BUKIT BARISAN SELATAN NATIONAL PARK ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Prepared for:

PROJECT PARTNERS FROM WCS, WWF AND YABI BUKIT BARISAN SELATAN NATIONAL PARK JL. IR. H. JUANDA NO. 19 KM 1 TANGGAMUS, KOTA AGUNG 35751 LAMPUNG SELATAN INDONESIA

DRAFT Prepared by:

PT HATFIELD INDONESIA LIPI BUILDING 3RD FLOOR JL. IR. H. JUANDA NO. 18 BOGOR 16122 INDONESIA

NOVEMBER 2019

WCS10041-BG VERSION 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... III LIST OF FIGURES ...... III LIST OF APPENDICES ...... IV LIST OF ACRONYMS ...... V DISTRIBUTION LIST ...... VII AMENDMENT RECORD ...... VII

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ...... 1 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... 1 ESMF SCOPE AND APPROACH ...... 3 GUIDING PRINCIPLES ...... 4 Overview of ESMF Methodology ...... 4

2.0 RELEVANT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXT ...... 5 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 5 SOCIAL SETTING ...... 8 VULNERABLE AND RISK ...... 10 STAKEHOLDER MAPPING ...... 10

3.0 REGULATORY AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ...... 10 NATIONAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS ...... 10 Constitution of Indonesia ...... 11 National Environmental Law ...... 11 Adat/Customary Laws ...... 11 Land Laws ...... 11 Human-Wildlife ConflictDRAFT ...... 12 National Social Laws ...... 12 APPLICABLE IFC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TRIGGERED BY THE PROJECT ...... 13

4.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS ...... 16 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 20 4.1.1 Gender Mainstreaming ...... 23 4.1.2 Compliance and Core Labor Standards ...... 24 4.1.3 Land Acquisition and Resettlement ...... 25 4.1.4 Process Framework ...... 26 4.1.5 Indigenous Peoples ...... 27 4.1.6 Minor Temporary Impacts ...... 28

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park i Environmental and Social Management Framework

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ...... 29 SCREENING AND APPROVAL ...... 29 SCOPING ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES ...... 31 APPLICATION OF SAFEGUARDS INSTRUMENTS, PLANS AND MEASURES ...... 32 5.3.1 Environmental and Social Management Plan ...... 32 5.3.2 Indigenous Peoples Plan ...... 36 5.3.3 Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan ...... 36

6.0 CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ...... 37

7.0 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM ...... 40 PROCESS AND GRIEVANCE MECHANISM ...... 40 7.1.1 Receive and Record Grievance ...... 41 7.1.2 Grievance Screening and Categorization ...... 42 7.1.3 Acknowledgement Receipt and Transparency ...... 42 7.1.4 Referral to Relevant Authorities ...... 43 7.1.5 Investigation ...... 43 7.1.6 Follow up ...... 43 7.1.7 Grievance Resolution ...... 43 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ...... 43 EVALUATION AND SUPERVISION ...... 45

8.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING ...... 46

9.0 ESMF IMPLEMENTATION...... 48 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ...... 48 CAPACITY BUILDING ...... 49 BUDGET TO IMPLEMENTDRAFT ESMF ...... 51

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park ii Environmental and Social Management Framework

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Project components and work packets...... 2

Table 2 IFC PSs triggered by the IPZ project...... 14

Table 3 Ten focus villages selected for Project intervention...... 18

Table 4 Potential environmental impacts of the proposed Components 1, 2 and 3...... 19

Table 5 Summary of key environmental and social activities...... 21

Table 6 Environmental and Social Management Plan capacity requirements...... 35

Table 7 Categories of grievance screening...... 42

Table 8 GRM roles and responsibilities...... 44

Table 9 Quarterly and annual indicators for review...... 45

Table 10 Environmental and social monitoring and reporting guideline...... 47

Table 11 ESMF implementation costs...... 51

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Sub-project screening and approval process...... 31

Figure 2 Grievance Redress Mechanism for the KfW BBS Project...... 41

Figure 3 Institutional arrangement for ESMF implementation...... 49

DRAFT

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park iii Environmental and Social Management Framework

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A1 Activities Not Eligible for Project Financing

Appendix A2 Baseline Condition

Appendix A3 Process Framework

Appendix A4 General Screening Form

Appendix A5 Site Specific Screening Form

Appendix A6 General Environmental Management Plan

Appendix A7 A Pre-assessment of Potential Risks and Categorization

Appendix A8 Participatory Social Assessement Guidelines

Appendix A9 Key Stakeholders

Appendix A10 List of Consulted Stakeholders

Appendix A11 Stakeholder Consultation Objectives

Appendix A12 Stakeholder Consultation Responses - FGD

Appendix A13 Stakeholder Consultation Responses - Interview

Appendix A14 Questionnaire

Appendix A15 Sign Up Sheet

Appendix A16 Grievance Redress Mechanism Principle and Institutional Arrangement DRAFT

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park iv Environmental and Social Management Framework LIST OF ACRONYMS

AMDAL Analisis Mengenai Dampak Lingkungan/Environmental Impact Analysis ARAP Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan ATR Agraria dan Tata Ruang/Agrarian and Spatial Planning ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment BBS Bukit Barisan Selatan BBSNP Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park BIG Badan Informasi Geospasial/Geospatial Information Agency BPN Badan Pertanahan Nasional/National Land Agency CBO Community Based Organizations CCA Critical Conservation Area CF Community Forest CPA Community Protected Area CSO Civil Society Organizations DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid EA Environmental Assessment EHS Environment Health and Safety EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan EPSS Environemntal Prefeasibility and Scoping Study ES Environment and Social ESIA Environmental Social Impact Assessment ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan ESMS Environmental and Social Management System FGD Focus Group Discussion FMU Forest Management UnitDRAFT FPIC Free, Prior, Inform, Consent/Persetujuan Atas Dasar Informasi di Awal Tanpa paksaan GOI Government of Indonesia GRM Grievance Redress Mechanism HA Hutan Adat/Customary Forest HD Hutan Desa/Village Forest Hkm Hutan Kemasyarakatan/Community Forest HPT Hutan Produksi Terbatas/Limited Production Forest HR Hutan Rakyat/Community Forest HTR Hutan Tanaman Rakyat/Community Forest Plantation IFC International Finance Corporation ILEU Intelligence and Law Enforcement Unit IP Indigenous Peoples IPP Indigenous Peoples Plan IPPF Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework IPZ Intensive Protection Zone

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park v Environmental and Social Management Framework IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources IUP Ijin Usaha Pemanfaatan/ Utilization Business License KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau KHDTK Kawasan Hutan Dengan Tujuan Khusus/ Forest Areas with Specific Purposes LARAP Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action Plan LitBang Penelitian dan Pengembangan/Research and Development LAC Limit of Acceptable Changes MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forestry NGO Non Governmental Organization NTFP Non Timber Forest Product NP National Park OKU Ogan Kemering Ulu OKI Ogan Komering Ilir OP Operational Procedure PAH Project Affected Households PAP Project Affected Person PCU Project Coordination Unit PF Process Framework PusDikLat Pusat Pendidikan dan Pelatihan/Education and Training Center Penyelesaian Penguasaan Tanah Dalam Kawasan Hutan/ Settlement of Land Tenure in Forest PPTKH Areas PERPRES Peraturan Presiden/President Regulation PID Project Information Document PMU Project Management Unit PS Performance Standard KSDAE Konservadi Sumber Daya Alam Ekosistem RBM Resort Base Management RAP Resettlement Action Plan RPU Rhinoceros Protection UnitsDRAFT RPF Resettlement Planning Framework RPJMDes Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Desa/Medium Term Development Plan of Village SMART Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool SOP Standard Operating Procedures TOR Terms of Reference Upaya Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup dan Upaya Pemantauan Lingkungan Hidup/ UKL-UPL Environmental Management Efforts and Environmental Monitoring Efforts UNDP United Nations Development Programs WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WCU Wildlife Crimes Unit WB World Bank WBS World Bank Safeguards WWF World Wildlife Fund YABI Yayasan Badak Indonesia

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park vi Environmental and Social Management Framework DISTRIBUTION LIST

The following individuals/firms have received this document:

Name Firm Hardcopies CDs Email FTP

Wildlife Conservation Society - -  - World Wildlife Fund - -  - Yayasan Badak Indonesia - -  -

AMENDMENT RECORD

This report has been issued and amended as follows:

Issue Description Date Approved by

1 First draft version 2019-11-05

2 Second draft version of the 2019-11-21 Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park Project Environmental and Social Management Framework Jim Webb Ilham Rizki Project Director Project Manager

DRAFT

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park vii Environmental and Social Management Framework

1.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES PROJECT BACKGROUND

The objective of the KfW-funded Intensive Protection Zone (IPZ) project is to conserve “highly threatened tropical rainforest in the Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park (BBSNP) as priority habitat for critically endangered species and carbon sink through innovative management concepts and sustainable land use management in cooperation with local communities and the national park authority” (WCS IPZ project Environmental and Social Management Framework [ESMF] Terms of Reference [TOR]). The Project has been screened and assessed as Category B and all proposed sub-projects will undergo further review and consideration, particularly in relation to potential environmental and social impacts and mitigation measures. As such, the ESMF is guided by the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards (PSs) listed in section 3.2. Additionally, national safeguard policies have been considered and documented.

The “Conserving Priority Habitats in the BBSNP” project concerns the management of an IPZ of 100,137 hectares (ha) within the park boundaries..’ This project will complement and support several elements of the required actions for the removal of the site from the in danger list, for BBSNP, and contribute to reducing pressure on the Government of Indonesia (GoI) for action on these issues. This includes species and habitat monitoring, improved law enforcement using a spatial monitoring and reporting tool (SMART) patrol system, clarification of boundary issues, and harmonisation of local spatial planning and licensing with the park buffer zone.

The project also addresses objectives and activities under the National Strategy and Action Plans for Sumatran Tiger, Sumatran Rhinoceros, and Asian Elephant (MoEF: P42/Menhut-II/2007, P44/Menhut- II/2007, P43/Menhut-II/2007, P53/Menhut-II/2007) and human-wildlife conflict (P48/Menhut-II/2008), as well as Indonesian commitments under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) enacted by Presidential Decision 43/1978 through its activities aimed at strengthening controls on the illegal wildlife trade.

The seven-year project (2017 to 2023) is being funded by the International Climate Initiative (Internationale Klimaschutzinitiative [IKI]) of the GermanDRAFT Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), through the KfW Entwicklungsbank. The Project Partners consist of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Germany and Indonesia programs, and Yayasan Badak Indonesia (YABI). These partners will provide technical assistance to the BBSNP management authority and other government and civil society stakeholder groups with an interest in the national park and its buffer zone.

The project design is based on a theory of change that involves reducing anthropogenic pressure on priority areas in the BBSNP, improving national park and conservation zone management including establishing an Intensive Management Zone (IMZ), and thereby effectively protect the habitat of endangered species: Sumatran rhinoceros, Sumatran tiger, and Sumatran elephant.

Reducing anthropogenic pressure on priority areas in the BBSNP requires collaboration with the adjacent local communities to improve sustainable land use, and to change attitudes and behaviours towards the endangered species (for example, hunting and poaching). Improving national park and conservation zone management also requires cooperation with the park authority and other users and stakeholders, with multi-facetted strategies, addressed in various activity packets. The project design consists of five components (Table 1).

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 1 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Table 1 Project components and work packets.

Responsible No. Component Work Packages Project Partner

1 The IPZ is established . IPZ planning YABI, WCS within the BBSNP and is . SMART-resort based management (RBM) system and effectively protected capacity . Rhinoceros Protection Unit (RPU) patrolling in the IPZ . Resort-based patrolling in the IPZ . Improve forest crime intelligence gathering and enforcement

2 Establishment and . Strategy to consolidate and breed rhinoceros in YABI, WWF implementation of an BBSNP IMZ . IMZ design and management plan, funds through WWF . Translocate rhinoceros to the IMZ planned and to be conducted funds through WWF

3 Land-use pressure on . Resort-level strategies for community engagement YABI, WWF, the IPZ is diminished . Capacity to support community-based encroachment WCS through improved land monitoring and reforestation use management and . Performance based incentives for BBSNP protection community development and restoration . Investment and labour for protection and restoration . Political and financial support for community-based interventions . Private sector business supports conservation objectives (WCS)

4 Improved policy . Capacity building and policy alignment (WCS, WWF, YABI, WWF, framework for species and YABI - different roles), including: WCS and habitat protection - National technical learning trips & exchange visits and national and between BBS, WKNP, GLNP, and other relevant international sites (YABI) dissemination of DRAFT - Standardisation and dissemination to PusDikLat, experience including training modules - SMART (WCS), DNA- based monitoring (WWF) and RPU approach (YABI) - Study tours – e.g. SMART and IMZ - Support to Joint National Rhino Secretariat (all) - Work with journalists (WWF) . Long term financing for conservation in BBS (WCS)

5 The effectiveness of . Support to BBSNP management and strategy YABI, YABI, WWF, BBSNP management is WWF, development (WCS) WCS improved . Monitoring and conservation science for management (all) including: - Forest - Camera trap/DNA - Occupancy - Livelihood development impact . Student research grants (WCS)

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 2 Environmental and Social Management Framework

The project environmental and social management framework (ESMF) and supporting documents provides a discussion on the project context, regulatory framework, impacts and mitigation measures, institutional arrangements, public consultation and information disclosure, grievance redress mechanism, monitoring and evaluation and reporting requirements.

A list of sub-projects that are ineligible for funding under the Tropical Forest Conservation Project is provided in Appendix A1.

This ESMF has been prepared through consultations and will be updated as required to reflect any changes to program investments irrespective of donor, national legislation, the KfW or other donor policies. The ESMF will be publicly disclosed to local communities and the general public.

ESMF SCOPE AND APPROACH

The ESMF is prepared to identify, avoid, reduce, and mitigate the risks of the potential social and environmental impacts on the proposed KfW BBS projects. It provides guidance for the KfW BBS Project Management Unit to screen proposals for feasibility studies (providing an ineligible activities that cannot be supported either because of Indonesian legislation or IFC PSs and Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines, guidance for the preparation of a ToR for social and environmental studies under the Feasibility Studies, and guidance on the inclusion of social and environmental aspects into Requests for Proposal, including the ToR of detailed social and environmental assessments to be carried out after bid awards.

The ESMF was prepared in line with the IFC PSs and EHS Guidelines, and in accordance with Indonesian national laws and regulations. Any activity funded by the KfW BBS Project will be implemented in accordance to the principles of sustainable development, including environmental, social, cultural, and economic considerations, as already governed in prevailing laws and regulations. This ESMF adopts GoI’s laws and regulations to the extent that they are consistent with the IFC PSs and EHS Guidelines.

The ESMF is a living document developed in tandem with the project’s detailed design and will be implemented along with the other safeguard instruments such as Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP), Indigenous Peoples Planning FramewDRAFTork (IPPF) and Process Framework (PF). Specific objectives of the ESMF include:

. integrating the environmental and social concerns into the identification, design and implementation of all project interventions in order to ensure that those are environmentally sustainable and socially feasible;

. ensuring all relevant environmental and social issues are mainstreamed into the design and implementation of the project and also in the subsequent phases of the Project;

. considering in an integrated manner the potential environmental and social risks, benefits and impacts of the program and identify measures to avoid, minimize and manage risks and impacts while enhancing benefits;

. ensuring compliance with national and KfW requirements, such as IFC PSs and IFC EHS Guidelines; and

. guiding development of the detailed action plans for mitigations for the later phases of the project as appropriate to the project components/sub‐components and agreed work packages.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 3 Environmental and Social Management Framework

The ESMF sets out the requirements and steps to screen, assess, manage and monitor the mitigation measures of potential environmental and social impacts of the Project, and for the handling of Project consultation processes and grievances. It provides an overview of the types of subproject activities to be assessed, the environmental and social screening process and the subproject‐specific safeguard instruments that will be prepared once the project locations and other details are known. Monitoring and reporting are also addressed to ensure ongoing adherence to environmental and social safeguards.

Guidance is provided to support the implementors: KfW BBS Project staff from WCS, WWF, and YABI with government and community stakeholders ‐ to comply with the Project requirements, procedures and regulations related to environmental management, land acquisition and resettlement (as it relates to restricted access to natural resources and economic displacement), and Indigenous Peoples. The guidance provided is in accordance with prevailing GoI regulations and supplemental provisions of relevant KfW Sustainability Guideline (2016), IFC EHS Guidelines, along with other good practice references.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

This ESMF and associated documents incorporate the following principles:

. Every effort will be made to identify environmental and social risks and mitigation measures;

. All Project stakeholders will be trained to become aware of potential environmental and social risks and mitigation measures under the Project and carry out their responsibilities under this ESMF; and

. Local communities in the Project intervention areas will be engaged in all stages of the sub‐ project/activity planning, implementation, management, and monitoring.

Overview of ESMF Methodology

In developing this ESMF, WCS engaged experienced consultants to work with the national and field teams to develop a common understanding of ESMF. The team held an inception workshop, conducted field visits and village level consultations DRAFT including focus group discussions (FGDs) in October 2019. The consultants and the Project Management Unit (PMU) team collaborated on the following key steps to develop the content for this ESMF:

Screening ‐ the process is conducted by considering a project design or plan and its implementation context, along with guiding policies, regulations and standards, to identify potential impacts, risks, issues, and options for mitigation approaches. Results of screening, to be done by the Project team prior to any implementation plan development, will include: an outline of the main area of footprint or the boundary for baseline data; the identification of the Project activities which are most relevant for impact assessment, namely those with most direct potential to impact people or the environment; and the types of impacts anticipated as a result of the initial screening, which are then analysed further as part of the impact assessment, outlined in the ESMF, and in other instruments needed. For example, as this Project is implemented in areas where IP reside and are potentially impacted, an IPPF is required. Similarly, as there will be resource access restrictions and economic displacement resulting from project activities, a PF will be prepared.

Environmental and social baseline development – based on an understanding of the Project area and activities, the baseline data is compiled to provide a starting point upon which the impact of Project

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 4 Environmental and Social Management Framework

activities can be predicted, assessed and monitored. The baseline data outline is included in the ESMF and developed in more detail in separate documents including the ESMPs for each site. The social baseline includes social, cultural, economic and other data on history, development and any issues that serve as relevant context to understand the Project implementation setting. The environmental baseline is determined by the scope of the Project, but sets out the general bio‐physical, ecological and climatic conditions, highlighting any particular features or vulnerable areas for attention.

Impact analysis and mitigation planning – assessment of potential impacts from Project activities considers both benefits and risks with a level of effort to analyze and plan mitigations that are commensurate with the severity of the potential impact. Screening provides the first level of impact identification and combined with baseline data and the Project description, analyses are carried out to define and assess the potential impacts. Mitigation focuses most on efforts required to avoid or minimize negative impacts, and opportunities to maximise positive impacts are identified. Adjusting or adapting the Project location, activities or strategies to prevent impacts, and to accommodate public input and concerns regarding potential impacts is a process to be carried out by the project teams and described in the ESMF.

Consultation and Disclosure – various methods of consultation used to access information including perspectives or opinions on the Project concept, planned activities, baseline data, issues and potential impacts and mitigation options, to correct, improve and validate the ESMF content. Consultations on the ESMF and Project implementation were held at selected villages, the provincial capital cities in the Project area, and at the national level to obtain participants’ feedback on the Project design, mitigation measures and grievance mechanism. Input from the consultant team was also incorporated into the ESMF to inform and adapt project activities.

Developing a Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) – discussions of current or previous communications processes and handling of grievances, to develop a formal mechanism which will be conveyed to stakeholders, which field teams are to be trained to use, and which will be monitored by management and donors on a periodic basis. The GRM in the ESMF may be adaptively modified or updated during Project implementation to ensure its applicability and effectiveness. 2.0 RELEVANT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXTDRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The GoI began to focus on conservation when government representatives participated in the 7th International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) technical meeting in New Delhi, India on November 25-28, 1969 where they presented papers entitled "Nature Reserves and National Parks in Indonesia: Conditions and Problems" and "Nature Conservation Education in Indonesia". Subsequently, the Directorate of Nature Protection and Preservation developed a plan to promote conservation areas in Indonesia with the assistance of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 1974.

Laws and regulations have noticeably evolved since these events when Law No. 5/1990 concerning Conservation of Biological Natural Resources and their Ecosystems replaced several antiquated laws and regulations dating from the Dutch East Indies government. Starting in the 1990s, several non- governmental organizations (NGOs) initiated programs to conserve nature in the country and to save wild animals threatened with extinction.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 5 Environmental and Social Management Framework

The Republic of Indonesia Law No. 41/1999 outlines the legal framework for forestry management of national parks and stipulates that: i) the main purpose of national park management is the preservation of biodiversity and park ecosystems with limited use for education, research, aquaculture activities, and nature tourism; ii) national parks are managed by the National Park Authority under the Ministry of Forestry; iii) a zoning system will used for the management of national parks; and iv) there are no zones within national parks that are designated for settlements, rice fields, resource harvesting, or other productive land uses.

Lampung Province

Lampung Province has five distinct topographical zones: i) hilly and mountainous; ii) rolling hills, iii) alluvial land, iv) tidal marsh land; and v) river basins. Mountain slopes are steep and rugged, with slopes in excess of 25% and heights greater than 300 meters above sea level (masl). These areas include the Buki Barisan mountain range and its notable peaks: Mount Tanggamus, Mount Pasawaran and Mount Rajabasa. The other peaks in the northern extend of this range include Mount Pugung, Mount Pesagi and Mount Sekincau which are dominated by primary and secondary forest vegetation. Baseline condition of Lampung Province provided in Appendix A2.

