure 5-15 Educational Attainment of Adults, aged 20 and older ...... 27 Figure 5-16 Economic Activity of surveyed Households ...... 28 Figure 9-1 Vulnerable Groups, needs and expectations ...... 61 Figure 9-2 Percentage and type of requested capacity building ...... 62 Figure 9-3 Type of requested trainings/skill development ...... 63 Figure 11-1 Identification of SESVA respondent in Pakan Salasa ...... 105 Figure 11-2 Identification of SESVA respondent near Muara Laboh Market ...... 105 Figure 11-3 SESVA respondent in front of his house and shop ...... 105 Figure 11-4 Identification of SESVA Respondent ...... 105 Figure 11-5 Identification of SESVA respondent ...... 105 Figure 11-6 Identification of SESVA respondent in Lolo ...... 105 Figure 11-7 SESVA household survey being carried out by enumerators from Universitas Andalas ...... 106 Figure 11-8 SESVA respondent in front of her house ...... 106 Figure 11-9 SESVA respondent in her house ...... 106 Figure 11-10 House condition of one of SESVA respondents ...... 106 Figure 11-11 The condition of kicthen in one of SESVA respondents' house ...... 106 Figure 11-12 Small chicken and duck livestock which is common among communities ...... 106 Figure 11-13 SEML representatives during Women Group FGD, Mr. Asyarry Sofyan (Site Support Manager) and Mr. Muhammad Roza (Field Relations Officer) ...... 107 Figure 11-14 Mr. Bujang Joang (SEML Field Relations Officer ) socialized contact number for SEML Grievance Mechanism ...... 107 Figure 11-15 Men Group Discussion ...... 107 Figure 11-16 One of Men FGD participants introduced himself ...... 107 Figure 11-17 Youth FGD ...... 107 Figure 11-18 Bundo Kanduang/Women Leader FGD ...... 107

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx viii

Figure 11-19 One of women leaders presented their opinion during FGD ...... 108 Figure 11-20 DR. Indraddin, FGD facilitator from Universitas Andalas ...... 108 Figure 11-21 Key Informant Interview with DR. Syamsurizaldi, S.IP, SE,MM, Head of Solok Regency's Regional office of Planning, Development, and Ivestment (BPPMD/BAPPEDA) ...... 108 Figure 11-22 Cooking Training in the Center of Work Training (BLK) ...... 108

LIST OF TABLE

Table 1-1 Field trips/studies ...... 2 Table 4-1 Definition of Vulnerability by International Banks ...... 6 Table 4-2 Poverty Line ...... 8 Table 4-3 Land owners who no longer available for survey ...... 11 Table 4-4 Resource Persons for SESVA Survey ...... 11 Table 4-5 List of Men FGD Participants ...... 14 Table 4-6 List of Women FGD Participants ...... 14 Table 4-7 List of Youth FGD Participants ...... 15 Table 4-8 List of Bundo Kanduang/Women Leader FGD Participants ...... 16 Table 4-9 Attendance, participation and insight of FGD participants ...... 17 Table 5-1 Dependency and Gender Ratio ...... 23 Table 5-2 Labor participation rate ...... 28 Table 5-3 Land Assets of the 133 households, SESVA Survey 2017 ...... 29 Table 5-4 Income Range of Surveyed Households, N=133 (in Rupiah) ...... 30 Table 5-5 Monthly Expenditure Range of Sureveyed Households, N=133 (in Rupiah) ...... 30 Table 6-1 Respondents awareness (heard) of SEML Grievance Mechanism ...... 33 Table 6-2 The source of information about Grievance Mechanism ...... 33 Table 6-3 Difficulties in lodging Grievances ...... 34 Table 6-4 Awareness of grievances toward SEML in the commmunity ...... 34 Table 6-5 Types of grievances addressed to SEML ...... 34 Table 6-6 Perceived SEML responses toward grievances ...... 35 Table 6-7 Perceived responsiveness of SEML toward grievances (quickness) ...... 35 Table 6-8 Do they know who to contact for grievances? ...... 35 Table 6-9 Who to report to? ...... 35 Table 6-10 Have you ever worked or are working for SEML or contractors/suppliers? ...... 36 Table 6-11 Awareness (Heard) of SEML CSR/ISDP ...... 36 Table 6-12 Participated or beneficiaries of SEML CSR/ISDP ...... 37 Table 6-13 Perception about SEML CSR/ISDP ...... 37 Table 6-14 Awareness of Comunity Committee ...... 38 Table 6-15 Source of information about Community Committee ...... 38 Table 6-16 Participation in Community Committee events/activities...... 38 Table 6-17 Perception toward the performance and benefits of Community Committee ...... 39 Table 7-1 Active in village organizations ...... 40

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx ix

Table 7-2 Type of village organizations/activities ...... 41 Table 7-3 Who is consulted for family matters? ...... 42 Table 7-4 Who is consulted for neighborhood matters? ...... 42 Table 7-5 Type social conflict ...... 43 Table 7-6 Reasons for taking out a loan ...... 45 Table 7-7 Debt pressure of 12 households ...... 45 Table 7-8 Households with Monthly Per Capita Income near or below Poverty Line ...... 46 Table 7-9 Households impacted by natural disasters ...... 47 Table 7-10 Reported Health Issues ...... 47 Table 7-11 Access to Water, Number of households ...... 48 Table 7-12 Identified Vulnerable and Potentially Vulnerable Surveyed PAHH ...... 52 Table 8-1 Existing SEML Capacity Development Program ...... 56 Table 8-2 List of Needs and Expectations for Skill and Livelihood Development ...... 60 Table 9-1 Proposed future capacity building for project affected people/vulnerable people ...... 67

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx x

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix I a List of Project Affected Households b List of Vulnerable Households Appendix II Questionnaire Appendix III KII And FGD Guideline Appendix IV Activities Photographs

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx xi

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Asian Development Bank

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

EPC Engineering, Procurement and Construction

FGD Focused Group Discussion

GM Grievance Mechanism

HDI Human Development Index

IFC International Finance Corporation

ISDP Integrated Social Development Program

KII Key Informant Interview

PAHH Project Affected Households

PAP Project Affected People

SEML PT Supreme Energy Muara Laboh

SEP Stakeholder Engagement Plan

SESVA Socio-Economi Survey and Vulnerability Assessment

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx xii

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PT Supreme Energy Muara Laboh Project

Supreme Energy Muara Laboh is developing a Geothermal Power Plant Project in Muara Laboh, located in South Solok Regency in West Sumatra. Currently the project is in the exploitation phase. Financial Close has been reached end of January 2017 (after the financing agreement was signed with JBIC, ADB and a series of commercial banks). Engineering procurement and construction has now begun while commercial operation is planned to start by 2019. The ADB social audit corrective action recommended the need of a comprehensive socioeconomic baseline and survey profiling and vulnerability assessment of the 202 households that have been compensated as part of the land acquisition process for the project. The results of this study will be used to refine the Company’s own Integrated Social Development Program (ISDP). The revised ISDP will be developed in line with the company’s commitment to the communities surrounding the project, in particular those affected by the previous, ongoing and future project operations (exploration, construction, operation, and post-operation). The ISDP addresses adverse impacts and implements various activities that are beneficial for the communities based on community needs and expectations. The company’s community relations team has already begun to implement the CSR.

1.2 Land acquisition

Like other geothermal developments, the project requires a comparatively small footprint. The total area required for Stage 1 development is only 71 hectares. The company has already acquired more than 141 hectares which is more than sufficient for the total project footprint. The site is located on APL (ex-HGU) land (PT Pekonina's plantation’s tea permit area), which has been utilized by the community for wet rice fields, coffee and quinine planting, and general community land (settlements and cultivation). The Company has a letter from the Solok Selatan Regency Regional Development Planning and Capital Investment Board confirming that the Project’s land use (i.e. for electricity generation) is in accordance with the Regency Detailed Spatial Plan (Location permit Letter No. 540.542.257.2010, 19-8-2010 and Letter No 050/43/BPPPMD-2013, 4 March 2013). Although the project area has been granted by the government to PT SEML by virtue of location permit issued by the Solok Selatan Regent (Decree No 540-94-2013), the company nevertheless pursued land acquisition and compensation involving 202 households on a ‘willing buyer-willing seller’ basis. There was no involuntary relocation as all affected households have been compensated above the market price and approximately 10 times the taxable value (NJOP). The land acquisition process is documented and was based on fair and open negotiations between PT SEML and affected people, including oversight by the government and local elders. Details on the compensation process, the affected people, land area and crops compensated and actual compensation amounts can be found in the ESIA document and pertainined Appendices.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 1

1.3 Present study aim, target and locations brief

The scope of this study was threefold,

• Activity 1: Socio-Economic Profile of affected households and vulnerability/needs assessment- to gather an understanding of the current socioeconomic livelihood situation of affected households and to assess the vulnerability of these in light of the land that has been acquired as part fo the project.

• Activity 2: Identification of livelihood and skill development opportunities - to understand current needs for and community perception on livelihood and skills training that the affected households require to reduce their vulnerability

• Activity 3: Consultation with government and educational institutions - to understand current facilities and training that is on offer by the government and other educational instituitions. The Socio Economic and Vulnerability Assessment (SESVA) employs a range of methods, i.e. Household Socio-Economic and Vulnerability Survey, Key Informant Interview (KII) and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) to explore further needs and aspiration from affected communities for skill and livelihood development as well as company document and activities review and interviews with government institutions to examine how best these needs and aspirations can be addressed. Following is a summary of the field visit activities that were part of this study.

Table 1-1 Field trips/studies

Scoping Study 26-30 December 2016

Socio-Economic and Vulnerability Survey 1-7 February 2017

Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and Key 12- 17 March 2017 Informant Interview (KII)

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 2

2 SEML CSR AND OTHER ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES TO DATE 2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility Program

SEML has started its Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) program as early as 2011. All CSR programs developed up to date were derived from stakeholder meetings. The 2016 CSR program was designed based on the Stakeholder Meeting in October 2015. The budget and activities are distributed across 4 pillars: Infrastructure, Health, Economic Empowerment and Community Relations. In 2016 more is invested into the infrastructure pillar. Around 31% was planned to be used for building classrooms for schools with the aim to improve local community access to education. Another 8% are allocated to the health pillar. Money will be spent on mass circumcision for around 60 children in the four villages near the project location. For the Economic Empowerment activities around 10% of the total budget is spent to support potential livelihood opportunities such as fresh water fish breeding. For the community relations pillar the remainder of the budget is spent which helps to maintain community support and relationship and to support existing government programs. A total budget of USD 99,300 was spent during 2016.

2.2 Grievance mechanism

The grievance mechanism has recently been updated and several meetings have taken place with the community to disclose the new mechanism (see flowchart in below figure). The grievance mechanism has been integrated into the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) that was also recently updated and completed. Contact details of relevant staff at site and in Jakarta are also listed in the SEP. The company keeps records of all grievances received and response appropriately to these according to the mechanism set out. Public consultation and disclosure of information activities are also recorded.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 3

Figure 2-1 Grievance Mechanism

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 4

3 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY

The detailed scope includes the following: (1) Socio-Economic Profile of affected households and vulnerability/needs assessment of 202 households to assess current livelihood status of economically displaced households whose lands or rather parts thereof have been acquired by the company for project use. The aim of the survey and assessment is to

a. Cover a representative sample by means of a sound methodological approach b. Understand household income and generation of income from productive land (retrospectively) to show extent of economic displacement

c. Identify most vulnerable households d. Verify compensation versus replacement costs e. Show how compensation was invested and where households are at now f. Identify any change in quality of life based on economic indicators and people’s perceptions

(2) Identification of livelihood and skill development opportunities through community consultation with affected households that are included in the ISDP

a. Examine the various activities identified in the ISDP and usefulness to community as well as identify other activities

b. Develop budget for proposed activities implementation and time bound action plan (3) Conduct consultation with relevant government agencies and academic/educational institutions to

a. Understand existing availability of regional training facilities for skills development b. Understand needs and priorities of communities on skills development and training initiatives

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 5

4 METHODOLOGY & APPROACH 4.1 Literature review

A short literature review was carried out to update ESC’s current socio-economic census survey with current practices in the field and guidelines by International lenders. Other online resources were also accessed, such as Badan Pusat Statistik for the latest statistics and definition of poverty and the poverty line in Padang.

4.1.1 Definition of Vulnerability Different disciplines weigh different aspects of vulnerability greater than others, some disciplines specify vulnerability as social or economic, while others focus more on natural disasters and proneness of the community to these. In this study vulnerability is defined as a general condition of being exposed to potentially harmful events and or exposure to risks that can have an impact on future welfare, such as for example the risk of remaining or becoming poor. Poor is generally referred to a well-defined low level of consumption of food and non- food goods as well as limited access to services. Various external as well as internal factors influence the vulnerability of a household. External factors are the availability of educational and health facilities for example, while internal factors are referred to a family or household’s capacity of coping with exposures to risks and harmful events and its capacity to generate an income that is sufficient to sustain all of its dependent members. Those particularly vulnerable are generally those who are in some way or another disadvantaged in accessing resources and benefits. The International banks guidelines define vulnerable groups as is outlined in the following table. Table 4-1 Definition of Vulnerability by International Banks

IFC PS 1.12 This disadvantaged or vulnerable status may stem from an individual’s or group’s race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status. The client should also consider factors such as gender, age, ethnicity, culture, literacy, sickness, physical or mental disability, poverty or economic disadvantage, and dependence on unique natural resources. IFC Handbook for People who by virtue of gender, ethnicity, age, physical or mental Resettlement disability, economic disadvantage, or social status may be more adversely affected by resettlement than others and who may be limited in their ability to claim or take advantage of resettlement assistance and related development benefits. ADB Involuntary Especially those below the poverty line, the landless, the elderly, women Resettlement and children, and Indigenous Peoples, and those without legal title to Source book land ADB Vulnerable Groups, including the poor, women, children, indigenous and Environmental tribal people, ethnic minorities, illegal settlers and squatters, disabled

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 6

assessment people, new and old immigrants, whose condition may be made worse guidelines 2003 by a policy reform, a new program, or some form of project intervention, and for whom social safety netsand compensation mechanisms have to be provided so that they are not adversely affected by such changes

4.1.2 Indonesian Government Poverty indicators Badan Pusat Statistik, The Indonesian Statistics Department (BPS) uses in general two indicators to determine the poverty or welfare status of the various regions in Indonesia, which are the Human Development Index and the poverty line (garis kemiskinan).

4.1.2.1 Human Development Index The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and per capita income indicators, which measures the achievement of human development and the quality of life. The HDI is composed of three dimensions, health, knowledge and welfare. It is used to rank countries into four tiers of human development. Indonesia has recently began calculating and recording the HDI on the regional level. Level of achievement is shown in percentage where 100% is equivalent to the highest achievement. Current data available on BPS shows that the HDI for Solok Selatan compared to that of West Sumatra and Indonesia overall is considerably lower. Most likely limited access to public infrastructure such as energy supply, roads, health and educational facilities and poor human resources capacity contribute to a lower level HDI index in Solok Selatan regency.

Figure 4-1 Human Development Index compared (BPS Sumatra Barat and Indonesia), 2017

4.1.2.2 Poverty line The Poverty Line (GK) is the sum of the Food Poverty Line and the Non-Food Poverty Line. The population with average per capita expenditure per month under the Poverty Line is categorized as poor. The Food Poverty Line represents the minimum food expenditure needs equivalent to 2100 kilocalories per day. The basic food commodity package is represented by

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 7

52 types of commodities (grains, tubers, fish, meat, eggs and milk, vegetables, beans, fruits, oils and fats, etc.). The Non-Food Poverty Line is the minimum requirement for housing, clothing, education and health. The basic food non-food commodity package is represented by 51 urban commodities and 47 rural commodities. The main data sources used are National Socio-Economic Survey (Susenas) Panel of Consumption and Correction Modules. The poverty line for Solok Selatan Regency for 2015 is Rp. 292,292 per month which is almost Rp. 100,000 lower than that of the Province while around Rp. 40,000 lower than the rural average across Indonesia (Table 4-2).

Table 4-2 Poverty Line

Poverty Line 2015 Poverty Line 2016 Region (IDR/month) (IDR/month) Solok Selatan Regency 292,292 n.a. Sumatera Barat Province 384,277 425,520 (Rural) Indonesia Average 333,034 350,420 (Rural)

Source: BPS Indonesia and Sumatera Barat, 2017 The ISDP study report from 2015 defined the poverty line at Rp.291,000 per month.

