Isimangaliso Resettlement Policy Framework and Process Framework April 2009

iSimangaliso Resettlement Policy Framework and Process Framework – April 2009 RP807

Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and Process Framework (PF) for the iSimangaliso GEF Project:

Development, Empowerment and Conservation in the iSimangaliso Wetland Park and Surrounding Region

30 April 2009

1 iSimangaliso Resettlement Policy Framework and Process Framework – April 2009

Table of Contents

1. Introduction...... 3 1.1 Contents of this document...... 4 1.2 Project description...... 4 2. Legal framework - World Bank Involuntary Resettlement Policy and South African policy and law relating to resettlement...... 7 2.1 World Bank Involuntary Resettlement Policy requirements...... 7 2.1.1 Definition of involuntary resettlement...... 7 2.1.2 Policy objectives of OP 4.12...... 8 2.1.3 Whom the resettlement policy covers...... 8 2.1.4 The difference between a RPF and PF...... 9 2.1.5 Resettlement Policy Framework and Resettlement Action Plan (RAP)...... 9 2.1.6 Process Framework and Plan of Action (PoA)...... 9 2.1.7 Why RAPs and PoA cannot be prepared now...... 10 2.2 South Africa laws and policies affecting resettlement and rights of access to natural resources...... 10 2.2.1 Summary of relevant South African laws and policies...... 10 2.2.2 Summary analysis of the adequacy of the South African legislation to achieve compliance...... 11 3. Possible impacts of the iSimangaliso GEF project in relation to Safeguard Policy OP 4.12...12 3.1 Social and economic context...... 12 3.2 Potential impact from the iSimangaliso GEF Project...... 13 3.2.1 Eligibility Criteria: Categories of people possibly affected by resettlement and/or restriction of access...... 13 3.2.2 Estimated area/population that might be affected...... 16 3.3 Options for potentially affected people...... 16 4. RPF and PF...... 18 4.1 Principles and approach of the RPF and PF. The primary objective of this RPF and PF is to provide the principles and standards that would guide any possible future resettlement (should it become necessary) under the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Project, to ensure that any eligible persons who might possibly be displaced as a result of the Project receive the appropriate resettlement, compensation, or other assistance needed in their efforts to improve, or at least restore, their livelihoods and standards of living...... 18 4.1.1 Developing to conserve approach...... 18 4.1.2 Policy Principles...... 18 4.2 Methods of valuing affected assets in case of an RPF – developing options...... 19

4.3 Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) preparation...... 20 4.3.1 Preparation of RAPs and planning processes...... 21 4.3.2 Consultation with affected people during RAP process...... 23 4.4 Plan of Action (PoA) preparation...... 23 4.5 Grievance redress mechanism for RPF and PF...... 23 4.6 Organisational elements, institutional capacity and commitment for RPF and PF...... 24 4.7 Monitoring and reporting...... 24 4.8 Funding arrangements for the RPF and PF...... 25 5. Process for implementation of this safeguard policy...... 27 6. Public consultation and disclosure of this RPF and PF...... 30 Annexure A – Summary of relevant South Africa laws...... 31 Annexure B – Explanation of the Dukuduku situation...... 35 Annexure C - Extract from Minutes of November Consultation Workshop...... 39 Annexure D - References...... 48

1. Introduction This document presents the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) and Process Framework (PF) for the World Bank- and GEF-supported iSimangaliso Wetland Park Project (Project). This RPF and PF has been prepared to ensure this Project’s consistency with the World Bank’s safeguard policy on Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12), as well as applicable South African laws and regulations. OP 4.12 applies to any projects that might involve (i) the involuntary taking of land for project purposes, resulting in loss of shelter or the need to relocate (physical resettlement), loss of assets or access to assets, or loss of income sources or means of livelihood or (ii) the involuntary restriction of previously existing access to natural resources within protected areas, when this adversely affects people’s livelihoods.

Presently it is not possible to determine whether resettlement (broadly defined, as per OP 4.12) will occur as a result of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Project, and this RPF and PF has been developed as a precautionary measure. Component 1 of the Project will focus on selecting the most appropriate option to bring fresh, low-sediment water into the Lake St Lucia estuary system. If any resettlement or other involuntary displacement (including loss of existing livelihoods) were to occur as a result of the Project, it would be only if (i) the studies for improving the functioning of the Lake St. Lucia System, to be carried out during Project implementation under Component 1, recommend the re-conversion of some existing farmland within the Umfolozi-Umsunduze floodplain back to natural wetland habitats and (ii) after extensive stakeholder consultation, Government selects this option, in lieu of various alternative options that would not require any resettlement. Moreover, if any such resettlement were to take place under this project, it could only be after Government prepares a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) and/or Plan of Action (PoA) that is agreed with the World Bank. The RAP and/or PoA would include an implementation schedule, specific responsibilities of the iSimangaliso Authority and other institutions, complete budget, and earmarked source of Government funds for its implementation.

A RAP or PoA itself cannot be prepared at this time because it will not be known until well into Project implementation (following the completion of key Component 1 studies) whether any

3 iSimangaliso Resettlement Policy Framework and Process Framework – April 2009 resettlement or other displacement could take place at all, and (if so) how many people might be affected, and in which part(s) of the Umfolozi-Umsunduze floodplain. This RPF and PF outlines some likely alternative livelihood options for people who might conceivably be displaced under the iSimangaliso Project. However, this RPF and PF does not prescribe the exact solutions for each conceivable case of resettlement or related displacement--that is the function of the future RAP and/or PoA (if needed).

1.1 Contents of this document

This document contains: a) A brief description of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Project and components providing the context b) A summary description of the Bank’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy (OP4.12) and of relevant South African (SA) laws and policies; and an analysis of the adequacy of SA legislation to ensure compliance with OP 4.12. c) Assessment of potential impact, and eligibility criteria d) The RFP and PF policy approach and principles e) Methods of valuing affected assets f) Organisational elements, grievance redress mechanisms, funding and monitoring g) Implementation of the policy h) Consultation and disclosure

1.2 Project description The project development objective (PDO) is to improve access to information that addresses the availability of fresh water of adequate quality to the Lake St Lucia System1, a wetland of global biodiversity importance, and to increase access among local communities to conservation- compatible economic opportunities. The Project area for Component 1 is the Lake St. Lucia System, defined as Lake St. Lucia and its estuary, along with the Umfolozi River mouth and the Umfolozi-Umsunduze floodplain (the Umsunduze River is a tributary of the Umfolozi River). The portion of the Umfolozi-Umsunduze floodplain that is closest to the coast lies within the iSimangaliso Wetland Park, while the up-river portions of the floodplain are outside the Park. The Project area for Components 2 and 3 is the entire iSimangaliso Wetland Park. However, only the Project activities being considered under Component 1 could lead to any resettlement.

This PDO will contribute to a long term goal of improving the ecosystem functioning of the Lake St Lucia System to conserve wetland habitats of global importance. Through its components, GEF funding will lead to global biodiversity conservation benefits by reducing the main threats (changes in the hydrological regime and incompatible future land uses) to the long-term survival and ecological integrity of the Park.

The progress toward achieving the PDO will be measured through the following key outcome indicators:

1 “Lake St Lucia System” means Lake St Lucia and its estuary as well as the uMfolozi River mouth and uMfolozi-Umsunduze floodplain

(i) Evidence of implementation of follow up actions and investments contributing to the agreed hydrological solutions (indicator to be defined upon agreement on the specific solutions by Mid Term Review) (ii) Protected Area management effectiveness as measured by the GEF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) (iii) Percentage of targeted conservation compatible SMMEs that achieve commercial viability over the project period

Component 1: Hydrology and Ecosystem functioning of the Lake St Lucia System for biodiversity conservation. (Total US$ 10.8 million, of which GEF is US$ 2.8 million)

Support for the key studies and initial investment follow-up actions needed to restore the St. Lucia wetlands to a state of improved ecological functioning through technical assistance, works, goods, training and operational costs to implement:

Subcomponent 1.1: Analysis of Alternatives (Total US$1.4million, 100% GEF funded): Analysis of alternatives including a comprehensive feasibility study that will include an environmental and social impact assessment and analyze sediment load, hydrology, ecological systems, socio-economics and resource economics to select the best ecologically feasible solution taking into consideration the social, financial and economic considerations. Such study to include analysis of the wetland’s ecosystem services value such as fisheries, carbon sequestration and water regulation, among others that might facilitate leveraging additional funds to implement the selected solution.

Subcomponent 1.2: Implementation of Selected Solutions (Total US$1.4million, 100% GEF funded): support to follow up actions and investments to implement the selected alternative referred in Part A.1 above through consultant’ services, goods and works.

Subcomponent 1.3: Support for Park Operations, including Conservation Management (Total US$8 million, 100% Government funded): Support for the iSimangaliso Wetland Park operations related to this Part A.1 and A.2 above through, goods, works, services and operational costs to manage the iSimangaliso Wetland Park’s physical assets, including compliance and enforcement, environmental management, rehabilitation, infrastructure development and maintenance, and community based natural resource management.

The expected outcomes of interventions implemented under this component are (i) knowledge of ecosystem functioning is improved and a long-term solution is agreed for the hydrological problems of the Lake St Lucia system; (ii) stakeholder concerns and involvement are reflected in the Feasibility study and EIA process; and (iii) a management-oriented monitoring system is designed and implemented.

The key outputs will be: (i) a Feasibility Study completed that details the preferred option; (ii) Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) completed of the preferred option; and (iii) follow- up actions implemented.

Component 2: Promoting conservation-compatible local economic and cultural development. (Total US$ 7.1 million, of which GEF US$ 4.7 million)

Improvement of employment and livelihood opportunities consistent with conservation of the Park's rich biodiversity and other important natural values, including diversification and scaling up of environmentally sustainable economic activities, through Sub-grants, training workshops, operational costs and technical assistance . This Component shall include:

Subcomponent 2.1: Implementation of a Conservation-Compatible Small, Medium and Micro Enterprise Program (Total US$ 2.7 million, 100% GEF funded): Implementation of a Conservation-compatible Small, Medium and Micro Enterprise Program to promote the participation by local residents in eco-tourism and other conservation-compatible local enterprises through the provision of support and capacity building in (i) identification of viable enterprises; (ii) business management; (iii) financial management; (iv) production and quality control; and (v) marketing and other relevant skills.

Subcomponent 2.2: Development of an Education and Academic Support Program (Total 1.4 million, 100% GEF funded): Development of an Education and Academic Support Program as part of the overall training program of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority, targeted at local youth on conservation, eco-tourism and natural resources-related curricula, which will enable local youth to access formal tertiary education and employment in eco-tourism enterprises and conservation organizations.

Subcomponent 2.3: Establishment of a Capacity Building Program for nearby communities (Total US$ 0.6 million, 100% GEF funded): Establishment of a Capacity Building Program for the iSimangaliso Wetland Park neighboring communities to build the skills and capacity of neighboring communities including land restitution beneficiaries to participate in the Park’s co-management processes. Through training; mentoring, and study tours.