Tanggamus Regency

Tanggamus Regency, where BBSNP is located, is a division of the South Lampung Regency and was established by Law No. 2/1997 Establishment of Tulang Bawang Level II District and Tanggamus Level II Regency. Tanggamus Regency encompasses tropical coastal waters and plains where temperature average 28o Celsius and the regency extends up Mount Tanggamus to more than 2,000 masl where average temperatures are distinctly cooler. Rainfall is relatively high, close to 3,000 millimeters (mm) per year particularly in areas with hilly and mountainous terrain. The regency also has abundant surface and ground water resources and surface water drainage is dominated by the Sekampung and Semangka rivers.

Pesisir Barat Regency

Pesisir Barat Regency is the newest district in Lampung Province resulting from the expansion of Lampung Barat Regency, which was approved underDRAFT Law No. 22/2012 concerning the Establishment of the Pesisir Barat Regency of Lampung Province. The climatic conditions in the regency are influenced by its natural setting which is adjacent to the Bukit Barisan Mountains and bordered by the Indian Ocean on the west. The regency can be topographically delineated from sea level – an area which covers the entire western portion of Pesisir Barat District (Pesisir Utara District, Pesisir Tengah District and Psisir Selatan District) – to the hilly terrain with heights between 600 masl to 1,000 masl and includes the BBSNP.

Lampung Barat Regency

West Lampung Regency is located in Lampung province and the district capital is located in Liwa. This regency was created according to Law No. 6/1991 dated August 16, 1991 which was the result of the division of North Lampung Regency. This regency is dominant with hills and beaches along the west coast of Lampung and mountainous areas, along the Bukit Barisan range. The regency includes volcanic peaks reaching elevations of 1,000 masl. In some places volcanic activity and geothermal generation are active.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 6 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park

Based on information from the Directorate General of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation (DJPHKA) at the MoEF, BBSNP encompasses 356,800 ha of land and 21,600 ha of waters. The bulk of the park (290,800 ha) is located in Lampung Province of which 280,300 ha is located in the administrative area of West Lampung. Landscape conditions in the park range from high to low elevation mountain rainforests and extend into areas with distinct lowland vegetation and coastal forest vegetation.

To improve management effectiveness, the BBSNP area is divided into zones. Currently, the zones in the BBSNP region are changing because some forest areas which were designated a jungle zone (including the Sekincau region) are being re-classified as rehabilitation zones due to the high rate of deforestation and forest degradation.

Changes in the boundaries of the BBSNP have caused changes in the status of residential areas and residents' agricultural land. An asynchronous determination of the boundary alignment causes differences in the perception of the boundary location between the BBSNP and the local communities. This was observed particularly with the residential areas in the Mount Sekincau area which had previously been settled during the BRN trans-migration prior to the area being designated as a national park.

Biodiversity updates

Based on the fourth technical report KfW-IKI, no direct rhinoceros were sighted from the 79 camera traps that were installed in the IPZ in December 2018 and retrieved in May 2019. No evidence of rhinoceros activity has been found since this time although data processing is not yet completed.

The Project has been working with the BBSNP management authority to conduct a fecal-DNA survey for Sumatran elephants. Field data were collected from 2017 to 2018 to estimate the: 1) population size; 2) sex ratio; 3) distribution; and 4) genetic diversity using a combination of spatially-explicit capture-recapture and non-invasive genetic molecular techniques.

Related to conflict and post-conflict aspects, several aspects need to be considered: the parties involved in handling conflict; conflict handling funds; conflict handling team; compensation scheme for losses caused due to conflict; and post-conflictDRAFT reporting and monitoring. Activities already conducted by Project staff include:

. Surveys and monitoring conducted for elephants inside the Forest Management Units (FMU) IX North Kota Agung;

. Ground-truthing survey conducted for land cover used by elephants in the FMU IX;

. Two tree houses constructed to monitor wildlife, especially for one herd of elephants that consists of 12 individuals; and

. Eleven RPUs operate in the BBSNP to patrol, survey, monitor, support the ILEU with information regarding illegal activities and mitigate human-wildlife conflict.

As a result of monitoring activities, the Wildlife Crime Unit (WCU) and Intelligency and Law Enforcement Unit (ILEU) provided data to government agencies that led to one investigation and the apprehension of three suspects for illegal trading of two greater mouse deer at Kota Agung seaport in Lampung province.

The PMU arranged several plans for further activities related to human-wildlife conflict including:

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 7 Environmental and Social Management Framework

. Training for law enforcement officials and WCS will be conducted the training;

. The workshop concern to the management strategy and the writing of the IPZ management strategy is now underway and will be completed in the next reporting period; and

. Catch and translocate animals to the Sumatran Rhinoceros Sanctuary (SRS) in Way Kambas.

SOCIAL SETTING

Tanggamus Regency

The population of Tanggamus Regency was estimated in 2017 to be 586,624 consisting of 305,594 male and 281,030 female residents based on a growth rate of 1.08% from 2016. While the average population density in the regency in 2017 was 126 people/km2, the population density in the 20 sub-districts ranged from 1,224 inhabitants/km2 in the Gisting sub-district to 73 people/km2 in the Kecamatan Limau sub- district. Healthcare facilities in Tanggamus Regency include two hospitals, two maternity hospitals, 23 public health centers, 672 health posts, 19 health clinics / clinics, and 198 public health posts.

Pesisir Barat Regency

Schooling facilities in the regency are extensive and include elementary schools to senior high schools/madrasah Aliyah as well as Islamic schools which support the Muslin majority in the population (98 percent). Health care in Pesisir Barat Regency can be assessed by the increase in the number of infants immunized since 2017. The poverty rate – 390,875 Indonesian rupiah per month - in the regency decreased slightly from 15.91% in 2016 to 15.61% on 2017.

Lampung Barat Regency

Data from the academic year of 2015 to 2016 indicate that the 113 pre-school educational facilities (kindergarten), 198 elementary schools (SD), 34 junior high schools (SLTP), and 14 senior high schools (SLTA) in the regency appear to be adequate in the public and private sectors.

Regency health facilities includes one district hospital, 15 community health centers, and 244 Posyandu which are staffed by 13 physicians, 112DRAFT nurses, and 114 midwives. The majority (98.67%) of the population in the regency is Muslim. The Ministry of Religious tallied the number of places of worship constructed by government and NGOs: 735 Mosques, 122 little Mosques, eight churches, five Pura, and four Vihara.

Ten focused villages in the IPZ area

Between 27 July 2018 and 14 August 2018, WWF conducted a rapid assessment of livelihoods and encroachment patterns based on 300 out of a total 5,125 households. Households were selected from communities living around the forest and who utilize forest products and environmental services and with the goal that 20% to 30% of respondents would be housewives and teenagers. The survey was conducted through interview in respondent’s house or in their fields.

Study result indicate that educational level of most respondents is at the elementary school level (29%) although almost 25% of respondents never received a formal education. The study found that 85% of respondents know that there is a national park surrounding their villagesand that 93% of respondents understand that farming inside the national park is illegal. However, only 44% of respondents are aware of the location of the BBSNP boundary. In the Margomulyo and Tebaliyokh villages, all respondents were

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 8 Environmental and Social Management Framework

aware of the BBSNP and know that farming inside the park is illegal. This high awareness level in these two villages may be an outcome from the awareness programmes carried out by the BBSNP together with WWF, WCS, and YABI. Nonetheless, 65% of respondents claimed that they have never obtain information about BBSNP management and its zonation.

The study also assessed monthly household expenditures. The findings indicate that household expenditure in the IPZ area ranges from Rp 163,312.5 (approximately 10 EUR) to Rp 1,758,000 (approximately 110 EUR) with an average of Rp 443,351 (approximately 28 EUR) per household per month. Based on these findings, the communities in the IPZ area, on average, have higher expenditures than the poverty threshold of Lampung Province which is Rp 402,307. However, the cost of living in several communities is high due to food and other vital living expenses so these communities may be categorized as poor and near poor. Rice is the largest expenditure in these households and average monthly expenditure is Rp 354,586 which is approximately 78% of their monthly household expenditure. The high dependency on buying rice is due to the limited extent rice fields compared to plantation crops such as coffee, cocoa particularly in Margomulyo , Ulok Mukhti, and Paku Negara villages.

Indigenous Peoples

There are several IPs identified within the IPZ project area. The IFC PSs underscore the requirement to identify IPs, consult with them, ensure that they participate in, and benefit from the KfW-funded project(s) in a culturally appropriate way and that adverse impacts on them are avoided or, where not feasible to avoid, then minimized or mitigated. For purposes of this policy, the term “Indigenous Peoples” is used in a generic sense to refer to a distinct, vulnerable, social and cultural group possessing the following characteristics in varying degrees:

. Self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this identity by others;

. Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories;

. Customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture;DRAFT and

. An indigenous language, often different from the official language of the country or region.

Ethnic Lampung, commonly called Ulun Lampung or Lampung people, historically occupied the entire Lampung Province and part of the provinces of South and Central South Sumatra which encompasses the Martapura area, in Muaradua at Ogan Komering Ulu (OKU), Kayu Agung, Komering at Ogan Komering Ilir (OKI), Merpas in the south of Bengkulu and Cikoneng on the beach West Banten. Ethnic Lampung uses a local language and has its own script. In the Lampung ethnic community, it is divided into two neighborhoods or adat units, among others Lampung society with Pepadun and Saibatin communities. The Saibatin community is well known for its aristocracy while the customs of the Pepadun community, which emerged later, followed the practices of the Abung people and had democracy values as opposed to the aristocracy values held by the Saibatin community. The Saibatin Lampung people are often also called Coastal Lampung because most of them reside along the east, south and west coastlines of Lampung Province.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 9 Environmental and Social Management Framework

VULNERABLE AND RISK

Several of the forest areas designated by MoEF have not yet been completed established as forest areas, and even some of these areas have not been demarcated on the field. In several areas designated as forest areas, settlements, arable land, community fields and community activities have existed prior to the forest area being designated such under the national regulation. As a result, conflicts on the use of the area have arisen between the community and the area manager.

In the management of conservation areas, problems arising as a result of the gap between Forest Area Determination Regulations (criteria, requirements and regulations relating to the determination of forest areas) and the determination of forest areas have the potential to be a source of conflict in forest management. This dynamic causes the efforts to protect and secure forest areas to be have limited effect and, in the end, efforts to enforce the law against disturbance of forest areas are weakened. Agreement from each party on spatial planning for the co-existence of community areas, forest areas and non-forest areas is a possible solution to this problem.

STAKEHOLDER MAPPING

Stakeholder mapping of all relevant stakeholders, including impacted people, government agencies and other institutions such as NGOs with activities in the project area, local media, religious and customary (adat) leaders, academics in relevant disciplines, and others were identified by the Project teams in Lampung Province.

Following an initial one-to-one stakeholder engagement, WCS convened a one-day landscape-focused roundtable in Bandar Lampung on 16 October 2017. This meeting represents a major milestone in bringing together, for the first time, the key stakeholders associated with the national park and the coffee farmers to discuss the issues facing the BBS landscape and the smallholder robusta coffee bean farmers, as well as the role of different stakeholders in developing and implementing solutions.

On December 8th 2017, an official inception meeting including the national park management, provincial and national governmental officials and many key stakeholders was held in Bandar Lampung, Sumatra. The provincial government, the Director General from the MoEF and the national park management with the NGO partners expressed support DRAFTto the Project goals during this meeting.

WCS, WWF and YABI have started to socialize the Project among their own stakeholders of the Project activities and jointly towards key stakeholders like the BBSNP regarding the Project outcomes and activities. 3.0 REGULATORY AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK NATIONAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS

The Bukit Barisan Selatan protected area was designated in 1935 as a wildlife sanctuary through Besluit Van Degouvernoor-General Van Nederlandsch Indie Number 48 Stbl 1935 named South Sumatra I (SM SS I). On April 1, 1979, the status was changed to a Nature Conservation Area, then designated as a National Park through the Minister of Agriculture's Decree Number 736 / Mentan / X / 1982 - 14th October 1982.

Following the issuance of the Presidential Decree on illegal logging and sawmill eradication in 2005, there was an integrated effort from the provincial and district governments, as well as from the provincial departments of justice, police and forestry to eradicate these activities in the national park. Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 10 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Constitution of Indonesia

The Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia states that the conservation of natural resources includes sustainable management while maintaining and improving the value and diversity of national parks as Nature Conservation Areas that contain native ecosystems and are managed through a zoning system that is utilized for research, science purposes, knowledge, education, supporting cultivation, tourism and recreation.

The Ministry of Environmental and Forestry Policy, approved by the Decision of the General Director of Forest Protection and Nature Conservation No: SK.152/IV-SET/2015, dated 29 May 2015supported the development of an Intensive Protection Zone (IPZ) as an effort to increase the Sumatran rhinoceros population. The main goal of this policy was to protect and increase the Sumatran rhinoceros population in the BBSNP.

National Environmental Law

Environmental Protection and Management (PPLH) according to Law No. 32/2009 Article 1 Paragraph (2) is a systematic and integrated effort undertaken to preserve environmental functions and prevent environmental pollution and / or damage which includes planning, utilization, control, maintenance, supervision and law enforcement. The law was passed in Jakarta, 3 October 2009 by the President and Minister of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia.

This law clearly states in Chapter 10 Section 3 Article 69 prohibitions on environmental protection and management which include prohibition of pollution, emitting dangerous and toxic substances (B3), dumping waste into the environment, and opening land by burning.

These prohibitions are followed by strict and clear sanctions listed in Chapter 15 regarding criminal provisions, and Articles 97 to 123. Article 103 states: Every person who produces B3 waste and does not implement management as referred to in Article 59, shall be sentenced to a minimum of one year imprisonment to a maximum of three years and a fine from one billiong rupiah to three billion rupiah. Adat/Customary Laws DRAFT Indigenous people have lived in Indonesia since the days of our ancestors. Community customary law is a territorial or geneological unit of society that has its own wealth defined by citizens who can be distinguished from other legal community members and can act inside or outside as an independent legal entity (subject of law) and govern themselves. Every province in Indonesia has customary law community units with their own characteristics that have existed for hundreds of years .

The 1945 Constitution affirmed the existence of IPs. Article 18B, Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution as a result of the second amendment states that the State recognizes and respects the customary law community units along with their traditional rights in accordance with the development of the community and the principles of the unitary state of the Republic of Indonesia.The provisions of Article 18B Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution are strengthened by the provisions of Article 281 Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution that traditional cultural and community identities are respected in line with the times and civilizations.

Land Laws

The Minister of Foresty Regulation No: P.43/Menhut-II/2013 process for demarcating boundaries of working permits for forest utilization, principles for forest management, principles for the release of forest

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 11 Environmental and Social Management Framework

areas and the management of forest areas with special objectives. Article 1 Clause 5 of the Minister of Forestry Regulation No: P.43/Menhut-II/2013 designates Special Purpose Forest Areas (KHDTK) including Conservation Forests, Protected Forests, and Production Forests for research and development, education and training, as well as for social, religious and cultural interest without changing the main function of the relevant forest area.

Chapter III Article 8 of the President of the Republic of Indonesia Regulation No. 88/2015 on the Completion of Land Tenure in Forest Areas (PPTKH) provides guidance on the types of settlements permissible on land owned in an area after it has been stipulated as a forest area. This includes:

a. Removal of the land from the forest area through changes in forest boundaries;

b. Exchange of forest areas;

c. Provide access to forest management through social forestry programs; and

d. Resettlement.

This regulation includes guidance on building an Acceleration Team to settle land tenure disputes in forested area and how-to organization members of the PPTKH. Article 14 Clause 2 of the same regulation includes the procedure that must be implemented in this process of settling land tenure disputes.

Human-Wildlife Conflict

The Ministry of Forestry Regulation No. P.48/Menhut-II/2008 Guideline for Conflict Management Between Human and Wildlife provides details on handling human-wildlife conflict. Chapter III of this regulation lays the foundation for establishing institutions, specific tasks and procedures related to human-wildlife conflict.

Chapter IV discusses conflict handling procedures such as information flow, information analysis, compensation and also the legal process that must be followed. Chapter V focuses on how a human- wildlife conflict institution or community plans can be established to prevent conflict between humans and wildlife through the provision of data and information on maps in conflict-prone areas, and providing education and community awareness about conflict. Chapter VI details reporting and monitoring stages following human-wildlife conflict incidentsDRAFT. National Social Laws

Social conflict management is regulated by Law No. 7/2012 concerning Handling of Social Conflict. This law explains that the diversity of ethnic, religious, racial, and Indonesian culture with a population of more than 230 million peopleis the nation's wealth that directly or indirectly makes a positive contribution to efforts to create community welfare.

The President of Indonesia also established laws and regulations regarding public complaints, namely Presidential Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia No. 76/2013 concerning Management of Public Service Complaints. Article 2 of this regulation states that the Complainant has the right to submit complaints about implementing services that are not in accordance with service standards or waive obligations and / or violations of prohibitions by the organizer. This regulation contains the minimum requirements that must be in a public complaints process from the lowest level to the national level. Article 18 Paragraph 1 states that the Minister coordinates the management of complaints nationally.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 12 Environmental and Social Management Framework

APPLICABLE IFC PERFORMANCE STANDARDS TRIGGERED BY THE PROJECT

The International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) Policy and Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability and Social Safeguard Policies are the basis for sustainable development. The aim of these policies is to prevent and mitigate potential adverse impacts to the environment and communities as a result of development. These policies give the IFC, other lenders and borrowers guidelines on the identification, preparation and implementation of programs and projects so that they are environmentally and socially sustainable.

The IFC has eight Performance Standards (PS):

. PS1 – Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risk and Impacts;

. PS2 – Labor and Working Conditions;

. PS3 – Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention;

. PS4 – Community Health, Safety and Security;

. PS5 – Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement;

. PS6 – Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources;

. PS7 – Indigenous Peoples; and

. PS8 – Cultural Heritage.

The IPZ project was assessed relative to the IFC PSs and six of the eight PSs are triggered (Table 2). According to IFC the proposed KfW BBS Project activities categorized as B. Note that the IFC PS1 is not triggered by IKI projects but is included in the ESMF because of the environmental and social aspects of the Project.

An ESMF establishes a unified process for addressing all environmental and social safeguards issues on subprojects from preparation, through review and approval, to implementation. Effective implementation of an ESMF will ensure that the substantiveDRAFT concerns of all IFC PS will be satisfactorily addressed.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 13 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Table 2 IFC PSs triggered by the IPZ project.

IFC Performance Objective Trigger Rationale Standard PS. 1: . Identify project E&S risks This PS is triggered since there are environmental and social Assessment and impacts impacts associated with project activities, such as patrol and . Adopt mitigation activities, law enforcement and community development Management of hierarchy activities targeting former/current encroachers, poachers and Environmental others. . Anticipate, avoid, and Social minimize, compensate or The minor construction works financed by the project are not Risks and offset expected to have any environmental impacts as they are Impacts limited to rehabilitation of some park/resort facilities within an . Improve performance existing footprint area. through an Environmental and Social Management Removal of invasive species and reforestation activities are System (ESMS) considered positive impacts with minor potential risks if not implemented wisely (for example, selection of tree species . Engagement with may be counter to objectives of developing feed stock for Affected Communities, critical species or their prey). other stakeholders throughout the project The support for land use changes is expected to have a cycle positive impact on forest conditions, with an emphasis on re- establishing critical habitat. However, there are potential . Includes communications, negative social impacts such as community discord or tension grievance related to law enforcement, perception of equality in opportunities (for community development), and variable access to participation by marginal groups including women and indigenous peoples (conversely expressed as elite domination at the village level). Potential negative impacts of eco-tourism development are also flagged for consideration during impact analysis.

PS.2: Labor . Fair treatment, non- This PS is triggered since the project will employ or support and Working discrimination, equal employment of community members in patrol functions, and opportunity increase the working effectiveness of the BBSNP authority; Conditions . Good worker – project also interacts with key industries affecting labor in the management relatiDRAFTonship region (i.e. coffee) with international networks, such that protection of worker rights can be highlighted through project . Comply with national effort, for example in the non- use of child labor in coffee employment and labor production. laws . Protect workers, in particular vulnerable categories . Promote safety and health . Avoid use of forced or child labor

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 14 Environmental and Social Management Framework

IFC Performance Objective Trigger Rationale Standard PS.4: . To anticipate and avoid This PS is triggered since the project includes activities that Community adverse impacts on the involve labor in: forest patrols; mediating conflict between health and safety of the wildlife and local human populations; law enforcement in Health, Safety Affected community potentially confrontational situations (hunting, poaching); and and Security . To safeguard personnel the possible use of pesticides or other products (for removal of and property in invasive plant species in forests) which may be harmful if accordance with relevant misused. These activities all contain an element of risk, which human rights principles can be anticipated so as to avoid adversity.

PS.5: Land . Avoid, minimize adverse This PS is triggered since the project involves working with Acquisition and social and economic BBSNP authorities and communities to facilitate the relocation Involuntary impacts from land of encroachers’ residences and gardens/crops from forest Resettlement1 acquisition or restrictions areas, both in the conservation zone and other areas of the on land use forest estate under BBSNP. . Avoid, minimize Although the community members’ presence and activities displacement (farming, harvesting NTFP and hunting) are mostly illegal . Alternative project activities, the improved enforcement of regulations will mean designs restrictions on access to some sources of livelihood for select groups. . Avoid forced eviction The Village Conservation Agreement Assessment of eight . Improve or restore focused villages was conducted in November 2018 and livelihoods and standards December 2018. The results of the assessment are: of living . There is an area in Tebaliyokh village within the BBSNP . Improve living conditions that has been opened up and converted into agricultural among displaced farm; persons, including adequate housing and . Bumi Hantatai village has 10 sub-villages located within security of tenure BBSNP; and . Areas within the BBSNP which are close to the Ulok Mukti village have been opened and converted into agriculture farms.