4.2 Scoping

Scoping study was conducted on 26-30 December 2016 to identify respondents of SESVA study and their addresses. The respondents were selected from the list of land owners whose lands have been compensated by SEML excluding those that previously have been surveyed by SEML. Of the 202 households it was determined that only 127 households would be included in the survey, since 75 had been studied as part of the ISDP study in 2015. The study at the time only focused on the affected households in Ring 1. The present study therefore covered the remainder. Before the scoping trip, the lists that were available had to be consolidated, as some of the households were listed twice or more because they have more than one parcel of land acquired by SEML. Out of 127 respondents initially targeted for SESVA study, approximately 70 participants were identified during the scoping visit including coordinators who will help contacting respondents during survey. The coordinates of the 70 respondents’ address were recorded by GPS for easy access by enumerators during survey. Other details such as villages, sub-villages or jorong, contact numbers, time of availability, were also recorded. The respondents live mainly in several Nagari in Pauh Duo Sub-District, i.e. Nagari Alam Pauh Duo, Nagari Pauh Duo Nan Batigo, Nagari Kapau Alam Pauh Duo, and Nagari Luak Kapau Alam Pauh Duo.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 8

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 9

Figure 4-2 Map of proposed surveyed project affected land owners for SESVA study

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 10

Some land owners or cultivators were no longer available for the survey due to either pass away or he/she has moved to other places far from Muara Laboh or the Project area.

Table 4-3 Land owners who no longer available for survey

No Name Remark 1 Yuhardiman Deceased 2 Basraini Deceased 3 Femi Rianto Moved 4 Gu Hendri Moved 5 Anasril Deceased 6 Arpendi Moved

The scoping activity was closely assisted by SEML field relations officer, Muhammad Roza, who has the information of the address and location of land owners. After returning from the site, scoping continued. Eventually, the number of households to be surveyed was increased to 133 in order to include members of the farmer groups or Kelompok Tani whose land was acquired by SEML not on an individual basis but as a group.

4.3 Socio-Economic Survey and Vulnerability Assessment (Questionnaire)

The socio-economic survey and vulnerability assessment (SESVA) was carried out by collecting data from 133 households with one or two respondents per household to answer questions. The respondents of the SESVA survey is based on the result of Scoping activity and other additional names of land owners identified and examined by SEML and Greencap. Any land owners that have been interviewed in the previous study were not included in the list. Detailed of SESVA list of respondents is presented in the Appendix I. The survey was carried out by Greencap and local University, Universitas Andalas. The survey team consisted of enumerators and supervisors. The analysis of the data was backed up by an SPSS analyist/statistician. The enumerators were briefed about the questionnaires by Supervisor from Universitas Andalas, DR. Alfan Miko, and by Greencap, Muhammad Zaki. Every morning an evaluation meeting was conducted with enumerators and field supervisor to spot any challenges and difficulties faced by enumerators in the field as well as difficulties with feedbacks in the questionnaire. The data input of the filled up questionnaires was carried out by SPSS specialist from Universitas Andalas.

Table 4-4 Resource Persons for SESVA Survey

Resource Pax Supervisor 2 Enumerators 5 SPSS analyst 1

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 11

Questionnaires developed for household survey consisted of open and closed questions (SESVA Questionnaires is attached in Appendix II). In general, the questions are divided into 5 topics as follows.

1. Demography: to identify family structure and other family members who live in other places. 2. Household Economy: to find out occupation of family members; assets; income and expenditure; vulnerability. 3. Land Acquisition by SEML; to evaluate respondents’ perception on land acquisition and price. 4. The existence of SEML: job opportunity with SEML; CSR; Community Committee and Grievance Mechanism. 5. Closing: respondents’ feedback/expectation to SEML.

In each household two respondents were approached to answer the questionnaire. This was done to increase accuracy of data received as knowledge about income, income generation activities and expenses is often partial, for instance women tend to know more about the expenses while men may know more about the land they cultivate and related expenses and income. Depending on the time of the day, and availability of household members, not all of the two respondents were head of household and wife.

4.4 Focus Group Discussion (FGD)

Focus Group Discussion (FGD) were used to explore the understanding of current capacity building programs, issues with current program implementation and to identify needs and expectation of project affected land owners. Greencap also cooperated with local university, Universitas Andalas, to facilitate the FGDs. The FGD was undertaken through the following processes. FGD is aimed to identify livelihood and skill development opportunities with the affected persons, which includes, but not limited to:

1. Labor skills: automotive training, computer operator/administration/accounting, construction, driver and heavy equipment operator, wielder, chef, tailor, security; 2. Local business skills: laundry and cleaning services, catering, canteen, car rental, equipment rentals and tailor services; 3. Fruit plantation management; access to financial support for procurement of tractors, and agricultural implements, training on processing and marketing of agricultural products, financial literacy training.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 12

4.4.1 Selection Process of Vulnerable Group to be included in FGDs The result of the survey was analysed in terms of socio-economic conditions and a number of respondents were selected to be participants for FGDs. The selection is based on the consideration for vulnerability, which is based on the following criteria:

1. Woman headed family: woman single parent who is economically weak to support her family.

2. Low income: that is the respondents who have low household income by looking at their monthly gross income divided by number of family members.

3. Debt pressure versus income: In addition, debts versus income also become the consideration for vulnerability where some respondents show the amount of debt they have to pay is almost equal to income and those people who are in debt to cover family daily needs.

4. Low level of education: many of the respondents either did not complete or completed only primary school and they did not continue their studies to a higher education.

5. Unemployed: the productive age people especially the youth who have completed primary, junior and high school, as well as higher education, but they do not work and/or are not employed.

6. No skill: Only small numbers of respondents who have skill like sewing and embroidery and furniture expertise. The rest have either none or limited skills that made them vulnerable and unable to improve their economic condition.

Other factor used to screen vulnerable group is through house condition such as whether or not the respondent have poor condition of houses; food security such as whether or not they have ever suffered from famine or food shortage; health condition such as diseases that make respondent unable to work and earn income; and natural disaster that affect economic activities of the respondents.

4.4.2 Classification of groups for FGD Based on the above criteria, approximately 50 people were selected to represent the following vulnerable groups for FGD exercises:

1. Women vulnerable group 2. Men Vulnerable Group 3. Youth Vulnerable Group Besides vulnerable group of people, FGDs were also organized with another group of people which are used as comparison to the groups of vulnerable people as well as to explore information and perception toward the Project. One of the additional FGDs was organized by Greencap and the other two were organized directly by SEML as seen below: 1. Women leader and Bundo Kanduang in the land acquisition affected area. 2. Youth Leader (organized by SEML)

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 13

3. Customary Leader (organized by SEML) Please note that only the results of the additional women leader and Bundo Kanduang FGD is included in the discussion and results in this report.

4.4.3 The implementation of FGD The FGD was organized in Wisma Gemini, about 5 km from Muara Laboh market and 12 km to SEML project site. The location is relatively central to all FGD participants who mostly come from 3 Nagari and the time for interview was set in the afternoon for two sessions to make it easy for participants to attend the FGDs. The first session is from 13.00 to 15.00 and the second session is from 16.00 to 18.00. The number of participants who attended the FGDs is 43 participants (out of approximately 50 participants invited) consists of men group 8 people, women group 11 people, youth group 13 people, and Bundo Kanduang/women leader group 11 people as shown in the table below.

Table 4-5 List of Men FGD Participants

No of Project Relation to household No Name Affected Household Remark (family head) (SESVA)* 1 Candra Darma 39 Head of Household - 2 Yusra 43 Head of Household - 3 Hendra 138 Head of Household - 4 Zainal Dt Talanan 114 Head of Household - 5 Syam Syahril 137 Head of Household - 6 Nasrul 86 Head of Household There are 2 people named Nasrul(S), the one invited and joining the FGD is Nasrul from Pinang Sinawa 7 Muhammad Yulis 89 Head of Household - 8 Dasril 141 Head of Household -

*Number of Participants as in Attachment I a. List of Project Affected Households

Table 4-6 List of Women FGD Participants

Relation to No of Project Affected No Women Group household (family Remark Household (SESVA)* head) 1 Dani Rumantika 83 Wife - 2 Netri Yenti 3 Wife - 3 Nurleli 118 Wife - 4 Isas 85 Wife - 5 Nurimis 114 Wife - 6 Yuli 50 Wife -

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 14

Relation to No of Project Affected No Women Group household (family Remark Household (SESVA)* head) 7 Rosnawati 103 Wife - 8 Sus Yunita 89 Daughter She represented her mother, Nurjulis who could not attend the FGD 9 Susi Susanti 103 Daughter Accompanying her mother and participated in the FGD 10 Ernita 134 Wife Ernita is Land Owner, Wife To Ardi 11 Pasriati 118 Daughter She represented her mother, Nurleli (Nurlaili)

*Number of Participants as in Attachment I a. List of Project Affected Households

Table 4-7 List of Youth FGD Participants

Relation to No of Project Affected No Youth Group household (family Remark Household (SESVA)* head) 1 Yose Saputra 134 Son - 2 Hendra Eka Putra 63 Son - 3 Edo Jati Jaya 100 Son His Land was Acquired By Seml 4 Ersis Wirmansyah 96 Son His Land was Acquired By Seml 5 Zulfah Roni^ - Son Member of land cultivators in Mudiak Lolo 6 Ijan 114 Son His father is Zainal (Dt Talanan) 7 Riga Saputra 13 Son - 8 Dinda Ratulasmi 3 Daughter Daughter of Aldi Zamri 9 Mulhandri 72 In Law Mulhandri is brother in law of Afdal, son of Nurjani/Aris Afrianto 10 Ardison 40 Head of - household 11 Indra Putra 40 Nephew Nephew to Ardison 12 Randa Usmanto^ - Son Member of Land Cultivator, unemployed 13 Hasnatullah 3 Niece Niece to Aldi Zamri Khairiah

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 15

*Number of Participants as in Attachment I a. List of Project Affected Households

^Zulfah Roni and Randa Usmanto were members of Farmers Group/land cultivators

Table 4-8 List of Bundo Kanduang/Women Leader FGD Participants

Bundo No Kanduang/Women Position Leader Group 1 Wira Yulita Representative from Jorong Blok Nol, Pekonina 2 Erma Neti Representative from Jorong Kampung Baru, Pekonina 3 Yusneli M Bundo Kanduang 4 Salmawati Salta Head of Bundo Kanduang 5 Rusdanelly Head of PKK Team, Nagari Pauh Duo Nan Batigo 6 Hj. Agustina Bundo Kanduang, Head of Majlis Ta’lim, Pauh Duo Sub-District 7 Yosi Afrianita Head of PKK Team, Nagari Luak Kapau 8 Yurmailis Head of PKK Team, Nagari Kapau Alam Pauh Duo 9 Wilna Guspawati Head of PKK Team, Alam Pauh Duo 10 Wira Santika Representative from Jorong Taratak Tinggi, Pekonina 11 Gusma Yeti Representative from Jorong Taratak Tinggi, Pekonina

The FGD was carried out by 1 facilitator, 1 co-facilitator, and 1 note taker and attended by representatives from SEML to inform SEML Project update as well as to disseminate the Project’s Grievance Mechanism contact number. To explore information from the participants, the facilitator used metaplan papers and the participants were given opportunities to discuss and express their opinion. Facilitator assisted the process of brainstorming and discussion while the co-facilitator took important points on a flip chart paper in front of the participants. For the Bundo Kanduang/Women leader group, the FGD setting was changed slightly by adding a session where the participants were grouped into three and then they were asked to discuss about women role in economy in the nagari, load/burden and responsibility of women, and women role in the public sector. The results of the discussion were presented to all participants in the FGD of women leaders. The discussion was carried out in Indonesian language as well as Minang language. The use of local or ethnic language is not an issue because the FGD facilitator is originally Minang who speaks the language fluently and understand the context and meanings of the statements expressed by FGD participants. It is observed that the levels of attendance, participation and insight, varied from one group to another. Men Group has sufficient number of attendance for FGDs of 8 people while other groups have more than 10 people. The participation of Youth Group in the FGD discussion is lower compared to other groups, which might be because of low level of confidence among

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 16

the youth to express their opinion and not used to having discussion such as FGD. The level of insight also shows that the youth group demonstrates low level of insight while men and women group have a medium level of insights and the Bundo Kanduang/women leader group has high level of insight. This can be seen during the discussion in the Youth Group where the opinion, information, and ideas expressed were mainly around the activities that they are daily involved in. It is common that youth who do not further their studies after primary schools will stay in the village and work as farmers. The highest level of insight is in the Bundo Kanduang/women leader Group where all participants actively express their opinion about families, women roles, the system in the society, and the information about development programs in their areas.

Table 4-9 Attendance, participation and insight of FGD participants

Groups Attendance Participation Insight Men Group Sufficient Very Active Medium Women Group High Very active Medium Youth Group High Medium Low Bundo Kanduang/Women High Very Active High Leader Group

4.5 Key Informant Interview (KII)

In addition to the FGD, a semi structured interviews were carried out with several key stakeholders in the local government and educational institution. The points of discussion were about community development programs implemented by government to improve community skill and livelihood, challenges and limitation, as well as future plan of community development program in the regency and especially in the area adjacent to the Project site and land acquisition affected communities. The list of interviewed key stakeholder is as in the table below:

Day/Date of No Name Office Position Interview 1 DR. Syamsulrizaldi, Regional Planning and Development Head Wednesday, 15 S.IP, SE, MM Agency or Badan Perencanaan March 2017 Pembangunan Daerah (BAPPEDA) of Solok Selatan Regency 2 Hafison Social, Workforce, and Transmigration Head Wednesday, 15 Agency or Dinas Sosial, Tenaga Kerja March 2017 dan Transmigrasi (Dinsosnakertrans) and Vocational Training Center or Balai Latihan Kerja (BLK) 3 Windra Nardi Social, Workforce, and Transmigration Section Head of Wednesday, 15 Agency or Dinas Sosial, Tenaga Kerja Workforce Training March 2017 dan Transmigrasi (Dinsosnakertrans) 4 Zulkarnain Education Agency or Dinas Pendidikan Head Friday, 17 March

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 17

Day/Date of No Name Office Position Interview 2017 5 Novrizon Education Agency or Dinas Pendidikan Section Head Friday, 17 March Former Head of Vocational High 2017 School or Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan (SMK) I 6 Efrizal Vocational High School or Sekolah Acting Head Friday, 17 March Menengah Kejuruan (SMK) I Solok 2017 Selatan

4.6 Challenges and Limitations

The study encountered a number of challenges, difficulties and limitation during the implementation as follows.

4.6.1 Scoping study 1. Difficulty in determining names of land owners to be included in the SESVA study. Some land owners have not only one parcel of land but a number of parcels of land acquired by SEML. 2. The location of participants is scattered in a number of jorongs in a wide range area. 3. Not all of the households could be identified during the scoping study due to time constraint, but contact persons were identified who knew the addresses of other land acquisition impacted households.

4.6.2 Household survey for socio-economic and vulnerability assessment 1. To find the location of new identified respondents who were not identified during scoping activity was difficult because of the distance and location. 2. Negative/unwelcome response from respondents who were not happy or who felt disadvantaged with the Project and land acquisition process. 3. Nickname versus official name; respondents are known to the communities with their nicknames rather that official names as written in the list.

4.6.3 FGD and KII 1. The location of FGD participants spreads in several sub-villages around Muara Laboh, Project site area and in the capital city of the regency, Padang Aro. 2. Change of status of survey respondents; dynamic progress and changes of status of respondents during and after the survey for instance unemployment. Some respondents were unemployed during the survey, but in approximately one-month time they get a job.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 18

4.6.4 Questionnaire and analysis Not all of the enumerators filled in the answers as they were requested. In particular, where we asked for more details this was not filled in. Enumerators had been trained at the beginning and were supervised. Enumerators faced difficulties and spent a lot of time in getting the answer on assets, especially on land ownership. Some of the respondents knew only how much money they were compensated with, but not the width of cultivated land acquired by SEML. During data entry there were some mistakes occurring due to the amount of data to be added. Some of these errors have been identified and addressed during the analysis. However, the cleaning up of the data has led to delays in the analysis.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 19

5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE 5.1 Demographics

There were 133 households surveyed in a total of 26 different jorong in 3 different nagari near SEML’s project location. The bulk of the households (or nearly half) live in the four Jorongs of Taratak Bukareh, Pinang Sinawa, Taratak Tinggi, and Kampung Baru.

Figure 5-1 Domicile of the 133 surveyed households

The majority of the respondents identified as ethnic Minang, 3% as Melayu, 3% as Javanese and 1% as others. In actual fact, the Melayu themselves are a subgroup of Minang (Figure 5-2).

Figure 5-2 Ethnic background of surveyed households

Those other ethnic groups are only represented in 8 of the 26 jorongs. Most Javanese are found to be living in Pekonina (100%) and in Pasar Muara Laboh around 50% of the total households surveyed. The Javanese who settled in Pekonina have come here around one

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 20

hundred years ago when they were hired to work in the tea plantation estate, while the arrival of the Javanese in Pasar Muara Laboh is not clear, but assumed to be during the Dutch colonial time. Pasar Muara Laboh is an old Dutch town. In 8 of the villages there were other ethnic groups part of the households surveyed, while in the remaining 19 villages all were Minang.