Subcomponent 2.4: SEED Program (Total US$ 2.4 million, 100% Government funded): Support for the iSimangaliso Wetland Park SEED Program that complements subcomponents 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 above through services, training, capacity building and operational costs for local economic development and sustainable natural resource use including but not limited to: (1) community consultation, (2) craft development, (3) Park infrastructure improvement and land care (such as non-native plant removal) programmes within the boundaries of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park (involving no resettlement or involuntary taking of land), (4) iSimangaliso Art Programme, which works with artists from the region to improve their technical skills and find markets for their work, and (5) environmental education awareness programme.

The expected outcomes of interventions implemented under this component are: (i) Improved access to knowledge in conservation and tourism for local youth, in nearby communities and land restitution beneficiaries; (ii) improved access to business development services for conservation-compatible SMMEs; and (iii) improved capacity of local/community leaders in effective implementation of co-management agreements.

The key outputs will be: (i) SMME Program developed; (ii) Youth Educational Program operational; and (iii) Capacity building program for beneficiary communities implemented.

Component 3: Institutional capacity building for biodiversity conservation (Total US$ 3.8 million, of which GEF is US$1.5 million) through technical assistance, goods, works, workshops, training, study tours and operational costs to support the following components:

Subcomponent 3.1: Management and Technical Capacity Building (Total US$1.5 million, 100% GEF funded): Management and Technical Capacity building including:

i. Enhancement of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority’s capacity to manage the Project, including technical training and mentoring, recruitment of staff and the procurement of service providers.

ii. Support for the development of an information base including: mapping and survey data collection; databases and Geographical Information System.

iii. Establishment of a monitoring and evaluation system to: (i) monitor Project performance and outcomes, and (ii) adapt Project activities to enhance results.

iv. Exchange visits with relevant programs and participation in international seminars and conferences related to World Heritage management and conservation, land restitution, sustainable livelihoods, resource utilization and poverty issues, payment for environmental services, wetland management and territorial approach..

v. Implementation of a Project communication strategy and website development for the iSimangaliso Authority.

Subcomponent 3.2: Support for Core Operations of Wetland Authority (Total US$2.3 million, 100% Government funded): Implementation of the Project including strategic oversight, consultation and facilitation activities, financial management and procurement, and monitoring and evaluation through salaries and operational costs.

2. Legal framework - World Bank Involuntary Resettlement Policy and South African policy and law relating to resettlement

2.1 World Bank Involuntary Resettlement Policy requirements

The World Bank’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy (known as OP4.12) seeks to safeguard against the impoverishment risks of involuntary resettlement in development projects. This safeguard policy is in place because the Bank’s experience has shown that involuntary resettlement under development projects, if unmitigated, often leads to severe economic, social and even environmental risks.

2.1.1 Definition of involuntary resettlement

The World Bank definition of involuntary resettlement is:

“ Involuntary resettlement refers to any project which displaces people from land or productive resources, and which results in relocation, the loss of shelter, the loss of assets or access to assets important to production, the loss of income sources or means of livelihoods, or the loss of access to locations that provide higher incomes or lower

7 iSimangaliso Resettlement Policy Framework and Process Framework – April 2009 expenditure to businesses or persons, whether or not the affected people must move to another location2.”

“Involuntary” means actions that may be taken without the displaced person’s informed consent or power of choice. Resettlement is only voluntary when the affected people have the option to refuse resettlement, and they nevertheless resettle based on informed consent. This free choice needs to be determined by a process of independent verification, and when it cannot be confirmed, resettlement would be treated as involuntary3.

2.1.2 Policy objectives of OP 4.12

The policy objectives of OP4.12 are to: a) Avoid involuntary resettlement where feasible, exploring all viable alternatives b) Where not feasible, resettlement must be a sustainable development program, providing investment resources that allow the displaced to benefit c) The displaced should be meaningfully consulted and have opportunities to plan and implement the resettlement d) Those displaced should be assisted to improve their standards of living or at least restore them to the levels that existed prior to displacement

Restoration of incomes, the standards of living and the productivity levels of the affected persons constitute the core of the Bank's resettlement policy. Although resettlement programs should be designed to help improve the standards of living and income levels of the affected population, efforts must at least be made to restore them to previous levels. Resettlement planning is one of the main mechanisms through which the World Bank and the partner country work towards ensuring that the incomes of all categories of affected persons are restored after resettlement.

2.1.3 Whom the resettlement policy covers

The policy covers all persons losing land or other assets, use of land, or access to natural resources as a direct result of the project. The policy covers people whose access to resources in adjacent areas is restricted by the establishment of parks or protected areas, where this restriction of access has an adverse affect on their livelihoods.

With regard to land, the policy covers those with secure title and those without. It thus includes landowners, farm workers and occupiers, and people with communal/traditional rights such as people with established occupation and use rights in terms of the Ingonyama Trust Act and the Interim Protection of Informal Rights to Land Act. It does not include persons invading or encroaching upon a site after a determined cut-off date for the Project. 4

The World Bank’s Involuntary Resettlement Policy emphasises particular attention to the needs of vulnerable groups among those displaced - especially those below the poverty line; the landless, the elderly, women and children, indigenous groups and ethnic minorities.

2 OP 4.12, Para 3

3 OP4.12 footnote 7 and Bank document on FAQ dated May 2002

4 OP4.12, Para 16

The Bank Safeguard Policy OP 4.12 applies to all components under the project, whether or not the Bank directly funds them in whole or in part.

2.1.4 The difference between a RPF and PF

OP4.12 differentiates between situations which involve the “involuntary taking of land” (section 3[a]) and the “involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced persons” (section 3[b]). In situations where section 3(a) occurs, i.e. involuntary physical relocation, and possibly restriction of access linked to such relocation, is involved, a Resettlement Policy Framework is required. Where 3(b) occurs, i.e. involuntary restriction of access without physical relocation, a Process Framework is required.

The RPF and PF must be prepared, accepted and disclosed publicly before the Bank will appraise the project. The RPF and PF are typically done when the people who might be displaced by the project can not be precisely identified prior to appraisal.

After assessment of the Project in terms of the Involuntary Resettlement Policy and consideration of potential impacts it was concluded that both a RPF and PF would be developed.

2.1.5 Resettlement Policy Framework and Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) An RPF is required for Bank-assisted projects that may involve involuntary taking of land resulting in relocation or loss of shelter; loss of assets or taking of assets; or loss of income sources/means of livelihood, whether or not this entails relocation.

Where an RPF is in place and resettlement is required, a RAP is developed during project implementation. The RAP sets out a detailed action plan for treating a specific situation. A RAP is done for each project component or activity where involuntary resettlement will occur when it is clear exactly where the zone of impact will be. The RAP must be consistent with the RPF.

2.1.6 Process Framework and Plan of Action (PoA)

Somewhat different provisions are required for restrictions of access to natural resources within protected areas, than those required for situations involving the taking of land. Instead of an RPF, a Process Framework is required initially. Just as specific Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs) are required before the implementation of any project entailing resettlement, so are Bank approved Plans of Action (PoA) required at the implementation stage of each project, before enforcing the envisaged restriction of access. These Plans of Action must set out the specific measures taken to assist people deprived of access to the natural resources within parks and protected areas, and implementation arrangements. 5

The Involuntary Resettlement Policy requires that the nature of the restrictions of access to natural resources within protected areas, as well as the type of measures necessary to mitigate adverse impacts is determined, with the participation of the displaced persons during the design and implementation of the project.6

5 Section 31 of OP 4.12

6 Section 7 of OP 4.12

2.1.7 Why RAPs and PoA cannot be prepared now

It is not possible to develop RAPs or PoA at this stage because the actions under Component 1 that might possibly result in resettlement (or related economic displacement, due to involuntary taking of land or, within protected areas, restriction of access to natural resources) have not yet been determined, and will only be determined during project implementation. At this stage, it is only possible to broadly indicate that such resettlement (broadly defined) might occur and to identify the categories of people that could be affected. It is thus not feasible to undertake a census or to provide a precise estimate of the total population that might be affected. Accordingly, an RPF and PF will suffice during the preparation stage of the Project, while RAPs/PoAs might need to be prepared during project implementation.

Should resettlement occur as a result of this project, the iSimangaliso Authority will undertake to prepare and help implement, as needed, the requisite RAP/PoA.

2.2 South Africa laws and policies affecting resettlement and rights of access to natural resources

2.2.1 Summary of relevant South African laws and policies

South African laws relating to resettlement and rights of access to natural resources are summarised in Annexure A. Key laws are:  The Constitution 108 of 1996  World Heritage Convention Act 49 of 1999  National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998  National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act 57 of 2003  National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004  Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998  Maritime Zone Act 15 of 1994  National Parks Act 57 of 1976  Expropriation Act 63 of 1975  The Constitution 108 of 1996  Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994  Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997  Labour Relations Act of 1995  Labour Tenants Act 30 of 1996  Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act 31 of 1996  Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998  KwaZulu Amakhosi and Iziphakanyiswa Act 9 of 1990

2.2.2 Summary analysis of the adequacy of the South African legislation to achieve compliance

With regard to the OP 4.12 section 3 (a) policy statement on the “involuntary taking of land”, the body of land laws introduced after 1994 has a similar focus to the Bank’s OP 4.12. The South African land laws referred to protect the security of tenure (whether formal or informal) of vulnerable and poor sections of the population and attempts to put in place procedural protections that ensure that where people do lose access to land, they are consulted and

10 iSimangaliso Resettlement Policy Framework and Process Framework – April 2009 compensated. These laws all recognise different forms of established occupation of, and vested interests in land that previously had no formal recognition because of racial prohibitions on black contractual rights to land. In general, interventions that comply with OP 4.12 section 3 (a) will also comply with the provisions of these laws.

With regard to the OP 4.12 policy objectives stated in sections 2 (b), (c),and (d) and the section 3 (b) policy statement on the “involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced persons”, the following elements of South African law have bearing. The Constitution sections on socio- economic rights provides foundations for more specific legislation through which organs of the South African state have been mandated with developmental responsibilities. In the case of the iSimangaliso Authority, the proclamation of the Authority in terms of the World Heritage Convention Act (Act 49 of 1999) mandates it to carry both conservation and development functions. The development interests and sustainability of livelihoods of communities living in or near the ISimangaliso Wetland Park are seen to be fundamental to the survival of the ISimangaliso Wetland Park. The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act 10 of 2004) provides for sustainable use of indigenous biological resources, and this practice is well established in iSimangaliso through discrete management processes, for example the harvesting of incema (Phragmites) grass that is used in craft production.

In regard specifically to the OP 4.12 requirements concerning meaningful consultation with displaced persons, the terms of the Restitution of Land Rights Act (Act 22 of 1994) require extensive consultation processes. In addition, elements of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act 57 of 2003) provide for meaningful consultation with communities and the public in matters concerning the protected areas.