PS.6: . Protection and This PS is triggered as the project activities are concentrated conservation of DRAFTin national parks and protected areas. The anticipated impacts Biodiversity Conservation biodiversity are positive and aim to balance conservation objectives by and Sustainable . Maintenance of benefits supporting human development needs. Key activities include Management of from ecosystem services reforestation, with consideration of selection of appropriate species; a key impact is increased wildlife and ecosystem Living Natural . Promotion of sustainable services. Resources management of living natural resources . Integration of conservation needs and development priorities

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 15 Environmental and Social Management Framework

IFC Performance Objective Trigger Rationale Standard PS. 7: . Ensure full respect for IPs This PS is triggered due to the presence of IPs in some Indigenous . Human rights, dignity, targeted villages as well as the wider area of influence. While access restrictions apply to all people, certain IPs may be Peoples aspirations Livelihoods more impacted. It is noted however that local regulations allow . Culture, knowledge, access and utilization of resources for certain traditional practices purposes (linked to identity, health etc.); this effectively . Avoid, minimize adverse protects them but may also create dual systems which may impacts generate local tensions. . Sustainable and culturally appropriate development benefits and opportunities . Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) in certain circumstances

4.0 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS By nature of the project which is a conservation initiative, it can be expected that positive environmental and social benefits will result by: a) establishing an IPZ and supporting policy, budgetary and scientific activities to manage it; b) reducing anthropogenic activities inside the BBSNP; and, c) providing alternative community livelihoods based on sustainable natural resource management. Key findings of the impact analysis are:

. There are net positive environmental impacts anticipated, including on forests, endangered fauna, wider biodiversity values and environmental services. Positive outcomes anticipated are decreased poaching, increased wildlife populations including species currently categorized as endangered, and improved ecosystem services which provide numerous benefits, especially to nearby communities. DRAFT . Any potential adverse environmental impacts would not be large-scale and can be avoided or minimized through mitigation measures.

. Potential social impacts are anticipated, primarily associated with the changes in use of forest areas as a result of the project activities, impacting access to cultivation sites. The effect of law enforcement may be resettlement of people from inside the forest boundaries.

. Other potential social impacts that can be anticipated include reduced social cohesion and/or increased tension, due to perceptions of uneven treatment, in law enforcement and community development scenarios, as well as from increased human-wildlife encounters from recovering populations of tigers and elephants with communities proximal to the forest edge of the BBSNP.

For these impacts, it is feasible to implement mitigation measures which reflect IFC guidance and the implementing (consortium members) own policies, as well as good practices from other projects and regions. This includes mitigation approaches that are adaptive and respond to local context, given the diversity of socio-economic and cultural contexts and groups that may be affected by the project activities.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 16 Environmental and Social Management Framework

The potential environmental and social risks of the project are mostly associated with Components 1 and 3, and mostly with Component C/3. Some of the activities implemented for Component 3 include:

. In June 2018, WWF recruited a consultant to conduct social research including a Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) analysis;

. In May 2018, WWF conducted a FGD with the tourism management groups from the Sukamarga and Gunung Ratu villages. The FGD objectives were to conduct a needs assessment and to identify the problems related to the national park management;

. In February 2018, WWF hired a biologist and field staff on a temporary basis to conduct a biodiversity survey in Bengkunat Forest;

. In February 2018, BBSNP park authority, YABI, WCS and WWF met and agreed on the selection criteria for the 10 villages targeted for intervention by the Project (Table 3);

. From January 2018 to June 2018, georeferenced trees tagging was conducted using a Monterra GPS;

. From January 2018 to April 2018, WWF implemented sustainable agricultural with 30 farmers from the Sido Makmur Farmer Group in Paku Negara village;

. In March 2018, WWF and YABI developed a process to obtain Village Conservation Agreements (VCA) in the 10 targeted villages;

. In 2017, WCS continued a series of discussion with traders, roasters, exporters and importers of robusta coffee;

. In February 2019, WWF recruited consultants to conduct non-timber forest products (NTFP) surveys;

. In 2019, WWF and YABI facilitated the writing of initial VCA drafts for the 10 focus villages;

. In the first half of 2019, five awareness campaigns and environmental education activities were conducted to communicate theDRAFT intrinsic functions of the BBSNP and its biodiversity;

. In the second half of 2019, WWF, YABI and the communities produced maps of existing land cover including agricultural land (commodities), residential and infrastructure, rivers, springs, forested area, open land, and bushes in the 10 focus villages; and

. In April 2018, WCS continued to engage key stakeholders through roundtable discussions, FGDs, webinars, and one-on-one meetings to advance the strategy to translate the collective statement of intent into field level actions.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 17 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Table 3 Ten focus villages selected for Project intervention.

District Resort Subdistrict Village Notes

Margomulyo Semaka Tanggamus Sukaraja Directly bordering the BBSNP. High human- wildlife conflict incidence. Pronounced commitment of community to protect the national park.

Pemerihan Bengkunat- Pesisir Barat Pemerihan Directly bordering the BBSNP. High human- Balimbing wildlife conflict incidence. High commitment to protect the national park. Former encroachment. Poaching activities. Forest fires suspected to have been set on purpose. 130 ha restored by WWF and various community development programs. Only little progress.

Ngambur Ngambur Pesisir Barat Ngambur Directly bordering the BBSNP. Human-wildlife conflicts, ongoing poaching, yet high level of community participation in conservation.

Ulok Mukti Ngambur Pesisir Barat Ngambur Directly bordering the BBSNP. Human-wildlife conflicts, active encroachment and poaching, high level of community participation in conservation.

Pakunegara Pesisir Pesisir Barat Biha Directly bordering the HPT (limited production Selatan forest), human- wildlife conflicts, ongoing encroachment and poaching. High community participation. Ongoing conflict over natural resources (the HTR).

Sukamarga Suoh Lampung Barat Suoh Directly bordering the BBSNP. Ongoing encroachment. Roads in the park area, forest fires and a commitment of the community to protect the BBSNP.

Bumi Suoh Lampung Barat Suoh Directly bordering the BBSNP, ongoing Hantatai encroachment and poaching, roads in the DRAFTPark area, forest fires and a commitment of the community to protect the BBSNP.

Tebaliyokh Batu Brak Lampung Barat Balik Bukit Directly bordering the BBSNP, ongoing encroachment and poaching, roads in the national park area.

Labuhan Way Krui Pesisir Barat Balaik Directly bordering the BBSNP. Poaching and Mandi Kencana non-timber forest products.

Penengahan Karya Pesisir Barat Balai Directly bordering the HPT, wildlife-human Panggara Kencana conflicts, ongoing encroachment and poaching, high community participation. Conflicts over natural resources (HTR).

No significant negative environmental impacts are expected in relation to project activities, noting that most activities in Components 1, 2, 4 and 5 entail policy, finance and land management activities that will generate positive impacts. Potential environmental and social impacts from the project are presented in Table 4.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 18 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Table 4 Potential environmental impacts of the proposed Components 1, 2 and 3.

Activity (Source of Element Description of Potential Impacts Impact)

Environment Patrol activities Primary: (Output / component . Opening access for poachers via patrol routes 1; 1.1) . Temporary camp activities cause damage, e.g. litter, use of wood for fire and camp construction Secondary: . Patrol data may be misused for destructive activities (encroachment/poaching/logging) . Successful patrols will reduce poaching and increase wildlife populations . Increase in presence of better protected pest species such as wild boar . Increased risk of conflicts between people and wildlife (resulting in wildlife translocation and/or risk of injury or death to people and problem animals)

Ecosystem Primary: Restoration . Introduction or increased spread of invasive plant species (Output/Component (mantangan/Merremia sp and pakisan/Ceratoptoris sp) 3) . Planting of non-native species poses a risk of reducing the availability of native food for wildlife Secondary: . Successful restoration activities will increase wildlife populations which pose a risk of increased conflicts between people and wildlife

Capture and Primary: Translocation of . Risk of injury and/or death (wildlife and humans) Wildlife (rhinoceros) during capture (Component 2, 2.1, and 2.2) Secondary: . Successful translocation leads to improved security and increases in DRAFTwildlife population Social Patrols and Law Primary: Enforcement . Lack/loss of livelihoods as people cannot utilize the land, forest (Components 1, 1.2, products, and wildlife inside the BBSNP and 1.3) . Loss of dwellings (homes) within the national park . Successful patrols will reduce poaching and increase wildlife populations Protection of key forest ecosystem services that benefit communities, such as flood and landslide prevention Secondary: . Unfair and unequitable law enforcement leads to social jealousy and triggers conflicts among communities, and between communities and officers . Increased wildlife may increase human-wildlife conflicts (causing damage to crops and death or injury to livestock/wildlife/people)

Increased Primary: awareness of local . Reduced poaching, improved habitat quality, safeguarding of communities to stop ecosystem services and biodiversity utilizing the land in BBSNP

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 19 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Activity (Source of Element Description of Potential Impacts Impact) (Components 1 and . Reduced or lost access to areas used for livelihood and possibly other 3, 3.1 - 3.4) social/cultural purposes . Human resettlement and/or displacement Secondary: . Increased wildlife and potential related human-wildlife conflicts (causing damage to crops and death or injury to livestock/wildlife/people) . Lack/loss of forest-agriculture based livelihoods . Changes in livelihood options, including increased eco-tourism and other diversified livelihood strategies

Community Primary: development . Improved awareness and behaviors (stop utilizing the land in BSSNP activities through alternative options and removes communities from potential (Components 1 and conflict situations with BBSNP authority) 3, 3.1 - 3.4) Secondary: . Successful implementation leads to sustainable alternative community livelihoods . Perception of injustice regarding consistency of law enforcement and/or inequitable community empowerment/unfulfilled expectations and jealousy may lead to tension or jealousy among communities

The preliminary identification of potential environmental and social impacts was carried out considering the environmental and social components that are likely to be affected by the project activities. All IPZ sub-projects shall be carefully planned and designed in order to have sound design that avoids creating potential environmental and social impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES

Analysis of the potential environmental and social risks and impacts arising from the project highlights the importance of a multi-dimensional apprDRAFToach for risk mitigation, covering:

. Management of direct environmental and social risk and impacts, with a focus on the key activities that may generate impacts: ranger patrols, law enforcement actions outside of the forest, ecosystem restoration (reforestation), controlled animal captures; awareness raising and community development (livelihood) activities;

. Cross-cutting issues requiring attention: IPs and gender; and

. Stakeholder engagement.

Table 5 presents a summary of the key environmental and social activities and an explanation of impact and risk mitigations; the mitigations are generally built in to project activities but, as described here, they include additional aspects or approaches that complement the planned activities, to provide extra attention as assurance that the anticipated aspect of risk is properly addressed.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 20 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Table 5 Summary of key environmental and social activities.

Impact Description Project activities that mitigate the potential impact

PS. 1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts

Opening new access for Intensifying and improving operation of SMART-based Patrol, including poachers via new patrol paths finalization of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) that includes: and routes . Pathway use and limits the creation of new route; Temporary camp activities cause . Camp construction and management aspects; damage, e.g. litter, use of wood . Rules and systems to ensure confidentiality of data; for fire and camp construction . Flexibility for revision to address future or unforeseen impacts; and etc. . Provision of training on the SOP. Patrol findings data may be misused for destructive activities (encroachment/poaching/logging)

Successful patrols will reduce Awareness program targeting communities; utilizing and broadening use of poaching and increase wildlife the existing systems, information and mechanism for reporting and populations and potential responding to people-wildlife conflict, including: increased risk of human-wildlife . Increase dissemination of information on response process; and conflicts, (causing damage to . Strengthen and expand Rapid Response system / teams. crops and death or injury to livestock/wildlife/people) Conduct a review of options for alternative and complementary actions including lobbying or establishing local regulations that incentivize local communities to handle wildlife encounters in a positive way (for example, replicate other regency regulations compensating for cross loss, if appropriate).

Increase in presence of better Engage with NP personnel and communities to provide education and co- protected pest species such as develop solutions if these species become troublesome. wild boars

Potential translocation of tigers or . Ad opt and disseminate an SOP based on good-practice from other rhinos, bears risk of people/ contexts wildlife injury or death / problem . Provide training for relevant parties. animals . DRAFT I nclude resources for translocation and reserves for emergency responses in project budget.

Patrols and law enforcement lead . Design and deliver a proactive, multi-method communications strategy to perception of unfair or with tailored messages, methods and materials on: laws, patrols, project unequitable law enforcement, activities, changes to be anticipated in law enforcement, community triggering social jealousy and conservation role. tension among communities, and . Providing long-term community facilitators and support program for between communities and alternative livelihoods (includes developing Community Conservation officers Agreements and facilitating other processes to address community needs vis a vis BBSNP conservation); ensuring facilitators are trained for effective communication and issues management. . Grievance redress mechanism established and communicated to target audiences.

PS.2: Labor and Working Conditions & PS.4: Community Health, Safety and Security

Improper employment conditions . Ensuring compliant employment contract terms, including provision of of casual and non-permanent information and training. personnel . Developing SOP for patrol activities, to include provision of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for casual and informal workers.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 21 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Impact Description Project activities that mitigate the potential impact

PS.5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement

Patrols and law enforcement lead . Develop a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) based on locale and to lack/loss of livelihoods as population-specific data, engagement with government to strengthen people cannot utilize the land, PPTKH or other relevant committees and guidelines for social forestry forest products, and wildlife schemes and handling of economic and physical displacement.

inside BBSNP . Providing long-term community facilitators and support program for alternative livelihoods (includes developing Community Conservation Agreements and facilitating other processes to address community needs vis a vis BBSNP conservation); ensuring facilitators are trained for effective communication and issues management. Also includes advocacy and partnership support with local government and community cooperatives.

Changes in livelihood options, . Livelihoods program includes conducting assessments, developing tool including increased eco-tourism kits, providing training programs (farmer field schools), small enterprise and other diversified livelihood feasibility assessments and training (diverse commodities and strategies ecotourism). Program to include attention to potential tertiary impacts of these activities. . Participatory analysis of quota system and LAC (Limit of Acceptable Changes) to determine critical points of ecosystems, wildlife, social, and infrastructure components in tourism destination. . Community tourist education approach through developing visitor materials and guiding system, coordination with agents on tourist do’s and don’ts. . Engaging private sector and other partners on market access to support development of alternative commodities (outreach to educate buyers, etc.).

Physical displacement, loss of As above (RAP, advocacy and partnership support with local government dwellings (homes) within the and community cooperatives, long-term community facilitators, and national park areas and buffer livelihoods program). areas

Unfair or unequitable treatment of As above (design and deliver a proactive, multi-method communications PAPs leads to social jealousy strategy with tailored messages, methods and materials on: laws, patrols, and triggers conflicts among projeDRAFTct activities, changes to be anticipated in law enforcement, community communities, and between conservation role). communities and officers

Reduced or lost access to areas As part of the RAP, data collection and consultation to include investigating used for social/cultural purposes social and cultural values that may be affected for PAP including IP. (non-economic values) Controlled access options (including providing information on options already in law) and other measures to be agreed with PAP and documented in RAP.

PS.6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources

Reforestation activities may . Develop procedures and training for all relevant parties. Particular introduce or increase spread of aspects to include: confirmation of acceptable species list, exercising invasive plant species care in the use of Multi-Purpose Tree Species, and attention to the (mantangan/Merremia sp and source of seedlings, as these can inadvertently introduce invasive pakisan/Ceratoptoris sp) species. . Involvement of communities and parks personnel in localized ‘campaigns’ to remove clusters of invasive species is also planned as an occasional measure.

Successful restoration activities As above (awareness program, expanding dissemination of existing will increase wildlife populations materials and procedures, supporting Rapid Response system/teams). which may pose a risk of Depending if conflicts with tigers or elephants, apply specific mitigation Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 22 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Impact Description Project activities that mitigate the potential impact increased conflicts between measures; use lessons learned from other projects in Sumatra; to be updated people and wildlife in this file regularly.

PS. 7: Indigenous Peoples

Project area of impact may affect Ensuring consultation and activity implementation is consistent with FPIC local IP’s historical, economic particularly in Penal Laay, Labuhan Mandi, Paku Negara, Ulok Mukti villages, and cultural interests and with indigenous peoples’ representatives or organizations in Lampung and nationally (where relevant).

IP land tenure and forest usages Including elements specific to IPs in CCAs, project activity plans and impacted (reduced or monitoring processes, including reporting specifically on engagement with, strengthened) by law and impacts on, IPs across key project activities (awareness raising, enforcement activities and alternative economic activities and law enforcement). livelihoods program.

4.1.1 Gender Mainstreaming

The overall objective of mainstreaming gender within projects is to provide a signal that enables to assessment of gender-related changes in society, politics, and economic participation. Gender mainstreaming in projects includes the use of a participatory approach in all project stages. The initial step is to promote a basic understanding of gender mainstreaming to ensure that strategies and actions for ending discrimination at all levels and stages of the project cycle are enacted and take into consideration the needs for both genders, desires, and ambitions when decisions are made and resources are allocated.

In the mostly agrarian Lampung culture, woman typically become household or domestic workers who support their husband or family although, in reality, most of them collect, plant and maintain the farm fields. In Lampung, women typically work at nurturing the family while men work at tasks that are physically demanding.

The project is expected to have programs to support women and men. The components of these programs will be discussed and organized by the community project officer and the program beneficiaries. Woman in Pemerihan DRAFT village have already established an organization that will seek opportunities to improve alternative incomes for women and their households. While in Bumi Hantatai village, the cocoa farming school involves many households and mostly engages the women in these households. In gender segregated public consultations, it has been observed that participants in the women’s group express many ideas and opinions about the program as the IPZ Project has created new livelihood opportunities.

In general, it is unusual for women to take active roles in project activities and consultation processes, although women in the BBSNP area are, in actuality, key participants, particularly as collectors of damar and other NTFPs, as well as workers in ecosystem restoration, coffee planting and maintenance, and collecting firewood for household energy needs. However, counter to this high participation in project activities, women do not actively participate in decision-making forums. This dynamic is partly attributable to cultural factors and religious beliefs which do not expect women to be outspoken, as well as their role in managing household affairs which often restricts their mobility and ability to participate. Despite this, the Project Partners’ prior experience in the area has successfully involved women in farmer field schools and enabled insights for more effective engagement with women during Project implementation.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 23 Environmental and Social Management Framework

The Project endeavors to overcome some of these gender constraints by mainstreaming the following measures with a minimum participation rate of 30%:

a. Representation of women in FGDs, workshops, training and any task force;

b. Representation of women in village development activities, including as community mobilisers, beneficiaries and in community-based monitoring; and

c. Involvement of female community facilitators (possibly from civil society organizations [CSOs]) to facilitate gender balance in project activities and facilitate outreach and awareness raising on conservation education and sustainable livelihood activities. Where possible, the project will include special training on gender participation as part of community capacity building.

In addition, the Project Partners are committed to ensuring:

a. Separate sessions during consultations and community training for women if requested;

b. Attention to women’s participation in grievances or dispute resolution roles, including through local women networks if applicable; and,

c. Gender segregated data on participation in Project activities and outputs to be recorded so that disaggregated summaries gender participation in the Project can be collated and displayed.

4.1.2 Compliance and Core Labor Standards

Where different populations are inducted into the workforce by the partners (WCS, WWF and YABI), sub- contractors and other providers of goods and services, consideration must be given to compliance with local and national labour laws and relevant core labour standards.

With respect to labour and working conditions of women, there must be compliance with core labour standards which includes prohibition of any form of discrimination against women during hiring and providing equal work for equal pay for women and men.

Other workforce considerations as a result of the proposed sub-projects development which may have impact on human resources policiesDRAFT (i.e., working relationship, working conditions and terms of employment, workers’ organizations, non-discrimination and equal opportunity, retrenchment and grievance mechanism), protecting the workforce (i.e., child labour and forced labour), occupational health and safety, workers engaged by third parties, and supply chain are applicable in varying degrees due to differences in local context.

It is important to note that Indonesia has ratified a number of key international conventions labour and working conditions including the 1925 Equality of Treatment for National And Foreign Workers as Regards to Workmen’s Compensation for Accident, 1930 Forced Labour Convention, the 1947 convention on Labour inspection, the 1949 convention on The aplication on the principles of the right to organize to bargain collectively, the 1951 convention on equal remuneration for men and women wokrers for wokrk of equal value, and the 1973 convention on minimun age for admission to employment.

Potential impacts due to an influx of workers to the sub-project sites is likely to be minimal, as is a large urban area with significant pool of skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labor to draw on. Nonetheless, contractors should have in-place robust mechanisms related to worker codes of conduct, as well as a grievance redress mechanism for residents to register grievances about worker conduct.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 24 Environmental and Social Management Framework

4.1.3 Land Acquisition and Resettlement

The Land Acquisition and Resettlement in ESMF is one of IFC PS triggered because people are cultivating land inside the BBSNP and the community members are aware the GoI regulations stipulate this is illegal and punishable by law.

Activity 3 of the IPZ Project - land use pressure on the IPZ is diminished through improved land use management and community development – is applicable to this aspect of the ESMF and activities already implemented by the Project Partners include:

. In July 2017, WWF conducted training on ecotourism to engage community members who are encroaching into the national park and to provide alternative incomes. WWF chose ecotourism as an important pillar for reaching this goal.