Figure 5-3 Jorongs with ethnic groups other than Minan in surveyed households

The figures on the ethnic distribution show that the majority of the surveyed households is Minang. Other ethnic groups who were affected by land acquisition make up a larger percentage of all affected households are present in all villages. In Pekonina 100% of the affected households are Javanese, while in Pasar Muara Laboh, they make up 50%. In Pakan Selasa and other villages also some affected households identified as Melayu and other ethnic groups.

Figure 5-4 Age and gender of respondents 1 and 2.

Most people interviewed were in the age brackets of 40 to 60 years old, women and men across the villages.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 21

Figure 5-5 Self-assessed Health status

Almost all of the interviewed respondents feel healthy and only very few indicated they felt unwell.

5.2 Families, family composition, age structure and gender

Figure 5-6 Age structure of surveyed households

The population pyramid shows a relatively aged population of the affected households and not many very young (0-4) at this point in time compared to the other age brackets.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 22

Table 5-1 Dependency and Gender Ratio

Age Group Male Female Total Indonesia

Young (0-14) 83 86 169 Senior (65+) 13 4 17 Total dependent 96 90 186 Working Age (15-64) 205 225 430 Total 301 315 616 Dependency Ratio 47% 40% 43% 51% Gender Ratio 105 100

The dependency ratio which is the ratio of the young and senior over the working age population, or the affected household members is below 50% which is low compared to other regions in Indonesia and the Indonesian average of around 49%. Dependency Ratio measures the pressure on productive population (15-65 of age) by economically inactive population sections (children and old age).

Figure 5-7 Household structure – household members

Most families have 4 or 5 members or even 6 or 7 members. The maximum recorded was 8. A family usually consists of husband and wife head of household, children and other family members.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 23

Figure 5-8 Household Members

Household Members Number Indonesia Mean 4.6 3.9 Median 5 Min 1 Max 8

Figure 5-9 The age range of the different family members

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 24

The age range of the different family members shown in the figures above shows that most parents range between 25 to 55 while children’s age between 0 and 30 to 35. It also shows that in some families the children live with the parents and already have their own children.

5.3 Skills and Livelihood

5.3.1 Occupations of Household Members Households were asked about the type of the main, secondary and other occupations of its members and the frequency of these economic activities pursued. In Indonesia, most households pursue a variety of economic activities, for instance while a farmer maybe mainly occupied with managing the crops, he may at the same work on an occasional basis as a day labourer, and his wife maybe tending to the cattle and have a shop, and a younger member of the family may have already started employment at a local motorbike workshop and so on. In this study, most household heads indicated their primary occupation to be irrigated rice farmer, or 56%. The remaining 44% of the household heads pursued a variety of different occupations. For the wives, the main occupations were other (36%), followed by government employee (26%) and rice farmer (25%) while other members’ main occupation indicated were rice farmer or other (Figure 5-10, Figure 5-11, Figure 5-12). It turns out that multiple occupations or economic activities are not that much of a norm in these households. Of the 126 household heads only around a quarter or 32 have a second occupation, with the main secondary occupations in farming mainly. For the wives, it was four who indicated that they were working another job besides their main occupation, which was either farming, trading or other.

(a) N=126 (b) N=32

Figure 5-10 Main (a) and Secondary (b) Occupation of Household Head

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 25

(a) N=73 (b) N=4

Figure 5-11 Main (a) and Secondary (b) Occupations of Wife

Figure 5-12 Other household members main economic activity, N=16

5.3.2 Perceived Adult Literacy Respondents were asked about the literacy ability of their household members, if they could read, had difficulties, couldn’t at all or if they would not know. The results according to age groups of the working age population shows that in most age brackets both male and female can read and only in the older age brackets there are some, in particular women, who are perceived as having literacy difficulties or are illiterate.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 26

Figure 5-13 Level of literacy

5.3.3 Educational Attainment The educational attainment the household members aged 20 and older shows that up to the age of 49 in both male and female more than half have finished senior high school or have attained tertiary education. Also across the ages, women seem to be in general better educated than men. On average tertiary ratio is higher for women than men across all age groups. In the older age brackets many have only completed primary school or not finished school. Literacy rate in Indonesia 95.8%, female literacy 90.1% and male literacy 95.6% Solok Selatan 97.72%, SUMBAR 97.38 (2013, BPS SUMBAR)

Figure 5-14 Educational Attainment of Adults, aged 20 and older

In terms of economic activities, the majority of those looking for work are men between 20 and 30. Although many women are housekeepers they are also active working.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 27

Figure 5-15 Economic Activity of surveyed Households

Table 5-2 Labor participation rate

Labor Participation Rate Male Female All Total working age pop 203 220 423 Working 151 89 240 Looking for work 9 5 14 Total active 160 94 254 Housekeeper 4 67 71 At school 33 55 88 Other not economically active 6 4 10 Total non-active 43 126 169 Labour Participation Rate (LPR) 79% 43% 60%

The LPR amounts to 79% in males and 43% in females and overall in 60%.

5.4 Land Ownership and Assets

Land owned by the affected households that was leftover within PT SEML contract of work area, land that was bought after compensations were received from PT SEML and other land that was owned or sharecropped has been listed in below table. According to the survey, there are still 93 households that have land within the PT SEML area. Most of that land is identified as ladang (84%) and as sawah (13%) with a total size of around 245 ha (or an average 1.84 ha per household). Those who bought land after they had received compensation are 9 out of 133 households. They invested that into dry land (ladang) (69%) or

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 28

wetland (sawah) (39%) with a total area of around 5 ha. 17 of the 133 households indicated that they were also owning or sharecropping other land with a total area of 8 ha and again around two thirds are ladang and one third is sawah. In terms of ownership status and origin, the land leftover within PT SEML was mostly without papers (50%) or with a notice of the village head (30%) and 12% had their land registered. 34% indicated they had inherited that land, while 18% bought it. There were 9 households who said to have bought land after compensation, with 7 of these households detailing that the land bought was mostly either without paper or with a deed of sales/purchase and only one land parcel bought had a land title. Of the 16 households with other land, 19% had an oral sharecrop agreement, 6 % had leased that land, and 13% had land with a title, while the majority of the households indicated that the other land was either with a village head notice or without papers (31% each). In terms of origin of the other land, 38% indicated they inherited the land, while 25% bought it, 19% leased it and 19% was unspecified.

Table 5-3 Land Assets of the 133 households, SESVA Survey 2017 Land bought after Land leftover Other land owned Item PT SEML within PT SEML / sharecropped Compensation N= 133 133 133 1 land 76 9 15 2 lands 16 0 2 3 lands 1 0 0 No land 40 124 116 Total size (ha) 244.72 5.25 8.01 Average size (ha) 1.84 0.04 0.06 %ladang (dry land) 84% 61% 62% %sawah (wet rice) 13% 39% 34% %tambak (aquaculture) 0% 0% 3.1% %hutan (forest) 0.4% 0.0% 0% %tanah rumah (residential) 2.7% 0% 0% Ownership Status N=92 N=7 N= 16 land title 12% 14% 13% sale/purchase deed/grant 2% 43% 0% village head notice 30% 0% 31% Borrow/Lease right 2% 0% 6% without papers 50% 43% 31% tenant with written 0% contract 1% 0% tenant with oral agreement 2% 0% 19% Origin N=88 N=7 N=16 inherited 34% 0% 38% bought 18% 100% 25% leased 2% 0% 19% other 45% 0% 19%

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 29

Source: SESVA Survey

5.5 Income and Expenditure

Household income was calculated based on the information received in the questionnaires from the different household members from their main and other occupations. Note that however information on income is usually not that accurate as it is difficult to measure. For instance, those who farm do not have regular paid monthly income. The same goes for casual day laborers and shopkeepers. The range that was indicated by the households was between Rp.300,000 to up to Rp.175 million or if calculated per capita or per household member from less than Rp.200,000 to up to Rp.35 million. Given that the Standard deviation is almost as high as the average, the income figure here first of all show there is great variation in what households earn or perceive to earn but there may also be not very exact. For this reason, expenditure is a good measure to better understand the status of households. Table 5-4 Income Range of Surveyed Households, N=133 (in Rupiah) Household Income Per Capita Income

Average 33,903,180 7,412,983

Min 300,000 85,000

Max 175,000,000 35,000,000

Standard Deviation 27,166,316 6,053,362

Households were asked about their daily, monthly and regular expenditures for food, non-food and specific occasion expenses. These were then calculated and approximated to monthly expenditures to be in line and comparable with the Indonesian poverty line classification. Unfortunately, the numbers gathered in the field were not checked and calculated to a monthly basis. For instance, some households indicated that they did not buy rice everyday, but the enumerators did not record how many times rice was bought within one month. Thus some approximation had to be used. Some of the numbers indicated look exorbitant and some too small. In any case, this record is momentary. For a more exact representation of expenditure patterns of PAHH, one would have to do recording of expenditures of a few households over a couple of weeks or even months. Therefore the numbers presented here have to be treated carefully. Comparing these numbers to the poverty line, all of the surveyed households are above the poverty line. Table 5-5 Monthly Expenditure Range of Sureveyed Households, N=133 (in Rupiah) Monthly Food Expenditures Non-Food Expenditures Total Expenditures Average 1,709,695 844,734 2,554,429 Min 309,000 115,500 424,500 Max 6,650,000 18,235,000 24,885,000 Standard Deviation 1,436,876 222,182 1,659,058

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 30

5.6 Land Sold to / Acquired by SEML

Households were asksed about the land that was acquired by SEML at the time, what compensation that had received and what they did with the compensation money received. Following tables show the results.1 Accordingly, most land was dry land and only a small percentage irrigated rice fields, grass land or wood lots. None of the land sold to SEML were house lots. More than half of the land was privately owned, while about a third was owned in partnership with others. In both questions, 20% did not return an answer.

Table 5-6 Type of Land Sold to/ Acquired Table 5-7 Ownership Status of Land Sold to / by SEML Acquired by SEML

N=133 N=133

Dry Land/Garden 96 (72%) Own Land 67 (51%) Irrigated Rice field 10 (8%) Owned in Partnership 38 (29%) Meadow/Grassland 2 (2%) Other 1 (1%) Wood Lot/Forest 1 (1%) No Answer 26 (20%)

House Lot 0 No answer 24 (18%)

Table 5-8 Total Area of Land Sold to/ Table 5-9 Previous Yearly Earnings from Land Acquired by SEML Sold to / Acquired by SEML

N=101 N=9 Total 146,69 ha Total IDR 52,215,000 Average 1.11 ha Average IDR 395,568 Smallest 0.01 ha Smallest IDR 15,000 Largest 8 ha Largest IDR 15,000,000 Standard Deviation 1.53 ha Standard Deviation IDR 1,953,342 No answer 31 No answer 123

1 Note that the survey returned a significant number without any answers which indicates the uptightness of the local community. Another reasons for no answer is also the time that has lapsed between the time when land was acquired and this survey. And finally, in some cases, those who participated in the survey were not the same household members who were involved in the land acquisition process. Therefore, the results here have to be treated with some caution.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 31

Total land that was said to have been sold to SEML was 146,69 hectares with an average of 1.11 hectares, ranging between 0.01 to 8 hectares.2 Only 9 households indicated their yearly earnings of the land sold, with yields ranging from IDR 15,000 to 15 million and an average of nearly IDR 400,000 per year. Table 5-10 Compensation Received Table 5-11 Total Area of Land Left After Land from SEML Acquisition and Percentage of Total Sold to / Acquired by SEML N=108 N=62 Total IDR 6,353,564,000 Total 154.61 - Average IDR 47,771,158 Average 1.16 48.6% Smallest IDR 20,000 Smallest 0.16 2.0% Largest IDR 551,000,000 Largest 11.00 100.0% Standard Deviation IDR 90,761,223 Standard Deviation 2.11 40.2% No answer 25

No answer 71 32

Compensation payments received from SEML ranged from IDR 20,000 to more than IDR 550 million, while land remaining after the land acquisition process ranged in size between 0.16 to 11 hectares. Percentage of sold land within the project area ranged from between 2 to 100% with an average of nearly 49%.

2 Note, total land sold to Supreme was 140 hectares. The total found in the survey is higher, this inaccuracy may be due to the difficulties mentioned earlier during the survey.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 32

6 COMMUNITY PERCEPTION OF THE PROJECT 6.1 Community’s understanding of Grievance Mechanism

The project affected people were also surveyed in terms of their understanding of SEML Grievenace mechanism (GM). Only 57 (43%) out of 133 respondents indicated that they have heard of the Company Grievance Mechanism. Majority of the respondents or about 55 % are either not heard of, don’t know, or just knew about Grievance Mechanism. Two respondents gave no answer. Table 6-2 indicates that the information about GM is received from friends (18%), SEML (14%), and village apparatus (10%). The data suggests that dissemination of SEML GM has not thoroughly reached PAP such as land acquisition affected people. This might be the case because respondents of this study live considerably far from the Project site or that medium of GM dissemination did not reach the area of the respondents.

Table 6-1 Respondents awareness (heard) of SEML Grievance Mechanism N=133

Heard of 57 (43%)

Not heard of 26 (20%)

Don’t know 44 (33%)

Just know now 4 (3%)

No answer 2 (1%)

Table 6-2 The source of information about Grievance Mechanism N=133 Family members 5 (4%) Friends 24 (18%) Village Apparatus 13 (10%) SEML 18 (14%) Media 2 (2%) Other 1 (1%) No answer 70 (53%)

In terms of lodging grievances, majority of respondents (56%) out of 133 indicated that they face no difficulties in lodging grievances. Meanwhile, 29 respondents (22%) implied difficulty in lodging grievances and 35 respondents (26) did not give answer to the question.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 33

Table 6-3 Difficulties in lodging Grievances N=133 Yes 29 (22%)

No 69 (52%) No answer 35 (26%)

In regards to respondents’ awareness of grievances addressed to SEML, 50 respondents (37%) answered that they are aware of grivances, 21 (16%) respondent answered not aware of the grievances, and 62 respondents (47%) gave no answer on the awareness of grievance (Table 6-4). Out of 44 respondents who responded on issues or types of grivances lodged by communities, 25 respondents (57%) indicated the issue of irrigation water problem (clogging of canals, drying up rice fields), followed by land acquisition and compensation indicated by 13 respondents (30%), employment opportunities (7%), and lastly both land compensation and irrigation water problems (4 %) and project negative impacts (2%) (Table 6-5). The responses from respondent are relevant with the stages of SEML project which have passed through pre- construction phase where issues of project negative impacts are very low and other issues like land acquisition compensation and employment opportunities high. Table 6-4 Awareness of grievances toward SEML in the commmunity N=133 Yes 50 (37%) No 21 (16%) No answer 62 (47%)

Table 6-5 Types of grievances addressed to SEML N=44 Irrigation water problems (clogging of canals, drying up rice fields) 25 (57%) Land acquisition and compensation 13 (30%) Employment opportunities 3 (7%) Both land acquisition and compensation as well as irrigation water problems 2 (4%) Project negative impacts 1 (2%)

Out of 131 respondents who provided answers to SEML responses toward grievances, 34 respondents (26%) indicated that SEML straight away responded to the grievances and 25 respondents (19%) implied the grievance directly resolved. 15% of respondents perceived that SEML needed long time to respond to grievances and 7% of respondents perceived that issues or grievances have not been resolved by SEML (Table 6-6). In terms of the perceived quickness in responding grievances, 56 respondents out of 132 or 42% indicated that SEML response quite fast, 2% suggested very fast. 25 respondents or 19% perceived the response quite slow

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 34

and 5% very slow. Both questions were not answered by 34 % and 33 % respondents respectively.

Table 6-6 Perceived SEML responses toward Table 6-7 Perceived responsiveness of SEML grievances toward grievances (quickness)

N=131 N=132

Straight away responded 34 (26%) Very fast 2 (2%)

Straight away resolved 25 (19%) Quite fast 56 (42%)

Needed a long time 19 (15%) Quite slow 25 (19%)

Has not been resolved 9 (7%) Very slow 6 (5%)

No answer 44 (34%) No answer 43 (33%)

48 respondents out of 133 indicated that they know who to contact to convey their grievances or about 36% of total respondents and 33 % implied they did not know who to contact. 41% or 41 respondents did not answer to the question (Table 6-8). In term of who to report to, out of 20 respondents, 12 (60%) people reported to Mr. Muhammad Roza, SEML Assistant Field Relations Officer, 6 respondents (30%) reported to Mr. Datuk or Bujang Joan, SEML Field Relations Officer, and finally, 2 persons (10%) answered reporting to Wali Nagari (Head of Village).