It is important to note that in South Africa there is not one law or policy that deals with involuntary resettlement similar to OP4.12. Rather a myriad of land, tenure, labour, and protected area legislation needs to be considered and interpreted. It is also important to note that there is nothing in SA law that prohibits Bank policy being implemented. The iSimangaliso Authority is committed to ensuring compliance with OP4.12 and will take the necessary measures to bridge any gaps between SA law and OP4.12 in the project area. In this regard it is useful to provide some examples of differences between OP4.12 and relevant SA legislation as applied to the categories of potentially affected people set out in section 3.2.1. a) Landowners of commercial sugar farms on Umfolozi floodplain: The property clause in section 25 of the Constitution permits the regulation of property rights by law. Compensation must be paid where the regulation amounts to the expropriation of property resulting in an involuntary resettlement. The method of determining compensation for the land is primarily, but not exclusively, based on market value which is different from OP4.12’s requirement to value assets based on replacement cost. If any sugar farms were to be acquired involuntarily from landowners, this difference would be addressed though using the replacement cost valuation methods required by OP4.12. b) Farm workers and occupiers on commercial sugar farms on the Umfolozi-Umsunduze floodplain: The principal Act governing land rights and evictions of farm workers and occupiers on commercial farms is the Extension of Protection of Tenure (ESTA) 62 of 1997. This Act regulates the circumstances under which poor people occupying rural land (typically farm land) can be evicted. It generally requires that owners cannot evict people who have occupied land since before 1997 with the owner’s consent and who are not “at fault”, unless suitable alternative accommodation is available. Suitable alternative accommodation cannot be less

11 iSimangaliso Resettlement Policy Framework and Process Framework – April 2009 favourable than the current accommodation of the occupier. ESTA does not deal with all the same aspects as set out in OP 4.12. For example, it does not specify that consultation and participation is required. The Act treats different categories of occupiers differently with the eviction outcome being related to the different category. For example, an occupier who moved onto the land after 1997 without the consent of the owner is not deemed to have consent in the same way as the person who was on the land prior to 1997. A person who does not have the consent of the owner to be on the land is not defined as an occupier and is thus not protected by ESTA and does not need to be provided with suitable alternative accommodation. However OP 4.12 would cover such occupiers, who were on the land prior to the cut-off date (to be determined—see Section 3.2.1.5). The iSimangaliso Authority would ensure that any such gaps are filled by applying OP 4.12. c) Small farmers cultivating lands on the Umfolozi and Umsunduze floodplains within the iSimangaliso Wetland Park that have been farmed since before the cut-off date of 17 October 2008 – OP4.12 provides in section 15 (c) that those who have no recognisable legal title or claim to the land they are occupying are also eligible if they occupied the land prior to the cut-off date, while the Protected Areas Act provides that farming activity occurring within a proclaimed protected area (such as the iSimangaliso Wetland Park) without the permission of the conservation authority is illegal and can be stopped without any compensation or resettlement assistance. Despite this legal provision, the World Heritage Convention Act 49 of 1999 acknowledges that protected areas such as the iSimangaliso Wetland Park are not islands and must strive to create socio-economic opportunities for adjacent communities. The iSimangaliso Authority is committed to creating such socio-economic opportunities and this difference between the SA law and OP4.12 will be addressed through the implementation of the Process Framework.

3. Possible impacts of the iSimangaliso GEF project in relation to Safeguard Policy OP 4.12

3.1 Social and economic context

The Umkhanyakude region surrounding iSimangaliso was previously divided into pockets of the former KwaZulu homeland within the former province of Natal, and different legislation, policies and development parameters applied to each. This contributed to the distinct socio-economic and demographic patterns that developed, differences which continue to be reflected in development characteristics of the former areas despite amalgamation in 1994. Important features include:  Land in the former Natal districts is generally held in terms of freehold tenure and is well developed in terms of physical and economic infrastructure.  The former KwaZulu districts are, in contrast, generally poorly developed and fall under a traditional, communal land tenure system.

The Umkhanyakude region as a whole, and the areas neighbouring the ISimangaliso Wetland Park in particular, include some of the most impoverished communities in South Africa. According to the 2001 census, 573,331 people live in the Umkhanyakude District Council area, many of whom rely extensively on natural resources from iSimangaliso for subsistence, for example, harvesting of reeds and fruit, agriculture and fishing. The depletion and degradation of natural resources in communal areas has meant that there is increasing pressure on the resources inside the iSimangaliso Wetland Park. For example, Coastal Peat Swamp Forests are under threat from various activities, most notably from cultivation, where practices enhance food

12 iSimangaliso Resettlement Policy Framework and Process Framework – April 2009 production capacity in the short-term, but do not promote ecological sustainability or food security in the long-term. This tension between the short-term and long-term view is a direct function of the conditions of poverty that characterise the lives of 80% of the people living in the area. The need to ensure that tangible benefits from iSimangaliso flow to local communities is, thus, not only an economic imperative but also conservation imperative.

3.2 Potential impact from the iSimangaliso GEF Project

Component 2 and 3 contain interventions to improve livelihoods and capacity and will not have any resettlement impacts. Only Component 1 could possibly result in resettlement, but this is totally dependent on what option is chosen as the most appropriate to address the hydrology concerns. The GEF funding will support a major study to determine appropriate engineering and (as needed) livelihood solutions. A detailed analysis of alternatives will be carried out for each option, including an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment. The implementation of the selected option will be initiated as long as the option complies with both South African legislation and World Bank safeguard policies. The possible resettlement impacts from Component 1 could be: 1. Possible physical relocation of people for restoration of hydrology and ecosystem functioning 2. Restriction of access to natural resources for restoration of hydrology and ecosystem functioning

Should this happen, the World Bank’s Resettlement Policy (OP 4.12) would apply in all circumstances, including in any cases where the requirements of OP 4.12 exceed those of South African law.

3.2.1 Eligibility Criteria: Categories of people possibly affected by resettlement and/or restriction of access

3.2.1.1 Landowners: commercial sugar farms on Umfolozi floodplain

The lower Umfolozi swamp is a large floodplain extending approximately 25 kilometres inland from the mouth. The planting of sugar cane in the Umfolozi floodplain started around 1905. There are currently 54 farmers farming on approximately 8,000 ha in the Umfolozi flood plain7. Should the intervention on the floodplain which aims to restore a small number 8 of these farms to swampland be selected through the EIA process, the farmers (landowners) will be affected. This is likely to only affect around 5 to 10 farms.

It is possible that, based on the Component 1 studies, a conservation target might be established to restore a fixed number of hectares within the floodplain, though not necessarily from one or more pre-determined farms—rather, from a selection made among multiple possible farms. Under this scenario, those farm owners who do choose to sell their lands for conservation could do so on a fully voluntary basis, since they would have informed free choice to either sell the land and relocate, or to stay on the land and continue farming it as before. In this case, those owners who choose to sell would be compensated for their farms (including land plus house, as applicable) at the mutually agreed price.

7 According to an estimate by the World Bank Mission to the area in June 2008

8 It is not possible to determine the exact number and geographic location of the farmland at this would be the subject of the in-depth analysis of alternatives and EIA, under Component 1.

However, it is very possible that not enough farmers would volunteer to sell their land at an agreed price to meet conservation targets. It is also possible that the wetland restoration plan resulting from the Component 1 studies would specify not only the target number of hectares to be acquired, but also precisely which land tracts would need to be acquired to meet conservation goals. Under this alternative scenario, the land acquisition would be compulsory (involuntary) in nature, and the landowner would be compensated in a manner consistent with the requirements of OP 4.12.

3.2.1.2 Farm workers: Commercial sugar farms on the Umfolozi floodplain

The farm workers and/or occupiers living on the commercial sugar farms described in 3.2.1.1 may also be affected by the project. It is estimated that the 54 sugar farms on the Umfolozi floodplain employ almost 2,000 workers. Should the land use on some of these farms change to the extent that any farm workers are displaced or lose their jobs/livelihoods, it will be the responsibility of the iSimangaliso Authority to develop a Resettlement Action Plan and ensure its timely implementation. If any commercial sugar farm land is taken under the project for ecological restoration (pursuant to the studies and subsequent decisions taken under Component 1), all farm workers and/or occupiers living or working on the affected land would be eligible for appropriate forms of assistance, to be specified in the Resettlement Action Plan. Farm workers would be eligible for such assistance if the sugar cane lands upon which they depend for employment are taken as a result of the iSimangaliso Project, whether or not the farm owners sell their lands voluntarily.

3.2.1.3 Umfolozi sugar mill

The Umfolozi mill located in Mtubatuba provides approximately 300 jobs. The viability of the mill depends on a minimum quota of sugar being supplied to the mill. Presently the bulk of this supply comes from the Umfolozi flood plain. Mill owners have expressed concern that reduction of supply from any farms on the flood plain, due to for example a change in land use, could result in mill closure. Studies under Component 1 will consider these potential socio-economic impacts and should the mill be affected, this will be addressed in the Resettlement Action Plan. If, as a result of sugar farm land taken under the project (pursuant to Component 1), the mill needs to close or substantially curtail its operations, all affected mill workers would be eligible for appropriate assistance, to be specified in the Resettlement Action Plan.

3.2.1.4 Small farmers cultivating lands on the Umfolozi and Umsunduze floodplains within the iSimangaliso Wetland Park that have been farmed since before the cut- off date of 17 October 2008

Illegal farming activity is taking place on the Umfolozi and Umsunduze floodplains, which are the flat, low-lying areas alongside the Umfolozi and Umsuduze rivers that flood on a near-annual basis. The encroachment on the Umfolozi part of the floodplain is largely from farmers from the Dukuduku, Zwenelisha and Khula village settlements (collectively referred to as the Dukuduku Project), whilst farmers from the Sokhulu settlement have cleared areas on the Umsunduze part of the floodplain. These farming activities being undertaken are on the same floodplain as the commercial sugar farmers described in 3.2.1.1.

This farming activity is illegal in terms of South African law (i.e. the Protected Areas Act) because (unlike the commercial sugar farming) it is occurring within a proclaimed protected area (iSimangaliso Wetland Park) without the permission of the conservation authority (iSimangaliso

Wetland Authority). Presently, the South African Government is taking steps to regularise the informal settlements that comprise the Dukuduku Project, having already secured R250 million of a potential R500 million for this investment (see Annexure B for further details).

A relatively small proportion of the people living within the Dukuduku Project and Sokhulu settlement areas have small agricultural clearings within the Umfolozi-Umsunduze floodplain. However, they do not live on the floodplain, which floods frequently and has no permanent dwellings. The KwaZulu-Natal Provincial Government’s Department of Local Government and Traditional Affairs has confirmed that there are no residential houses (only small storage sheds) on the portion of the Umfolozi and Umsunduze floodplains that are within the iSimangaliso Wetland Park. On 2 September 2008, meetings were held with the traditional authorities and farmers where it was agreed that existing agricultural plots within the Umfolozi and Umsunduze floodplains in the iSimangaliso Wetland Park would be ring fenced (delineated) and no new clearings would be permitted. On 17 October 2008, a letter was provided to each relevant farmer indicating no further clearings would be permitted. This date of 17 October 2008 is the cut-off date referred to below.