. In September 2017 and December 2017, two trainings were conducted by WWF and the Park Officer forecoguides and program managers on an newly established ecotourism forum;

. In Kubu Perahu village, WWF conducted a feasibility study for a stonecraft program together with a master craftsman who will also train the people on handicraft and further help with marketing of the products outside the village;

. In 2010, 80 families from Pemerihan village agreed to leave the national park area freeing up approximately 400 ha. In the same year, WWF started rehabilitation of this area together with the former community member enchroaching in the national park. Until 2017, WWF was collaborating with communities to restore more degraded, encroached areas; and

. From July 2017 to December 2017, WWF restored 65 ha of degraded land consisting of 25 ha in the Ngambur resort, 25 ha in Pemerihan village and 20 ha in the Biha resort. Sixty-five peoples from the villages participated in these activities. The areas have been ready for revegetation.

There is a certainty that the IPZ Program activities may restrict the access of forest dependent communities in nature reserves and/or other protected areas as a result of formalizing forest boundaries and zones within Forest Management DRAFTUnits (FMU). The project will result in direct involuntary resettlement and/or livelihoods displacement. There is also a risk that the IPZ program may exacerbate and affect existing disputes over land rights if no sufficient community participation and dispute mediation is in place during the program implementation. The KfW BBS project will seek to establish participatory approaches in forest boundary demarcation and tenure settlements.

It was still doesn’t know if the GoI is committed to providing support through TNBBS to create alternative livelihoods such as social forestry schemes and forest-partnership (Kemitraan) with forest-dependent communities within and surrounding FMU areas.

Increased land and forest tenurial conflicts have been and will continue to be a major concern for the success of the IPZ. Such conflicts often involve Adat communities (IP) who have claims before establishment of Forest Areas (Kawasan Hutan) and issuance of forest concessions. Since 2012, Indonesia has mobilized significant efforts to identify existing tenurial conflict and other land-use and forestry related conflicts, as well as develop relevant policies and regulatory frameworks. The IPZ will take into account an indicative tenurial conflict map that the GoI has developed, with an inventory of 201 conflicts, mostly in Sumatera (60.7%) and Kalimantan (16.4%). Such identification is currently on-going to further identify tenurial conflicts in forest areas through a joint assessment between the Government and

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 25 Environmental and Social Management Framework

communities, including Adat (IP) communities and identify ways forward to settle conflicts through consensus.

The ESMF developed under the IPZ has incorporated a Process Framework (PF) to mitigate potential resettlement and access restriction risks resulting from forest tenure settlements and boundary demarcation supported by the IPZ. The PF has been developed in conjunction with the current GoI frameworks on forest tenure settlements, and will seek to address any gaps, particularly with regards to free, prior, and informed consultations with affected parties, compensation and livelihoods restoration.

The progress of the project has already built in activities working with communities to develop alternative livelihood options, supporting processes of participatory planning, providing technical assistance for new crops, commodity supply chains and alternative income generation (for example through ecotourism). Social forestry program options are also part of the project design

Project are working with village communities and local government, (MoEF, local forestry department), to identify and assisting resettlement of encroachers in forest areas. The Project provides support for the development and function of PPTHK teams (Penyelesaian Penguasaan Tanah di Kawasan Hutan or Resolution of land uses in forest areas) and for the development of provincial and local procedures or guidelines on the handling of the cases in the project area.

This may include:

1. Establishing a task force and methods to evaluate HTR (in BBSNP buffer zone);

2. Facilitating partnership approaches;

3. Facilitating licenses for Community Plantation Forest Utilization (IUP HTR)2 and for Community Forest Utilization (IUP HKm)3, including Customary Forest uses;

4. Providing long term, qualified facilitators and access to support (resource persons) that can assist with effective local communication strategies and provide mediation services and advice when needed; and 5. Facilitating community accessDRAFT to support to understand and exercise options under the government’s social forestry regulations and program. This program has been increasingly regarded as a potential alternative to improve community access rights to the forest areas and at the same time, retain and/or return the allocated forest areas into their original functions. 4.1.4 Process Framework

A Process Framework (PF) is required as part of the KfW BBS project as there is the potential to restrict access to natural resources as a result of anticipated investments in land use planning, including activities supporting the preparation of land use plans for Community Protected Area (CPAs), and Community Forests (CFs). The purpose of the PF is to establish a process of informed and meaningful consultations and negotiations with members of potentially affected communities. The PF defines the procedures to

2 Community forest plantations (Hutan Tanaman Rakyat - HTR) are state forests that are managed by individuals or cooperatives to increase quality and potency of forest products (timber and NTFPs). HTRs have a maximum area of about 15 hectares for each license holder or 700 hectares for cooperatives. Individual license holders can form community groups to request a single license; doing so can be faster. The target location for HTRs is in production forests. 3 Forestry partnership (Kemitraan Kehutanan - Kemitraan) are state forest lands managed by community groups or cooperatives to give access and direct benefit to local communities through capacity strengthening in cooperation with concession holders and forest management units (FMUs).4 Target locations for Kemitraan are areas under concession in production forest and in specific area Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 26 Environmental and Social Management Framework

allow project affected persons (PAPs) to participate in the determination of measures necessary to mitigate or minimize the impacts of restricted resource access.

The PF is prepared to comply with the IFC PS5 on Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement and the GoI laws and regulations. The PF provides guidance for the development of action plans during project implementation that:

. Describe the proposed access restrictions to natural resources in protected areas;

. Identify and quantify the impacts that those restrictions may have on different segments of the local communities;

. Propose, implement and monitor remedial measures to compensate for the loss of those assets and the income associated with them; and

. Provide grievance redress mechanisms in order to resolve any issues that may arise due to restrictions of access to resources over the course of the project.

The PF ensures that the views of people whom are likely benefiting from, or negatively affected by the project, especially vulnerable people such as ethnic minorities and women, are included in the planning process. Targeted activities will ensure that all PAPs participate in the process and receive adequate compensation and assistance. The process framework is presented in Appendix A3. 4.1.5 Indigenous Peoples

There are two studies to learn about the indigenous people in BBSNP: “Masyarakat Adat (Indigenous People) around BBSNP study” and the social economic studies for villages around BBSNP. Both of the documents also supported by the Minutes of Meeting with three IP communities: Laay, Uru Krui, and Ngambur. All of these IPs have their own distinct language, self-identify, hold customary cultural beliefs, economic social and political institution, and maintain a collective attachment to the natural resource in the IPZ. The IPs that are affected by the project activities are a heterogeneous group, with a history of intermarriage, outward migration, and have a defined cultural identity. As such, the Pesisir or Peminggir IPs are anticipated to be affected by theDRAFT project activities and these IPs are comprised of 10 clans based on project consultations.

BBSNP together with WWF, WCS, and YABI conducted an ethnography study in October 2018 and November 2018. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive picture of the culture of Saibatin Lampung, an indigenous group living around the IPZ area. FGDs were held in each clan:

. The Ulu krui clan on 2 October 2018 involving 15 representatives of traditional leaders;

. The Laay clan on 3 October 2018 involving 15 traditional leaders; and

. The Ngambur clan on 4 October 2018 involving 15 traditional leaders.

The topics discussed in the FGDs included:

. Social systems related to marriage, inheritance systems, relations with the community and customary institutions; and

. Cultural arts which consist which can serve as a medium for conveying messages concerning development or environmental preservation.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 27 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Tradition, management of natural resources IFC PS 7 requires IFC clients to identify adverse impacts on indigenous communities and develop action plans to conduct informed consultation and participation of affected indigenous communities. In addition, companies are expected to seek the FPIC of communities when:

. The Project will impact the lands and natural resources subject to traditional ownership or under customary use;

. The Project will require relocation of communities; or

. The Project will significantly impact critical cultural heritage of IPs.

The IFC requires FPIC to be established though a good faith negotiation with the indigenous communities. In addition, the Project should document that there is a mutually accepted process for obtaining consent, and should ensure that there is evidence that the parties agree on the outcome of the negotiations. The Project Partners are currently addressing their approach to consultations to ensure compliance with FPIC principles such that consultations are robust and meaningful..

The project will undertake a process of free, prior, and informed consultations (FPIC) with the affected indigenous communities. These consultations will be conducted to collect data (eg. household economic displacement data as a result of project activities), to share mitigation measures with the community members, to hear and gather their views about the KfW BBS project, to seek community support to the project, and to develop necessary measures to protect IP rights and address their concerns to the future. 4.1.6 Minor Temporary Impacts

A minor temporary impact is characterized as a temporary loss of assets or livelihoods following the implementation of project.

In the patrol guard activities, patrol data may be misused for destructive activities such as encroachment, poaching, and logging. The activities can also have secondary (minor) impact if law enforcement is unfair and inequitable and leads to social jealousy which could trigger conflicts among communities, and between communities and officers. DRAFT Removal of invasive species and reforestation activities are considered positive impacts with minor potential risks if not implemented wisely. For example, removal of certain tree species may not support objectives of developing feed stock for critical species or their prey. There is also the risk of increased conflicts between people and wildlife resulting in damage in livestock and/or risk of injury or death to people and problem wildlife as well as the loss of forest- or agriculture-based livelihoods. Pest mammal species such as wild boar could also increase due to project activities.

The support for land use changes is expected to have a positive impact on forest conditions with an emphasis on re-establishing critical habitat. There are potential negative social impacts such as community discord or tension related to law enforcement, perception of equality in opportunities (for community development), and variable access to participation by marginal groups including women and indigenous peoples (conversely expressed as elite domination at the village level).

Potential negative impacts of eco-tourism development are also flagged for consideration due to changes in livelihood options including increased eco-tourism and other diversified livelihood strategies. Successful implementation could lead to sustainable alternative community livelihoods although perception of

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 28 Environmental and Social Management Framework

injustice regarding consistency of law enforcement and/or inequitable community empowerment/unfulfilled expectations and jealousy may lead to tension or jealousy among community members. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK The purpose of the ESMF is to manage potential adverse impacts by establishing a guidance document which will inform the project partners and the BBSNP management authority to administer mutually agreed sets of environmental and social safeguards procedures and measures. The ESMF will facilitate necessary environmental and social management (including risk management of environmental and social impacts) procedures and measures of proposed sub-project(s) which may be financed by the IPZ project. The ESMF comprises the guidance document required for the ESMP or a limited scope Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA)4 if the scale of potential impacts is complex and other planning instruments (PF) to be applied at project appraisal and formulation when project design details become available. The ESMF is a guidance and decision-support tool for the BBSNP management authority, stakeholders and different populations and has been prepared through consultations including FGDs in Bumi Hantatai, Penengahan, Suka Banjar, and Pemerihan villages. The ESMF and PF will be publicly disclosed to local communities and the general public.

As an overarching guideline document, the ESMF provides assurances that:

. The project will consider potential environmental and social issues, especially for different populations who would be directly impacted (positively or adversely) by the KfW BBS project;

. The project will consider socio-cultural and gender sensitivities and environmental values prevailing in areas where the proposed KfW BBS project would be implemented;

. During project formulation and design, adverse environmental and social impacts may arise during project implementation and appropriate mitigation or enhancement measures need to be designed with a monitoring plan developed to track implementation of site-specific safeguards instruments;

. Environmental and social managementDRAFT safeguard instruments such as ESMP or ECoP, and IPPF are suitably prepared and followed; and

. Safeguard instruments are compliant with the IFC safeguard policies and procedures as well as national legislation.

This section of the ESMF describes the process for ensuring that environmental and social concerns are adequately addressed through screening, institutional arrangements and procedures used by the project for managing the identification, preparation, approval and implementation of sub-projects.

SCREENING AND APPROVAL Environmental and social screening is designed to identify and document potential adverse impacts arising from proposed sub-projects. Environmental and social screening informs decision-makers about the need to implement measures or actions [if any] which avoid, minimize, mitigate or compensate for adverse impacts. Sub-projects are categorized according to the screening procedure depending on the

4 A limited scope ESIA applies to a Category B project in that the scope is narrower than for a Category A project. This limited scope ESIA could be equivalent to an UKL-UPL in the national legal framework. Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 29 Environmental and Social Management Framework

type, location, sensitivity and scale of the project and the nature and magnitude of its potential environmental and social impact. A sample of environmental and social safeguard screening form is in Appendix A4. The screening and review process will be conducted by environmental and social safeguard specialists. While risks associated with various sub-projects may vary, all of them are expected to fall under Category B as any sub-project in Category A will be ineligible for funding. The screening and approval process is described in Figure 1.

Screening and categorization of sub‐projects are based on potential environmental and social impacts: According to the KfW Sustainability Guideline, the initial screening process will classify the projects according to their potential environmental and social adverse impacts into either Category A, Category B+, Category B, or Category C according to the following definitions:

i. Category A projects: Diverse, significant adverse risks and impacts on human populations and/or the environment and that can’t be managed through standard solutions and state of the art technology. Category A projects need to undergo a full ESIA process per the KfW Sustainability Guideline and are not supported under this KfW BBS project.

ii. Category B projects: Potential limited adverse environmental or social risks and/or impacts that are few in number, generally site‐specific, largely reversible, and readily managed through standard solutions and state of the art technology. Category B projects must implement mitigation measures as foreseen in the site‐specific ESMP.

iii. Category B+ projects: Substantial impacts and risks that occur in single areas and show a higher risk than Category B projects but not as diverse and unprecedented as for Category A projects. Category B+ projects should as a minimum undergo an “Rapid Environmental and Social Assessment” (Rapid ESA) for the identified risks and areas/topics of concern and address those through a fit‐for‐purpose site‐specific ESMP tailored to the identified impacts and receptors. For some Category B+ projects full‐fledged ESIA and ESMP can be required, especially if demanded by national law.

iv. Category C projects: Minimal or negligible adverse risks or impacts on human populations and/or the environment. Category CDRAFT projects must implement mitigation measures as foreseen in the ESMP or ECoP.

The BBSNP management authority completes the initial screening with the project partners who are responsible for proposed sub-projects identification and screening and ensuring that adequate environmental and social safeguards performance instruments are implemented. Once proposed sub- project locations are identified, the BBSNP management authority will prepare proposed sub-project(s) descriptions, conduct site-specific environmental and social screening of proposed sub-project(s) (Appendix A5), and assess requirements for necessary environmental and social management measures and plans (i.e., ESMP/ECoP). At the implementation phase, national consultants could be contracted to support BBSNP management authority staff who are responsible for completing the screening safeguards forms.

A standard appraisal and mitigation matrix will be part of the specifications for the partners and will form the basis of regular monitoring. The ESMP matrix based on the sectors and consisting of schedule, and potential environmental and social impacts, if any, due to the project, mitigation measures, operation and supervision.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 30 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Figure 1 Sub-project screening and approval process.

SCOPING ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES

As established in the EIA regulation, the environmental studies shall be preceded by a scoping exercise in order to identify the environmental and social components that shall be focused in the EIA, approaches and methodologies to be adopted and the Terms of Reference (TOR) to be followed. In the case of the Category A projects, an Environmental Prefeasibility and Scoping Study (EPSS) shall be submitted to local Environmental Agency and/or Ministry of Environmental and Forestry, including the TOR for the EIA, while for Category B projects, only the TOR shall be submitted for approval.

The structure of the EPSS is defined in the EIA Regulation/AMDAL Regulation refer to Indonesian Government Regulation No. 27/2012DRAFT Environmental Permit and Government Regulation No.16/2012 Guideline for Preparing Environmental documents, it includes a brief description of the project and the environmental and social conditions of the project area, identification of the potential impacts as well as any fatal flaw. The EPSS shall be submitted to a public participation process.

Based on the screening form and field appraisal (when required), the impacts are classified based on their risk category and a decision is made as to whether the sub-project will:

a. Require an EIA study and/or RAP, since the impacts qualify as being high-risk and significant and may result in land acquisition and/or involuntary resettlement;

b. Require only an EMP, since the impacts are not significant and can be easily addressed through the implementation of a mitigation and management plan during construction and operation of the sub-project; or

c. Not require any safeguard measures, as the impacts are considered minimal.

As mentioned, the screening process will identify the nature of potential impacts, both positive and negative (adverse), that the potential sub-project(s) could generate within its region of influence (ROI). This will inform the selection of safeguards instruments that would be required to assess the potential Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 31 Environmental and Social Management Framework

impacts in further detail. The choice of safeguards instrument or measure primarily depends on the degree of significance of anticipated environmental and social impacts as well as the associated environmental and social risks.

Scoping confirms the key environmental and social issues, risks and potential impacts identified during the screening process. The scoping stage can highlight potential issues at an early phase of sub-project development to allow planners and decision-makers to design changes which will mitigate potential environmental and social impacts and, possibly, the project location(s) to be modified.

APPLICATION OF SAFEGUARDS INSTRUMENTS, PLANS AND MEASURES

All sub-projects activities will require safeguards instruments such as limited scope ESIAs, ESMPs, and IPPFs within clearly delineated sub-project footprints. The details are described in the below sub-sections. 5.3.1 Environmental and Social Management Plan

5.3.1.1 Environmental and Social Management Plan Objectives

The objective of the ESMP is to respond to the environmental and social needs of the KfW BBS project in a simple, responsive and cost-effective manner that will not unnecessarily overload or impede the project cycle. The ESMP outlines the measures needed to address the issues identified in the ESIA. Moreover, the ESMP demonstrates proposed monitoring activities that encompass all major impacts and identify how they will be integrated into project supervision. General environmental management plans is presented in Appendix A6. The following activities to be carried out are outlined in the ESMP:

. Main environmental and social mitigation measures;

. Environmental and Social training and capacity program; and

. Environmental and social monitoring.

The ESMP is also considered the base of the environmental and social audit of selected projects and an assessment of the potential impactsDRAFT and mitigation measures. The ESMP is prepared based on the existing environmental and social situations and the auditing requirements and includes the following elements:

. Site-specific environmental and social screening review and assessment of key environmental issues;

. Identify linkages to other safeguard policies relating to the project;

. Ensure adequate consultation during the assessment process;

. Develop an Environmental and Social Monitoring Plan; and

. Develop methodologies and procedures to be applied in context of the ESMP.

The ESMP is prepared in compliance with the Indonesia forestry and environmental laws, and IFC PS1, PS2, PS4, PS5, PS6 and PS7 and EHS Guidelines. The ESMP provides tools for the evaluation and management of the impacted environmental and social parameters and they are:

. Natural Resource, Forests and Biodiversity Areas;

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 32 Environmental and Social Management Framework

. Construction waste;

. Accidental risks; and

. Land use.

The risks and negative impacts of the proposed KfW BBS project can be minimized by addressing mitigation measures during the project operation phases. Appendix A7 presents matrices detailing representation of the environmental and social impacts. These environmental matrices show the expected impacts covered by the projects, sector wise, and list the mitigation measures proposed to be implemented during and after implementation of the sub-projects.

5.3.1.2 Environmental and Social Management Plan Implementation Arrangements

Implementation of environmental and social safeguards captured in the ESMP will be nested within the Project Coordination Unit (PCU), under the Joint Secretariat of project partners and the Forestry Department at the Balai level (Kota Agung/ BBSNP). This structure and its personnel report to a project Steering Committee, as shown in Figure 2. These will report to the Project coordinator and counterpart in the Balai (BBSNP head) through the PCU. Some key features of the project management arrangements are:

Project Steering Committee

The Project Steering Committee will include the BBSNP Head and Project Partner Leaders of WWF Germany and WWF Indonesia, WCS and YABI as well as local government representatives, who will be invited on a case-by-case basis. Local representatives from KfW will be invited as permanent observers. It will provide advice and input to project work plans and strategies, and assist with coordination over policy development and inputs from the project, as well as ensure coordination between the Project Partners at the landscape level. A key function of this committee will be to approve Project reports and to formally approve a single joint annual work plan and budget for the project that aligns with the BBSNP annual workplan. The Project SteeringDRAFT Committee meets annually and upon request. BBS Joint Collaborative Management Secretariat (“BBS Joint Secretariat”)

The project will support the re-design and operation of the BBS Joint Collaborative Management Secretariat (Sekretariat Bersama Pengelolaan Kolaborasi; “BBS Joint Secretariat”), created on 18 February 2013 on the basis of a National Park Head’s decision letter (Surat Keputusan 18/BBTNBBS- 2/2013). The secretariat’s primary purpose is to manage overall collaboration between multiple conservation NGOs and the National Park authority. The BBS Joint Secretariat, through the PCU, will ensure coordinated implementation of the work plans (including the ESMP implementation) and sharing of information, a common approach to law enforcement and community issues, coordinated planning, and optimal use of the available resources of all the members of the group. The secretariat consists of the Project Coordination Unit, the BBSNP Head and the project managers from the project partners. The secretariat is expected to meet quarterly to review information on threats and interventions, develop and revise work plans, and facilitate coordination between the project partners and other organizations working with the park. The BBS Joint Secretariat will be coordinated by the park, with the support of the Project Coordinator.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 33 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Project Coordinator (with the support of the Project Coordination Unit)

The project coordinator will work full-time for the project and will play a central role for this project, including ultimate responsibility for overseeing ESMP implementation. His/her responsibilities are:

. Project facilitation and liaison: coordinate the key personnel from the Project Coordination Unit, like the Project Finance and Administration Coordinator, coordinate with the project partners and BBSNP to develop joint annual project work plans, emphasizing a fully integrated approach; support project partners in communicating project progress to the Joint National Rhino Secretariat, Ministry of Environment and Forestry (Directorate-General of Natural Resource and Ecosystem Conservation ("DG KSDAE"), and the BBSNP Management Authority), local government; and, coordinate with other conservation and development projects being developed and/or implemented in the BBS landscape to ensure a complementary approach.