Table 6-8 Do they know who to contact Table 6-9 Who to report to? for grievances? N=20 N=133 Muhammad Roza, 12 (60%) Yes 48 (36%) SEML Assistant Field Relations Officer No 44 (33%) Bujang Joan Dt. 6 (30%) No answer 41 (31%) Panyalai, SEML Field

Relations Officer Wali (village head) 2 (10%)

The responses from PAP respondent showed that SEML representatives are more well-known to the people than third party appointed by SEML for GM contact.

6.2 Community’s satisfaction with the land acquisition process

Of 132 households, 5 (4%) abstained, 12 (9%) thought the compensation was above expectations, 82 (62%) found the compensation to be at the market price, 11 (8%) found it too low but still accepted it while 22 (17%) felt it was too low but they did not have another choice

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 35

(“terpaksa diterima”)3. Overall 77% were happy with the land acquisition process and found it to be fair, while 18% were not satisfied. Around the same shares found the information that was given at the time sufficient. Around 69% would do it again if they were to return to that time, while 18% would not. 58% felt that compensation had a positive effect on their life, while 8% thought it did not and 8% thought it did not change a thing. A quarter or 26% did not answer this question. Of the 72 households who left a reason, said the compensation was used to build or renovate a house, help with school fees, or for daily needs or the household economy. 6.3 Community’s understanding of Current SEML CSR Program

In terms of PAP participation and occupation with SEML, out of 131, only 7 persons (5%) answered they have worked for SEML or SEML’s contractors/suppliers, 45 respondents (34%) indicated that they have not worked for SEML or its contractors/suppliers, the rest of the respondents either did not know or gave no answer. Table 6-10 Have you ever worked or are working for SEML or contractors/suppliers? N=131

Working for SEML 0

Have worked for SEML 7 (5%)

Never worked for SEML 45 (34%)

Don’t know 6 (5%)

No answer 73 (56%)

63 respondents or 47% out of 133 respondents indicated that they are aware of SEML CSR/ISDP Program. Most of the CSR/ISDP activities by SEML they know of have been delivered in 2013 or 2014 either to their neighbours, the jorong, or the mosque, in form of a scholarship, seedlings assistance, and funding for the mosque. 35 respondents or 26% answered have not heard of the Company’s CSR/ISDP program. The rest of respondents answered either, do not know 23%, just know now 2%, and gave no answer 2% (Table 6-11). Table 6-11 Awareness (Heard) of SEML CSR/ISDP N=133

Heard 63 (47%)

Have not heard yet 35 (26%)

Don’t know 31 (23%)

Just know now 2 (2%)

No answer 2 (2%)

3 SEML has stated in all land acquisition process that it is based on ‘willing buyer willing seller’.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 36

When asked about their participation and whether or not they have been beneficiaries to SEML CSR/ISDP, 29 (22%) respondents out of 131 responded that they have participated in the Company’s CSR/ISDP. Those who have not yet received SEML CSR/ISDP is as many as 60 respondents (45%) and the rest responded with do not know about the program (32%), or just know now (1 %). Table 6-12 Participated or beneficiaries of SEML CSR/ISDP N=131

Yes, have 29 (22%)

Not yet 60 (45%)

Don’t know 42 (32%)

Just know now 2 (1%)

No answer 0

The perception of the PAP toward SEML CSR/ISDP implementation varied, 29 respondents (22%) out of 133, indicated that they were satisfied with the CSR/ISDP program. None of the respondents answered that they were not satisfied with the program. The rest of respondents either indicated do not know (41%) or gave no answer (37%). Table 6-13 Perception about SEML CSR/ISDP N=133

Satisfied 29 (22%)

Not satisfied 0

Don’t know 55 (41%)

No answer 49 (37%)

The involvement of PAP scoped in this study is considered low as per the Table 6-13 above, this probably because of the focus of previous SEML CSR/ISDP have not reached the area or these groups of people.

6.4 Community’s understanding of Community Committee

Community Committee was formed by SEML to bridge between Company’s and the community’s needs around the project area. The expected output is a favourable conducive relationship between the Company and surrounding communities. Out of 133 respondents surveyed, 60 persons (45%) indicated that they were aware of the existence of Community Committee. 12 (9%) respondents did not give answer while the rest responded unaware of the Committee 21 (16%), do not know about the committee 33 (25%), and those who just knew during the survey 7 (5%) (Table 6-14). In terms of the source of

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 37

information about the Committee, most of the information is received from SEML (23%), from friends and village apparatus (11% each), family (3%) and head of RW/RT (1%), and from other sources (2%). None of the respondents obtained the Committee information from media. The number of respondents who did not answer to the question is 67 persons (50%) (Table 6-15). The data suggests that about half of the surveyed PAP aware of the community committee. More dissemination activities of the Committee need to be carried out to PAP through easy and accessible communication tools and events. Table 6-14 Awareness of Comunity Committee N=133

Yes, have 60 (45%)

Not yet 21 (16%)

Don’t know 33 (25%)

Just know now 7 (5%)

No answer 12 (9%)

Table 6-15 Source of information about Community Committee N=133

Family 4 (3%)

Friends 14 (11%)

Village Apparatus 14 (11%)

Rukun Warga (RW)/Rukun 1 (1%) Tetangga (RT) or cluster of population in a village

SEML 30 (23%)

Media 0 (0%)

Other 3 (2%)

No answer 67 (50%)

The participation of the PAP in the Community Committee is also low (Table 6-16). 50% or 67 out of 133 respondents indicated that the have not participated in the committee events or activities, 14 % or 18 persons implied that the have participated or or joined the activities of the Committee and 36% or 48 persons did not answer. Table 6-16 Participation in Community Committee events/activities. N=133

Not yet 67 (50%)

Yes, have 18 (14%)

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 38

No answer 48 (36%)

In regard to understanding of the roles of the Committee, 7 out of 126 respondnets knew what the role was, while the remainder did not respond (whether they knew or not, is not known). Answers of the 7 respondents varied and were as follows: § For job recruitment (2) § Bridging the public and government officials with PT Supreme (1) § Community complaints centre (1) § For discussing land measurement issues (1) § Collecting local workforce data and accommodating people's aspirations (1) Formulating activities (1)

Table 6-17 Perception toward the performance and benefits of Community Committee N=131

Good 3 (2%)

Not good enough 7 (5%)

No answer 121 (93%)

Although 45% have heard of this community committee, they seem to not be very impressed about it. That should be further investigated. Those who thought it to be good reasoned that it was the link between SEML and the community (1) or that it was easy to deal with the committee (1). Those who did not find it useful or good enough said that they

§ Do not know/have seen its performance (2) § have not seen its activities/its realization (2) § do not know the purpose (1) § thought if was not performing well (1) § thought it does not convey the aspirations of the people (1) § found it a little forced (1)

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 39

7 VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

Vulnerability can be defined as a general condition of being exposed to potentially harmful events or to risks that can have an impact on future welfare, such as for example the risk of remaining or becoming poor. Poor is generally referred to a well-defined low level of consumption of food and non-food goods as well as limited access to services. Various external as well as internal factors influence the vulnerability of a household. External factors are the availability of educational and health facilities for example, while internal factors are referred to a family or household’s capacity of coping with exposures to risks and harmful events. This assessment has focused on food, health, environment, and social and economic security as well as at gender and educational attainment. The indicators below were used to identify vulnerable individuals and households as potential participants in the focus group discussions in order to further study their particular needs for skills development and challenges for livelihood improvement.

7.1 Screening of results

7.1.1 Food security Households were asked if they had ever experienced any time of hunger or starving in the last 3 years, for how long and for what reasons and how they were coping with that. None of the households surveyed indicated that they had ever experienced periods of starving (113 had not, and 19 did not wish to answer).

7.1.2 Social Security The survey questions looked at if households were involved in any social activities, such as any village institutions, and who they approached to solve conflicts within their family or with their neighbours. Type of conflicts and how often these were experienced was also asked. Most of the households are not active in any of the village organizations, of those who are active (18%) they either work for the local government or are involved in traditional organizations related to Minangkabau traditions (adat leader, clan leader ,etc) or Indonesian village organizations (scouts, women’s group) (Table 7-1).

Table 7-1 Active in village organizations Active in village organization Active 24 18% 21% Not Active 93 70% 79% No answer 15 11% Total 132 100% 100%

The formal and informal institutions in carrying out its roles and functions have not yet been supported by adequate means, especially from the village administration (Nagari) and sub- village (Jorong). Institutions existing in the study area in general is the KAN, Nagari

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 40

Consultative Body (Bamus), Institute for Community Empowerment in Nagari (LPMN), farmer groups, the Village Unit Cooperatives (Koperasi Unit Desa/KUD), Youth Organization (Karang Taruna), Religious Study Club (Majelis Ta'lim), groups on Islamic studies, funeral organizing groups (kelompok kematian), Quranic recital group (kelompok yasinan), Family Welfare Improvement Society (PKK) and youth groups. Details of the function of these organizations and whether these are paid or honorary positions are listed in Table 7-2.

Table 7-2 Type of village organizations/activities

Organization Acronym Explanation Paid/Honorary Badan Musyawarah Bamus or BPD is the village level legislative that consists Honorary Desa or Village BPD of community figures such as customary Forum leaders, heads of community cluster or Rukun Warga, professionals, and religious leaders. Members of BPD are selected every 6 years through BPD Special meeting. Gabungan GP3A The association of farmers who use water is Honorary Perkumpulan Petani formed by the government with the basic Pemakai Air or function to, a). distribute irrigation water justly Association of Water and efficiently, b) to manage conflict justly Using Farmers among water users, and 3) to maintain tertier irrigation network. P3 A is closely supported and facilitated by the Government. Kerapatan Adat KAN KAN is a customary institution at the Nagari or Honorary Nagari village level to preserve the Minangkabau customs, which consists of datuk from every clan, intellectual, religious leader, and dubalang who is in charge for community safety and security. KAN is under a bigger institution at the provincial level namely Lembaga Kerapatan Adat Alam Minangkabau (LKAAM). Lembaga LPMN LPMN is formed to support Nagari government Honorary Pemberdayaan to accommodate and realize the needs and Masyarakat Nagari aspiration of communities. The tasks of LPMN or Institution for are to develop a prticipative development plan, Nagari Community to mobilize community mutual assistance, and Development to implement and control development. Majilis Ta’lim MT Majlis Ta’lim is religious educational activities Gathering organized organized by communities attended by participants of all ages, usually except children because children will attend Pengajian. Mamak, Ninik - Ninik Mamak is head of the clan (suku) while a Honorary Mamak Mamak is the mother’s brother, they have the authority to decide in accordance with adat law Pengajian - Pengajian is a regular Al Quran education Gathering activities organized by communities for learning purposes such as learning how to recite Alqur’and also to understand the meaning and content of Al Qur’an from children, adult, and adult. Pegawai Kantor Pemda Local government officer Paid Pemerintah Daerah

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 41

Organization Acronym Explanation Paid/Honorary Pertolongan P3K First Aid Honorary Pertama Pada Kecelakaan Pembinaan PKK PKK is women only community based Honorary Kesejahteraan organization established and supported by Keluarga or Family Government to empower women in Welfare Couching development. Gerakan Pramuka Pramuka Scouts Honorary (Praja Muda Karana) Rukun Tetangga RT Neighbourhood Group Honorary Kelompok Tani Famers group Honorary Wali Jorong - Head of Jorong, government position, dicided Paid by Wali Nagari Decree based on election of decision by community every 3years

Wali Nagari - Head of Nagari, government position, elected Paid every 6 years.

Problems within the family are solved either within the family, the parents, siblings, the larger family or the Mamak. For matters relating to neighbours the majority of the households consult the head of the jorong.

Table 7-3 Who is consulted for family matters? Help with family internal Percentage distribution conflicts Family 50% Larger Family 7% Mamak 6% Parents 14% Siblings 2% Alone 8% No answer/Abstained 14% Total 100%

Table 7-4 Who is consulted for neighborhood matters? Help with neighborhood Percentage distribution conflicts Family 8% Larger Family 2% Mamak 5% Head of Jorong 60% Head of Scouts/Youth group 8% Alone 1% Nagari institution 1% Closest friend 1%

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 42

Help with neighborhood Percentage distribution conflicts Traditional village leaders 1% No answer/Abstained 14% Total 100%

Only two out of 133 households responded that they often experienced conflict in the family or with neighbours, 15 indicated rarely and 90 said never, while 26 did not respond. Types of conflicts that were mentioned are listed in Table 7-5. Accordingly disputes over employment opportunities, land and thefts were mentioned most often whereas young community members and environmental concerns seem to be less of an issue that can potentially turn into a conflict.

Table 7-5 Type social conflict Types of conflicts Frequency Employment Opportunity 10 Land 8 Theft 6 Children & youngsters socializing 2 Noise 2 Water pollution 2 Air pollution 1 Source: Greencap, SESVA Survey, 2017

7.1.3 Economic security Economic security looked at employment status, family income and debt pressure as well as electricity and housing condition. Of a total of 124 head of households 6 indicated they were unemployed. Half of them were seeking a job for less than 2 years while the others were looking for a job since more than four years. Mostly it was due to no opportunities arising according to the surveyed. While for the women, there was only one wife who reported that she was unemployed not more than one year. 41 out of 124 households indicated they had to pay debt instalments regularly. Reasons for taking out a loan were varied (

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 43

Table 7-6). It was assumed that having to take out a loan for paying for children’s education and or daily expenses as well as for having to buy medicine was deemed as an indicator for potentially being vulnerable. For these 12 households the debts were examined in more detail Table 7-7. Debts ranged between IDR 1 million to IDR 140 million and monthly instalments between IDR 200,000 and IDR 2.4 million.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 44

Table 7-6 Reasons for taking out a loan

Type Frequency Vulnerable? Build house 3 Buy car 1 Buy land 3 Buy livestock 1 Buy medicine 1 could be vulnerable Buy motor bike 1 Children education 7 could be vulnerable Daily expenses 4 could be vulnerable Invest 18 Work 1 Total 40 Debt pressure of the 12 households that took out a loan for children’s education, buying medicing and daily expenses was as follows:

Table 7-7 Debt pressure of 12 households

Monthly Instalments Measure Total Debt (IDR) (IDR)

Average 27,250,000 796,333 Min 1,000,000 200,000 Max 140,000,000 2,400,000 Standard Deviation 43,703,807 759,531

For 5 of the total 12 households identified as potentially vulnerable there was data available on income. Monthly debt pressure varied between IDR 200,000 to IDR 2,4 million. Debt pressure versus monthly income was analysed as per table below.

7.1.3.1 Housing condition In terms of housing, most houses of the surveyed households were made of stone (78%) and cement while around 20% were made of hard wood. Most roofs were made of corrugated iron (85%), while around 7% were tiled, and 7% were straw thatched. Most flooring was cement (67%), some 23% had tiles, 8% had wooden planks and 3% of the houses had an earthen/adobe floor.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 45

Table 7-8 Access to Electricity

Measure Percentage of Households Installed Capacity • 90W 0.8% • 450W 31.8% • 900W 62.8% • 1300W 4.7% Payment Schedule Prepaid 12% Postpaid 88%

Blackouts • Often 47% • Not really 53%

7.1.3.2 Cooking fuel Almost two thirds of the surveyed households bought their cooking fuel in form of LNG, while 38% collected wood for firing their cooking stoves.

7.1.3.3 Household income and expenditure Households whose monthly per capita income was below Rp.1,000,000 were considered vulnerable with reference to the South Solok poverty line of Rp.292,292. Two households were classified as below the poverty line (Table 7-9). Table 7-9 Households with Monthly Per Capita Income near or below Poverty Line HH Survey per capita per per capita per Hhmembers per year income No year income month income 1 5 36,000,000 7,200,000 600,000 3 4 4,080,000 1,020,000 85,000 18 6 14,436,000 2,406,000 200,500 19 2 18,000,000 9,000,000 750,000 21 1 3,600,000 3,600,000 300,000 54 5 57,600,000 11,520,000 960,000 68 3 24,000,000 8,000,000 666,667 97 5 57,600,000 11,520,000 960,000 112 3 28,800,000 9,600,000 800,000 115 5 55,200,000 11,040,000 920,000

Debt pressure versus monthly income from paid work was also looked at. One of the households had a high debt pressure with little monthly income to cover.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 46

Table 7-10 Debt pressure versus monthly income

Total Monthly Income minus NK Total Debt Monthly Installments monthly Installment Income of HH 7 1,500,000 60,000,000 n.a. - 1,500,000 18 1,000,000 25,000,000 1,203,000 203,000

97 300,000 10,000,000 4,800,000 4,500,000 115 2,000,000 150,000,000 4,600,000 2,600,000

7.1.4 Environmental security Environmental security looked at if there were any natural disasters that the household was affected by. Accordingly, 107 out of 131 had experienced a natural disaster in the past, while only 10 out of 93 indicated that their family was impacted in some way. And only 4 households stated what kind of impact it was which ranged from their house being damaged or slightly damaged and two mentioned the rice field being damaged with resulting harvest failure.