Although the farmers who cleared land in the Umfolozi-Umsunduze floodplain before the 17 October 2008 cut-off date have not yet been told that they should cease their existing farming, it is possible that some or all of this farming might be required to cease, to improve environmental conditions in the Lake St. Lucia system (depending on the outcome of Component 1 studies). The impact of such a prohibition would be that the farmers involved would lose access to Park land which has contributed to their livelihoods. This group of people meet the eligibility criteria in OP 4.12, sections 15 (c) and 16 which includes “those who have no recognised legal right or claim to the land they are occupying” … “if they occupy the project area prior to a cut-off date established by the borrower and acceptable to the Bank”. This category of farmers is thus subject to the Process Framework and a Plan of Action would be developed, well in advance of enforcing the prohibition on farming in the plots established before 17 October 2008. It is also important to note that the World Heritage Convention Act gives the mandate to the iSimangaliso Authority to deliver economic benefits and implement economic empowerment for people living around the iSimangaliso Wetland Park. It is thus the Authority’s commitment to ensure that if some people need to cease their present farming activities, they would be provided with compensation and/or access to alternative livelihood options. The range of such options is presented in section 3.3 below.

It is noted that if new lands have been cleared since the cut off date of 17 October 2008 on the Umfolozi and Umsunduze floodplains within the iSimangaliso Wetland Park, such farmers are not covered by this RPF and PF because they do not meet the eligibility criteria of OP 4.12 sections 15 (c) and 16 because they illegally began clearing and cultivating that land after the cut off date of 17 October 2008.

3.2.1.5 Eligibility cut-off dates As noted above, the cut-off date for eligibility for any resettlement- or other displacement-related assistance is October 17, 2008 for the small farmers using Umfolozi-Umsunduze floodplain lands within the iSimangaliso Wetland Park. For the sugar farm owners, eligibility would be based on their legally valid land ownership documentation at the time of land acquisition. For the sugar farm workers and occupiers, along with Umfolozi sugar mill workers (if applicable), the iSimangaliso Authority would establish the cut-off date during RAP preparation, around the time when baseline data are collected on the number of farm occupiers and full-time and seasonal workers.

3.2.2 Estimated area/population that might be affected Presently there are 8,000 hectares of floodplain farming taking place on the Umfolozi- Umsunduze floodplain, including the Dukuduku and Sokhulu encroachments. It is difficult to make meaningful estimates of the number of people potentially affected by the project, because the areas of land which might be taken for ecological restoration under the project—if any—will not be known until the Component 1 studies are carried out and evaluated. However, it is understood that: 1. There are estimated to be 54 commercial sugar farms, but (for cost-effectiveness reasons), not more than about 10 might be taken under the project, if any. If some sugar farm land is taken for wetland restoration, it might possibly include the farmers’ dwellings as well as their land. 2. The corresponding number of farm workers and occupiers who might be affected could be up to a few hundred (out of a total of around 2,000 on the entire floodplain). Depending on their particular circumstances (which will be assessed and quantified during RAP preparation), these people could be displaced from (i) only their housing (for those who work off- farm), (ii) only their (full-time or seasonal) employment (for those who live off-farm), or (iii) both housing and employment (if they live and work on-farm). 3. The Umfolozi sugar mill provides around 300 jobs, although the impacts on the mill’s operation from removing some (as yet unknown) quantity of floodplain land from cane cultivation cannot now be determined (but will be studied as part of the analysis of alternatives under Component 1). If the sugar mill’s operation were to be curtailed because of the taking of sugar cane land for wetland restoration (as an outgrowth of Project Component 1), many workers could lose full-time employment but not necessarily their housing. 4. Government’s preliminary estimate of the number of small farmers who have been cultivating Umfolozi-Umsunduze floodplain land within the iSimangaliso Wetland Park (since before the 17 October 2008 cut-off date) is very roughly about 200, based on a recent analysis of aerial images showing farm clearings. If the land these farmers are presently cultivating were to be restored to natural habitats as a result of the Project, the affected farmers would lose their access to this land, but would not lose their houses, since (as Government has recently confirmed) there are no permanent dwellings located within the portion of the Umfolozi- Umsunduze floodplain that lies within the iSimangaliso Wetland Park.

3.3 Options for potentially affected people

Once it is clear that resettlement and/or restriction of access will indeed occur, legal rights will be determined and options identified. The suite of options that can be considered is dependent on the different categories and the particular circumstances, but Table 1 below provides a range of options.

Table 1: Options for potentially affected people Options Categories of potentially affected people Landowners: Commercial sugar farms on the RAP required for any compulsory (involuntary) land Umfolozi floodplain acquisition. Compensation to be paid in accordance with the standards of OP 4.12. Farm workers on commercial sugar farms RAP required. Assistance options may include: - Equivalent or better accommodation and tenure security. Any physical relocation must comply with the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 requirement for “suitable alternative accommodation”.

- Continued employment with the employee whose land is bought, but on another farm, or other forms of employment in close proximity to the affected area (this will be done as a collaborative effort with other responsible public and private organisations). - Capacity building opportunities and skills training to affected persons to enhance their prospects of future employment. Umfolozi mill workers RAP required. Any job losses also need to comply with the Labour Relations Act of 1995. -Assistance would likely include capacity building opportunities and skills training for affected workers to enhance their prospects of future employment. Small farmers cultivating lands on the Umfolozi and PoA required. Assistance options might include: Umsunduze floodplains within the - Alternative agricultural livelihoods: homestead iSimangaliso Wetland Park that have gardens, indigenous tree nursery, permaculture; been farmed since before the cut-off date aquaculture near homestead, poultry. of 17 October 2008. - Small enterprise development: fence making, carpentry, craft development. - Eco-tourism opportunities: guiding, lodges - Priority access with approved budgets to other government programmes such as extended public works programme, clearing of alien invasive weeds, housing and job creation programmes. - Capacity building opportunities and skills training to affected persons to enhance their prospects of future employment.

4. RPF and PF

4.1 Principles and approach of the RPF and PF. The primary objective of this RPF and PF is to provide the principles and standards that would guide any possible future resettlement (should it become necessary) under the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Project, to ensure that any eligible persons who might possibly be displaced as a result of the Project receive the appropriate resettlement, compensation, or other assistance needed in their efforts to improve, or at least restore, their livelihoods and standards of living.

4.1.1 Developing to conserve approach Unlike other conservation agencies, the iSimangaliso Authority has both a conservation and development mandate, specifically to deliver benefits to communities living in and adjacent to the iSimangaliso Wetland Park by facilitating optimal tourism and related development. Together with the conservation of its World Heritage Site values, the iSimangaliso Wetland Park’s objective is to contribute towards the alleviation of regional poverty and the empowerment of historically disadvantaged individuals and communities. It is through development that the conservation of the World Heritage values can be achieved. This approach is reflected in the Project design.

4.1.2 Policy Principles The following principles will guide the process and all RAPs prepared under the RPF and PoAs prepared under the PF will comply with these principles.

Principle 1: Avoid or minimise the involuntary resettlement of people The iSimangaliso Authority will attempt to avoid the involuntary re-settlement of people where feasible, exploring viable alternative options. All trade-offs and alternatives will be considered before decisions are taken.

Principle 2: Compliance with the letter and spirit of the law iSimangaliso Authority will comply with the legal requirements of South Africa and the OP 4.12, while noting that interpretations of the law may be required in situations where legislation may be contradictory, for example where enforcement of conservation laws may contradict laws providing for poverty alleviation.

Principle 3: Consultation and participation will take place Meaningful consultation, participation and negotiation, as defined by OP 4.12, will take place with all potentially affected people and all other relevant stakeholders. This means that the nature of restrictions, as well as the type of measures necessary to mitigate adverse impacts, is determined with the participation of the displaced persons during the design and implementation of the project. Consultation and participation will take place during project planning and implementation and as a part of project monitoring. The affected people will be offered a range of options and will be empowered to engage in the process and make an informed choice. Existing consultative methods and structures, where feasible and appropriate, will be utilised, noting that the emphasis in this process will be directly with the affected people, particularly the poor and vulnerable. As a precautionary measure, any resettlement that might occur under the iSimangaliso Project will be presumed to be involuntary (as defined under OP 4.12), to ensure that the people affected will maintain their eligibility for the appropriate forms of assistance.

Principle 4: Undertake baseline socio-economic surveys and integrate RAPs/PoA into existing planning and development processes Appropriate baseline surveys will be conducted that provide information on potentially affected people, their assets and their socio-economic conditions. The baseline information is essential because: a) It forms the basis for identifying the various kinds of impacts b) It is a vital guide to planning and designing programs for resettlement or mitigation of livelihood impacts as applicable c) It provides the baseline against which the incomes and livelihoods of affected people are measured

RAPs/PoAs will be integrated into existing planning processes so as to avoid duplication and enable links into the existing consultative processes already being undertaken in these projects.

Principle 5: Planning and completion prior to resettlement or loss of access All aspects of supporting alternative livelihoods or resettlement including income restoration strategies (for example: capacity building programmes, SMME support programmes, food garden and agricultural sites) will be planned and completed to an appropriate level prior to inhabitants either moving and/or losing any assets or existing access to natural resources. Financial and technical support will be allocated to enable inhabitants to move all their goods, settle onto new properties and, where necessary, initiate new livelihoods with minimal disruption by the agreed dates.

Principle 6: Equivalence or better off test Where involuntary resettlement or negative impacts on people’s livelihoods cannot be avoided, efforts will be made to assist those affected to be placed in at least an equivalent position, and

18 iSimangaliso Resettlement Policy Framework and Process Framework – April 2009 preferably better off than before. Where involuntary resettlement takes place, the Authority will work to ensure that safeguards under OP4.12 are treated as an integral part of project planning of alternative livelihood support for those affected. A suite of options will be developed for discussion with those affected, who will be provided with the necessary assistance to make an informed choice.

Principle 7: Budget as an upfront project cost The costs of alternative livelihoods support programmes and where applicable resettlement costs will be built in as an upfront project cost. The iSimangaliso Authority will secure the budget from appropriate sources and departments.

Principle 8: Cater for vulnerable population Vulnerable groups, such as elderly or illiterate persons, merit particular support in a number of ways, as they are often not able to make their voice heard effectively. All aspects of the process will take account of this, and any interventions will focus on identifying and catering for their specific needs.

4.2 Methods of valuing affected assets in case of an RPF – developing options

The World Bank’s OP 4.12 requires that affected assets (land and structures) be compensated at their replacement cost, as defined by OP 4.12 (Footnote 11 and Annex A, Footnote 1). Under these criteria, replacement cost is the method of valuation that helps determine the amount sufficient to replace lost assets and cover transaction costs. In applying the replacement cost method of valuation, depreciation of structures and assets should not be taken into account. For losses that cannot easily be valued or compensated in monetary terms, attempts are made to establish access to equivalent and culturally acceptable resources and earning opportunities.