. Project monitoring, reporting and planning and overall risk management of the project: in collaboration with the Project Coordination Unit and the implementing project partners and their respective project leaders to track and monitor project progress against Key Performance Indicators; facilitate quarterly BBSNP Joint Secretariat meetings; produce quarterly and annual technical and financial progress reports, based on project partners and BBSNP inputs; facilitate frequent and clear communication between project partners; and, support implementation of the project communication strategy.

. Technical duties: organize and accompany donor, government and other interested party visits to the project site and accompany them in the field; and, monitor project-related grievances and handle these with Project Partners as needed.

Environmental and Social Management Plan Capacity Arrangements

Institutions involved in project planning, implementation and management including the ESMP mitigations are WWF, WCS, YABI, BBSNP and any parties contracted to them for project purposes. A general capacity assessment conducted for the ESMP focuses on their respective functions, roles and responsibilities with regard to ESMP (Table 6). It is important to note that the ESMP is something new to all parties, such that familiarity is onDRAFTly beginning to be established, and levels of understanding vary depending on individuals as well as organizations. The content of ESMP requirements is not entirely new, but some approaches and requirements will require time to become mainstreamed in the thinking and work processes used by each, as well as at the share project level.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 34 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Table 6 Environmental and Social Management Plan capacity requirements.

Area Roles and Responsibilities Capacity Needs Assessment

BBSNP – Provincial . Strategic policy directions, planning, Some understanding due to involvement and Balai levels budgeting and setting overall targets. in the ESMP development. Understanding . Human resource allocation and of the country systems on environmental procurement of third-party services. and social management with varying capacities to implement. . Technical oversight and support, e.g. on IPZ management, law enforcement Requires training on the key provisions in (handling encroachers, poachers, the ESMP as well as additional human hunters), reforestation activities. resources to support overall safeguards coordination, technical support and . Handling of disputes and management oversight. Should appoint a focal point / of grievances. PIC to interact with project partners based in the same office, particularly to coordinate on risks associated with handling encroachers’ resettlement.

Resort level offices . Field supervision of resort area, Some understanding due to involvement boundaries and responsible for in the ESMP development. Understanding activities within that area. of the country systems on environmental . Hands-on work with field teams: and social management with varying surveys, patrolling, handling legal capacities to implement. cases (poachers), dealing with human- wildlife conflicts, reforestation and Requires training on the key provisions in encroachers. the ESMP (especially vis handling of . Manage grievances and dispute encroachers) and assignment of a resolution from village community safeguards Person-in-Charge (PIC) to level. monitor and coordinate information on key . Facilitate some coordination with project activities and be responsible for relevant agencies/offices, research grievance reporting. groups and civil society groups.

Village level including . Engage in BBSNP and project Limited understanding and capacity to communities involved activities to support sustainable land implement varies. in patrols and use and livelihoods. Requires adequate training on the key community . Support improvedDRAFT law enforcement provisions in the ESMP and mentorship development activity through citizen engagement activities. support to ensure that risks are . Assist and support fellow community in adequately assessed, and impact finding alternative land options for mitigation measures are implemented in encroachers / resettlement processes. accordance with the ESMP.

Sub-district and Village . Assist in data mobilization and Limited understanding of ESMP Governments completion of documentation. requirements. . Support local law envforcement and Requires capacity building related to mediation efforts, in case of disputes, environmental and social aspects as required. (through orientation programs, . Support community members and dissemination of brochures and other resort offices to respond to grievances. publications), strengthening coordination for project implementation, dispute . Participate and facilitate better settlements, and village-level facilitation to integration of planning resources the overall processes and beyond (i.e. (budgets) and community activities to community development, livelihoods, etc). support conservation objectives (synergy of RPJMDes and Community Conservation Agreements.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 35 Environmental and Social Management Framework

5.3.2 Indigenous Peoples Plan

If IPs are impacted by the KfW BBS project, an IPs safeguards planning instrument should be developed based on the IFC PS7. This safeguard policy requires that special measures be established to protect the interests of IPs who can be distinguished by:

. Self-identification as members of a distinct ethnic cultural group and recognition of this identity by others;

. Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories;

. Customary cultural, economic, social or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and

. Ethnic language, often different from the official language of the country or region.

There is a potential that a proposed sub-project will have moderate to significant impacts on an IP community if they are subject to involuntary resettlement. Indigenous peoples’ livelihoods and well-being are also under pressure in some areas because of in-migration by other people and allocation of concessions. If ethnic groups are identified in any of the proposed sub-project areas, IFC PS7 general principles will apply to ensure that:

. Indigenous minority groups are afforded meaningful opportunities to participate in planning that affects them;

. Opportunities to provide such groups with culturally appropriate benefits are considered; and

. Any sub-project impacts that adversely affect them are avoided or otherwise minimized and mitigated.

The purpose of the IPPF is to ensure culturally appropriate consultation with indigenous peoples (i.e., ethnic groups) and participation in sub-project development. If based on free, prior and informed consultations where affected IPs concludeDRAFT that the proposed sub-project will be beneficial to them then, measures and assistance will be developed in consultation with tribal elders, community based organizations (CBO) and independent CSOs/NGOs. The free, prior and informed consultation and planned activities will be documented in the IPPF. Assistance should include institutional strengthening and capacity building of community elders and CBOs working on specific activities (e.g., resettlement, if any) within the sub-project.

If IPs are adversely affected by a sub-project, either by land acquisition or by other induced negative impacts, the IPPF will have to address the impacts with various measures, activities and actions to mitigate adverse impacts. Acquisition of land and other assets would be governed by the RPF.

Implementation of the IPPF would be carried out by the community, assisted by appropriate staff from the BBSNP management authority and the project partners, where available and appropriate. 5.3.3 Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan

If less than 200 people are affected by the sub-project, the appropriate safeguards measure is an Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan (ARAP) described more fully in the RPF. The ARAP or Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) is prepared during project implementation, when detailed designs are

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 36 Environmental and Social Management Framework

available and before project implementation. The ARAP would include: (i) brief description of the sub- project, location and its impacts; (ii) principles and objectives governing resettlement preparation and implementation; (iii) legal framework; (iv) baseline information of PAP and PAH; (v) category of PAP and PAH by degree and type of impacts; (vi) entitlement to compensation, allowances and rehabilitation assistance by category of impacts in a compensation matrix; (vii) information on relocation site together with socio-economic conditions on the PAP and PAH and host communities; (viii) institutional arrangement for planning and implementation; (ix) participatory procedures during planning and implementation; (x) grievance redress procedures; (xi) estimated cost of resettlement and yearly budget; (xii) time-bound action plan for implementation; and, (xiii) internal and external monitoring and reporting procedures, including a terms of reference for external monitoring and evaluation. 6.0 CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE The sub-projects support a participatory and consultative approach involving meaningful engagement with different populations (i.e., ethnic minorities, vulnerable groups, women and female/male youth and children, men, the elderly and disabled, etc.), CSOs, CBOs and other relevant stakeholders. The approach was intended to enhance ownership and general understanding of different populations through public access to information for the ESMF and safeguard management instruments (i.e., PF as necessary), roles and responsibilities, and perceptions as a basis for improving coordination and achievement of the sub- project objectives. The participatory and consultative approach should ensure effective communication and coordination with all stakeholders and different populations at national and sub-national levels (Appendix A8).

The Statement of Principles on IPs and Conservation at the WWF recognizes the right of IPs to FPIC for projects affecting their customary lands and resources. The WWF will not promote or support, and might actively oppose, interventions affecting indigenous lands and resources that had not yet received adequate and meaningful consultations.

The following guiding principles for FPIC must be include in the decision-making process:

a. Consultations must be free from coercion, intimidation or manipulation;

b. Before the allocation of land forDRAFT certain uses or approval of certain projects. Lead time (the time between the initial project idea and the time it starts to be implemented) must reflect respect for the time requirements of the customary consultation / consensus process.

c. Complete information must be provided on the nature and scope of the proposed project or activity; area to be affected; potential economic, social, cultural and environmental risks and benefits; and the proposed project time frame and the organizations / actors that might be involved.

Information must be in a language that is easily understood by the people affected, delivered in a culturally appropriate manner, and available from independent sources. Communities may also need capacity building on lesser known issues in order to understand the information.

d. Consent requires time and an effective system for communicating among all members of the affected community and making decisions through customary decision-making processes or other processes defined by the community.

Agreement requires that affected people are able to say “yes” or “no” at each stage of the project. Approval must be given or not given by the community; no individual or representative can make Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 37 Environmental and Social Management Framework

that decision. The agreement must be fair and must be part of an ongoing process of communication and negotiation, not only a one-time action.

Key elements of the procedure FPIC includes:

1. Identifying land holders and customary rights.

Land claims based on customary rights are often not formally recognized by law, fulfilling this element may require support for a participatory community mapping process to document community recognized rights to forests. Mapping must include various groups in the community (which may have differences in knowledge, interests and use of resources) as well as the surrounding community (to validate and agree on boundaries).

2. Identifying and involving appropriate decision-making institutions / authorities in the community.

Communities must be represented by institutions of their own choosing through verifiable processes, which may differ from institutions formed based on government structures. If external facilitation is provided for the approval process, this facilitation must be provided by a neutral body (without personal interest in the results) and specifically in agreement with the community.

3. Identify and involve supporting organizations.

Involve supporting organizations - such as regional or national representative organizations of indigenous peoples and / or experts or advocacy groups on customary / community rights. Supporting organizations can work with communities to promote a policy framework that allows for their local activities, if they don't already exist or need to be strengthened.

4. Build mutual understanding and agreement on FPIC processes that are appropriate to the local situation.

This element addresses that external part understand the decision-making process by the local community and that the community determines their own processes and expectations about information and support from DRAFToutside groups. 5. Provide information.

General guidelines on how information should be provided include that it must be:

. Open and transparent;

. In languages and forms that are appropriate to the local situation; and

. Delivered at the right time and in a culturally appropriate way.

General guidelines regarding what information should be provided include:

. Balanced treatment of the potential positive and negative impacts of an initiative;

. Assessment of costs and benefits, and their distribution;

. Alternatives and results from various scenarios; and

. Information about community legal rights and legal implications of the proposed project (eg implications for land / resource rights, status of carbon rights).

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 38 Environmental and Social Management Framework

6. Negotiate and support decision making.

Negotiations consist of a two-way dialogue between the community and advocates or project facilitators (e.g. government, private sector, NGOs) regarding proposals, interests and issues.

7. Document agreement based agreements.

One difference between the FPIC process and the more general consultation is that certain agreements must be documented in a mutually agreed form between all parties.

8. Support and monitor implementation of agreements.

Implementing community agreement agreements may require ongoing technical support or capacity building. Monitoring the implementation of the agreement allows the parties to hold each other accountable for agreed outcomes and adaptively manages if the actual results may differ from projections (eg community costs or benefits). Right-holding communities must be substantively involved in all stages of designing and implementing monitoring agreement agreements, not just collecting paid data.

9. Establish and operationalize conflict resolution mechanisms.

The conflict resolution mechanism provides a process for resolving differences that might arise in the implementation of the agreement. Defining in advance how differences will be communicated and resolved helps to ensure that differences do not grow into broader conflicts that frustrate agreements and projects.

10. Verifying approval.

Verification by third parties that community consent is free, preliminary and based on information guard against manipulation of the FPIC process. The verification process also allows supporters and facilitators to show that they have respected this right in relation to certain initiatives.

The KfW BBS project was first discussed with WCS and the consultant team on 14 August 2019 and again on 17 September 2019 during the kickDRAFT-off meeting at the WCS office in Bogor, West Java, Indonesia. Subsequently, initial consultations to inform the draft ESMF and PF were held in Lampung Province during the week of 30 September to 04 October 2019 and described more fully in Appendices A9 Key Stakeholder, A10 List of Consulted Stakeholder, A11 Stakeholder Consultation Objectives, A12 Stakeholder Consultation Responses-FGD and A13 Stakeholder Consultation Responses-Interview. Stakeholders and different populations were provided information on project objectives, sub-project descriptions and component initiatives, potential impacts (both positive and adverse effects). A second public consultation meeting is planned for November 2019 to discuss the proposed sub-projects, issues and concerns, the draft final ESMF and PF documents, and related measures. These draft documents will be translated into Bahasa Indonesia and distributed to national, sub-national and local governments, key stakeholders and civil society organizations, and different populations prior to the second public consultation meeting. Initial results suggest that most of the stakeholders and different populations support the proposed sub-project initiatives and/or activities. As sub-projects are formulated, additional consultations will be held with local authorities and different populations who are likely to be directly or indirectly affected from the proposed sub-project(s). Written records of the consultations are appended in Appendices A14 Questionnaire and A15 Sign Up Sheet.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 39 Environmental and Social Management Framework

7.0 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM The Project’s Grievance Redress Mechanisms (GRM) comprises of four-tier system, i.e. village, district/city, provincial and national level. Basically, the GRM of KfW BBS Program will use existing mechanisms that have been applied in each institutional authority (OPD). Therefore, the stages and the time period for handling grievances will depend on the existing mechanism. The institutional authority in every level is responsible to handle the grievance and conflict resolution.

The grievance process will be divided into three categories: 1) grievances related to land and territorial issues, 2) grievances related to the human-wildlife conflict, and 3) others including those related to the program. Therefore, at the national level the submission of grievances can be through a website that has been available and managed by Director General of Law Enforcement (DGLE), Director General of Social Forestry and Environment Partnership (DGSFEP), and Information Management and Documentation Officer (PPID). The PPID has mandated by the ministry will be responsible for handling grievances at the national level.

All grievances that transferred to the district, provincial and national levels will be documented through the PPID System managed by the PPID. The grievance handling and reporting is coordinated by the Regional Secretary (SEKDA) at each level. In terms of recording, monitoring and reporting, SEKDA will be assisted by Dedicated Functions that are recruited from the KfW BBS Project.

Aggrieved Project Affected People (PAPs) and Project Affected Households (PAHs) can submit their grievance directly to the authorized institution (OPD) at each level or facilitated by the assigned person employed by the Project Partners. That person will ensure the grievance will be delivered to the appropriate institution to handle.

Grievance mechanism needs to be shared with and explained to the local communities including IPs and Adat Community, Regional Organizations (or Organisasi Perangkat Daerah/OPD).

PROCESS AND GRIEVANCE MECHANISM

This process and grievance mechanism will includes: a) receive and record grievance; b) screen and categorize grievances; c) acknowledgeDRAFT receipt and its follow up action; d) refer to the relevant ministries, for non KfW BBS grievances, e) investigate, for KfW grievances, which includes field visit for verifying and validating grievances; f) act/follow up and g) conclude described in Figure 1.

A grievance is the submission of information verbally or in writing from an aggrieved PAP or PAH to the agency in charge, regarding the alleged occurrence of violations, potential and/or impacts in the field of environment and/or forestry from the business and/or activities at the planning, implementation and/or post implementation.

The time period for resolving grievances is dependent on the mechanisms available at each relevant institution. In principle, the grievance resolution is obligate follow the key principles that are mention in Appendix A16.

The aggrieved could be individuals, groups of people, legal entities, or government agencies that complain of alleged environmental and social impact from the implementation project.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 40 Environmental and Social Management Framework

The GRM for the KfW BBS project is summarized in Error! Reference source not found.. The institutional arrangements for the GRM are listed in Appendix A16 Grievance Redress Mechanism Principle and Institutional Arrangement.

Figure 2 Grievance Redress Mechanism for the KfW BBS Project.

At the national level, the GRM can be directly carried out on a web-based basis through: . Information Management andDRAFT Documentation Officer (PPID); . Director General of Law Enforcement (DGLE); and

. Director General of Social Forestry and Environment Partnership (DGSFEP). 7.1.1 Receive and Record Grievance

7.1.1.1 Receive the Grievance

Stakeholders can submit a grievance, directly or indirectly, through a number of ways:

. Personally;

. Electronic;

. By phone;

. Social media (Whatsapp, Line, text messages); and

. Face to face meetings.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 41 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Grievances can be submitted to the authorized institution (OPD) or to a dedicated function. The authorities receiving the grievance from stakeholder at each level voluntarily with regard to several key principle that has been mentioned above (Appendix A16 Grievance Redress Mechanism Principle and Institutional Arrangement). Grievances submitted through a dedicated function will be forwarded to the institutional authority (OPD). Dedicated functions also have a responsibility to assist, assist and monitor grievance reported to the authorities.

7.1.1.2 Grievance Records

The grievance will be recorded in the grievance list within a set time after being received. A recording officer will be assigned to receive any grievance and may delegate the responsibility to the other staff, but eventually will be responsible for:

. Managing the grievance process to ensure the prescribed steps are followed;

. Investigate the grievance;

. Consult with division or related parties within the organization;

. Ensuring problem-solving action;

. Track the progress of individual grievances;

. Collate and provide feedback to the person who registered the grievance;

. Document resolution actions; and

. Obtain the necessary approval from, and/or report to management.

Although no response is required for anonymous grievances, these will be recorded and reported with other grievances to facilitate continuous improvement. 7.1.2 Grievance Screening and Categorization All grievances will be screened basedDRAFT on the category of the grievance and the management approach will also determine which level of government is involved from the outset (Table 7).

Table 7 Categories of grievance screening.

Categories Issue/Grievance

Land and territory issues Covers all issues related to land and administrative areas of the boundary.

Human-wildlife conflict Covers all issues related to human-wildlife conflicts at district/provincial level.

Other Grievances Covers all other issues that are happen during the project implementation.

7.1.3 Acknowledgement Receipt and Transparency

The aggrieved PAP or PAH will receive a receipt with an incident number upon submission of a grievance. In addition to getting a receipt for the grievance, the grievance processing process will be explained to the aggrieved PAP or PAH.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 42 Environmental and Social Management Framework

7.1.4 Referral to Relevant Authorities

All grievances will be addressed initially at the local level and resolution will be sought through the village and sub-district levels. Unresolved grievances will be screened by a PMU personnel who is proficient with GoI regulations and transferred to the appropriate authority either at the central government level or district government level based on the categories in Table 7. 7.1.5 Investigation

The authorized grievance officer will lead a grievance inquiry, if needed, including collecting relevant documents, conducting field visits, consulting appropriate internal staff, contacting external stakeholders, and other activities. The investigative findings will be used to document the decision-making process and inform the proposed improvement. 7.1.6 Follow up

Grievances that have been investigated will be followed up by the authorized team in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations in Indonesia and refer to the IFC EHS Guidelines.

The PMU should assign a suitable specialist to be able to provide grievance progress status to any aggrieved PAP or PAH when needed. 7.1.7 Grievance Resolution

The grievance resolution process is based on existing mechanism under GoI regulation that applies in the authorized institution and considers existing the local grievance mechanisms such as musyawarah, customary council meeting, etc. regarding the social and tenurial conflict that might occur as impact of the KfW BBS Project.

If the aggrieved PAP or PAH accepts the proposed resolution, the agreed action is taken. The grievance officer is responsible for actioning the resolution and setting the deadline for implementing the resolution. This is recorded in the grievance record with supporting documentation. After a successful resolution, the grievanceDRAFT will be officially closed. This process involves having the aggrieved PAP or PAH sign the settlement form to document the satisfaction with the resolution action, documenting the action taken, and closing in the grievance registry.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Specific to the GRM, the roles and responsibilities, as well as capacity assessment of key staff involved in the operation and management of grievance mechanisms are shown listed in Table 8.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 43 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Table 8 GRM roles and responsibilities.

Position/ Role Responsibilities Institutional Capacity Assessment

PPID ▪ Management of the national registry ▪ Set up and maintenance of PID system ▪ Finalization and implementation of that includes conflict resolution and GRM safeguards plans (national registry). ▪ Finalization and implementation of the ▪ Capacity and mechanism for Benefit GRM Sharing Mechanism has not yet been established. ▪ Technical Assistance ▪ Handling the grievance process at national level; ▪ Updating grievance handling based on PID system.

Director General ▪ Grievance recording, screening, ▪ Reporting system is in place. of Law investigating, handling, and reporting. ▪ Under-staffed and may not be able to Enforcement ▪ Publish the grievance process and respond in timely manner. results. ▪ May not be familiar with PID system.

SEKDA ▪ Responsible for Implementation and ▪ High initiative for hosting GRM. (Provincial and achievement of KfW BBS Project in the ▪ Lack human resources and equipment. District) province. ▪ GRM is not yet supported or formalized by ▪ Coordinate the GRM that include Governor’s Decree. records, follow up, monitor, and report. ▪ May not be familiar with PID system.

Lampung ▪ KfW BBS Project implementation. ▪ Operates grievance reporting system Environmental ▪ Grievance handling. (Posko Pengaduan). Agency (Dinas ▪ Lack the capacity for social safeguards Lingkungan required for conflict resolution. Hidup) ▪ May not be familiar with PID system.

Institutional ▪ Implementing KfW BBS Project at the ▪ Capacity may be limited to receiving and Authority (OPD) district or city level and project site. archiving reports. Except for plantation ▪ Grievance handling agency, OPDs may not have experience in GRM and conflict resolution. DRAFT▪ FMU may need to increase network for conflict mediation.

Customary ▪ Grievance Mechanism for customary/ ▪ Capacity for conflict resoultion using Council IP’s customary land/ assets. customary knowledge/law. ▪ May not be able to address conflicts outside the customary communities.