Table 7-11 Households impacted by natural disasters

Detail Frequency N Experienced disaster 107 out of 131 Family impacted by disaster 10 out of 93 House slightly damaged 1

House damaged 1

Rice field damaged 1

Rice field and dry land (ladang) harvest failure 2

7.1.5 Health security The health security questions examined any major health issues occurring in the household, the condition of the house, access to water and sanitation. Only 15 households indicated that one of their family members had a major health problem. For most these problems occurred in the last 10 years and were related to stomach, lungs and light stroke. Most households that were affected used the government health insurance scheme to pay for the bills.

Table 7-12 Reported Health Issues

Item No N Type of health issue Health problem 15 out of 121 How long • <5 yrs 7 Lungs, pinched nerve, kidney, gastric acid, cyst removed, breathing difficulties • 5-10 yrs 5 Neck pain, light stroke, stomach ulcer, prostate, typhoid

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 47

Item No N Type of health issue • >10yrs 2 Light stroke, stomach ulcer

Seen a doctor • not yet 1 out of 14 • already 12 out of 14 • every now and 1 out of 14 then

Doctor bills paid for Jaminan kesehatan 1 out of 9 (Jamkes)* help Own pocket and BPJS* 2 BPJS 4 BPJS and Family 1 Own pocket 1

*Jaminan Kesehatan= Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial (BPJS) Kesehatan or Social Security Administrator for Health is an appointed agency by Government to implement national social security system for workforce as well as for health in Indonesia.

7.1.5.1 Access to Water Water is a natural resource essential to sustain human health and well-being; Many factors affect water quality and availability and several infectious diseases are waterborne diseases or water becomes the habitat of disease vectors for diseases, such as for example malaria or dengue. Sanitation is defined as “provision of facilities and services for the safe disposal of human urine and feces” and “the maintenance of hygienic conditions, through services such as garbage collection and wastewater disposal.” Many diseases are caused by improper sanitation and improving facilities has a major beneficial impact on health, such as for example diarrhoea and typhoid. Overall, in Indonesia, three in four households have access to an improved source of drinking water and 70% of households use an appropriate water treatment method prior to drinking. With respect to sanitation, 68% of households have improved toilet facilities that are not shared with other households and about 12% use the natural water environment, such as rivers, streams or creeks as toilets. In the surveyed households, most use town water for all their water needs, while some also have their own well or spring near their house. Most use the same source for all their water needs. 75% have their own toilet, while still a large number (17%) use the river for defecation and 5% use a communal toilet (Table 7-13 and Table 7-14). Table 7-13 Number of Households and Access to Water Source Drinking Cooking Washing/Toilet PDAM/Town Water 73 of 127 72 of 128 67 of 128

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 48

Source Drinking Cooking Washing/Toilet Own well 27 of 129 24 of 129 20 of 129

Communal well 3 of 128 2 of 128 1 of 128 Spring around the house 9 of 128 10 of 128 10 of 128 Pond 0 of 128 0 of 128 0 of 128 River 2 of 128 2 of 128 2 of 128 Other 16 of 128 17 of 128 18 of 128

Table 7-14 Number of Households and Access to Sanitation

Defecation location Number of Share Households Own Toilet 99 75%

Public Toilet 7 5.3% River 23 17.3% Other 3 2.3% Total 132 100%

7.1.6 Other Vulnerability Indicators

7.1.6.1 Use of Compensation Households were asked for what they used the compensation received and if they had put any of the compensation aside as savings. Most of the households needed the money for daily expenses (62%) and school fees (35%), and only a few invested into land (8%) or saved up the compensation received (5%). Table 7-15 Number of Households and Use of Compensation Money

N=133 Yes No No answer Daily Needs 82 31 20 School Fees 47 48 38 Bike/Car 28 69 36 Other 28 84 21 Land 11 86 36 House 6 91 36 Saved 7 105 21

The money that the 9% paid into the bank to save ranged between IDR 5 million to 70 million, with an average of IDR 1.6 milion.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 49

Land sold to/ acquired by SEML as a percentage of the total land (including land bought after) ranged from less than 10% to 100%, that is all the land that people owned or farmed was sold to SEML. Details are as per table below.

Table 7-16 Number of Households and Percentage of Land sold to / acquired by SEML from Total Land (including land bought after)

N=93 More than 75% 21 Between 25% and 75% 50 Less than 25% 22

Less than 10% (part of 7 the above)

Most households, for which numbers for area of land was available, have sold between 25% to 75% of their total land owned and or farmed to SEML.4

7.1.6.2 Gender There were 24 women identified between the age of 27 and 58 who had only primary school attained if ever and who were not working. 19 of the 24 were housewifes and 5 were other members of the family.

7.1.6.3 Educational attainment The survey identified in total 12 youngsters between the age of 20 and 30, who had either only finished primary school if ever and who were not married yet. Two out of the 12 were reported to having difficulties in reading. One of the 12 was unemployed, while all others had work.

7.1.6.4 Satisfaction with SEML Land acquisition There were 5 households (or 4% of the total surveyed) that felt the compensation they received for the land acquired by SEML was below standard price. While three of the five household were still satisfied with that price, two of them felt they were forced to receive it. All of the 5 households however indicated that they were not satisfied, that would not want to sell again if they could go back again and that they felt the impact was not positive.

7.1.7 Summary of Vulnerability Assessment To be classified as a (potentially) vulnerable household, more than one of the above discussed indicator has to apply. The one exception was made to the average per captia income and debt

44 Note, the veracity of this statement may need to be further investigated, as the numbers for total land may not all be accurate. 40 of the 133 households did not detail their land ownings or information did not match.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 50

pressure versus income as these are the most significant indicators that can impact on a household’s ability to survive in today’s society and economic system. A household with insufficient financial means will struggle regardless of other indiciators of security being sufficiently covered. The following table lists all the households that were applicable with regards to this classification. While many of these households have been invited in the focus group discussions, not all of them have participated. It is therefore paramount for SEML to eventually follow-up on their status, as this socio-economic profile is only the beginning. Also, other households that have not been identified here, may become vulnerable for some reason or another or are vulnerable but data collected on these was incomplete or incorrect. The CSR program that SEML is implementing in the region, will however help to address such insufficiencies or new emerging (if ever) cases. It assumed, once the project runs and CSR activities run at full speed, continued monitoring and evalution of the programs will ensure that vulnerable households will be supported. A total number of 18 households have been identified as vulnerable or potentially vulnerable (colour highlighted), they either apply to more than one of the vulnerability indicators (6 households, light yellow highlight) or have a low per capita income (11 households, orange higlight) or high debt pressure versus income (1 household, yellow highlight) (See Table 7-17 below). It is recommended that these are being closely monitored and actively included in a number of CSR activites. Another 19 households (not colour highlighted) have been included in the table below as they tick two vulnerability indicator boxes. These households could be potentially vulnerable or become vulnerable when a sudden change of life happens, such as for example an illness that prevents the main breadwinner to continue to work or becoming unemployed for a variety of reasons. It is suggested that these households are included in the monitoring activities and where deemed necessary also participated in the CSR programs. Note that for all identified households it will be important to confirm identified indicators of vulnerability to find specific means to support these in becoming more resilient.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 51

Table 7-17 Identified Vulnerable and Potentially Vulnerable Surveyed PAHH

Not

-

64, 64,

- -

River Earthern

Straw roof - income

- – g, low EA g, low EA ’ ’

Chronic issue - not active, low

medicine school fees daily needs 2 for buying

Wives, 15 Other, 15 ------

n n not work EA illiterate not work PAHH Survey No Periods of starving Conflict with neighbours / family Family or neighborhood conflict Unemployed Head of HH Unemployed Wife Loan Loan Loan Loan Income vs debt pressure Per capita Houseing Houseing Health Sanitation SEML LA process happy Male <30, low EA Male <30, low EA & unemployed Male W’ W’ Count Sum Percentage Land Sold /Wooden floor land water use for MCK 34 3 1 2 3 6 0% 54 1 1 1 1 1 5 5 na 75 1 2 2 3 2% 83 1 1 1 3 3 67% 97 1 1 1 3 3 100% 107 1 1 1 3 3 73% 7 1 1 2 2 14% 18 1 1 2 2 11% 19 1 1 2 2 na 68 1 1 2 2 na 115 1 1 2 2 na 1 1 1 1 25% 3 1 1 1 na 10 1 1 1 100% 21 1 1 1 0% 44 1 1 1 36% 78 1 1 1 50% 112 1 1 1 100%

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 52

Not

-

64, 64,

- -

River Earthern

Straw roof - income

- – g, low EA g, low EA ’ ’

Chronic issue - not active, low

medicine school fees daily needs 2 for buying

Wives, 15 Other, 15 ------

n n /Wooden floor EA illiterate not work not work PAHH Survey No Periods of starving Conflict with neighbours / family Family or neighborhood conflict Unemployed Head of HH Unemployed Wife Loan Loan Loan Loan Income vs debt pressure Per capita Houseing Houseing Health Sanitation SEML LA process happy Male <30, low EA Male <30, low EA & unemployed Male W’ W’ Count Sum Percentage Land Sold water use for MCK land 24 1 1 2 2 50% 30 1 1 2 2 40% 35 1 1 2 2 50% 62 1 1 2 2 na 69 1 1 2 2 na 70 1 1 2 2 na 71 1 1 2 2 na 72 1 1 2 2 na 77 1 1 2 2 50% 82 1 1 2 2 50% 89 1 1 2 2 44% 98 1 1 2 2 29% 102 1 1 2 2 14% 103 1 1 2 2 50% 105 1 1 2 2 94% 106 1 1 2 2 33% 113 1 1 2 2 100% 127 1 1 2 2 na 129 1 1 2 2* 14%

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 53

*Those households identified with only one criterion for vulnerability, are not included in this table.

households with more than 2 areas of vulnerability

households otherwise identified near poverty line (according to per capi ta income)

households otherwise identified with high debt pressure

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 54

7.2 Vulnerabilty and Land Acquisition

While we cannot know the exact impact land acquisition had on the affected households since baseline data is not available, the vulnerability assessment compared with the percentage land sold can shed some light on the issue.5 Considering those only who indicated to have sold more than 0% land, the vast majority have sold more than 10%, and more than half have sold more than 50% of their total land. All but one of the households have low per capita income and two of these households also have a high debt pressure. Thus, clearly, having sold land did not benefit all of the households, in fact, having sold so much land only a couple of years ago, one would think they wouldn’t be appearing at the top of the list of the most vulnerable. Table 7-18 Percentage Land Sold and Vulnerability of Households

PAHH Survey No Income vs debt pressure Per capita income Count Sum Percentage Land Sold 97 1 1 3 3 100% 10 1 1 1 100% 112 1 1 1 100% 107 3 3 73% 83 1 3 3 67% 78 1 1 1 50% 44 1 1 1 36% 1 1 1 1 25% 7 1 2 2 14% 18 1 1 2 2 11% 75 1 2 3 2%

7.3 Results from FGDs

In terms of vulnerability, men participants identified several factors that make people and household become vulnerable as follows:

5 Note however, that the results have to be treated carefully and need to be re-examined, household by household. For example for the 18 households identified as vulnerable, 5 did not reveal the percentage of land sold to SEML, while two of the households declared they had sold none. One of the reasons for these incrongruencies may be that those who were involved in the land acquisition at the time may not have necessarily been present while this survey was carried out.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 55

1. Ageing population and vulnerable people: in general productive age of men according to participants is 65 years old, who can still work as farmers or livestock farmers. More than 65 years old is considered ageing who can no longer be productive; 2. Young people with low level of educational attainment and who cannot work productively compared to if they have higher educational attainment ; 3. Household who have no land and depend on other people’s request to work during cultivation season; these people become vulnerable during non-cultivation season when they do not have source of income; 4. Household with many family members or dependents: head of family has limited income but many dependents that he has to support. The women group identified vulnerability as those people who have limited ability to work such as people with disabilities, e.g. blindness and senile people who do not have supporting family of either kin or children.

8 SKILLS AND LIVELIHOOD DEVELOPMENT 8.1 Review of skill and capacity building program currently on offer by SEML

Despite SEML project is not yet operating and productive, the Company has already commenced capacity building through CSR programs to enhance community capacity/income and self-sustaining capabilities. The Company’s Community Empowerment Policy is ‘helping people to help them selves’, which mean building the capacity and capabilities of the communities to sustainably develop themselves. Until 2016, there are about 8 CSR program activities aimed to improve and develop the capacity the the Project affected communities, 3 activities under Education and Health Pillar and 5 activities under Economic Empowerment Pillar. These activities are carried out at the regency, sub-district and Jorong level near the Project area. Table 8-1 below shows existing capacity building activities of SEML in the pillars of education and health and economic empowerment. Table 8-1 Existing SEML Capacity Development Program Pillar Activities Location Education and Health Provision of 10 units of computers to Solok Selatan 6 schools in Solok Selatan Development of new classroom of Solok Selatan Junior High School and Kindergarten in Alam Pauh Duo villages Economic Empowerment Development of production system Jorong near project site, and internship/coaching of Pekonina, Kampung Barum embroidery artisans Pinang Awan, and Taratak Tinggi Continue provision of capital support Pauh Duo Sub-District for Lembaga Keuangan Mikro- Agribisnis, LKMA or agribusiness micro finance institution and provide

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 56

Pillar Activities Location training to new enterpreneurs Support the development of Pauh Duo Sub-District traditional market in Kampung Baru sub-village/hamlet. Donation for buying fish seeds of Ikan Solok Selatan Larangan (literally means prohibited fish) Provision of 2000 Macadamia Pauh Duo Sub-District seedlings for selected households

8.2 Results from FGDs and KIIs

This sub-section highlights the results of four FGDs (Men, Women, Youth and Bundo Kanduang/Woman Leaders Groups) based on four themes of discussions, that is the knowledge of local communities of existing capacity building programs, challenges and limitation, solutions for economic and welfare improvement, and needs and expectation for livelihood and skill development.

8.2.1 Existing capacity building program There have been a number of capacity building programs carried out by government for the communities around Muara Laboh and Project area. The program ranges from direct allocation of cash, rice (food), and health card for the poor, financing, and community empowerment programs such as training and capacity building. The list of community development programs identified during FGD that have been implemented or received by some of the participants are as follows: 1. Fish breeding from Fish Breeding Center or BBI (Balai Benih Ikan). 2. Cattle and livestock allocation e.g. cows, ducks. 3. House renovation program for the poor 4. Plant or trees seedling e.g. mangos and mahogany. 5. Gas stove allocation. 6. Rice for the poor. 7. Community Social Direct Assistance (in Cash) or Bantuan Langsung Sosial Masyarakat or BLSM. 8. Skill training, e.g. wielding, electricity, motor bike workshop, and cooking, . 9. Revolving fund and microfinance. 10. Provision of sewing Machine. 11. Provision of rice field plowing machine. 12. National Program for Community Empowerment, Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat (PNPM), such as building bridge through community based public infrastructure development.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 57

13. Family Welfare and Empowerment, Pemberdayaan dan Kesejahteraan Keluarga (PKK), e.g. counseling on a balanced nutrition, measures to improve family empowerment. 14. Dasa Wisma Group of 20 people to anticipate any communities vulnerable to poverty, illness, and deceases. 15. Integrated health services for the elderly and babies under five. 16. Irrigation. 17. Scholarship.

8.2.2 Challenge and limitation of current capacity building Current capacity building program according to the FGD participants encounters many issues that make the programs not sustainable. These challenges and limitations are as follows:

Security issue Most pressing security issue is livestock theft such as cows, chicken, and fish. Theft becomes a big issue and concern among communities that any community development needs to consider this aspect.

Lack of supporting assistance Most of the assistance provided to the people is not supported with sufficient knowledge and proper training which becomes not sustainable. In other cases, communities do not have resource to continue the activity for instance they do not have enough money to buy fish feed for fish breeding program.

Natural Disaster Natural disaster like flood causes failure in agricultural activities. For small farmers, the capital they invest in agriculture may easily disappear as the result of disaster and it is difficult for them to get new capital and to start the livelihood again.

Difficulty in paying debt installment This is attitude issues where to some people it is very difficult to pay debt installment. “Meminjam rasa diberi, kalau membayar rasa kehilangan”, or “loaned is like granted, paying debt is like loss”, that is the expression shared by FGDs participants that according to them one of the factors contribute to the failure of revolving loan program. To pay a fixed monthly debt payment is also difficult for the people because their ability to pay debt depends on their revenue or income. The women group shows more successl in managing revolving loan than men according to FGD participants, which is why one of revolving fund which was allocated for men eventually shifted to women.