The application of this “replacement cost” standard to any potential future resettlement under the iSimangaliso Project implies that: a) For sugar farm owners whose farms are acquired involuntarily, replacement cost would imply the pre-displacement market value of a comparable sugar farm with broadly equivalent assets and attributes, taking into account, where applicable (i) agricultural land of similar productive potential or use; (ii) housing and other structures; (iii) the cost of replacing fruit trees or other fixed assets; (iv) the local market value of any planted but un-harvestable crops; and (v) any required registration, transfer, or related fees. This replacement cost principle will be taken into account whether compensation for lost land is to be provided as a cash payment, or in the form of replacement farm land. b) For farm workers or occupiers who could lose housing, the replacement cost would cover the market cost of the materials to build a replacement structure with an area and quality similar to or better than those of the affected structure, plus the cost of transporting building materials to the construction site, plus the cost of labour and contractors’ fees, plus any registration, transfer, or related fees. Where there are not markets in existing housing that function well (which may apply in impoverished rural communities such as those living in and around the ISimangaliso Wetland Park), the replacement cost of structures should be equal to this full cost of constructing or purchasing a new structure, without making any deductions for depreciation of the affected structure. Any farm workers or occupiers losing other immobile assets (such as fruit trees or garden vegetable plots) would receive compensation (cash or in-kind, as appropriate) sufficient to re-establish these assets at another site, plus the market value of the lost production until they are re-established.

The approach taken to asset valuation in this project is informed directly by the above principles. For example, in line with Principle 6 above, valuation will inform the development of livelihood alternatives and resettlement options that will aim to place the affected people in an equivalent or better material situation than they are presently in. To be able to develop viable options that are better than the existing situation, it will be necessary to have a database of assets, a description of the nature of those assets and how people make a livelihood, as well as a full description of people’s rights. This then provides the baseline against which the option can be assessed. This information will be gathered in the census (including socio-economic survey) that would be a key part of preparing the RAP and/or PoA.

4.3 Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) preparation

As mentioned previously, it is not possible to undertake a RAP at this stage as it is not clear whether or not the involuntary resettlement will occur. However, this section will provide an outline of the content and process for developing a RAP.

The following sequence of actions will be followed once it is clear that a RAP must be prepared: a) Following the Component 1 analysis of alternatives, and once the geographic area and scope of the planned resettlement is known, the iSimangaliso Authority will prepare terms of reference (TOR) and an outline of content for the RAP. Depending on the scope of the work required, the iSimangaliso Authority will either develop the RAP directly itself or contract a service provider to produce the RAP. If a service provider is contracted, the iSimangaliso Authority will be responsible to manager this service provider and ensure that the RAP produced meets the required standards. b) The iSimangaliso Authority or its appointed service provider will carry out consultations with the affected people and other stakeholders, initially on the scope of the RAP, then later in the course of RAP preparation (prior to RAP approval) and during RAP implementation. c) Taking into account the stakeholder inputs, the iSimangaliso Authority or its appointed service provider will prepare the RAP, including the resettlement options for the different categories of affected people, taking into account the expected losses of agricultural land, housing, immovable assets and access to jobs/livelihoods. d) Options will be chosen by the affected people. e) The RAP will be approved by the CEO of the iSimangaliso Authority and agreed with the World Bank. f) RAP implementation will occur. Compensation/resettlement package will be provided prior to the implementation of any Project activities that depend on the resettlement of people. For landowners, the normal legal conveyance and deeds transfer process needs to be followed. For farm workers and/or occupiers, a key principle is that no one will be moved until suitable alternative accommodation and alternative livelihoods are available. g) Following the payment of compensation and site hand-over, further RAP assistance (such as job training and outcome monitoring of the resettled population) will continue as needed.

4.3.1 Preparation of RAPs and planning processes A RAP is required for each project activity resulting in involuntary resettlement, when it is known exactly where the zone of impact will be. Should this occur, the Authority will prepare a RAP that is consistent with this RPF The RAP would be submitted to the CEO of iSimangaliso Authority and the World Bank for approval before any land acquisition, resettlement, taking of assets, or restriction of access to economic resources could be implemented.

The iSimangaliso Authority will produce specific terms of reference for preparing a RAP, if and when a wetland restoration alternative that would require resettlement emerges as the likely preferred alternative (even before it is formally selected), based on the Component 1 technical studies and accompanying stakeholder consultations. Presented below are the typical, generic contents of a RAP that would be developed, if needed, for the iSimangaliso Project. However, the specific content would depend upon information not yet known, such as specific farm locations and numbers of people who might be affected (in different ways) and eligible for resettlement-related assistance. Generic contents of a RAP involve:

a) Description of the project activities that require resettlement or involuntary taking of land b) Potential impacts – detailed identification of where and what c) Objectives of the RAP d) Baseline socio-economic survey studies to include a census that covers - current occupants of the affected area to establish a basis for the design of the resettlement program - standard characteristics of displaced households, including a description of production systems, labour, and household organization; and baseline information on livelihoods and standards of living - the magnitude of the expected loss—total or partial—of assets, and the extent of displacement, physical or economic - information on vulnerable groups for whom special provisions may have to be made - provisions to update information on the displaced people's livelihoods and standards of living at regular intervals so that the latest information is available at the time of their displacement - land tenure and transfer systems, including an inventory of common property natural resources from which people derive their livelihoods and sustenance - the patterns of social interaction in the affected communities, including social networks and social support systems, and how they will be affected by the project - public infrastructure and social services that will be affected - social and cultural characteristics of displaced communities, including a description of formal and informal institutions e) Legal framework - the scope of the power of expropriation and the nature of compensation associated with it, in terms of both the valuation methodology and the timing of payment; the applicable legal and administrative procedures; relevant law; and any legal steps necessary to ensure the effective implementation of resettlement activities f) Institutional framework - the identification of agencies responsible for resettlement activities and assessment of their capacity g) Eligibility - definition of displaced persons and criteria for determining their eligibility for compensation and other resettlement assistance, including relevant cut-off dates

h) Valuation of and compensation for losses - the methodology to be used in valuing losses to determine their replacement cost; and a description of the proposed types and levels of compensation if applicable i) Resettlement options – These options would be developed in conjunction with the affected households, who would then be allowed to choose between options j) Environmental protection and management in the resettlement area(s) k) Community consultation and participation - a description of the strategy for consultation with and participation of affected people during the resettlement process; summary of views; a review of the resettlement options presented and the choices made by displaced persons regarding options available to them; integration with “host” population (if any) l) Grievance procedures m) Organisational responsibilities – organisational responsibility for implementing resettlement n) Implementation schedule o) Costs and budget - Tables showing itemized cost estimates for all resettlement activities, including allowances for contingencies; timetables for expenditures; sources of funds; arrangements for timely flow of funds p) Monitoring and evaluation

The final contents of a RAP will be commensurate with the nature of the issue, its scale and scope. For example, in accordance with the World Bank’s OP 4.12, a less detailed Abbreviated RAP could be prepared for those cases where a relatively small number of people (fewer than about 200) would be displaced. An Abbreviated RAP would likely contain the following types of information (among others, as needed):

a) Description of project and impacts; b) Socio-economic survey; c) Detailed eligibility criteria; d) Participation process with affected people; e) Resettlement options and choices available; f) Grievance mechanisms; g) Implementation arrangements; and h) Budget and dedicated funding source(s).

4.3.2 Consultation with affected people during RAP process To address the impacts under this policy, OP 4.12 requires that RAPs should include measures to ensure that the displaced persons are: . Informed about their options and rights pertaining to alternative livelihood and/or resettlement . Consulted on, offered choices among, and provided with technically and economically feasible alternative livelihood and/or resettlement alternatives. . Provided prompt and effective compensation at full replacement cost for losses of assets and access attributable to the project. . Enabled to restore and preferably improve their living standards compared to pre-project ones.

4.4 Plan of Action (PoA) preparation

In the case of the small farmers on the Umfolozi-Umsunduze floodplain who might possibly lose their existing access to land they are cultivating within the existing boundaries of the iSimangaliso

Wetland Park, the appropriate resettlement instrument under OP 4.12 would be a Plan of Action (PoA). It is expected that this PoA will include (among other information, as needed): a) Description of pre-existing patterns of use and access to resources in the Park; b) Eligibility criteria (taking into account the 17 October 2008 cut-off date); c) Participation process with the affected people around agreeing on alternative economic options to floodplain farming within Park boundaries; d) Specific measures agreed to be carried out to assist the eligible displaced farmers; e) Grievance and conflict resolution process; f) Implementation arrangements--Who responsible, timetable; and f) Budget and dedicated funding source(s).

4.5 Grievance redress mechanism for RPF and PF

Where affected people have grievances about either the process or decisions taken that affect them, they need some mechanism through which this can be heard, processed and a decision taken. The grievance process for the RPF/PF would be as follows:

1. A grievance is reported to CEO of the Authority. 2. The grievance is first referred to a Working Group that is approved by both the leadership of the affected group, and the CEO of the Authority. A period of 20 days will be set aside for the affected parties to attempt to resolve the grievance amicably. This will be done through the Working Group convening the affected parties to discuss the matter and seek resolution. 3. If the grievance is resolved within 20 days, a written record will be kept by the Authority indicating this and the nature of the resolution. 4. If the parties are unable to resolve the grievance within 20 days of referral to the Working Group, it will be referred to the CEO of the Authority and the leader of the affected group (this could be the land claimant chairperson or the traditional authority) for them to seek resolution within 10 days. 5. If the grievance is resolved within 10 days, a written record will be kept by the Authority indicating this and the nature of the resolution. 6. In the absence of an agreement within 10 days, the parties will agree to the matter being referred to mediation. In this case an external independent person with mediation experience, who is acceptable to all parties to the grievance, will be appointed. The mediator will manage the process to seek resolution within 45 days. 7. If the grievance is resolved within 45 days, a written record will be kept by the Authority indicating this and the nature of the resolution. 8. In the absence of an agreement within 45 days, the parties will agree to the matter being referred to arbitration. In this case an external legally qualified arbitrator will be appointed and the arbitration process required by South Africa law on arbitration will be followed. The decision of the arbitrator is legally binding on all parties.

4.6 Organisational elements, institutional capacity and commitment for RPF and PF

The organisational arrangements and institutional capacity for the RPF and PF will be an integral part of the iSimangaliso GEF Project. The iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority is a statutory body responsible for the development and management of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park. Regulations under the World Heritage Convention Act established the Authority in 2000 which is accountable to the national minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The Authority has a Board comprising 6 – 9 members, including representatives from national

23 iSimangaliso Resettlement Policy Framework and Process Framework – April 2009 government, local government, traditional authorities, land restitution beneficiaries (land claimants) and business. The executive staff component, headed by a chief executive officer, is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Authority, including relationships with other organisations such as Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, the KZN Tourism Authority and local government. Its executive staff members are people skilled in areas such as finance, business, cultural and natural heritage, conservation management, tourism, project and planning management, marketing, socio-economic development, community involvement and research. In addition, the Authority is a Schedule 3a public entity regulated by the Public Finance Management Act and subject to an annual audit by the Auditor General.