Village ▪ Implementing KfW BBS Project at the ▪ Capacity may be limited to recording governance district or city level and project site. conflict (may not be familiar with PID ▪ Grievance handling. system). ▪ Resoultion is normally done by compromise among conflicting villagers. ▪ May not have capacity for addressing conflicts / grievances on issues beyond village jurisdiction.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 44 Environmental and Social Management Framework

EVALUATION AND SUPERVISION

Dedicated function will review internal and external qualitative and quantitative indicators with management and externally with appropriate community stakeholder groups. Dedicated function will conduct quarterly reviews of quantitative indicators and report them to monthly management team meetings. Quarterly and annual indicators are presented in Table 9.

Table 9 Quarterly and annual indicators for review.

Time Period Objective Recommended Indicator

Quantitative ▪ Assess whether grievance ▪ The total number of grievances received by the level and indicator are correctly classified; type of grievance; review per 4 ▪ Identify trends in the ▪ Number of open grievances by level and type of grievance; months grievance; and ▪ Closing period by level and type of grievance; ▪ Ensure grievances are ▪ Repeated grievance monitoring from the same addressed. stakeholders; and ▪ Monitoring of grievance trends.

Review of ▪ Assess compliance with ▪ Compliance with the process; annual the grievance process; ▪ Completeness of grievance records (logs); grievance ▪ Evaluate progress ▪ The number of grievances received by the level and type of procedures towards achieving goals; grievance; and ▪ The number of open grievances by level and type of ▪ Identify improvements and grievance; update grievance ▪ Closing period by level and type of grievance; procedures. ▪ Repeated grievance monitoring from the same

stakeholders; ▪ Monitoring of grievance trends; ▪ Qualitative assessment of stakeholders' awareness of a grievance mechanism through stakeholder engagement DRAFTprocesses; and ▪ Qualitative assessment of grievance mechanism credibility through stakeholder engagement.

. Details of the process such as who is responsible for receiving and responding to the grievances and external parties who may receive grievances from local residents;

. When stakeholders who submit a grievance can receive a response; and

. Protection to ensure confidentiality.

These GRM also apply to Project contractors and sub-contractors who work at the Project site.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 45 Environmental and Social Management Framework

8.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING Environmental and social monitoring will be an integral part of the WCS, WWF and YABI team and National Park supervisory work over the course of project implementation. The Project Staff (WCS, WWF and YABI) team and the National Park Environmental and Social (E&S) Officer will be responsible to ensure that contractors are familiar with the ESMF and instruct their personnel on the compliance with the ESMF and the ESMP. The PMU will assign a sub-project5 coordinator E&S safeguard specialist who will conduct regular on-site monitoring of civil works to verify contractors’ adherence to the requirements set out in the ESMP. Figure 2 depicts the IPZ Project implementation stages, monitoring and reporting.

Monthly, quarterly- and semi-annual monitoring reports will be undertaken as per specific activities in order to:

. Improve environmental and social management practices;

. Ensure the efficiency and quality of the environmental and social assessment processes;

. Establish evidence- and results-based environmental and social assessment for the sub-projects; and

. Provide an opportunity to report the results of safeguards, impacts and proposed mitigation measures’ implementation.

Monitoring will focus on three key areas, including:

(i) Compliance Monitoring: to verify that the required mitigation measures are considered and implemented. During the sub-project preparation phase, compliance monitoring activities will focus on ensuring effective ESMF implementation and respect of procedures. During the implementation phase, compliance monitoring would include inspections during construction of the Component 1 and 2 sub- projects4.

(ii) Impacts Monitoring: during implementation, monitoring of sub-project4 initiatives and/or activities’ impact mitigation measures should be the duty of the sub-project coordinators and the PMU. It is expected that the ESMP will be included in the contract to oblige the contractor to the ESMP compliance. PMU will monitor to ensure that works are proceedingDRAFT in accordance with the agreed mitigation measures in the ESMP/ESMF.

Monitoring and evaluation of the social impacts will measure the following:

. Impacts on affected individuals, different populations, households and communities to be maintained at their pre-project standard of living, or better;

. Gender differentiated impacts to be avoided, minimized or addressed; and

. Management of disputes or conflicts.

(iii) Cumulative Impacts Monitoring: impacts of the sub-project initiatives and/or activities on the environmental and social resources for the communities surrounding the BBSNP will also be monitored in consideration of other developments which might be established.

Table 10 provides a preliminary ESMP monitoring checklist that can be refined during implementation.

5 Sub-project term in this ESMF document has the same meaning with KfW BBS Project activity Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 46 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Table 10 Environmental and social monitoring and reporting guideline.

Task Reporting Frequency Notes

Updating of the ESMP, including Project Coordinator Periodic Some guidelines and development of site-specific community and team training materials to engagement plans, communication and be developed community participation strategies

Dissemination of ESMP (include Project Coordinator First six months In collaboration with preparatory meetings) and team following ESMP BBSNP approval by KfW and IKI at BMU

Training on ESMP M&E Manager/ First six months Consultant may be . Preparation of a training plan and Project team following ESMP engaged different budget approval by KfW approaches tailored and IKI at BMU to audiences . Plan, deliver and manage the training courses . Follow-up

Development of monitoring tools specific to M&E Manager/ First six months Monitoring methods key activities in ESMP (detailed versions of Project team following ESMP and tools to be results framework indocators): approval by KfW developed, format to . Patrols; and IKI at BMU concur with requirements . Law enforcement; . Reforestration; . Community development/CCA and livelihoods; and . Grievance log.

Periodic monitoring and reporting on Project coordinator Bi-annually or as Grievance Grievances Redress Mechanism (GRM) needed mechanism to be and complaints handling revised as needed

Reporting unexpected incidents or non- Project coordinator As needed compliance

Preparation and submission of annual DRAFTProject coordinator Bi-annually Disclosure of reports on safeguards progress reports and/or final evaluation to be cleared with KfW

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 47 Environmental and Social Management Framework

9.0 ESMF IMPLEMENTATION INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

The MoEF through its local office is the principal implementing institution responsible for the policy development and monitoring regarding biodiversity conservation and environmental awareness building and serves as the focal point for various internal funds. The MoEF is also responsible to ensure that the national policy and legislation on environmental safeguards are implemented.

The KfW BBS Project Management Unit at the BBSNP will be responsible for leading the implementation of the IPZ Program (Figure 3). Of note, the BBSNP team does not have an Environmental and Social Unit. In case this unit is established, it shall be involved in the implementation of the ESMF and included in the capacity building initiatives.

The main responsibilities of the IPZ team or Project Partners will include: i) ensuring proper fiduciary management (financial management and procurement); ii) overseeing the preparation and implementation of annual operating plans; iii) managing the project monitoring system (collecting and processing data and reporting, including through annual reports); v) ensuring compliance with the project legal agreements (including subsidiary agreements); vi) ensuring IFC PS compliance; and vii) providing strategic communication for the Project.

A subsidiary agreement will be signed between the Project Partners to outline financial and procurement arrangements for proper implementation of KfW BBS sub-projects as well as monitoring and reporting responsibilities and to standardize criteria for environmental and social screening process for KfW BBS sub-projects.

The BBSNP Officer, under the authority of the MoEF, is responsible to the management of Conservation Areas within the BBSNP.

A key objective of IPZ is to strengthen the capacity of National Park and BKSDA personnel, which would include strengthen the capacity in environmental and social management. The project coordinator will provide technical assistance to the KfWDRAFT BBS Project during the screening of sub-projects, preparation of ToRs for EA studies, facilitation, coordination, review of EA studies and EMPs, monitoring and evaluation of all the sub-projects. Components 1 and 2 – renovation sub-projects in existing buildings – will comply with the environmental and social safeguards under the IFC EHS Guidelines.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 48 Environmental and Social Management Framework

Figure 3 Institutional arrangement for ESMF implementation.

DRAFT

CAPACITY BUILDING

The lack of application of environmental and social safeguards instruments may not be due to education levels – a capacity assessment was not conducted to assess this aspect - however PMU staff have had limited exposure to donor-funded projects that included the application of environmental and social instruments. To address this lack of experience, the project will allocate a traning to the project staff budget (see Section 9.3) for environmental and social safeguard. The Project staff training participants will provide hands-on mentoring and ensure environmental and social safeguards instruments (ESMF and PF) are properly monitored and reported during Project implementation.

It is imperative that institutional and capacity development are provided for environmental and social safeguards guidelines, safeguards frameworks, capacity building trainings, coordination between different organizations, awareness-raising campaign(s), and other measures for ensuring the knowledge gaps are addressed as expeditiously as possible for development of sub-projects. A capacity building training program should be implemented based on two themes:

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 49 Environmental and Social Management Framework

a. Basic Training on Environmental and Social Awareness. This would be mandatory training for sub- project coordinator personnel and stakeholders including local government, BBSNP personnel and select communities. Training material and content will vary with topics to address key project issues related to IPZ, forest and surrounding land use, law and its enforcement, and grievance handling. The role of stakeholders, special approaches to ensure inclusion (awareness of gender and IP issues), and knowledge and a fundamental understanding of the potential environmental and social impacts should be included.

b. Technical Training. Technical Training consists of various thematic materials. The participants for the technical training would be local land office personnel, representatives from various line agencies from the project target areas, field teams, civil society and consultants involved in the Technical Assistance. Training materials can include a series of regular trainings planned by the PMU with BBSNP. Trainees will be provided with materials as determined by the project activity, i.e. FPIC procedures, for conducting community meetings and developing the Community Conservation Agreements, resettlement and livelihoods (with emphasis on processes for engaging IPs, current/desired land uses and practices; communication and facilitation techniques for key issues; on reforestation (species, techniques); on SMART patrol SOP, grievances redress mechanisms, project monitoring and reporting.

In addition to the training sessions for project personnel, thematic workshops should be implemented based on the needs assessment of the Project Partners regarding Project activities. Workshop participants can be from the consortium, local communities and all levels of government. Workshop themes may include the Project Partners’ community programs and discussion on common obstacles faced by BBNSP on topics including conservation measures and boundary delineation.

The PMU should assign staff responsible for periodically reviewing training program activities and for proposing future programs in a work plan. The training development will be planned and implemented with the LitBang (research and development), Training Department of Forestry Department/BBSNP, or other partners and consultants as needed. Possible training topics include:

. Social and environmental issues linked to BBSNP and PMU. SMART patrol, law enforcement; reforestation; IP and gender awaDRAFTreness. . Indonesian governance framework and legal requirements as applicable to the IMZ and IPZ, resettlement and treatment of encroachers under evolving forestry regulations.

. SOPs and/or other guidelines developed for key project activities. An example is an SOP for SMART patrol already under development.

. Farmer field school sessions for targeted community groups.

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 50 Environmental and Social Management Framework

BUDGET TO IMPLEMENT ESMF

ESMF implementation cost will include the development of the specific site-specific safeguard instruments, including staff costs, travel, consultation workshops, translation and trainings that already included in the ESMP. The total indicative cost is estimated at 264,550 USD (Table 11), which will be supported by a combination of the Project and counterpart financing; from the project management component.

Table 11 ESMF implementation costs.

Annual Timeline Sub-total No. Activity Rate (Years) (USD) (USD)

1 RPU Patrolling in the IPZ 30,000 5 30,000

2 IPZ component socialization research 30,000 4 30,000

3 IPZ component socialization materials production 45,000 4 45,0000

4 SMART-RBM System Set Up and support for NP development 9,000 1 9,000

5 Capacity to support community (encroachment monitoring and 30,000 4 30,000 reforestration)

6 Development of the RAP 50,000 1 50,000

7 RAP monitoring 12,000 4 12,000

8 Extra government engagement on resettlement 12,000 4 12,000

9 Annual M&E for the implementation of the safeguard instruments 7,500 3 7,500

10 Annual public consultation on safeguard instruments including the 6,000 3 6,000 GRM

11 Translation of safeguard instruments 3,000 1 3,000

12 Annual training workshop 6,000 3 6,000

13 Contingency (10%) 24,050 Total DRAFT 264,550

Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park 51 Environmental and Social Management Framework

APPENDICES

DRAFT

Appendix A1

Activities Not Eligible for Project Financing

DRAFT

Appendix A1 Activities not Eligible for Sub-project Financing

To avoid adverse impacts on the environment and people, the following activities are explicitly excluded from sub-project financing:

. Production or trade in any product or activity deemed illegal under host country laws or regulations or international conventions and agreements, or subject to international bans, such as pharmaceuticals, pesticides/herbicides, ozone depleting substances, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), wildlife or products regulated under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES);

. New or expanded settlements, construction or facilities within protected forests and proposed protected forests;

. Requirement for large scale land acquisition of currently-occupied state or indigenous land (for agriculture, plantations, etc.) by local people (individually or collectively);

. Causing the loss or damage to cultural properties, including sites of archaeological (prehistoric), paleontological, historical, religious, cultural and unique environmental/natural values;

. New road construction, road rehabilitation, road paving, or any form of pathway improvement within the existing primary natural forest and proposed protected forest;

. Large-scale construction that potentially has significant negative impacts on the surrounding environment and would require ESIA or AMDAL process and permits;

. Commercial logging operations in natural forests;

. Conversion of High Conservation Value (HCV) forests;

. Purchase of logging equipment for use in natural forests area;

. Labour and working conditions involving harmful, exploitative, involuntary or compulsory forms of labour, forced labour, childDRAFT labour or significant occupational health and safety issues; . Exclusion of poor or marginalized population groups;

. Do not provide equal pay for equal work for women and men;

. Include the payment of compensation for land or asset loss from the proceeds of the KfW financing;

. Trade in any products with businesses engaged in exploitative environmental and social behaviour; and

. Category A sub-projects.

Appendix A2

Baseline Condition

DRAFT

Appendix A2 Baseline Condition of Lampung Province

Lampung Province has a total area of 35,288 square kilometers (km2) is located on the southeastern- most area of Sumatera Island. The province includes the islands of Sebuku, Sebesi, Sertung, and Rakata in the Sunda Strait. The provincial capital city of Bandar Lampung was created when the twin cities of Tanjung Karang and Teluk Betung merged into one city. Lampung Province is bordered by the South Sumatera and Bengkulu provinces in the north, the Sunda Strait in the south, Java Sea in the east, and the Indonesia Ocean in the west. Geographically, Lampung Province is located at Longitude (east-west) 1030 40’ E to 1050 50’ E and Latitude (north-south) 60 45’ S to 30 45’ S.

Administrative - Lampung Province consisted of 13 districts and two municipalities as of 2013. According to Home Affairs Regulation No. 39/2015, the total land area of each district is: Lampung Barat (2,142.8 km2), Tanggamus (3,020.6 km2), Lampung Selatan (700.3 km2), Lampung Timur (5,325.0 km2), Lampung Tengah (3,802.7 km2), Lampung Utara (2,725.9 km2), Way Kanan (3,921.6 km2), Tulang Bawang (3,466.3 km2), Pesawaran (2,243.5 km2), Pringsewu (625.0 km2), Mesuji (2,184.0 km2), Tulang Bawang Barat (1,201.0 km2), Pesisir Barat (2,907.2 km2), Kota Bandar Lampung (296.0 km2), and Kota Metro (61.8 km2).

Climate and Biophysical - Lampung Province has a tropical climate characterized by dry and rainy seasons. Humidity in Lampung Province ranges from 72% to 86% with average temperatures ranging from 21oC to 34.1oC. Due to its tropical climate, the province averages 65% exposure to solar radiation per year, while rainfall ranges from 34 millimeters (mm) to 397 mm per year. The southernmost portion of the Barisan Mountains run the length of the province from the northwest to the southeast. This mountain range includes the peaks of Mountain Batai (1,682 m), Mount Tebak (2,115). The highest peak in the province is Mount Pesagi at 2,262 m and Mount Krakatau in the Sunda Strait is also located in the province. The mountainous spine of the province is flanked by a narrow coastland on the southwest and by rapidly descending highlands on the northeast. The eastern lowland area of the province stretches from the mountain foothills to a belt of swamps in the eastern coastlands.Three significant rivers – the Sekampung, Seputih, and Tulangbewang – descend the eastern slopes of the mountains and drain into the Java Sea. Tropical lowland evergreen rainforests extend from the foothills of the mountains to coastal swamps where mangrove and freshwater swamp forests are located. Social – Lampung Province is a multi-ethnicDRAFT province with three major ethnic groups: Javanese, Lampungese and Sundanese; of which the Lampungese are the ethnicity native in the province. Lampung Province population was estimated in 2018 at 8,370,485 consisting of 4,286,676 males and 4,083,809 females. This number increased from 7,608,405 people (3,916,622 males and 3,691,783 females) in 2010 by percentage of 1.16%.

Agriculture and Economics – Most of the population is engaged in agricultural activities. Key crop outputs include rubber, tea, coffee, soybeans, sweet potatoes, corn, peanuts, copra and palm oil. Wetland paddy production reached approximately 1.9 million tons during 2018 while chili production reached 600,283 quintals. Fruit production is also a mainstay of agricultural activities in the province with banana production reaching approximately 14,385.6 tons. In 2008, Lampung Province produced approximately 190,340 tons of oil palm and 110,570 tons of coffee. The largest production region for oil palm is Tulang Bawang District which yielded approximately 23.3% of the total provincial production. The greatest yield of coffee beans comes from the Lampung Barat area which accounts for approximately half (47.6%) of the provincial output. Due to the extensive coastline, deepsea fishing is also an economic mainstay in the province while important industrial activities include wood carving, food processing, cloth weaving, mat and basket making and the production of handmade paper.

Appendix A3

Process Framework

DRAFT

PROCESS FRAMEWORK FOR CONSULTATIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS WITH MEMBERS OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED COMMUNITIES

DRAFT

LIPI Building 3rd Floor, Jl. Ir. H. Juanda No. 18, Bogor 16122, Indonesia • Tel: +62 251 8324 487 • Fax: +62 251 8340 414 • www.hatfieldgroup.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ...... 1 1.2 PROJECT DESIGN AND COMPONENTS ...... 1

2.0 INDONESIA LEGAL FRAMEWORK ...... 2

3.0 IDENTIFICATION AND EIGIBILITY OF DISPLACED PERSONS ...... 3 3.1 DEFINING DISPLACED PERSONS ...... 3 3.2 ELIGIBILITY ...... 3 3.3 ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY ...... 4 3.4 CONSIDERATIONS FOR VULNERABLE GROUPS ...... 4 3.5 PROJECT ACTIVITIES PHASES ...... 4

4.0 LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION ...... 5 4.1 COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION ENGAGEMENT ...... 5 4.2 BUILDING COMMUNITY AWARENESS ...... 6 4.3 DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS ...... 6 4.4 OTHER ALTERNATIVES LIVELIHOODS ...... 7 4.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS AND MONITORING ...... 7

5.0 IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS ...... 8

6.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS AN GRIEVANCE REDRESS ...... 8 6.1 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION DURING PROJECT PREPARATION ...... 8 6.2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATIDRAFTON ...... 8 6.3 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM ...... 9

i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This Process Framework (PF) for the Intensive Protection Zone (IPZ) project was prepared with support of the project partners consisting of the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Yayasan Badak Indonesia (YABI). Given that the IPZ project may potentially limit access to natural resources in protected areas, the IFC Performance Standard 5 on Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement is triggered. The purpose of the PF is to establish a process by which members of potentially affected communities can participate in the design of project components, the determination of measures necessary to achieve resettlement policy objectives, and the implementation and monitoring of relevant project activities.

1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

The project development objective (PDO) is the “conservation of highly threatened tropical rainforest in Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park (BBSNP) as priority habitat for critically endangered species and carbon sink through innovative management concepts and sustainable land use management”.

1.2 PROJECT DESIGN AND COMPONENTS

The project design is based on a theory of change that involves reducing anthropogenic pressure on priority areas in BBSNP, improving national park and conservation zone management including the establishment of an Intensive Management Zone (IMZ), and thereby effectively protect the habitat of endangered species (Sumatran rhinoceros, Sumatran tiger, and Sumatran elephant) is effectively protected.

Reducing anthropogenic pressure on priority areas in the BBSNP requires collaboration with the adjacent local communities to improve sustainable land use, and to change attitudes and behaviors towards the endangered species (ex. hunting and poaching). Improving national park and conservation zone management also requires cooperation with the park authority and other users and stakeholders, with multi-facetted strategies, addressed in the five activity components (Table 1). Table 1 Project components andDRAFT work packets. Responsible No. Component Work Packages Project Partner 1 The IPZ is established . IPZ planning YABI, WCS within the BBSNP and is . SMART-resort based management (RBM) system effectively protected and capacity . Rhinoceros Protection Unit (RPU) patrolling in the IPZ . Resort-based patrolling in the IPZ . Improve forest crime intelligence gathering and enforcement 2 Establishment and . Strategy to consolidate and breed rhinoceros in YABI, WWF implementation of an BBSNP IMZ . IMZ design and management plan, funds through WWF . Translocate rhinoceros to the IMZ, funds through WWF 3 Land-use pressure on . Resort-level strategies for community engagement YABI, WWF, the IPZ is diminished WCS

1

Responsible No. Component Work Packages Project Partner through improved land . Capacity to support community-based encroachment use management and monitoring and reforestation community development . Performance based incentives for BBSNP protection and restoration . Investment and labour for protection and restoration . Political and financial support for community-based interventions . Private sector business supports conservation objectives (WCS) 4 Improved policy . Capacity building and policy alignment (WCS, WWF, YABI, WWF, framework for species and YABI - different roles), including: WCS and habitat protection - National technical learning trips & exchange and national and visits between BBS, WKNP, GLNP, and other international relevant sites (YABI) dissemination of - Standardisation and dissemination to experience PusDikLat, including training modules - SMART (WCS), DNA-based monitoring (WWF) and RPU approach (YABI) - Study tours – e.g. SMART and IMZ - Support to Joint National Rhino Secretariat (all) - Work with journalists (WWF) . Long term financing for conservation in BBS (WCS) 5 The effectiveness of . Support to BBSNP management and strategy YABI, YABI, WWF, BBSNP management is WWF, development (WCS) WCS improved . Monitoring and conservation science for management (all) including: - Forest - Camera trap/DNA - Occupancy - Livelihood development impact . Student research grants (WCS) DRAFT 2.0 INDONESIA LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The Minister of Foresty through Regulation No: P.43/Menhut-II/2013 established the boundaries arrangement of working permits for forest utilization, principles approval for forest management, approval principles for forest area release and forest area management on forest areas management with special objectives.