No Capital to start a business Some participants said that they already got trained on particular expertise such as wielding and furniture but they do not have capital to start up a business related to their expertise.

No Skill to start a business Some participants said that they do not have skill or expertise to start a business such as home industry.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 58

Weak marketing of farmers’ produce The marketing of farmers produce are very weak that results in low income of farmers especially during harvest season.

Lack of trust on group cooperation Current community capacity buildings failed because of the groups created for the program is not solid and no trust among group members. The groups were formed based on location and not based on emotional bonding, which is why many group based cooperation failed.

Lack of trust on village leaders/elites. The communities have trust crisis toward local or village leaders to manage any capacity building program. They suggested that future capacity building should be directly managed by SEML or other third party.

Land availability issues Land becomes an issue for some community members especially in the areas near Muara Laboh. Any land based capacity building such as agriculture or fish farming will not be possible if beneficiary do not have land.

8.2.3 Solution for economic and welfare improvement The FGD participants realized that the capacity building assistance provided by the government do not last long or sustainable. Most of the assistance lasted short and left ‘no evidence’ for the communities and even to the beneficiaries themselves. That is why, looking back to past experience, FGD participants suggested the following solutions for future plan of community capacity building and community development program, i.e.:

1. Any community assistance or development program should be designed for long term development. 2. Assistance in the form of infrastructure, such as bridges to paddy fields will be helpful and sustainable. 3. Assistance should be distributed through a neutral institution such as direct distribution by SEML. 4. Group should be based on emotional bonding, not based on location. 5. Marketing of farmers’ produce should be improved 6. Need to nurture solidarity and cooperation among community members 7. To support continued education through government’s educational Paket A,B,C program for those who could not continue their education due to economic or other reasons. 8. To raise the habit of giving donation (Santunan) to the elderly who is no longer economically productive such as to raise donation for the elderly in the Mosque. 9. For the elderly, assistance should be given to children who take care of the elderly such as to provide training to improve the family economy so, 10. Promote the habit of helping the poor, generally the vulnerable poor women.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 59

8.2.4 Needs and Expectation FGD participants expressed their 25 needs and expectations to improve their skills and livelihood which can be categorized into three main requests that are training and skill development, capital, and provision of goods as capital such as quality breeds and seeds. Table 8-2 below shows list of needs and expectations of each group during the FGD.

Table 8-2 List of Needs and Expectations for Skill and Livelihood Development

Bundo Men Group Women Group Youth Group Kanduang/Women Leader Group 1. Training on fish 1. Sewing and 1. Farming skill 1. Capital to start farming. embroidery skill. 2. Quality commodity business without 2. Training on 2. Home base food seeds. interest. quality cow industry such as 3. Hatchery skill, how 2. Sewing machine livestock. dendeng baluik, to incubate eggs to improve 3. Training on dendeng pucuak using machine. family economy. agriculture. paranci. 4. Furniture expertise. 3. Quality 4. Training on 3. Training on 5. Food industry skill. seeds/breeds Furniture/carp Agriculture. 6. Business such as entry 4. Training on duck Management skill. vegetable and livestock. 7. Techniques of how fish. to market 4. Training on products. sewing. 8. Training on 5. Training on Kampong chicken cooking (tata farming. boga). 9. Training on fish 6. Training on farming and how to chicken make fish ponds 7. Training on fish correctly. farming. 8. Training on cow livestock.

9 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1 Identified needs from Vulnerability Assessment and SocioEconomic Profile

Vulnerability of the surveyed households is mainly centered around ecomic security and educational attainment of the younger aged male population. The main occupations of household members in the surveyed area are still focused on farming activities. Those who are looking for jobs are those aged between 20 and 30 years old. They all have in general a good educational attainement with most having completed secondary highschool and even tertiary education. However, in this segment, there were also those most vulnerable to having difficulties finding a job, the male population surveyed with low educational attainment. Targeting the young male to support them with targeted livelihood and skills development programs will be a useful approach. Jobs that evolve around the processing of farming produce or the marketing

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 60

of farming experience (agroecotourism), a step further in the supply chain would help to keep economic value in the region. Another area of vulnerability was the type of loans that are being taken out by the local community and the debt pressure that some households experience when looking at monthly instalments versus household income from paid work. 9.2 Identified needs from Community and prioritization

As it is stated in the section 7.2.4, there are 25 needs and expectation raised by FGD participants, 20 of which or about 80% requesting the provision of training and skill development. Trainings and skill development are requested by all groups. The provision of goods as capital such as quality breeds and seeds requested by the youth and Bundo Kanduang/women leader groups, 12% or 3 requests. Finally, the request for capital to start business or livelihood, 2 out of 25 needs and expectation or about 8 percent. Figure 9-1 and Figure 9-2 show number of needs and expectations by groups and its percentage

8 7 6 Men Group 5 Women Group 4 3 Youth Group 2

1 Bundo Kanduang/Women 0 Leader Training/skill Capital Provision of goods as capital

Figure 9-1 Vulnerable Groups, needs and expectations

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 61

Type of capacity building requested

8% 12% Training/skill

Capital

Provision of goods as 80% capital

Figure 9-2 Percentage and type of requested capacity building

Out of 20 trainings/skill development requested, the most frequently asked is training on agriculture and fish farming, which are 3 requests or 15 % respectively, followed by business management/marketing, Kampong chicken livestock, sewing/embroidery, furniture/carpentry, and cow livestock with 2 requests or 10% respectively. Other training and skill developments are on duck livestock, food industry, hatchery, and cooking. Figure 9-3 shows types of trainings and skills requested and its frequency among FGD groups.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 62

Type of Trainings/skills Requested

Total Requests 20 Duck livestock 1 Business Management/marketing 2 Food industry 1 Hatchery 1 Kampong Chicken Livestock 2 Cooking 1 Sewing/embroidery 2 Furniture/carpentry 2 Agriculture 3 Cow Livestock 2 Fish Farming/Fish Ponds 3

0 5 10 15 20

Figure 9-3 Type of requested trainings/skill development

The request for provision of capital was raised to start up home base food industry and capital to start business without interest. The payment of debt should be managed in such a way that is easy for the people to pay. In terms of the needs for the provision of goods for livelihood capital, there are three needs raised by participants, they are 2 requests for quality commodity seeds and breeds such as fish breeds, and sewing machine.

9.2.1 Present day CSR program sufficient to cover or what it already covers SEML has started capacity building programs as abovementioned in section 7.1 which covers not only economic empowerment, but also education and health such as to provide sport coaches to improve athlete performance. Some of the needs and expectations raised by FGD participants in this SESVA in fact have been implemented by SEML in the selected Jorong near and around Project site and Pauh Duo Sub- district such as provision of internship for cattle farmers, provision of capital for fish farmers, internship of embroidery artisans, and distribution of Macadamia seedlings. Some of these activities can be replicated and adjusted with the condition of project affected people covered by this SESVA.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 63

9.2.2 Availability of local government/public and private educational/vocational trainings for skills development/improvement Solok Selatan Regency is newly established regency that splitfrom Solok Regency. As a new regency, local government of Solok Selatan promotes the development in the regency in all aspects including socio-economic aspect. The area around Muara Laboh and SEML Project site has limited land space because about 60 % is within Taman Nasional Kerinci Seblat (TNKS) or Kerinci-Seblat National Park. Considering this challenge, the local government promotes ecotourism, agro tourism, and cultural site of Saribu Rumah Gadang near Muara Labuh and SEML project areas. To anticipate the development of industries and green and renewable energy in the area, local government has established Akademi Komunitas (AK) or community academy with applied vocations whose graduates expectedly can be easily employed by industries. The following list of local government offices and educational institutions provide capacity building and vocational training to the local communities.

1. Dinas Tenaga Kerja dan Transmigrasi (Disnakertrans) provinsi Sumatra Barat, Jalan. Ujung Gurun No. 7 Padang, Kode Pos 25114, Telp. (0751) 27417.

Provincial office for transmigration and workforce or of West Sumatra provides workforce empowerment programs to any areas where there is no Balai Latihan Kerja (BLK) or Work Training Centre. The office also cooperates with regency workforce office to provide services such as internship for Indonesian workforce before being sent overseas.

2. Dinas Sosial Tenaga Kerja dan Transmigrasi Kab. Solok Selatan, Jalak Raya Lubuk Gadang, Kode Pos 27378, Telp. (0755) 583438 Office for transmigration and workforce of Solok Selatan Regency provides capacity building program for people who cannot further study and disadvantaged people such as Tenaga Kerja Mandiri (TKM) or independent work force program and Mobil Training Unit (MTU) or Mobile Training Unit. The office implements central and provincial government programs on workforce training and empowerment. Balai Latihan Kerja (BLK) or Work Training Centre is just newly established in the office of transmigration and workforce. There are several vocational trainings are organized in the Centre, that is wielding, cooking, garment and furniture (mobile training unit). The office is now in the process of finding new location to accommodate better facilities for BLK. Vocational training can be requested by communities through Nagari to Disnakertrans and BLK.

3. Dinas Pendidikan Kab. Solok Selatan, Lubuk Gadang, Sangir, Solok Selatan, 27778 Dinas Pendidikan (Disdik) or Office of Education of Solok Selatan Regency organized a number of educational programs to assist the poor and those who cannot continue study due to economic and other reasons. These programs are educational package A (equal to primary school), B (junior high school), and C (high school plus life skill) to

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 64

improve one’s capacity. Besides educational package, the office established Sanggar Kegiatan Belajar (SKB) or Studio for Learning Activity. 4. Akademi Komunitas Solok Selatan, alamat seperti di SMK 1 dan SMK 5 dibawah. Akademi Komunitas or Community Academy is collaboration Diploma 1 and 2 between Solok Selatan Regency with State Polytechnic of Padang. The Academy temporarily uses the buildings of SMK 1 and SMK 5 (the address as below). Similar to SMK, the Academy provides vocational classes for accounting, computer network engineering, and electricity engineering. The Academy provides 70 percent practices and 30 percent theories.

5. Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan (SMK) 1, Solok Selatan Jl. Raya Koto Baru – Muara Labuh Km. 3, Pulakek Koto Baru, Kec. Sungai Pagu, Kab. Solok Selatan. The vocational school offers three main expertises that is business management, technology, and hotel and tourism. The school organizes Praktek Kerja Industri (PKI) or industrial work internship. The school also initiated to invite industries as partners to employ students from the vocational school.

6. Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan (SMK) 4, Solok Selatan Jl. Raya Muara Labuh - Padang Aro Km. 6,2 Kec. Pauh Duo, Kab. Solok Selatan. Similar to SMK 1, SMK 4 also provides vocational study but in different field of expertise which is on building construction and machine.

7. Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan (SMK) 5, Solok Selatan Jl. Anak Lolo Bancah Pakan Rabaa Tengah Kec. Koto Parik Gadang Diateh, Pakan Rabaa, Kab. Solok Selatan. The vocational school provides the expertise on electricity and computer networking.

9.3 Recommendation of the future Community Capacity Building

SEML capacity building for the vulnerable people should consider the feedbacks received from the affected people during the SESVA study. The following principles should be considered in the development and implementation of skill and livelihood development program.

Individual base (bonded base) program rather than group base The feedback obtained from the study shows that the people do not have strong spirit to work and implement a program in a group. Lack of group cooperation and bonding may lead to the failure of capacity program implementation as it happened in other community development programs and capacity building activities previously. While implementing individual base program, SEML may develop the spirit of cooperation in a team or group among communities through pilot program with the expectation that in the future group based program may be able to be implemented more successfully.

Need base Skills and livelihood development should be based on real needs and expectations of the people identified such as through needs assessment study. Different project affected

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 65

individual has different needs that can be included in the Company’s development program based on their priorities.

Sustainability Any capacity building and community development program should be designed comprehensively including to provide any supporting funding or materials/goods to make sure that the intended objective and target of improving one’s economic condition is achieved.

Communal base Beside certain capacity building programs that should be implemented on individual base, the feedback from community show that corporate social responsibility program and community development in the form of infrastructure development is more beneficial and useful for community at large. It is importance to keep the development and/or rehabilitation of public infrastructure and facilities, which can be carried through community collaboration.

Gender equality Any capacity development program should be inclusive of all genders and no discrimination toward any particular gender.

Flexible mode of debt/loan payment Capacity building program in micro-financing such as through revolving fund should consider a flexible way of participants to pay their loan or debt. The failure of previous micro financing scheme, among others, was because the participants (debtors) depend on their revenue of selling their products to pay their debt installment.

Assisting the families/household who support vulnerable people The communities around the Project area especially the Minang community has very strong religious and traditional practices that they still exercise until now. Vulnerable people such as the elderly will be taken care by their children or by their closest families. That is why any capacity building for vulnerable people in some cases can be directed toward improving economic income of the families who support the vulnerable people.

Partnership and engagement with local stakeholders Capacity development program can be implemented and in some instances even stronger if local stakeholder are involved such as local government such as the Dinas of Transmigration and Workforce that provides services for improving the skill of local workers and Dinas of Education that provides educational packages (A,B,C) for the people who cannot continue and complete basic educational requirement. Since SEML has started CSR program that covers some suggested capacity building activities, it can replicate the existing activities to the project affected communities within the scope of this study. The suggested capacity programs that have not been implemented in the existing CSR can be implemented by engaging or partnering with relevant institution who has the expertise such as Vocational High School and Center for Work Training. Base on the needs identification and prioritization in the section 8.1.1 above, table below show suggested method/approach and potential partner in implementing future capacity building program.

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 66

Table 9-1 Proposed future capacity building for project affected people/vulnerable people

No Proposed activities Method/Approach Implementer Potential Partner I Training/Skill development 1 Fish Farming/Fish Replication of current SEML Dinas Pertanian, Peternakan, Ponds CSR program and where dan Perikanan, Kab Solok or possible improve to Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, adjust with the location and Fishery Dinas of Solok and demand Selatang 2 Agriculture Develop and provide SEML Dinas Pertanian, Peternakan, trainings on good dan Perikanan, Kab Solok or agriculture practices Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, and Fishery Dinas of Solok Selatang 3 Business Develop and provide SEML Vocational High School (SMK) 1, Management/Mark trainings on Business Community Academy (AK) eting Management and Marketing 4 Kampong Chicken Replication of current SEML Dinas Pertanian, Peternakan, Livestock CSR program and where dan Perikanan, Kab Solok or possible improve to Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, adjust with the location and Fishery Dinas of Solok and demand Selatan 5 Cow Livestock Replication of current SEML Dinas Pertanian, Peternakan, CSR program and where dan Perikanan, Kab Solok or possible improve to Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, adjust with the location and Fishery Dinas of Solok and demand Selatang 6 Furniture/carpentry Develop and provide SEML Dinas of Social, Transmigration trainings on furniture and Workforce and carpentry (Dinsosnakertrans), Centre for Work Training (BLK) 7 Sewing/embroidery Replication of current SEML Dinas of Social, Transmigration CSR program and where and Workforce possible improve to (Dinsosnakertrans), Centre for adjust with the location Work Training (BLK) and demand 8 Cooking (Tataboga) Develop and provide SEML Dinas of Social, Transmigration trainings on Cooking and Workforce (tataboga) (Dinsosnakertrans), Centre for Work Training (BLK), SMK 1 9 Hatchery Develop and provide SEML Dinas Pertanian, Peternakan, trainings on hatchery dan Perikanan, Kab Solok or Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, and Fishery Dinas of Solok Selatang 10 Food industry Develop and provide SEML Dinas of Social, Transmigration trainings on food and Workforce industry (Dinsosnakertrans), Centre for Work Training (BLK), SMK 1

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 67

No Proposed activities Method/Approach Implementer Potential Partner 11 Duck livestock Replication of current SEML Dinas Pertanian, Peternakan, CSR program and where dan Perikanan, Kab Solok or possible improve to Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, adjust with the location and Fishery Dinas of Solok and demand Selatang II Capital 1 Provision of Capital Replication of current SEML Dinas of Social, Transmigration for food home CSR program and where and Workforce industry possible improve to (Dinsosnakertrans), Centre for adjust with the location Work Training (BLK), SMK 1 and demand 2 Loan/capital for Develop mechanism for SEML Local or national experienced business without loan/capital distribution, NGOs on micro finance interest control and monitoring III Provision of goods as livelihood capital 1 Provision of quality Replication of current SEML Dinas Pertanian, Peternakan, commodity breeds CSR program and where dan Perikanan, Kab Solok or and seeds possible improve to Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, adjust with the location and Fishery Dinas of Solok and demand Selatang 2 Provision of sewing Replication of current SEML - machine CSR program and where possible improve to adjust with the location and demand

10 CONCLUSION

The aim of this study was to gather data on the socio-economic profile of PAHH and to assess their vulnerability. The PAHH have all been affected by land acquisition carried out as part of SEML’s project development. Although the land was designated as area for other use (APL) owned by the government, the community had been using the land approximately over the last two decades. SEML recognised the community’use of the land and thus carried out a proper land acquisition process and fair compensation based on the willing buyer willing seller principle. At the time, no detailed socio-economic census survey was carried out. This study now attempts to fill this gap, also complementing the study that has been carried out in 2015 with 75 of the PAHH who still reside within the ring 1 area of SEML project area of influence. It is noteworthy to highlight that as initial baseline data is not available, this study cannot cover all aspects that are usually examined. In particular change of livelihoods and incomes following compensation payments are difficult to show. That is why a vulnerability assessment has been conducted to identify those households that are at risk and those that are vulnerable, regardless of previous achievements and impacts. The present survey has covered 133 households who were all affected by SEML land acquisition. Apart from a socioeconomic profile and vulnerability assessment, livelihood and

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 68

skills development needs and expectations of PAHH and community leaders and livelihood and skills development existing facilities and programs offered by local government and other educational facilities and SEML itself through its CSR program were also examined. A number of challenges were faced while carrying out the survey, such as the identification and locating of affected households, the dissatisfaction of households with the land acquisition process and a corresponding dislike in responding to surveyors’ questions as well as inadqueacy of enumerators in filling in the requested information, errors in data entry and subsequent delays in data analysis as well as distance in terms of residence of households and arrangeing of focus group discussions. In summary, of the 133 households, around 13.5% have been identified as most likely to be vulnerable while another 14.3% are potentially vulnerable. These households could become vulnerable when a sudden change of life happens, such as for example an illness that prevents the main breadwinner to continue to work or becoming unemployed for a variety of reasons. Whether the vulnerabilities identified are directly linked to the amount of land sold, has yet to be confirmed. As indicated earlier, the accuracy of some of the data may be skewed and baseline data is not available. Nonetheless, it is clear, that many households are vulnerable and do require special attention. And some of the most vulnerable households also appear to have sold a large percentage of their land. This indicates that the compensations received did not contribute to a better and wealthier live.