The iSimangaliso Authority would take responsibility for the delivery of benefits to the people eligible for assistance as a result of any possible future displacement arising from the iSimangaliso Wetland Project. Where the delivery of such benefits is the legal responsibility or comparative advantage of another Government entity, the iSimangaliso Authority would have a coordinating role. No displacement could occur under the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Project until after the RAP and/or PoA - including a detailed budget and earmarked Government funds - is agreed with the World Bank.

4.7 Monitoring and reporting

Monitoring and reporting mechanisms will be put in place as a part of any RAP and/or PoA that is undertaken. These will be an integral part of the GEF iSimangaliso project M&E and reporting processes. Resettlement-related monitoring would basically be of two types: Performance monitoring and outcome monitoring.

For performance monitoring, the iSimangaliso Authority would monitor how effectively the resettlement-related assistance is being delivered. This would likely cover aspects such as (i) the thoroughness of the consultation process with the affected population; (ii) timeliness of cash compensation payments; (iii) quantity and quality of the replacement assets provided (land, housing, etc.); (iv) quality and timeliness of services provided (job training, technical assistance, etc.); (v) timely resolution of most grievances; and (vi) adherence to commitments made by the iSimangaliso Authority or other Government entities, as well as by the assisted population. Specific performance monitoring indicators (including benchmark targets) would be part of any RAP or PoA that might be produced in the course of Project (Component 1) implementation. The RAP or PoA would also provide the needed baseline data for this monitoring.

For outcome monitoring, the iSimangaliso Authority would contract an independent consultant to evaluate (both during and shortly after the implementation of resettlement-related activities) whether living standards are being restored or improved among a representative sample of the affected population.

As a part of its normal Project supervision role, the World Bank would use qualified social specialists to supervise any resettlement-related Project activities, with about two field visits per year (more if deemed necessary).

4.8 Funding arrangements for the RPF and PF

OP4.12 requires that the RPF and PF provides a description for funding of alternative livelihood support measures and/or resettlement, including the preparation and review of cost estimates, flow of funds and contingency arrangements.

Overall costs of alternative livelihoods support and/or resettlement cannot be determined at this stage, since the number of people who might be affected (it could be zero), as well as the exact zone of impact remain unknown, and will not be determined until after the completion of key Component 1 studies. The feasibility studies to be carried out under Project Component 1 would provide a more detailed cost estimate of potential resettlement, if the alternative of taking some Umfolozi-Umsunduze floodplain farmland for wetland restoration were to be seriously considered. If any resettlement-related assistance were actually to be required under the iSimangaliso Project, the RAP and/or PoA (as applicable) would provide a specific budget, taking into account the range of different benefits per category of affected household.

An indication of the kind of items that could need to be budgeted for (not all items would be applicable in all cases) is provided in the table below:

Table 2: Potential Budget Items Item Comment 1. Investigation into whether Cost would be accommodated within existing planning alternative livelihood support and/or processes that are already budgeted for. resettlement is required. 2. Preparation of RAP/PoA Could be undertaken by existing staff or may involve contracting of service provider. The socio-economic survey, involving direct interaction and consultation with each affected household & the subsequent negotiation of resettlement options is probably the most time consuming aspect. This will be funded out of the project (counterpart funds) during implementation if required. 3. Cost of alternative livelihood This is likely to be the bulk of the budget. For support and/or resettlement options, resettlement, some of this could be accessed from which could include: other government programmes such as the housing or - Cost of restoration of land subsidy or from poverty alleviation funds. It must income/livelihoods be cautioned that commitment of budget from other - Cost of replacing jobs government departments is always subject to their own - Cost of providing suitable procedures and indications of support from officials alternative accommodation should not be interpreted as budgets being available. - If physical relation is required, then Written decisions by the relevant decision-making could involve the cost of relocation bodies is required as evidence of commitment. expenses (transport, settling in time Procedures for transfer of funds must also be secured. etc) - Compensation for loss of assets that can’t be accommodated within a resettlement option (such as 10 year old orchard) 4. Compensation for loss of access to Where possible, the intention is not to pay cash terrestrial resources compensation, but rather a quid pro quo approach where existing access is swopped for access in use zones, so that areas identified as no-go zones are protected. In some instances cash compensation may be required. 5. Training, capacity building costs These costs are associated with empowering affected and SMME support programme people to take up the economic opportunities that

should arise from the project. 6. Land acquisition cost The cost is usually determined by market value (although some conservation agencies have a policy of paying above market value to facilitate a voluntary agreement and avoid a more lengthy expropriation process). 7. Communication costs It would be possible to accommodate this cost within existing allocations for communications 8. Monitoring costs It would be possible to accommodate this cost within the existing allocation for monitoring 9. Grievance mechanism costs These are costs associated with addressing grievances.

If any resettlement were to occur under the iSimangaliso Project, then the RAP (for any eligible sugar cane farmers, farm workers, or mill workers) or PoA (for any eligible small farmers in the Umfolozi and Umsunduze floodplains within the Wetland Park) would first need to specify the dedicated source(s) of Government funding to be used to carry out the budgeted resettlement- related commitments. The iSimangaliso Authority will be responsible for raising the needed finance and/or ensuring that finance from other National or Provincial Government departments or programmes is directed towards the RAP or PoA activities. To avoid the risk of “promises made but not kept” to farmers or other potentially displaced households, the iSimangaliso Authority will undertake activities that would involve resettlement only if and when adequate funds are allocated and committed to cover all resettlement-related costs.

5. Process for implementation of this safeguard policy

The process shown in the figure below will be followed:

26 PROCESSiSimangaliso FORResettlementPROCESS IMPLEMENTATION FOR Policy IMPLEMENTATION Framework and OFOF ProcessSAFEGUARD SAFEGUARD Framework POLICY POLICY– April 2009

SAFEGUARD TRIGGERED Where social impact identified that could have impact on a) livelihoods, b) income, c) tenure security & accommodation

iSimangaliso informs BankDetermine nature of issue

INVOLUNTARY TAKING OF LAND ACCESS ISSUES (OP4.12 Para 3(b) (OP4.12 Para 3(a) Process Framework applies RPF applies

FULL SCALE RAP PREPARED (for more than 200 ABBREVIATED RAP PREPARED POA PREPARED (as integrated into affected people, as integrated into project (for less than 200 affected project planning processes) planning processes) people, as integrated into project - Description of pre-existing patterns of - Description of project & impacts planning processes) use & access to resources - Extensive socio-economic survey/s - Description of project & impacts - Eligibility criteria - Legal framework - Socio-economic survey - Participation process with affected - Institutional framework - Detailed eligibility criteria people - Detailed eligibility criteria - Participation process with affected - Grievance mechanism - Resettlement options & choices made by the affected people - Efforts to mitigation - Valuation & compensation - Grievance mechanism - Implementation arrangements: who - Participation process with affected people - Resettlement options & choices responsible, timetable - Grievance mechanism made by the affected - Budget - Implementation arrangements: who responsible, - Implementation arrangements: timetable, and schedule who responsible, timetable - Budget - Monitoring & evaluation

RAP/POA APPROVED By iSimangaliso & reviewed by RAP IMPLEMENTED BANK POA IMPLEMENTED AND OUTCOMES AND OUTCOMES MONITORED MONITORED

6. Public consultation and disclosure of this RPF and PF

Public consultation and disclosure is an important component of the development of the RPF and PF. To date, the public participation process has involved the following events:

. The document was summarised at the Safeguards Workshop held on 13 November 2008 in Mtubatuba town (near the Park’s south-western border), with World Bank participation, as part of public consultation on the Safeguards Diagnostic Review (a report that examines how the iSimangaliso Project would comply with the World Bank’s environmental safeguard policies, not including Involuntary Resettlement).

. Three meetings with key stakeholders were held where the Resettlement Policy Framework was presented and discussed: o 13 November 2008: Safeguards Workshop9 held near the iSimangaliso Wetland Park; o 17 December 2008: Umfolozi Cane Growers Association, an association of all farmers producing cane for the Umfolozi Mill, including both the large scale commercial farmers on the Umfolozi floodplain and the small-scale farmers in the broader area (held in Mtubatuba). o 11 December 2008; Community leadership, including leaders from the different community stakeholder groups in Dukuduku, eZwenelisha, Khula and Sokhulu.

As is apparent from the summary of the 13 November 2008 meeting (Annexure C), the potential resettlement-related aspects of the iSimangaliso Project have thus far generated relatively limited interest among participating stakeholders. This is likely because the consultation participants apparently perceive (with some justification) that any possible resettlement or displacement from farming under the iSimangaliso Project is hypothetical and well into the future, rather than real and imminent.

. Once finalised, the RPF and PF will be posted on the World Bank website.

9 An extract from these minutes as they pertain to the RPF is attached as Annexure C.

Annexure A – Summary of relevant South Africa laws

Table 3: Legislation and policies affecting the land, labour and natural resources Legislation Legal Issues Description (Land/Labour/ Natural resources/livel ihoods) World Heritage Land Objectives: Convention Act, To provide for: 1999 (Act 49 of  The incorporation of the World Heritage Convention into 1999) South African law  The enforcement and implementation of the World Heritage Convention in South Africa  The recognition and establishment of World Heritage sites  The establishment of Authorities and the granting of additional powers to existing organs of state  The powers and duties of such Authorities, especially those safeguarding the integrity of World Heritage sites; where appropriate, the establishment of Boards and Executive Staff Components of the Authorities  Integrated management plans over World Heritage sites  Land matters in relation to World Heritage sites  Financial, auditing and reporting controls over the Authorities Relevance to iSimangaliso:  iSimangaliso is proclaimed under this Act and is, therefore, subject to the provisions of this Act and its Regulations Relevant Notices and Regulations:  GN. R. 1193 of 24 November 2000: Regulations in Connection with the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park  GN No. 4477 of 24 November 2000: Establishment of the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park and Authority National Land & Objectives: Environmental Natural  To provide for co-operative environmental governance Management resources by establishing principles for decision-making on Act, 1998 (Act matters affecting the environment, institutions that will 107 of 1998) promote co-operative governance and procedures for (as amended) coordinating environmental functions exercised by organs of state Relevant Notices and Regulations:  The Control of Vehicles in the Coastal Zone Regulations (GN No. 1399 of 21 December 2001)  Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006 (GN No. 385, 386 and 387 of 21 April 2006) National Land & Objectives: Environmental Natural To provide for: Management: resources  The protection and conservation of ecologically viable