According to Article 1, Clause 5 of the Minister of Forestry Regulation No: P.43/Menhut-II/2013, Special Purpose Forest Areas (KHDTK) including Conservation Forests, Protected Forests, or Production Forests can be specifically designated by the Minister for reseacrch and development, education and training, as well as for social, religious and cultural interest without changing the main function of the relevant forest area.

Chapter III, Article 8 of the Presidential Regulation of the Republik Indonesia No. 88/2015 on the Completion of Land Tenure in Forested Areas (PPTKH) details the types of settlement options for ownership and utilization of land that has been stipulated as a forest area:

2

a. Remove the land from the forest area thorugh changes in forest boundaries;

b. Exchange of forest areas;

c. Provide access to forest management through social forestry programs; and

d. Resettlement.

This chapter of this regulation also stipulates the need to build an Acceleration Team for land tenure settlement in forested areas and how to coordinate the organization members of the PPTKH. Article 14 Clause 2 details the steps that must be implemented in this process. 3.0 IDENTIFICATION AND EIGIBILITY OF DISPLACED PERSONS

3.1 DEFINING DISPLACED PERSONS

According to the World Bank’s Operational Policy (OP) 4.12, the term “displaced persons” is synonymous with “project affected persons (PAP)” or “project affected communities (PAC)” and is not limited to those subjected to physical displacement. However, project activities are not expected to result in the physical relocation of persons or communities, and any potential, temporary or permanent land acquisition would be covered by a Resettlement Planning Framework (RPF). In terms of this PF, PAC refers to those persons who lose “access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on their livelihoods”. The project will need to assess PAC who would be eligible for livelihood support based on the loss of access as a result of restrictions carried out under the project.

3.2 ELIGIBILITY

Individuals and communities that are the focus of this PF are those using natural resources in or from designated community protected and forest areas. The PACs who depend on access to natural resources in these protected areas and utilize resources for their livelihoods as per the World Bank’s OP 4.12, suggests three criteria for eligibility:

(i) Those who have legal DRAFT rights to land and/or natural resource use in protected areas (including customary land, traditional and religious rights recognized under the laws and regulations of the government of Indonesia [GoI]);

(ii) Those who do not have legal rights to land at the time the cut-off date begins but have potential legal claim to such land or assets provided that such claims are recognized under the laws and regulation of GoI or become recognized through process identified in the resettlement plan; and

(iii) Those who have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land they are occupying.

The eligible PACs living within or in the vicinity of the protected forest areas will be identified through a participatory process to determine the exact number and scope of impacts to be compensated by the project. Special consideration and priority will be given to the vulnerable groups including the poor, ethnic minority groups, landless, elderly and female-headed households. Non-local community members accessing the areas for illegal purposes such as logging and/or wildlife hunting are not eligible for project benefits.

3

All PACs must be consulted to identify project adverse impacts and, through a collaborative approach, to establish the eligibility criteria for mitigation or/and compensation measures. The project will work with PACs and co-managers, representative of local community organizations, local leaders to define the eligibility criteria for project assistance and to define a cut-off date in a particular manner, once they are identified. The project will ensure to provide culturally appropriate information for indigenous people affected and ensure linkages to the project’s Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) and any Indigenous Peoples Plans (IPPs). Any illegal encroachment, occupation or exploitation of the natural resources of a protected area after a pre-established cut-off date will not be eligible for any type of livelihood-related compensation or other assistance (consistent with the World Bank’s OP 4.12). Additional eligibility criteria for occupants or neighbors of protected areas needing special consideration related to livelihoods will be discussed with relevant stakeholders and will be part of a protected area management plan.

3.3 ESTABLISHING CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY

Although relatively minor negative impacts due to IPZ sub-components are expected, the project will endeavor to assist PACs to improve their livelihoods or at least restore to pre-project levels where there will be restrictions on forest resource use. Two types of PAPs have been identified:

1. Those who currently (illegally) encroach in the community protected areas and community forested areas for the purpose of agricultural cultivation, and

2. Those who regularly (illegally) enter the CPAs and CF for the purpose of poaching and collecting any other forest products.

The project participatory process will involve consultation with community representatives in areas where people are negatively affected by project activities. The Village Development Plan (VDP) and Co-management Plan (COP), will identify the numbers of PACs, the type of impact and their eligibility to participate in alternative livelihoods activities or be compensated. Draft VDPs and COPs will be discussed at public meetings with PACs so that informed decisions can be made about the options available to them. Mitigating strategies will be based on the promotion of alternative livelihood initiatives, capacity building of self-help organizationsDRAFT and community based defined productive activities. 3.4 CONSIDERATIONS FOR VULNERABLE GROUPS

The poor, indigenous people, elderly, and women in the local communities are likely to be particularly vulnerable as they are often more heavily dependent on agriculture, forest product collection and have less diversified income sources. To minimize effects on vulnerable groups, if impacts are not already avoided, the project will firstly ensure these groups have access to project related information including livelihoods assistance and secondly, alternative livelihood activities carried out in communities will ensure the inclusion and participation of vulnerable groups. To ensure women participate in the project, livelihoods support will be directed towards the affected household rather than just the affected person. Women will be able to apply for alternative livelihood assistance that they lead and manage. Livelihood activities under this PF will be linked to the project’s IPPF and/or IPP as appropriate.

3.5 PROJECT ACTIVITIES PHASES

The project, in a consultative manner, will conduct activities to define access restriction to illegal or/and customary activities in the protected areas and will evaluate the impact on local livelihoods in consultation with the affected people and relevant stakeholders. The project will strive to avoid, and if

4

not possible, minimize or mitigate impacts, such as phasing in mitigation measures. For example, information based on spatial planning, mapped demarcation of protected areas and consultation, will be provided to ensure communities are fully informed on the delimitation of forest management. The project will ensure to initiate any access restrictions once the project alternative livelihoods are already initiated. For instance, if agricultural land will become part of the forest management activity, the support needed for the impacted households or individuals will be provided to ensure they can transition their livelihoods and not be worse off as a result of the project. Thus compensation and livelihood restoration measures will begin ahead of any potential project impacts. 4.0 LIVELIHOOD RESTORATION

The overall aim of the restoration and mitigation measures is to compensate for and diversify the livelihoods of the persons affected by forest resources restriction. The project will support the development of modalities that provide an alternative livelihood opportunity for PACs. The process of developing these alternative livelihoods will be participatory and will be underlined by equity and community driven decision-making. The aim will be to develop livelihood alternatives through a guided process, with, for example, a plan to support the development of products and services through to distribution. The process to achieve this will start with mobilizing affected community members to ensure that they have the space and opportunity to consider the options available to them. Mitigation measures to address the livelihoods of both indigenous and non-indigenous communities must support long-term sustainable livelihood development. As mentioned, any impacts to indigenous peoples must also be in line with the project’s IPPs.

4.1 COMMUNITY MOBILIZATION ENGAGEMENT

Community members facing access restriction will be supported to mobilize themselves to identify viable livelihoods activities in a participatory manner. The approach will ensure equity in the process and that all affected users including vulnerable groups, such as women, elderly and IPs, have the opportunity to become involved in, and benefit from, alternative livelihoods assistance being provided by the project. Once eligible people for assistance support due to resources restriction have been identification in a participatory process,DRAFT activities will continue as follows: (i) PAC assessment that will assist the mapping of their resources and assets, identify and diagnose constraints and impacts due to access restrictions from household to community level, and identify the required support;

(ii) Define the training and capacity building to sustain their affected livelihoods and way of transitions to alternative livelihoods (ex. resin, field school and ecotourism); and

(iii) Define co-management arrangements and alternative livelihood activities to be supported including pertinent training.

Indigenous communities will be engaged and their participation promoted to define alternative livelihoods that are culturally appropriate. The project will consider their agreements reached with the participation of their local leaders supporting the preparation of appropriated material for project communication. Furthermore, impacts to IPs will need to be properly captured in an IPP to ensure free, prior and informed consultation with IPs.

Based on the information provided above, therefore it is critically important to:

5

(i) Consider beneficiaries (from villages, communes, etc.) as equal partners and stakeholders in the management of forest resources, with special attention to IPs, for whom their views will be considered and respected;

(ii) Observe beneficiaries’ information requirements of IPs and other vulnerable members including women;

(iii) Approach the different local organizations that may differ from place to place; and

(iv) Recognize that engaging local communities is a time consuming process and that it requires time, consistency and a good planning.

4.2 BUILDING COMMUNITY AWARENESS

The project will provide guidance to facilitate participation with special attention provided to IPs to ensure culturally appropriate information is provided. Awareness-raising through information sessions before starting formal consultations will be undertaken will take the form of community meetings, informational presentations and dissemination of informational materials, among others. The awareness-building process will include:

a. An ongoing process, with sub-projects developed to support alternative livelihoods within the communities where dialogues and learning events among the participating communities will be undertaken. The project will support local leaderships when developing training and mentoring of community leaders. Community leaders will also play a key role in supporting the implementation activities for the PF;

b. Consultations will entail meetings and focus groups discussions to address potential adverse impacts of forest management and to observe the traditional practices that could be supported by the project. Communities will be informed about the potential access restrictions in workshops, community meetings and focus group discussions, ensuring gender-balanced participation. The result of the information collected will be considered in the design of activities and in the information materials prepared for the project;

c. The new defined areas for forestDRAFT restoration along with the designed protected areas will be mapped and the plans for their management will be provided, including the local legislation and the World Bank’s policy requirements.

4.3 DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Given the facts that the project is going to strengthen landscape planning and the ability to manage natural resources, there is likely to be some restrictions of access to forest resources that may affect local communities. For this reason, Community Protected Area Management Plans (CPAMPs) should be developed through consultation with communities to identify areas of restriction and alternative livelihoods. The project will strive to integrate these CPAMPs into broader Commune Development Plans, to ensure local-level planning takes into account forest protection and any restrictions that may be in place. Expertise to support IPZ staff and local authorities on developing participatory plans may be required. Accurate and sufficient baseline information will be essential not only to provide a basis for planning, but also for effective management of implementation, monitoring and evaluation and capacity

6

building of the village and its members. In general, development of alternative livelihoods and integration into Commune Development Plans will necessitate:

a. Consultations with the community and relevant stakeholders;

b. Identification of restrictions and impacts of these restrictions;

c. Strategic analysis of community development both for CPA and for the commune;

d. Assessment of current programs and community plans and whether or how they can be strengthened;

e. Selection and development of project activities; and

f. Establishment of monitoring system to ensure livelihoods of impacted people are restored.

CPAMPs will be developed with full participation from local communities to ensure communities get to express their opinions on the choice of project activities and investments. The form of community participation can vary, depending on specific or impacts being considered, and participation for IPs will need to be on the basis of the IPPF and the principle of free, prior and informed consultation. The Program project team will be responsible for the consultative design of CPAMPs, liaising with the commune, and for selecting partners and contractors to carry out specific activities as needed.

4.4 OTHER ALTERNATIVES LIVELIHOODS

Alternative livelihood and livelihood restoration programs will be developed and incorporated into the CPAMPs and Commune Development Plans as relevant. To appropriately and adequately compensate households whose livelihoods will be adversely affected by access restrictions, the project will work with communities and other stakeholder to develop alternative livelihoods. Successful implementation of the project in the long-run will rely on the cooperation with local communities on CPAMPs, as well as with local authorities in order to design and organize alternative livelihood measures to ensure livelihood restoration of local people. Measures to develop alternative community and individual livelihoods will be identified with the participation of the affected communities, which will focus on establishing alternative livelihood and livelihoodDRAFT restoration activities that are environmentally sustainable and culturally appropriate. The aim will be to identify alternative livelihood activities which fit local natural endowments, benefiting eco-protection and restoration, positive for increasing local living standard, maintain local traditions and conforming to development plans of local government.

4.5 IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT PLANS AND MONITORING

All eligible households affected by access restrictions as a result of project activities will be covered by the mitigation measures developed in the PF/Action Plans. The forest co-management model at the community level includes four main steps:

1. Identify and establish representative institutions for involved stakeholders (village and commune, forest management board). Identify the roles, duties and rights of the stakeholders in forest management.

2. Negotiate and obtain agreement among the stakeholders on forest protection and management issues in order to get consensus and collaboration of all stakeholders.

7

3. Implement co-management following the agreed CPAMPs, for example in forest patrolling and protection, community livelihood development, management of forest products utilization, management of forest environment services and forest land planning.

4. Monitoring and evaluation by participation of all stakeholders to ensure living standards of those impacted are restored. 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

The project will be implemented over a period of six years. Institutional arrangements for implementation will follow the government’s institutional structure, with the WCS as the Executing Agency (EA), WWF and YABI as Implementing Agencies and KfW Germany will oversee the financial services support. Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) with line ministries implementing sub-components will ensure clarity on roles and responsibilities. The EA and IA will establish an implementation project team with experts with technical, administrative, environmental and social safeguards, procurement and finance expertise. WCS, WWF and YABI already have safeguard focal points working on the IPZ project and sub-projects. Strategic direction and guidance for the management and operation of the project will be provided by a high-level Project Steering Committee, chaired by the MoEF. 6.0 PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS AN GRIEVANCE REDRESS

6.1 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION DURING PROJECT PREPARATION

During public consultation the Joined Project Unit (WCS,WWF and Yabi) will get consultation from other Partners as MoEF (ministry of Environment and Forestry) , TNBBS office , and also other local NGO. The project will be consulted about benefit and Impact to the TNBBS.

6.2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The IPZ and sub-project will adopt meaningfulDRAFT consultation and stakeholder participatory approach and will be consistent with the IPPF/IPPs in instances where IPs reside and are impacted. During project screening (project area selection process) communities, teachers, parents and local authorities will be consulted about benefits and potential impacts. A social assessment will be conducted in target areas where potential impacts on IPs, land and other resources are identified. At least two public consultation meetings will be conducted. The IPZ and sub-project activities, project impacts and mitigation measures will be presented during the first meeting. Then, the second public consultation meeting will be conducted to determine whether there is support for the project activities and mitigation plans.

Prior to consultations, the Project Partners will send notice to the communities informing their leaders that they will be visited by the respective focal person and local authorities and that consultation will be conducted to seek input on the project intervention and to determine potential adverse impacts as well as possible support from the project in order to address the potential impacts. The notice will request that communities invite representatives from farmers, women association, village leaders and/or other groups as necessary so that they have the opportunity to express their views with regards to the proposed activities.

8

During the consultation, detailed procedures would be determined on a village-by-village basis to determine the potential impact and possible support under the IPZ project and sub-project. Further, a grievance mechanism will be established to address concerns and complaints to ensure affected people can voice their concerns; particularly on land acquisition and livelihood loss. If a beneficiary community includes ethnic minority communities that do not belong to the ethnic majority group in the community, their representatives will be included in the conflict resolution mechanisms. This will ensure cultural appropriateness, and community involvement particularly with the ethnic groups in the decision-making processes.

In the process, free, prior and informed consultations will be undertaken in a language spoken by, and at a location convenient for, potentially affected IPs, consistent with the project IPPF. The views of IPs are to be taken into account during implementation of the IPZ project and sub-projects, while respecting their current practices, beliefs and cultural preferences. The outcome of the consultations will be documented into the periodical reports and submitted to the KfW for review.

If IPs are identified during implementation of the IPZ project and sub-project, an updated social assessment shall also be carried out to monitor the positive and negative impacts of the project, and obtain feedback from the project-affected IPs. Monitoring is crucial to ensure affected livelihoods are appropriately restored. Based on the outcome of the social assessment, further measures may be taken to ensure full benefits and mitigation of anticipated negative impacts. If necessary, additional activities for institutional strengthening and capacity building of IP communities living within the project area shall be carried out. If unexpected impacts are more significant than expected, IPP and/or Resettlement Action Plans (if appropriate) may need to be updated.

6.3 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM

At the beginning of implementation, the grievance redress committees will be established at commune, districts, and provincial levels as appropriate, built on the existing structures. At the village level, the existing grievance mechanisms that is chaired by a village chief, elder and/or spiritual/tribal leaders, a process largely acceptable to local communities, will be strengthened as the first tier conflict resolution mechanism. This arrangement ensures that an existing system is available to resolve grievances or complaints that may occur during andDRAFT after project intervention. The grievance mechanism will be applied to persons or groups that are directly or indirectly affected by a project, as well as those that may have interests in a project and/or have the ability to influence its outcome either positively or negatively. The project team will provide training and support to strengthen these existing structures for effectively and collectively dealing with possible grievances that may be raised by PACs.

The project will, in consultation with IPs, ensure that grievance mechanisms are appropriate and are fully consulted with IPs. When possible, regular grievance mechanisms of Indonesia will be followed, with the first instance being the village level, then the commune level, the district level and finally the provincial level, and these will be strengthened to ensure they can effectively deal with IP concerns. If project sub-components involve land acquisition, a Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) will be established for the IPZ project and sub-project, based on the RPF and closely linked to this IPPF or IPPs as appropriate.

In the target areas where IP are affected directly or indirectly, all complaints shall be discussed among the villagers in the presence of traditional village leader or elder and negotiations is carried out in the community or village where the affected person and PAH live. Where necessary, the IPZ project and sub-project proponents will provide assistance so that the rights of indigenous minorities are protected.

9

Appendix A4

General Screening Form

DRAFT

Appendix A4 General Environmental Assessment Policy Instrument: Screening Form

This form is to be used by the Implementing Agency to screen potential environmental and social safeguards issues of a sub-project, determine the Category classification, which IFC Performance Standard are triggered and the instrument to be prepared for the sub-project.

Sub-project Name Sub-project Location Sub-project Proponent Sub-project Type/Sector Estimated Investment Start/Completion Date

Answer If Yes IFC If Yes Questions Performance Document N/A Yes No Standard requirement triggered

Are the sub-project impacts likely to have IFC PS 1 Ineligible for significant adverse environmental impacts that Assessment funding in the are sensitive, diverse or unprecedented?1 and IPZ Project Please provide brief description: Management of Environmental

and Social Risk

Category A

DRAFT

Are the sub-project impacts likely to have IFC PS 1 Ineligible for significant adverse social impacts that are Assessment funding in the sensitive, diverse or unprecedented2? and IPZ Project Please provide brief description: Management of Environmental

and Social Risk

Category A

1 Examples of projects where the impacts are likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are sensitive, diverse or unprecedented are large scale infrastructure such as construction of new roads, railways, power plants, major urban development, water treatment, waste water treatment plants and solid waste collection and disposal etc. 2 Generally, sub-projects with significant resettlement-related impacts should be categorized as A. Application of judgment is necessary in assessing the potential significance of resettlement-related impacts, which vary in scope and scale from sub- project to sub-project. Sub-projects that would require physical relocation of residents or businesses, as well as sub-projects that would cause any individuals to lose more than 10 percent of their productive land area, often are categorized as A. Scale may also be a factor, even when the significance of impacts is relatively minor. Sub-projects affecting whole communities or relatively large numbers of persons (for example, more than 1,000 in total) may warrant categorization as A, especially for

1 Answer If Yes IFC If Yes Questions Performance Document N/A Yes No Standard requirement triggered

Do the impacts affect an area broader than the IFC PS 1 Ineligible for sites - beyond the existing IPZ - or facilities Assessment funding in the subject to physical works and are the significant and IPZ Project adverse environmental impacts irreversible? Management of Please provide brief description: Environmental and Social Risk

Category A

Is the proposed sub-project likely to have IFC PS 1 No action minimal or no adverse environmental or social Assessment needed impacts?3 and beyond Please provide brief justification: Management of screening Environmental

and Social Risk

Category C

Is the sub-project neither a Category A nor IFC PS 1 Limited Category C as defined above?4 Assessment Scope ESIA Please provide brief justification: and or IEE or Management of ESMP

Environmental and Social Risk Category B

Will the sub-project likely have adverse impacts IFC PS 1 Limited to the human or natural environment that are Assessment Scope ESIA modest, confined to a small regionDRAFT and are and or IEE or temporary or short-lived which are easy and Management of ESMP inexpensive to control? Environmental and Social Risk Category B

Do sub-project documents clearly state that no IFC PS 1 Limited buildings will be constructed? Assessment Scope ESIA and or IEE or Management of ESMP Environmental and Social Risk Category B

projects in which implementation capacity is likely to be weak. Sub-projects that would require relocation of Indigenous Peoples, that would restrict their access to traditional lands or resources, or that would seek to impose changes to Indigenous Peoples’ traditional institutions, are always likely to be categorized as A. 3 Examples of projects likely to have minimal or no adverse environmental impacts are supply of goods and services, technical assistance, simple repair of damaged structures etc., .