The fact that the majority of households has sold between 25 to 75% of their total lands farmed or owned revals that people may have hoped for a life outside of farming. However, compensation payments were only marginally invested for longterm projects such as children’s education and savings in the bank, while the majority was used for every day needs. It shows that there is clearly a need for investing more into people’s skills development and opening up new employment opportunities.

The results of the various parts of the study fit well together and confirm individual findings. The major issues can be summarised are evolving around education, finance and business development. A major impediment to improvements in farming skills are the risk of theft of livestock though which may need to be looked into in more detail would such programs be considered. ESC/Greencap’s recommendation for future improvement focus on all of the three areas mentioned above. A further part looked at SEML’s existing stakeholder engagement, current and past, and the satisfaction with the land acquisition process, in particular the working of the grievance mechanism. Response time is considered fast and most grievances are being dealt with to the satisfaction of the community, though not all of the community is aware of the mechanism. Most PAHH were also satisfied with the land acquistion process and only a few felt negatively impacted. Local employement within SEML is very low. Considering that construction phase has not started yet, that can become another area of main focus for SEML in looking at ways to

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 69

increase local participation. The young male population with low educational attainment may be a good target as potential future workforce during construction to build their work experience and capacity. It is also clear from this survey that SEML CSR activities have mainly focused on ring 1 villages, as such participation of PAHH surveyed in the present study is rather low. Although South Solok is a new regency with limited funds, there is great opportunity to link in with the existing educational programs and collaborate on a number of livelihood and skills improvement development programs.

11 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ADB, 2012. Involuntary Resettlement Safeguards – A Planning and Implementation Good Practice Sourcebook – Draft Working Document, ADB 1998. Handbook on Resettlement – A Guide to Good Practice, IFC 2002. Handbook for Preparing a Resettlement Action Plan, IHS (Inti Hexa Semesta), 2015. Provision of Integrated Social Development Program Study Services – Final Report – Skill Development Plan and Livelihood Opportunities Development Moret, W., 2014. Vulnerability Assessment Methodologies: A review of the literature

Accessed websites: Badan Pusat Statistics (BPS), Indonesia and South Solok Regency

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 70

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix I a List of Project Affected Households b List of Potentially Vulnerable Households invited to attend FGDs Appendix II Household Survey Questionnaire Appendix III KII And FGD Guideline Appendix IV Photographic Evidence of FIeld Activities

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 71

Appendix I a List of Project Affected Households And Survey Status b List of Potentially Vulnerable Households to be Invited to FGDs c List of Identified Vulnerable Households (by survey)

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 72

APPENDIX IA - LIST OF PROJECT AFFECTED HOUSEHOLDS AND SURVEY STATUS

Jumlah No Jenis No Nama Jorong (Kampung) Alamat Pekerjaan Anggota No Telp Status GPS Kelamin keluarga 0823-8728-6146 1 119 BAIDARWAR Kepala Bukit Bertani M 2 DONE (no. istri) 0852-7451-3986 2 134 ERNITA Kepala Bukit DONE (erna) 3 135 ALDI ZAMRI Kepala Bukit DONE 4 136 DASMARIJAL/Elfariza Kepala Bukit DONE 5 137 MASRIZAL Kepala Bukit DONE 6 109 SUKARNI Koto baru DONE 7 122 EDIWIS RAF Koto baru kepala jorong M 4 0813-7450-6935 DONE 8 130 YURNALIS Koto baru petani M 6 0853-7489-9312 DONE 0821-7050-7623 9 150 DONI SAPUTRA Koto baru wiraswasta M DONE (doni) 10 156 AFRIZAL DT. ITAM Koto baru petani M 0821-6986-6421 DONE Meninggal, Istri sudah pindah dan 11 79 Nofriadi Lolo tidak diketahui lokasinya 0813-6375-9500 12 80 Dodi Putra (42thn) Lolo wiraswasta M DONE (dodi) 0852-6600-8610 13 82 Syafrizal Lolo DONE (syafrizal) Pinang 0812-6618-4466 14 102 Sopian Sori petani M DONE Sinawa/Lolo (sofian) 15 115 EDI SUWARNO Lolo DONE 16 154 ZULKARNAINI Lubuk Peraku Sarapan sari wiraswasta M 3 0813-7463-1572 DONE

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 73

Jumlah No Jenis No Nama Jorong (Kampung) Alamat Pekerjaan Anggota No Telp Status GPS Kelamin keluarga 17 120 M. SALIMIN Padang Aro DONE Tidak ada Hengki (42 thn)/Sri 18 95 Pakan Rabaa wiraswasta M 4 0853-6463-6501 dirumah, sedang Nofrianti disolok 19 101 Edward (56thn) Pasar Muara Labuh Pensiunan M 3 0812-6626-569 DONE Ibu rumah 0821-7025-6216 20 103 ROSNELI (72 thn) Pasar Muara Labuh F 4 DONE tangga (ibu umi) Batang 21 111 ZAINI (60 thn) Pasar Muara Labuh Labuh, Nagari wiraswasta M 6 0813-7493-5012 DONE asa barat KOSNEDI YUSDI Pasar Muara 22 151 Pasar Muara Labuh PNS RSUD M 3 0853-7461-2611 DONE (43thn) Labuh Barat Tubo, 23 104 NOFRIZON Pekan Selasa Petani M 2 0853-7473-9671 DONE Taratak Tinggi 24 112 MASFURIZAL Pekan Selasa Jualan M 3 0812-6710-8775 DONE DARWIS (60 thn) (DT Durian Tigo 25 116 Pekan Selasa Petani M 5 NA DONE Panggao) Capang 26 117 HASNUL FIKRI (42 thn) Pekan Selasa petani M 3 0852-7215-3842 DONE 27 118 EDI MIAN/Rahma Deni Pekan Selasa dagang M 3 0812-6847-6972 DONE 28 123 DONI P.N Pekan Selasa DONE 29 125 ROSNANI (51 thn) Pekan Selasa wiraswasta F 3 0823-8340-0708 DONE KHAIRUL AMRI (48 30 143 Pekan Selasa Petani M 3 0812-7599-9947 DONE thn) 31 148 IRWANTO SAHPUTRA Pekan Selasa DONE 32 149 YERI SANDRIO (36 thn) Pekan Selasa wiraswasta M 2 0812-6737-0979 DONE 33 153 ELI MURNI (55 thn) Pekan Selasa Guru SMP F 4 0813-7416-0395 DONE

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 74

Jumlah No Jenis No Nama Jorong (Kampung) Alamat Pekerjaan Anggota No Telp Status GPS Kelamin keluarga (suami) Dagang dan Tidak bisa 34 90 Zahari Wahyudi(45thn) Pekonina M 3 0852-7243-7322 tani dihubungi 35 94 Osriado/Sulastri Pinang Awan M 3 0823-8966-4337 DONE 36 144 SUARDI Pinang Awan 0812-6636-2472 DONE 37 93 Orfit wandri/Efrida Pinang Sinawa petani M 2 0852-7231-6559 DONE 38 97 Edi arianto/samsi Dewi Pinang Sinawa M 0852-7118-4146 DONE 39 126 CANDRA D Pinang Sinawa Petani M 3 0823-9032-8155 DONE 40 128 ARDISON Pinang Sinawa DONE SYAIFUL ARFAN (54 pegawai kantor 41 133 Pinang Sinawa M 6 0852-7823-3691 DONE thn) camat Burahman (53 42 91 Pulakek PNS M 2 0813-7463-1171 DONE thn)/Mulhandri Yusra (40thn) 43 76 Sako kontraktor M 3 0812-6608-7581 DONE /Yulmetra 44 139 ANASRIL Sei.Durian Sudah Meninggal 45 141 M.ZEN/Istri Sijunjung/Pekonina DONE 46 138 ARMENSIS Sipotu DONE 47 142 SYAHRIAL Sipotu DONE 48 147 JALALUDIN (65 thn) Sipotu Petani M 0823-8469-7003 DONE 49 78 Hasran/Deri Hasnan Sipotu DONE honorer satpol 50 84 Nofri Efendi Taratak Bukareh M 2 0853-3541-5370 DONE PP 51 85 Herdi/Emra Yelfi Taratak Bukareh petani M 3 0812-6686-0268 DONE 52 89 Ahmad Tarmizi (43thn) Taratak Bukareh pedagang M 5 0823-8209-1566 DONE

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 75

Jumlah No Jenis No Nama Jorong (Kampung) Alamat Pekerjaan Anggota No Telp Status GPS Kelamin keluarga Giri Indah Purta 53 89 Taratak Bukareh kontraktor M 0813-7489-3701 DONE (26thn) 54 131 ZULNASRI (60 thn) Taratak Bukareh pedagang M 0852-7414-1150 DONE 55 155 HERMAN ANDIKA Taratak Tinggi DONE 0852-6335-5931 56 99 Romi Yantito/Nefrida Ujung Jalan petani M 4 DONE (zia, adik) 57 108 HIDAYATI Ujung Jalan petani F 2 DONE 58 129 AFRIWANDI Ujung Jalan supir truk M DONE 59 132 DIANA YURSYAH Ujung Jalan petani F 4 0821-7035-1093 DONE 60 152 AFRINALDI Ujung Jalan perawat DONE 61 Syafrial Pinang Sinawa Petani M 0852-6364-5535 DONE 62 90 a Erwin (44 thn) Pekonina M 2 0821-7466-9626 DONE 63 Anizar Kampung Baru DONE tidak 64 Yulison diketemukan lokasinya 65 Baharrudin Kampung Baru DONE 66 Syamsul Anwar /Yeni Taratak Tinggi DONE Syafrudin, Meitina, 67 DONE Lidia Putri, 68 Darlis/Misnawati Taratak Tinggi DONE 69 Wilyedi Taratak Tinggi DONE 70 Sahabir Kampung Baru DONE 71 dedi indra Kampung Baru DONE 72 nurjani/Aris afrianto Kampung Baru DONE

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 76

Jumlah No Jenis No Nama Jorong (Kampung) Alamat Pekerjaan Anggota No Telp Status GPS Kelamin keluarga anak di padang, 73 Ngatijok tidak diketahui no kontaknya 74 Ngatiman DONE 75 Tukiran Pekonina DONE 76 Maruli Taratak Tinggi DONE 77 Agusman Taratak Tinggi DONE Embriadi Mandaro Tidak ada 78 Kampung Baru (Embri) dirumah 79 Tasril Kampung Baru DONE 80 Mil Patra/Ade Beno DONE 81 Halnedi Kampung Baru DONE Kudun (Syafrizal 82 Kampung Baru DONE Makudun) 83 Masrial Malano Taratak Tinggi DONE 84 Kasmir Taratak Tinggi DONE 85 Muliadi Kampung Baru DONE 86 Nasrul Pinang Sinawa DONE 87 Armas Pasar Pakan Salasa 0812-6636-2472 DONE 88 Jendri Nedi Lolo 82390163025 DONE 89 Muhamad yulis Taratak Bukareh Petani DONE 90 Joni Hartono GOR/Pekonina DONE Herdi 0812-6686- 91 Irsyad Taratak Bukareh Petani DONE 0268 92 Romi Syahputra Taratak Bukareh Wiraswasta Herdi 0812-6686- DONE

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 77

Jumlah No Jenis No Nama Jorong (Kampung) Alamat Pekerjaan Anggota No Telp Status GPS Kelamin keluarga 0268 Herdi 0812-6686- 93 Syaifullah Taratak Bukareh Petani DONE 0268 Herdi 0812-6686- 94 Newin Koprin Taratak Bukareh Petani DONE 0268 Herdi 0812-6686- 95 Yasri Taratak Bukareh Petani DONE 0268 Herdi 0812-6686- 96 Ersis Wirmansyah Taratak Bukareh Wiraswasta DONE 0268 Herdi 0812-6686- 97 Firdaus Taratak Bukareh Petani DONE 0268 Herdi 0812-6686- 98 Nelson Taratak Bukareh Petani DONE 0268 Herdi 0812-6686- 99 Zefri Maindra Taratak Bukareh Petani DONE 0268 Pegawai Herdi 0812-6686- 100 Edo Jati Jaya Taratak Bukareh DONE Swasta 0268 Herdi 0812-6686- 101 Medi Gandra Taratak Bukareh Petani DONE 0268 Herdi 0812-6686- 102 Anwar Taratak Bukareh Petani DONE 0268 Muhamad Zaini Herdi 0812-6686- 103 Taratak Bukareh Wiraswasta DONE Zakaria 0268 Tanjung Taratak Herdi 0812-6686- 104 Ramadhan Petani DONE Bukareh 0268 Herdi 0812-6686- 105 Usman Taratak Bukareh Petani DONE 0268

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 78

Jumlah No Jenis No Nama Jorong (Kampung) Alamat Pekerjaan Anggota No Telp Status GPS Kelamin keluarga Dody 0813-6375- 106 Roni Lolo DONE 9500 Dody 0813-6375- 107 Dedi Lolo DONE 9500 Sudah Pindah dan Dody 0813-6375- 108 Dodi Salfari Lolo tidak diketahui 9500 lokasinya Dody 0813-6375- 109 Doni (Safrijoni) Lolo DONE 9500 Dody 0813-6375- 110 Epi Lasrianto Lolo DONE 9500 Dody 0813-6375- 111 Gupran Lolo DONE 9500 Dody 0813-6375- 112 Ijan Lolo DONE 9500 Dody 0813-6375- 113 Mulyadi S Lolo DONE 9500 Dody 0813-6375- 114 Zainal (Dt. Talanan) Lolo DONE 9500 Dody 0813-6375- 115 Suwarmen Lolo DONE 9500 Dody 0813-6375- 116 Darul Lolo DONE 9500 Dody 0813-6375- 117 Syahril/Jang bogor Lolo DONE 9500 Dody 0813-6375- 118 Jang Pilin Sawah Siluwak DONE 9500