Protected Areas areas representative of South Africa’s biological Act, 2003 (Act diversity and its natural landscapes and seascapes 57 of 2003) (as  The establishment of a national register of all national, amended) provincial and local protected areas; for the management of those areas in accordance with national norms and standards  Intergovernmental co-operation and public consultation in matters concerning protected areas Relevance to iSimangaliso:  Defines categories of protected areas that include World Heritage sites  Chapters 1 and 2 (Sections 1 to 16) apply to World Heritage sites as declared through the World Heritage Convention Act – other provisions apply by express or necessary implication  Written permission required for a person to enter or reside in a nature reserve or World Heritage site  Protected areas declaration (Chapter 3) and Management (Chapter 4) Relevant Notices and Regulations:  No. R. 1061 of 28 October 2005: Regulations for the Proper Administration of Special Nature Reserves, National Parks and World Heritage Sites National Land & Objectives: Environmental Natural To provide for: Management: resources  The management and conservation of South Africa’s Biodiversity Act, biodiversity within the framework of the National 2004 (Act 10 of Environmental Management Act, 1998 2004)  The protection of species and ecosystems that warrant national protection  The sustainable use of indigenous biological resources; the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from bioprospecting involving indigenous biological resources  The establishment and functions of a South African National Biodiversity Institute Relevance to iSimangaliso:  Provides classifications and processes for the sustainable management of biodiversity Relevant Notices and Regulations:  GN. R. 151 of 23 February 2007: List of critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable and protected species  GN. R. 152 of 23 February 2007: Threatened or Protected Species Regulations  GN. R. 138 of 8 February 2008: Regulations on Bio- Prospecting, Access and Benefit-Sharing  GN. R. 149 N of 8 February 2008: Notice of exemption in terms of section 86 (indigenous biological resources or activities relating thereto). Marine Living Natural Objectives:

Resources Act, resources To provide for: 1998 (Act 18 of (marine)  The conservation of the marine ecosystem 1998)  The long-term sustainable utilisation of marine living resources  The orderly access to exploitation, utilisation and protection of certain marine living resources  The exercise of control over marine living resources in a fair and equitable manner to the benefit of all the citizens of South Africa Relevance to iSimangaliso:  Conservation of the Marine ecosystem and sustainable utilization of the resources  Protection of every species of sea animal (excluding seals or birds) through prohibition on catching, disturbance or possession – specific mention is made of the coelacanth in line with its CITES I listing  Fair and equitable resource allocation with the granting of commercial, recreational and subsistence fishing rights - Minister may establish zones for exclusive use of subsistence fishers and declare a community to be a fishing community or person to be a subsistence fisher Relevant Notices and Regulations:  GN No. R 1429 of 29 December 2000: Declaration of Areas as Marine Protected Areas (The St Lucia and Maputaland MPAs)  GN. R 1428 of 29 December 2000: Amendment of Regulations (protection of coelacanths)  GN. R. 725 of 4 July 2008: Regulations: Management of boat based whale watching and protection of turtles  GN. R. 722 of 4 July 2008: Policy on Boat-Based Whale and Dolphin Watching Maritime Zone Natural Important aspects: Act 15 of 1994 resources  Defines territorial waters and South African jurisdiction (marine) over these waters as per UNCLOS National Parks Land This Act makes provision for the establishment and extension Act 57 of 1976 of parks and for the exclusion of certain land from the park. Expropriation Land Where the iSimangaliso Authority wishes to incorporate Act 63 of 1975 (purchase) privately owned land, the act makes provision for this, where the owner has agreed. In the event of no agreement, the act makes provision for expropriation by the Minister of Public Works. The Expropriation Act contains provisions consistent with the features of OP 4.12. The Land, Labour “No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law Constitution & Livelihoods of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary 108 of 1996 deprivation of property.” Chapter 2, the Bill of Rights, proclaims a range of socio- economic rights in sections 24 to 29, specifically in regard to environment (Section 24); housing (section 26), health care, food, water and social security (section 27), children (section 28), and education (section 29).

Restitution of Labour This Act provides for the restitution of rights in land in respect Land Rights Act of which persons or communities were dispossessed under, 22 of 1994 or for the purposes of furthering the object of racially based discriminatory legislation. (See discussion below on the application of this law in the iSimangaliso Wetland Park.) Extension of Land & The Act provides for measures with state assistance to Security of Labour facilitate long-term security of land tenure; regulates the Tenure Act 62 conditions of residence on certain land; and the conditions of 1997 on, and circumstances in, which the right of persons residing on land may be terminated and under what conditions and in what circumstances they may be evicted. Labour relations Labour The Act provides the legal framework for labour law, Act of 1995 especially when it comes to termination of service, transfer of staff from one legal person to another and what is considered to be fair labour practices. Section 189 and 189A of this Act apply when an employer contemplates dismissing one or more employees for reasons based on the employer’s operational requirements. Labour Tenants Land & This Act provides for the protection of the security of tenure Act 30 of 1996 Labour of labour tenants and those persons occupying or using land as a result of their association with labour tenants. It also provides for the acquisition of land and rights in land by labour tenants. Interim Land The objective is to provide for protection of people who have Protection of occupied land on an established, undisputed basis, since Informal Land 1992, but nevertheless do not have legal or formal rights Rights Act 31 of because of the legacy of racial laws. 1996 Prevention of Land & This Act provides for the prohibition on unlawful evictions and Illegal Eviction Labour lays down procedures for eviction of unlawful occupiers. From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 KwaZulu Land This law provides for the establishment of Tribal Authorities, Amakhosi and Community Authorities and Regional Authorities and Iziphakanyiswa provides further for the powers, functions and duties of such Act 9 of 1990 Authorities in relation to the acquisition, control, settlement and development of all land within the jurisdiction of these Authorities.

Annexure B – Explanation of the Dukuduku situation

Occupation of the broader Dukuduku area can be traced back to the 1700s10. The area is known by local residents as KwaNcube and is part of the tribe of Chief Mtubatuba Mkhwanazi of the Mpukunyoni Traditional Authority. The first evictions allegedly took place in the early 1930s, to make way for commercial plantations. Similar evictions also took place in the 1950s and 1970s11. These evictions took place without consultation or compensation and people were translocated to areas already densely populated and without sufficient space for agricultural activities and grazing.

In the absence of adequate land and economic opportunities, many of these residents returned to the Dukuduku area to resettle. As the area was inundated with commercial timber plantations, the only seemingly ‘vacant’ land was the indigenous Dukuduku State Forest12. Other people from the area and further afield joined these residents and by the early 1990s, the population was estimated to be 8000 people. Government became aware of the forest invasion and held several interdepartmental meetings and commissioned various technical studies. Instead of evicting the residents as was initially intended, it was decided in 1994 to resettle people on a designated portion of Dukuduku, now known as Khula village.

This had partial success with some people relocating from the forest to the village. Following the Dukuduku Declaration signed in 1998, Government bought two sugar cane farms near Monzi, adjacent to the Umfolozi floodplain, for the Zwenelisha housing project. Only some of the Dukuduku residents agreed to relocate to Zwenelisha, and the project was beset with issues. Some of these related to the interference and intimidation from unregistered residents, dissemination of misinformation regarding the project and relocation programme, dissatisfaction with the plot size, dissatisfaction with the house size, lack of grazing, and infertile soil. In parallel to the largely unsuccessful relocation project, people have continued to settle in the forest and it has been estimated that there are now 3000 households living in Dukuduku Forest. More than half the Dukuduku Forest has been lost through the process of settlement and the practice of traditional slash and burn agriculture. In more recent years, due to the drought and the influx of more people, the area of disturbance for cultivation has extended to the floodplains on both sides of the Umfolozi River.

During 2006, Government appointed a task team to deal with the Dukuduku situation which involved several national and provincial level departments, under the leadership of senior government decision makers. The government’s policy has changed and no longer focuses on resettlement of people away from the Dukuduku forest. A broad proposal, termed the “Prioritisation of Service Delivery in Khula and Zwenelisha Settlements and the on-site Formalisation of the Dukuduku Settlement”, was presented to and agreed by community leaders from the Dukuduku area on 24 August 2008. The

10 AFRA, 2003. Dukuduku: The forest of our discontent. An AFRA Special Report.

11 AFRA, 2002. Dukuduku Research Project Executive Summary. AFRA, Pietermaritzburg.

12 The Dukuduku forest is classified as coastal lowland forest, and is or was one of the largest remaining patches of this kind of coastal forest in KwaZulu-Natal. Dukuduku is situated on raised and undulating land immediately to the north of the lower Umfolozi floodplain and west of the St Lucia estuary mouth.

33 iSimangaliso Resettlement Policy Framework and Process Framework – April 2009 project provides for the needs of the Khula, Zwenelisha and Dukuduku communities, whilst also including measures to protect and conserve critical parts of the forest. The participation of people and communities in this project is entirely voluntarily and based on mutual agreements.

The Khula, Zwenelisha and Dukuduku project has a number of components, which will be phased in and delivered by different departments. Government will start by acknowledging those people who have already moved. The outstanding settlement issues at Khula Village and Zwenelisha will be dealt with. This includes the completion and upgrading of water supply, sanitation and roads in Khula village. In Zwenelisha, the housing project will be completed, including the delivery of social facilities and amenities, and as well as local economic and agricultural development projects. The Dukuduku settlement will be formalised, with security of tenure and access to basic infrastructure and services provided to the forest residents. This includes upgrading of houses and related infrastructure and services such as water, sanitation and electricity. For all three communities, schools and clinics will be also be provided. This process will not affect the Dukuduku land claim13. See Appendix 1 for the Dukuduku project boundary.

For those families, if any, that will voluntarily move from one area in Dukuduku to another for better provision of services, compensation for the loss of livelihoods as a result of moving will be implemented. The rehabilitation of these sensitive environmental areas will also be an important part of the project. Government recognises that the project cannot only revolve around the provision of housing, and basic services and urgent local economic development are required. Opportunities will also be created for entrepreneurial development, focussing on the tourism sector. This will include trading areas along the St Lucia-Mtubatuba activity corridor. Government is working to secure social compact agreements with the respective communities and adopting the Khula, Zwelenisha Upgrades and Dukuduku On-site Voluntarily Resettlement Plan in 2009, and to finalise the planning for this project later in 2009, so that implementation can start thereafter, with the aim of completing the project by December 2011.

This process is led nationally by the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry, and provincially by the MEC for Local Government and Traditional Affairs. Government has established a Project Management Team for the detailed planning and implementation of the project. It is led by officials from Local Government and Traditional Affairs and is overseen by the MEC Oversight Committee which is convened by the MEC LG&TA and includes: MEC for Finance and Economic Development; MEC for Arts, Culture and Tourism; MEC for Agriculture and Environmental Affairs; and MEC for Community Safety and Liaison, and for Transport.

A Local Steering Committee and various Task Teams will guide the implementation of the project. The iSimangaliso Authority serves on, but does not chair, this committee which also has representation from Provincial Departments of: Local Government and Traditional Affairs (Convener); Transport; Housing; Health; Education; Economic Development; Agriculture Environment Affairs; Community Safety and Liaison; National Departments of: Water Affairs and Forestry; Environmental Affairs and Tourism; Land Affairs; Land Claims Commission; Minerals and Energy; Mtubatuba Local Municipality;

13 As part of South Africa’s land restitution programme, people who lost land between 1913 and 1994 through colonial and apartheid laws on the basis of race are able to claim back the land. This is part of the historical process of re-dress in South Africa.

34 iSimangaliso Resettlement Policy Framework and Process Framework – April 2009 uMkhanyakude District Municipality; Traditional Council; and state owned enterprises, Eskom and Telkom.

It should be stressed that the Dukuduku Project is not formally linked to the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Project. Unlike the iSimangaliso Project, the Dukuduku Project does not have World Bank or Global Environmental Facility (GEF) funding. Moreover, the two projects have different objectives, and the Dukuduku Project is not needed to achieve the iSimangaliso Project's objectives. None of the activities contemplated in the Dukuduku Project are therefore subject to the World Bank’s environmental or social requirements, although they are subject to the (often broadly similar) South African legal requirements. In the event that any involuntary resettlement or related displacement (as defined under OP 4.12) is recommended as a result of the wetland restoration studies to be carried out under Component 1 of the iSimangaliso Project, it is possible that the Dukuduku Project--among other National and Provincial Government programmes-- could be one potential source of financial and other assistance to the people affected. In any event, if any resettlement were to occur under the iSimangaliso project, then the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP, for any eligible sugar cane farmers, farm workers, or mill workers) or Plan of Action (PoA, for any eligible small farmers in the Umfolozi- Umsunduze floodplain within the Park) would specify the budget for all required resettlement-related assistance, along with the earmarked source(s) of Government funding (Dukuduku Project and/or other) to be used to fulfill these commitments.

Appendix 1: iSimangaliso Project (South End) and Dukuduku Project Boundaries

Annexure C - Extract from Minutes of November Consultation Workshop

SAFEGUARDS WORKSHOP

13 NOVEMBER 2008

UMFOLOZI COUNTRY CLUB

EXTRACTED MINUTES AS RELEVANT TO CONSULTATION RE THE RPF

Extract from full minutes which are available on request form the iSimangaliso Authority

RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK

Ms Steyn presented the Resettlement Framework Policy (please see presentation slides below).

DISCUSSION ON RESETTLEMENT FRAMEWORK POLICY a. Zwenelisha Trust Member: When we left Point noted. the Dukuduku forest, the government promised us all sorts of things like grazing land. I am happy with this project as it looks to be giving the community what they need. b. Land Claimant: I hear that there is a Sizo Sibiya: There is no intention of possibility that people might be re-settled – resettlement with the implementation of what will they do? I am also hearing that if this project. If it happens, the World Bank people are re-settled, their lives will be Resettlement Process Framework (RPF) improved. policy will apply. The RPF policy states that if re-settlement should take place, the people removed must live the same or improved lives. c. Zwenelisha Trust Member: At Zwenelisha Nick Swan: We hear your question, but it there is a road coming straight to my can’t be answered in this workshop, it will house and I was promised payment. But have to go through a relevant forum. the road is not finished. When will it be finished? d. Land Claimant: the last question can be Nick Swan: The correct process and place taken to the right forum as there are to answer the previous question will be people from government here. provided by government and can’t be addressed at this workshop which deals with the GEF iSimangaliso project.

Herbert Mthembu: The Department of Local Government and Housing is the right

forum to discuss this issue. e. Resettlement needs to be framed within Bronwyn James: Any resettlement that the government resettlement policy. occurs as a result of the iSimangaliso GEF project will need to take account of both the World Bank policy and of South African policy.

Zwenilisha Trust Member: The Bronwyn James: This project is being development that we are talking about implemented by iSimangaliso (not any today – is it government development or other independent organization or independent development. If it is not government department). We will develop government development then I withdraw the project together with stakeholders. The my last question about my payment on the important thing is to understand about the finished road. resettlement policy is that it comes from the experience of the World Bank through their implementation of many other projects in different countries. We know the community have experienced land removals and have gone through hardship and suffering. This is a safeguard policy which means that resettlement may not happen but if it does, the framework is put in place so as not to cause hardship and suffering. g. Land claimant: I want to thank Mr Mthembu for letting us know that there is a forum to discuss the issue of the road and payment to Baba. h. What about other government Lala Steyn: If the World Bank policy is departments that don’t endorse the Banks triggered, everybody that is responsible for re-settlement framework? addressing the different sections of that issue will be involved, including the relevant government departments.

ATTENDANCE REGISTER

ATTENDANCE LIST: WORKSHOP 3 ISIMANGALISO GEF STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION ON THE USE OF COUNTRY SYSTEMS FOR SAFEGUARDS Name Institute E-Mail Tel, Fax & Cell Contact details

GOVERNMENT

Ayanda Matoti Marine and Coastal Management [email protected] Tel: 021 402 3634 Fax: 021 402 3009 Kallie Naude Department of Environmental Affairs and [email protected] Tel: 012 310 3700 Tourism (DEAT) Fax: 012 322 7114 Cell: 083 941 2009 Ms Fatima Rawjee Department of Environmental Affairs and [email protected] Tel: 012 310 3700 Tourism (DEAT) Fax: 012 322 7114 Cell: 083 941 2009 Ricky Taylor Ezemvelo KwaZulu Natal Wildlife (EKZNW) [email protected] Tel: 035 590 1436 Craig Mulqueeny Ezemvelo KwaZulu Natal Wildlife (EKZNW) [email protected] Tel: 031 274 1164 Cell: 082 338 2040

Andy Blackmore Ezemvelo KwaZulu Natal Wildlife (EKZNW) [email protected] Tel : 033 845 1346 Fax : 033 845 1499 Mr NE Zuma Mtubatuba Municipality [email protected] Tel: 035 550 0069 or 753 2465 Fax: 035 550 0060 Cell: 082 530 2445 Dr J Combrink Mtubatuba Local government councilor for St NA (cell) 083 254 5014 Lucia town (tel) 035 590 1224

Name Institute E-Mail Tel, Fax & Cell Contact details

AGRICULTURE

Gerrit de Jager Umfolozi Sugar Farmers [email protected] Fax: 035 5500773 Association Cell: 083 440 4188 Rudi Redinger Crystal holdings [email protected] Tel: 035 590 1410 Fax: 035 729 0110 Cell: 083 440 6704 Marius Adendorff SA Sugar Research Institute [email protected] Fax: 035 550 0097 Cell: 083 655 5011

LAND CLAIMANTS & COMMUNITY

Ephraim Mfeka Bhangazi Community Trust [email protected] Fax: 035 550 4338 Cell: 082 765 4822 Jaconia Mhlanga Bhangazi Community Trust NA Fax: 035 550 0068 Cell: 072 667 6277 Mr BJ Mfeka Western Shores NA Cell: 076 350 9690 Ms Sibongile Msweli Western Shores NA Cell: 073 534 0228 Ms TP Zulu Western Shores NA Cell: 083 558 9454 Mr J Buthelezi Zwenelisha NA Cell: 072 677 7473 M Buthelezi Zwenelisha NA Cell: 076 741 8347 A Ngubane Zwenelisha NA Cell: 082 402 1866 Senzo Ngubane Zwenelisha NA Cell: 073 479 5194 Bongukuphiwa Sokhulu [email protected] Cell: 083 430 3911 Mthethwa Cell: 086 510 0006

LAND CLAIMANTS & COMMUNITY – continues

ND Buthelezi Sokhulu NA Cell: 078 157 1309 JE Buthelezi Sokhulu NA Cell: 083 238 0218 Thobile E Mhlongo Sokhulu NA Cell: 082 728 8211

TOURISM

Kian Barker Shakerbarker tours [email protected] Tel: 035 590 1162 Fax: 035 5901070

Di Jones WESSA [email protected] Tel: 032 946 0685 Fax: 032 946 0686

FORESTRY

Lize Nel Siyaqhubeka Forest & Mondi [email protected] Fax: 035 580 4703 Cell: 083 448 9992 Mr Samson Mbokazi Siyaqhubeka Forest [email protected] Fax: 035 5504295 Cell: 0760989279 Asanda Madikane Siyaqhubeka Forest [email protected] Fax: 035 5504295 Cell: 0834144899

Michelle Boshoff Richards Bay Minerals [email protected] Fax: 035 901 3980 Cell: 082 893 8537 Zacaria Lsmede Wast Snooz NA Cell – 0766448923 PJ Fryer Sustainable Development [email protected] Tel: 032 946 0685 Projects Fax: 032 946 0686 Simon Bundy Sustainable Development [email protected] Tel : 032 946 0685 Projects Fax : 032 946 0686 iSiMANGALISO

Herbert Mthembu iSimangaliso [email protected] Tel : 035 590 1633 Fax : 035 590 1602 Sizo Sibiya iSimangaliso [email protected] Fax : 035 5901638 Cell : 0833901249 Nerosha Govender iSimangaliso [email protected] Tel : 035 590 1633 Fax : 035 590 1602 Cell : 083 321 2903 Terri Castis iSimangaliso [email protected] Tel : 035 590 1633 Fax : 035 590 1602 Bronwyn James iSimangaliso [email protected] Tel : 035 590 1633 Fax : 035 590 1602 Nick Swan iSimangaliso [email protected] Tel / Fax : 031 765 4849 Cell : 082 807 7796

WORLD BANK

Lala Steyn World Bank Consultant [email protected] Cell: 083 417 8563 Paola Agostini World Bank [email protected] Tel: 1 202 473 7620 Task Team Leader Karsten Feuerriegel World Bank [email protected] Tel : 012 431 3113 Co Task Team Leader Fax : 012 431 3134 Cell : 083 300 9925 Erika Odendaal World Bank [email protected] Tel : 012 431 3109 Programme Assistant Fax : 012 431 3134 Cell : 083 300 9925 Mohammed Beckheti World Bank [email protected] Tel : 1 202 4580149 Lead Councel (Legal) Salimata Follea World Bank [email protected] Tel : 1 202 473 4740

Harvey Himberg World Bank [email protected] Tel : 1 202 458 9099 Antonio Chamuco World Bank [email protected] Tel : 258 21 48 2350 Procurement Officer Fenwick Chitalu World Bank [email protected] Cell : 072 771 4153 Financial Officer

PRESENTATION SLIDES RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK

Annexure D - References

 Addo, July 2003, RFP Final  C.A.P.E., 6 October 2001, Draft Resettlement and PF  Greater St Lucia/iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority: Integrated Management Plan, 2007 to 2012, May 2007  Collings, S., Ecological and Economic Consequences of Rehabilitating the Umfolozi Flood Plain for the Restoration of Freshwater Supplies to Lake St Lucia, Honours Thesis, Rhodes University, October 2007.  Taylor, R., Adams, J.B., Haldorsen, S., Primary habitats of the St Lucia estuarine system, South Africa, and their responses to mouth management. African Journal of Aquatic Science, 2006  World Bank, December 2001, OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement  World Bank, December 2001, BP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement  World Bank, December 2001, OP 4.12 Annexure A