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 79

Jumlah No Jenis No Nama Jorong (Kampung) Alamat Pekerjaan Anggota No Telp Status GPS Kelamin keluarga Dody 0813-6375- 119 Ayah nya HAM Sawah Siluwak DONE 9500 Dody 0813-6375- 120 Muid Sawah Siluwak DONE 9500 Dody 0813-6375- 121 Edi Mando Sawah Siluwak DONE 9500 Edi Arianto: 0852- 122 Siman T/Sasmiwarti Pinang Sinawa DONE 7118-4146 Edi Arianto: 0852- 123 Syahri (Amris) Pinang Sinawa DONE 7118-4146 Edi Arianto: 0852- 124 Arizal Pinang Sinawa DONE 7118-4146 Edi Arianto: 0852- 125 Condri Darson Pinang Sinawa DONE 7118-4146 Edi Arianto: 0852- 126 Asdin Pinang Sinawa DONE 7118-4146 Edi Arianto: 0852- 127 Febrinaldi Pinang Sinawa DONE 7118-4146 Edi Arianto: 0852- 128 Metra Oktavia/Yurnalis Pinang Sinawa DONE 7118-4146 Edi Arianto: 0852- 129 Dian Pinang Sinawa DONE 7118-4146 Edi Arianto: 0852- 130 Desmawati/Riki Pinang Sinawa DONE 7118-4146 131 Jalinus Taratak tinggi Bukii Bulek Farmaidi DONE 132 AL Hadi Taratak Tinggi Bukii Bulek Farmaidi DONE 133 Asril Taratak Tinggi Bukii Bulek Farmaidi DONE

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 80

Jumlah No Jenis No Nama Jorong (Kampung) Alamat Pekerjaan Anggota No Telp Status GPS Kelamin keluarga 134 Suklirman Taratak Tinggi Bukii Bulek Farmaidi DONE 135 Yunadi Taratak Tinggi Bukii Bulek Farmaidi DONE Hermanto/daraman Sec 136 Pasia Talang DONE bengke Waterboom Syam Syahril (syam 137 Pinang Sinawa DONE milis) 138 Hendra Alai Yusra DONE 139 Nasrul Lolo Kaciak Yusra DONE 140 Yulmetra Sungai Talu Yusra DONE 141 Dasril Lolo Kaciak Yusra DONE 142 Tafif Redi Alai Sako Yusra DONE 143 Dedi Suhendra Alai Sako Yusra DONE

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 81

APPENDIX IB - LIST OF POTENTIALLY VULNERABLE HOUSEHOLDS TO BE INVITED TO FGDS

Jenis Status di Umur No Nama Responden Survey Jorong (Kampung) Alamat No Telp Peserta FGD Kelamin Alasan/Criteria Peserta FGD Nama Kelompok Keluarga Peserta Peserta Perempuan 15-64 th/SD/tidak tamat SD/ Tidak ALDI ZAMRI Kepala Bukit Netriyenti Istri P 44 Kelompok Perempuan 1 Kerja; Tamat SD/Ibu Rumah Tangga Perempuan 15-64 th/SD/tidak tamat SD/ Tidak M. SALIMIN Padang Aro Yuliarti Anak P 31 Kelompok Perempuan 2 Kerja; SD/Ibu Rumah Tangga

3 nurjani/Aris afrianto Kampung Baru Desmayeni Anak P 27 Tidak tamat SD/Ibu Rumah Tangga Kelompok Perempuan

4 Masrial Malano Taratak Tinggi Dani Rumantik Istri P 30 Tamat SD/Ibu Rumah Tangga Kelompok Perempuan Perempuan 15-64 th/SD/tidak tamat SD/ Tidak Muliadi Kampung Baru Isas Istri P 43 Kelompok Perempuan 5 Kerja: Tamat SD/Obu Rumah Tangga Perempuan 15-64 th/SD/tidak tamat SD/ Tidak Zainal (Dt. Talanan) Lolo Dody 0813-6375-9501 Nurmis (Nurimis), Istri P 55 Kelompok Perempuan 6 Kerja; SD/Ibu Rumah Tangga; Perempuan 15-64 th/SD/tidak tamat SD/ Tidak Jang Pilin (Sapril) Sawah Siluwak Dody 0813-6375-9501 nurlaili Istri P 58 Kelompok Perempuan 7 Kerja; Tamat SD/Ibu Rumah Tangga

8 Edi Mando Sawah Siluwak Dody 0813-6375-9501 Eli Murni Istri P 40 Tamat SD/Ibu Rumah Tangga; Kelompok Perempuan Edi Arianto: 0852-7118- Perempuan 15-64 th/SD/tidak tamat SD/ Tidak Metra Oktavia/Yurnalis Pinang Sinawa Helmaini Anak P 36 Kelompok Perempuan 9 4148 Kerja; Tamat SD/Ibu Rumah Tangga Perempuan 15-64 th/SD/tidak tamat SD/ Tidak Asril Taratak Tinggi Bukii Bulek Farmaidi Elfiza Istri P 37 Kelompok Perempuan 10 Kerja; Tamat SD/Ibu Rumah Tangga Perempuan 15-64 th/SD/tidak tamat SD/ Tidak ARMENSIS sipotu yurmaningsih Istri P 44 Kerja; Tamat SLTP/Keahlian Menjahit/Ibu Rumah Kelompok Perempuan 11 Tangga Perempuan 15-64 th/SD/tidak tamat SD/Ibu Rumah Muhamad yulis taratak bukareh nurjulis Istri P 56 Tangga/ Tidak Kerja; Tamat SD/Keahlian buat Kelompok Perempuan 12 makanan kueh2 gorangan pecal, dll;

nurjani/Aris afrianto Kampung Baru Nurjani Istri P 50 Perempuan KK Kelompok Perempuan 13

14 Erwin (44 thn) Pekonina Kampung Baru 0821-7466-9627 partiyum Istri P 36 Perempuan 15-64 th/SD/tidak tamat SD/ Tidak Kerja Kelompok Perempuan

15 Baharrudin (ALM) Kampung Baru Nurhidayati Anak P 45 Perempuan 15-64 th/SD/tidak tamat SD/ Tidak Kerja Kelompok Perempuan Usia Lanjut Anak ada yang Gangguan Jiwa dr kecil, Ngatiman Pekonina Surmi Istri P 64 Kelompok Perempuan 16 lantai papan kayu

ARDISON pinang sinawa Ardison L 45 Pendapatan rendah Kelompok Lelaki 17 Pendapatan rendah Rp. 85,000/dibawah garis ERNITA Kepala Bukit 0852-7451-3986 (erna) Ardi KK L 44 Kelompok Lelaki 18 kemiskinan

19 Nasrul Pinang Sinawa Nasrul L 65 Sulit Baca/Tamat SD/Kerja Kelompok Lelaki Untang untuk modal usaha 1 juta dari 25jt, Jendri Nedi lolo 82390163025 Jendri L 34 Kelompok Lelaki 20 pendapatan 1,2jt;

21 Zainal (Dt. Talanan) lolo Dody 0813-6375-9500 Zainal L 58 Kelompok Lelaki

22 Syam Syahril (syam milis) pinang sinawa Syam L 68 Tertulis di SPSS Rp. 666,667/bulan Kelompok Lelaki

Suklirman Taratak Tinggi Bukii Bulek Farmaidi Sukirman L 60 Pendapatan Rendah Kelompok Lelaki 23

24 Dedi Suhendra Alai Sako Yusra Dedi Suhendra L 47 Pendapatan rendah Rp 600rb/bulan Kelompok Lelaki

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 82

Jenis Status di Umur No Nama Responden Survey Jorong (Kampung) Alamat No Telp Peserta FGD Kelamin Alasan/Criteria Peserta FGD Nama Kelompok Keluarga Peserta Peserta Jorong Alai Nagari sako Yusra (40thn) /Yulmetra 0812-6608-7581 Yusra L 40 utang untuk kebutuhan harian Kelompok Lelaki 25 Selatan Utang untuk rumah dan mobil dari koperasi cicil 2jt pasar muara KOSNEDI YUSDI (43thn) pasar muara labuh 0853-7461-2611 Kosnedi Yusdi L 44 dari 150jt (income 4,6jt); yang tertulis di SPSS Kelompok Lelaki labuh barat 26 Rp.920,000 Jo Sungai Utang untuk usaha itik 300rb perbulan dari 10jt dari CANDRA Darson pinang sinawa Durian, Nagari 0823-9032-8155 Candra L 32 Kelompok Lelaki PNPM (income 4,8jt); Tertulis di SPSS Rp.960,000 27 Bomas Tidak sekolah/SD tidak tamat/bukan KK/dibawah ROSNANI (51 thn) pekan selasa 0823-8340-0709 Auzan Anak L 20 Kelompok Pemuda 28 30th/bekerja atau dirumah; Tidak sekolah/SD tidak tamat/bukan KK/dibawah M. SALIMIN Padang Aro Musfir Anak L 25 Kelompok Pemuda 29 30th/bekerja atau dirumah; 0813-7416-0395 Tidak sekolah/SD tidak tamat/bukan KK/dibawah ELI MURNI (55 thn) pekan selasa Aris Anak L 22 Kelompok Pemuda 30 (suami) 30th/bekerja atau dirumah; Tidak sekolah/SD tidak tamat/bukan KK/dibawah Anizar Kampung Baru Hendaka Anak L 20 Kelompok Pemuda 31 30th/bekerja atau dirumah; Working Tidak sekolah/SD tidak tamat/bukan KK/dibawah Baharrudin (ALM) Kampung Baru Busra Anak L 30 Kelompok Pemuda 32 30th/bekerja atau dirumah; Tidak sekolah/SD tidak tamat/bukan KK/dibawah Suklirman Taratak Tinggi Bukii Bulek Yose Anak L 26 Kelompok Pemuda 33 30th/bekerja atau dirumah; Working Tidak sekolah/SD tidak tamat/bukan KK/dibawah nurjani/Aris afrianto Kampung Baru Afdar Anak L 25 Kelompok Pemuda 34 30th/bekerja atau dirumah; Working Taratak Tinggi Kasmir (ALM) Rahmat Fauzi Anak L 24 Pengangguran, mencari kerja Kelompok Pemuda 35 (Kampupng Baru) pengangguran, terbatas karena ijazah, syalfitri Edo Jati Jaya taratak bukareh Herdi 0812-6686-0268 Edo Jati Jaya Anak L 21 Kelompok Pemuda 36 (KK)sakit leher

37 Agusman Taratak Tinggi Rio Nofianto Anak L 17 Kurang dana untuk melanjutkan sekolah Kelompok Pemuda Ersis W (Anak Tidak sekolah/SD tidak tamat/bukan KK/dibawah Ersis Wirmansyah taratak bukareh Herdi 0812-6686-0268 Anak L 28 Kelompok Pemuda 38 Syafrial) 30th/bekerja atau dirumah; Keahlian Main Gitar Tidak sekolah/SD tidak tamat/bukan KK/dibawah M. SALIMIN Padang Aro Yusmarni Anak P 28 Kelompok Pemuda 39 30th/bekerja atau dirumah;

40 Jalinus Taratak tinggi Bukii Bulek Farmaidi Afridayanti Anak P 25 Pengangguran Kelompok Pemuda MitriWulandari, 21 Jalinus Taratak tinggi Bukii Bulek Farmaidi Anak P 21 Pengangguran Kelompok Pemuda 41 yr.

Syam Syahril (syam milis) pinang sinawa Yulda Afni, Anak P 20 Pengangguran, belum dapat kerja Kelompok Pemuda 42

43 Dedi Indra Kampung Baru Unknown Istri P Pendapatan rendah Kelompok Perempuan Alai, Nagari Sako Dasril Dasril L utang untuk kebutuhan harian Kelompok Lelaki 44 Selatan (Lolo Kaciak) Edi Arianto: 0852-7118- Febrinaldi Pinang Sinawa Febrinaldi L Utang untuk beli Obat Kelompok Lelaki 45 4146

46 Orfit wandri/Efrida pinang sinawa 0852-7231-6559 Orfit wandri/Efrida L Atap Jerami Kelompok Lelaki 0812-6618-4466 Sopian Sori Pinang Sinawa/lolo Sopian Sori L Utang untuk pendidikan Kelompok Lelaki 47 (sofian) Perempuan 15-64 th/SD/tidak tamat SD/ Tidak Tukiran Pekonina Hesi Istri P 50 Kelompok Perempuan 48 Kerja; Tamat SD/Ibu Rumah Tangga

49 Joni Hartono GOR/Pekonina ernawati Istri P 30 Tamat SD/Ibu Rumah Tangga; Kelompok Perempuan

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 83

Jenis Status di Umur No Nama Responden Survey Jorong (Kampung) Alamat No Telp Peserta FGD Kelamin Alasan/Criteria Peserta FGD Nama Kelompok Keluarga Peserta Peserta Perempuan 15-64 th/SD/tidak tamat SD/ Tidak Syafrial Pinang Sinawa 0852-6364-5536 Yurli S, Istri P 51 Kelompok Perempuan 50 Kerja: Tamat SD/Ibu Rumah Tangga Ayah nya HAM (Katiak Perempuan 15-64 th/SD/tidak tamat SD/ Tidak Sawah Siluwak Dody 0813-6375-9501 Nurhayati Istri P 58 Kelompok Perempuan 51 Samu) Kerja; SD/Ibu Rumah Tangga; Tidak sekolah/SD tidak tamat/bukan KK/dibawah Suklirman Taratak Tinggi Bukii Bulek Farmaidi M. Nakli Anak L 28 Kelompok Pemuda 52 30th/bekerja atau dirumah; Working Perempuan 15-64 th/SD/tidak tamat SD/ Tidak Tasril Kampung Baru Warnatis Istri P 52 Kelompok Perempuan 53 Kerja: SD/Ibu Rumah Tangga Perempuan 15-64 th/SD/tidak tamat SD/ Tidak Muhamad Zaini Zakaria taratak bukareh Herdi 0812-6686-0269 Rosmawati Istri P 55 54 Kerja; SD/Lain lain keahliah menjahit; Kelompok Perempuan

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 84

Table 11-1 Project Affected Households and villages that were identified as vulnerable.

PAHH No Live in Respondent 1 StatusR1 AgeR1 SexR1 Respondent2 StatusR2 AgeR2 SexR2 NameHeadofHH 34 padang aro salmin 1 66 1 dermala 2 65 2 salmin 54 pinang sinawa sahrul 1 65 1 nursam 2 60 2 sahrul 75 taratak tinggi sukirman 1 60 1 sariana 2 54 2 sukirman 83 taratak tinggi agusman 1 42 1 desniyenti 2 30 2 agusman chandra 97 sungai durian 1 32 1 evi 2 30 2 chandra darson darson 107 kampung baru nurjani 2 50 2 desmayeni 3 27 2 nurjani 7 pinang sinawa syaiful arfan 1 54 1 almawati 2 52 2 syaiful arfan 18 mudiak lolo jendri 1 34 1 santi mulya 34 2 jendri 19 lolo zainal 1 58 1 nurmis 2 55 2 zainal 68 pinang sinawa syam syahril 1 68 1 ramilis 2 68 2 syam syahril 115 pasar muara labuh koesnedy 1 44 1 nuriah 2 39 2 koesnedy 1 alai suhendra dedi 1 47 1 nabila 2 40 2 dedi suhendra 3 kepala bukit ardi 1 44 1 ernita 2 43 2 ardi 10 kampung baru indra dedi 1 38 1 hasnawati 2 33 2 indra dedi 21 lolo doni 1 30 1 rina 2 28 2 doni 44 pinang sinawa sahrul 1 75 1 nursam 2 60 2 sahrul 78 taratak tinggi zainal 1 60 1 dahlina 2 55 2 zainal 112 lolo ijan 3 24 1 zainak 1 58 2 zainal 24 taratak bukareh syafril 1 55 1 Syamsiar 2 49 2 Syafril 30 taratak bukareh irsyad 1 60 1 elimurni 2 50 2 irsyad 35 taratak bukareh dasrial 1 57 1 muhitah 2 56 2 dasrial 62 mato aia muid 1 50 1 fasniati 2 45 2 muid 69 taratak bukareh yasri 1 43 1 weri 2 40 2 yasri 70 pekonina tukiran 1 63 1 hesi 2 50 2 tukiran 71 taratak bukareh eli murni 2 56 2 masni 1 60 1 masni 72 kampung baru erwin 1 44 1 partiyum 2 36 2 erwin 77 taratak tinggi nuar 1 50 1 jalinus 2 40 2 nuar 82 kampung baru alm baharudin 1 75 1 syaribanun 3 39 2 alm baharudin syahyuni 89 taratak bukareh edo 3 21 1 2 42 2 syalfitri yendni romi 98 ujung jalan 1 31 1 maisatul fitria 2 29 2 romi syahputra syahputra masrial 102 taratak tinggi 1 35 1 deni romantik 2 30 2 masrial malano malano 103 pinang awan satiudin 1 59 1 meltina 2 56 2 satiudin 105 pekonina surmi 1 64 2 adi hermawan 3 27 1 surmi 106 kampung baru joni hartono 1 32 1 ernawati 2 30 2 joni hartono 113 mudiak lolo barat mulyadi s 1 45 1 titi sumarni 2 36 2 mulyadi s Bariang rawo- 127 yurnalis 1 55 1 yulharnet 2 50 2 yurnalis rowo 129 taratak bukareh nelson 1 55 1 navalma 2 50 2 nelson

SESVA Revised Final Report 29 November 2017 Sent to Client ntc.docx 85