2 Answer If Yes IFC If Yes Questions Performance Document N/A Yes No Standard requirement triggered

Does the sub-project document specify that IFC PS 1 Limited there will be no use of any hazardous materials? Assessment Scope ESIA and or IEE or Management of ESMP Environmental and Social Risk Category B

Will the sub-project involve the conversion or Performance Limited degradation of non-critical natural habitats? Standard 6 Scope ESIA Please provide brief justification: Biodiversity or IEE or Conservation ESMP and Sustainable Management of

Living Natural Resources

Will the sub-project involve the significant Performance Ineligible for conversion or degradation of critical natural Standard 6 funding in the 5 habitats ? Biodiversity IPZ Project Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources Category A

Will the sub-project adversely impactDRAFT physical Performance Ineligible for cultural resources?6 Standard 8 funding in the Please provide brief justification: Cultural IPZ Project Heritage Category A

Does the sub-project involve involuntary land Performance Abbreviated acquisition, loss of assets or access to assets, Standard 8 Resettlement or Cultural Action Plan loss of income sources or means of livelihood? Heritage Please provide brief justification:

5 Sub-projects that significantly convert or degrade critical natural habitats such as legally protected, officially proposed for protection, identified by authoritative sources for their high conservation value, or recognized as protected by traditional local communities, are ineligible for Bank financing. 6 Examples of physical cultural resources are archaeological, paleontological or historical sites, including historic urban areas, religious monuments, structures and/or cemeteries particularly sites recognized by the government.

3 Answer If Yes IFC If Yes Questions Performance Document N/A Yes No Standard requirement triggered

Will the sub-project have the potential to have Performance Ineligible for impacts on the health and quality of forests or Standard 6 funding in the the rights and welfare of people and their level Biodiversity IPZ Project of dependence upon or interaction with forests; Conservation or aims to bring about changes in the and Sustainable management, protection or utilization of natural Management of forests or plantations? Living Natural Please provide brief justification: Resources Category A

Will the project have the potential to have Performance Ineligible for significant impacts or significant conversion or Standard 6 funding in the degradation of critical natural forests or other Biodiversity IPZ Project natural habitats? Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources Category A

DRAFT

4

Appendix A5

Site Specific Screening Form

DRAFT

Appendix A5 Site Specific Environmental and Social Safeguard Screening Forms

These forms will be filled by the IPZ Project Partners during the identification of the sub-project as part of the annual work plan. The Environmental and Social Safeguard Screening From will be properly filled in, signed and attached to the sub-project proposal which to be reviewed by National Park E&S Officer and/or MoEF.

FORM A: Project Concept Safeguards Checklist

Resort: District: Location – sketch map attached

(Mark )

 YES  NO Village: Landmark Reference (details):

TYPE of works/activities (Mark )

 Patrols  Public facilities improvement

 Capture and  Reforestation translocation of  Located near important cultural sites wildlife

 Located within National Park  Located within or near a natural habitat site Brief description of works/activities: (i.e., wide of area, need/purpose of works, proposed works [list/explain activities], number of villages [approx. population] to benefit):

Checklist Yes No Explanation/Comments 1. Will the works require any households to move structures (include houses and farmland? 2. Are the works, located in or near a cultural/heritage area? 3. Are the works, located near orDRAFT in National Park Core Zone, Jungle Zone? 4. Will the works require NEW building infrastructure to be constructed? 5. Will the works potential introduce invasive plant and/or animal species to the area? 6. Will the works be located near a river, stream or waterway? 7. Based upon visual inspection or available literature, are there areas of possible geologic or soil instability? 8. Will any of the works require the use of toxic chemicals? 9. Has hazardous waste such as asbestos been used in the construction, repair or maintenance of the building?

1 10. Other information: map, additional issues or impacts etc. should be specified on the attached sheet: List attachments

Distribution of ESMF Initial Screening Form:

Distributed to Yes No Date

WCS

WWF

YABI

National Park

MoEF

Others (list below)

ESMF Initial Screening Form compiled by: Name: Position:

Signature: Date:

ESMF Initial Screening Form verified by: Name: Position:

Signature: Date:

Attachments (For map, sketches, other information, issues, potential impacts, etc. as mentioned in item 10 above) DRAFT

As required

2 FORM B: Land Acquisition & Resettlement (LAR) Screening Form for Resorts

Resort: District: Location – sketch map attached

(Mark )

 YES  NO

Village: Landmark Reference (details):

TYPE of works/activities (Mark )

 Relocation of encroaching residences from forest  relocation of gardens/crops from forest area area Brief description of works/activities: (i.e., wide of area, size of public facility, need/purpose of works, proposed works [list/explain activities], number of villages [approx. population] to benefit):

LAND ACQUISITION AND RESETTLEMENT (LAR) SCREENING

Screening Questions Yes No Explanation/ Comments

1. Is land acquisition likely to be necessary?

2. Is the site for land acquisition known?

3. Is the ownership status and current usage of the land known?

4. Will easements be required to access the sub-project site? 5. Are there any non-titled people who live or earn their livelihood at the site or within the grounds of the national park to be improved?

6. Will there be loss of housing?

7. Will people lose access to facilities, services, or natural resources? 8. Will any social or economic activities be affected by land use-related changes? DRAFT

9. If involuntary resettlement impacts are expected: a) Will coordination between government agencies be required to deal with land acquisition? b) Are there sufficient skilled staff in the Executing Agency for resettlement planning and implementation? c) Are training and capacity-building interventions required prior to resettlement planning and implementation?

INFORMATION ON AFFECTED PEOPLE Is an estimate available for the number of households that will be affected by the sub-project? [ ] Yes [ ] No If yes, approximately how many households?

Are any of the households vulnerable i.e. households that (i) are headed by divorced or widowed females with dependents and low income; (ii) include disabled or invalid persons; (iii) include persons falling under the indicator for poverty, or the landless; and/or, (iv) are elderly with no means of support? [ ] Yes [ ] No

3 If yes, approximately how many households?

If yes, briefly describe their situation:

Are any of the households from ethnic minority groups? [ ] Yes [ ] No

If yes, briefly describe their situation:

PROJECT CATEGORIZATION FOR RESETTLEMENT IMPACTS Based on the definition of impacts in the Environmental and Social Operations Manual, what is the category?

[ ] CATEGORY A – significant resettlement impact, not eligible for funding under the IPZ Project

[ ] CATEGORY B – marginal or non-significant resettlement impact, an ARAP is required

[ ] CATEGORY C – minimal or no resettlement impact, no resettlement is required, generic social impact mitigation specifications will apply

Distributed to Yes No Date

WCS

WWF

YABI

National Park

MoEF

Others (list below)

LAR Screening Form compiled by: Name: DRAFT Duty: Signature: Date:

LAR Screening Form verified by:

Name: Duty:

Signature: Date:

4

Appendix A6

General Environmental Management Plan

DRAFT

Appendix A6. The Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP) Monitoring table (Matrices of Impacts and Mitigation Plans, from te ESMP)

ESMP ESMP Monitoring Social & Environmental Completion Status: Mitigation measures Feasibility of mitigation Resources Responsibility Schedule Evidence of completion Impacts / Risks evidence/date/staff name

IFC Environmental and Social Performance Standards

PS. 1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts

Opening new access for Intensifying and improving Project activity; Feasibility Set up SMART-RBM system and Project Staff (WCS, YABI, Yr 1 – Yr 6; SOP in Yr 1; SOP developed and The Patrol Standard poachers via new patrol paths operation of SMART-based confirmed based on existing capacity WWF) with BBSNP personnel training annually implemented; training Operation Procedures (SOP) & routes. Patrol, including finalization of practices and examples. Specific responsibilities to be records; Patrol effectiveness at BBSNP already exists and Standard Operating defined by Project evaluation. has been documented, but Procedures (SOP) that coordinator. the points governing the includes: opening of the new patrol line, . pathway use and limits the the risks and mitigation have creation of new route; not been included in the . camp construction Patrol SOP. and management aspects; Even so, patrol activities . rules and SYSTEMS to ensure always follow the existing line confidentiality of data; (both the wildlife activity and . flexibility for revision to illegal lanes) so as not to address future or open new patrol routes. unforeseen impacts; . Provision of training on the The Activities that will be SOP. carried out in the future are: . Revise the BBSNP SOP patrol

. Identify new illegal routes.

Temporary camp activities The BBSNP SOP Patrol has cause damage, e.g. litter, use also not included the of wood for fire and camp governing points on construction etc. DRAFT temporary camp for patrol and surveys.

So far, patrol activities have been carried out using old used temporary camps or ex- hunter camps.

Camp material uses old materials that can still be used. After use the temporary camp, cleaning is done and carrying out waste batteries.

The activities that will be carried out are:

. Revise BBSNP SOP;

. Mapping existingcamp locations and giving them

1

ESMP ESMP Monitoring Social & Environmental Completion Status: Mitigation measures Feasibility of mitigation Resources Responsibility Schedule Evidence of completion Impacts / Risks evidence/date/staff name to all survey and patrol teams;

. Designing an ideal camp that can minimize the use of wood

Patrol findings data may be . Set up SMART-RBM system BBSNP and partners have misused for destructive and capacity agreed on an SOP and activities implemented a data (encroachment/poaching . RPU Patrolling in the IPZ management flow. /logging) Operators whose data managers have also been appointed by BBSNP.

Nevertheless, the application of the SOP still needs to be improved.

In the future the activities that will be carried out are:

. Monitoring the implementation of data management SOPs at BBSNP and partners

. Training of all parties related to data management SOPs to improve quality in the management and implementation of SOPs

Successful patrols will reduce Awareness program targeting Project activity; Feasibility . Support the Park to plan Project staff under PCU’s Yr 1- Yr 6 . Awareness-raising records Several activities that have poaching and increase communities; Utilizing and confirmed based on existing and operationalizeDRAFT the IPZ. Communications and and materials; been carried out to minimize wildlife populations and broadening use of the practices and examples. Livelihood Coordinator. . RPU Patrolling in the IPZ . Conflict records (data and this risk are: potential increased risk of existing systems, information Specific responsibilities to be analysis– beginning vs. human-wildlife conflicts, and mechanism for reporting defined by Project regular monitoring results); . Installation of GPS Collar (causing damage to crops and responding to people- Coordinator. . KAP survey results; RRT on elephants for and death or injury to wildlife conflict, including: training records. monitoring movement of livestock/ wildlife/ people). . increase dissemination of elephant groups and information on response possible conflicts (match process; funding); . Strengthen and expand . A conflict monitoring Rapid Response system / team has been formed teams. and a patrol schedule is coordinated by BBSNP.

. Training for the community to handle elephant conflicts.

Possible activities within the project (depending on the

2

ESMP ESMP Monitoring Social & Environmental Completion Status: Mitigation measures Feasibility of mitigation Resources Responsibility Schedule Evidence of completion Impacts / Risks evidence/date/staff name design and approval of the new logframe and project workplan) could be:

. Monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of handling humanelephant conflicts, and awareness to the target community.

. Determine steps that need to be done. Remark: If thosethreats and activities regarding Human-Wildlife conflict are not incorporated in the new project workplan due to other scopes, than the above mentioned mitigation measures will be put on hold unless the project partners find matching funds.

Conduct a review of options Additional (ESMP) activity, . RPU Patrolling in the IPZ Project Staff (WCS, WWF, Yr 1-Yr 2 (review); Yr 2 – Yr 5 Report of the review; There is a Forestry Minister for alternative and feasibility confirmed based on YABI) (implement initiatives) Recommendations of review Regulation No. 48 of 2008 complementary actions existing resources, capacity Indicative budget $30.000 will be implemented as follow which regulates guidelines including lobbying or and availability of local and Specific responsibilities to be up activities in the following for dealing with human and establishing local regulations international examples. defined by Project annual work plan. animal conflicts, including that incentivize local Coordinator. those which also regulate communities to handle wildlife compensation. encounters in a positive way (for example, replicate other regency regulations The implementation still faces compensating for cross loss, DRAFT many obstacles. Need if appropriate). coordination and discussion with relevant parties to discuss further management including appropriate solutions. Increase in presence of better Engage with NP personnel Project activity; . Support the Park to plan Project Staff (WCS, YABI, Yr 2- Yr 6 Wildlife monitoring data are Data monitoring only protected pest species such and communities to provide Feasibility confirmed based and operationalize the IPZ and WWF) with BBSNP used for management plans; available for 3 key species as wild boars. education and co-develop on existing practices and . IMZ design and personnel. IMZ management plan (tigers, rhinos, elephants), solutions if these species examples. management plan, funds includes action on pest and not yet for other animals become troublesome. through WWF species records of training. that have become pests such as wild boars and monkeys.

Working with pest species in the community programme is right now beyond the scope of this project.

We will closely monitor the topic and decide about necessary activties in the

3

ESMP ESMP Monitoring Social & Environmental Completion Status: Mitigation measures Feasibility of mitigation Resources Responsibility Schedule Evidence of completion Impacts / Risks evidence/date/staff name livelihood output as needed and report here in this table Potential translocation of Adopt and disseminate an Project activity; Feasibility . Strategy to consolidate and Project Staff (tigers – WCS; Yr 2- Yr 6 SOP available and Standard Operation tigers or rhinos, bears risk of SOP based on good-practice confirmed based on existing breed Rhino in BBS rhinos - YABI) implemented; record of Procedures for the Sumatran people/animal injury or death from other contexts. practices and examples, . IMZ design and training. rhino translocation in / problem animals. reference material available. management plan, funds Kalimantan have been through WWF approved by the DG of KSDAE, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, applied in Kutai Barat, East Kalimantan. Activities that will be carried out are adaptation and dissemination of existing SOPs to be adapted with conditions in BBSNP as well as detailed training will be conducted to the Team that will be involved. Provide training for relevant The BBSNP Team and parties. Include resources for partners will visit Kutai Barat translocation and reserves for to learn from the experience emergency responses in of the translocation process in project budget. Kutai Barat. Patrols and law enforcement Design and deliver a Additional (ESMP) activity, . Socialize IPZ components of Project staff under PCU’s Yr 2 (develop strategy); Yr 2- . Strategy documented; Surveys on Knowledge, lead to perception of unfair or proactive, multi-method feasibility confirmed based on the NP management plan to communication’s and Yr 6 delivery / use of wider . Materials available; Attitude and Practice, and unequitable law enforcement, communications strategy with existing resources, capacity local stakeholder, with Livelihood Coordinators; methods; KAP baseline and . Training records (targeting preparation of communication triggering social jealousy and tailored messages, methods and availability of local and progress updates WWF, YABI (village repeat survey for monitoring front line persons); strategies have been carried tension among communities, and materials on: laws, international examples. livelihoods facilitators). Yr 3 and Yr 5 or mid-way and out. . Implement an outreach . KAP results and focused and between communities patrols, project activities, project end. As an additional or expanded program to engage analysis (evaluation reports) and officers. changes to be anticipated in activity (for ESMP), additional encroachers and community on effectiveness of Programs with communities law enforcement, community resources may be required figures in discussion on communications in changing and the development of key conservation role. for complementary action- encroachmentDRAFT and build KAP / behaviors of target messages are being research to develop, deliver awareness of the ecological groups. developed and will begin to and assess/adjust tailored and economic rationale for be implemented in the social behavior change the Park. following period. activities under the communication strategy. $30,000 for research based The activity that will be Design of strategy and materials; carried out is implementing a and $45,000 for materials more effective communication production. program in the community by referring to the communication strategies that have been prepared. Providing long-term Project activity; Feasibility . Develop resort-level Project Staff (WWF, YABI) Yr 1 – facilitators recruited Yr . Facilitator training records; Facilitators working in the community facilitators and confirmed based on existing strategies for community Specifically the Livelihood 2 – Yr 6, trained and in place . Facilitator work plans and target villages have been support program for practices and examples. engagement Coordinator. in villages. evaluations; placed. alternative livelihoods . Capacity to support . Village activity records Previously, they had been (includes developing community-based (minutes of meetings, trained with the facilitation Community Conservation encroachment monitoring photos etc.); and methodology of Agreements and facilitating and reforestration . CCAs. other processes to address

4

ESMP ESMP Monitoring Social & Environmental Completion Status: Mitigation measures Feasibility of mitigation Resources Responsibility Schedule Evidence of completion Impacts / Risks evidence/date/staff name community needs vis a vis . Political framework for sustainable livelihood BBSNP conservation); species and habitat assessment (SLA). ensuring facilitators are conservation is improved, A plan for facilitation activities trained for effective financing sustained and has been prepared in 10 communication and issues good practices scaled up target villages. Participatory management. nationally and internationally assessment process is being carried out in the target villages to develop future economic development programs in the village. Grievance redress Additional (ESMP) activity, Relates to all activities. Project Coordinator, PMU Yr 1 – Yr 6 . Documentation of The Grievance redress mechanism established and feasibility confirmed based on mechanism and outreach mechanism has not been communicated to target existing resources and materials; developing with the audiences. capacity. . records of training; community. This mechanism . Complaints log will be develop during the facilitation process of the Village Conservation Agreement. PS.2: Labour and Working Conditions & PS.4: Community Health, Safety and Security Improper employment Ensuring compliant Project activity/function; . Set up SMART-RBM system Project Staff (WCS) and Yr 1- Yr 6 Employment contracts Will be discussed with all conditions of casual and non- employment contract terms, Feasibility confirmed based and capacity BBSNP. partners and ensure that the permanent personnel. including provision of on existing practices and . Support the park to develop HR departments of YABI, conditions of contract of staff information and training. examples. a NP management strategy, WWF, WCS. are in accordance with the annual work plans for each standards of feasibility and resort, and to allocate Park work regulations in Indonesia. resources in support Developing SOP for patrol Project activity; Feasibility . Set up SMART-RBM system Yr 2 . Training records; Several activities will be activities, to include provision confirmed based on existing and capacity . Evidence of PPE; carried out in the next period: of Personal Protective practices and examples. . Support the park to develop . PPE in BBSNP annual . Identify risks and develop Equipment (PPE) for casual a NP management strategy, budgets occupational health and and informal workers. Additional (ESMP) resources annual work plans for each safety plans about may be required to support resort, and toDRAFT allocate Park patrols. PPE provision until budgeted resources in support . Provision of Personal for by GoI/BBSNP. Indicative Budget $9000 Protective Equipment (PPE) needed in accordance with the risks that may occur. . Incorporating Occupational Health and Safety (K3) and PPE in the Patrol SOP. PS.5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement Patrols and law enforcement Developing project As an additional or expanded Capacity to support community- Project Staff (WWF) Yr 2 (plan developed) Yr 2- . RAP document, with The process of preparing lead to lack/loss of livelihoods Resettlement Action Plan activity (for ESMP), additional based encroachment monitoring Specifically the Project Yr 6 (implementation) completed baseline and programs for economic as people cannot utilize the (RAP), based on locale and resources may be required to and reforestration Coordinator and Livelihood community / FPIC development plans, village land, forest products, and population-specific data, support data collection, Indicative budget $30.000 Coordinator. consultation records; institutions, as well as wildlife inside BBSNP. engagement with government planning and documentation . Record/minutes of meetings conservation and restoration to strengthen PPTKH or other of the RAP. Feasibility on/with provincial PPTKH; of ecosystems is ongoing with relevant committees and confirmed based on . Guidelines (draft or final; the community. guidelines for social forestry availability of resources, schemes and handling of relevant examples and

5

ESMP ESMP Monitoring Social & Environmental Completion Status: Mitigation measures Feasibility of mitigation Resources Responsibility Schedule Evidence of completion Impacts / Risks evidence/date/staff name economic and physical previous engagement with . Evidence of advocacy on displacement. stakeholders on this topic. resettlement handling); . Records of resettlement process in the project areas during 2019 (Project Affected People (PAP) household monitoring data per village) Providing long-term Project activity; . Socialize IPZ components of Yr 1 – facilitators recruited; . Facilitator training records; see above community facilitators and Feasibility confirmed based the NP management plan to Yr 2 – Yr 6, trained and in . Facilitator work plans and support program for on existing practices and local stakeholder, with place in villages evaluations; The Community facilitators alternative livelihoods examples. progress updates. . Village activity records have been placed in one of (includes developing . Implement an outreach (minutes of meetings, the target villages and are Community Conservation program to engage photos etc.); responsible to work with 1-2 Agreements and facilitating encroachers and community . CCAs. target villages of the project. other processes to address figures in discussion on They all have been trained community needs vis a vis encroachment and build with facilitation techniques BBSNP conservation); awareness of the ecological and SLA methodology ensuring facilitators are and economic rationale for (sustainable livelihood trained for effective the Park. assessment). communication and issues

management. Also includes advocacy and partnership Participatory village support with local government assessment process is being and community cooperatives. carried out to develop economic development programs in the village. Changes in livelihood options, Livelihoods program includes Project activity; . Develop resort-level Project Staff (WWF) . Assessment report (key Participatory assessment is including increased eco- conducting assessments, Feasibility confirmed based strategies for community Specifically the Livelihood commodities and ecotourism still being carried out for tourism and other diversified developing tool kits, providing on existing practices and engagement Coordinator feasibility results); livelihood programs (including livelihood strategies. training programs (farmer examples. . Capacity to support . Program implementation ecotourism, farmer field field schools), small community-based plan (details); schools, business unit enterprise feasibility encroachment monitoring . Training material and development, and livelihood assessments and training DRAFT alternatives). and reforestration. records (diverse commodities and . Political framework for ecotourism). Program to species and habitat include attention to potential conservation is improved, tertiary impacts of these financing sustained and activities. good practices scaled up nationally and internationally. Participatory analysis of . Develop resort-level Report on tourism feasibility There has not been a Limit of quota system and LAC (Limit strategies for community including LAC analysis; Acceptable Changes of Acceptable Changes) to engagement community and local govt (Participatory Analysis of determine critical points of . Capacity to support meeting records Quota System) for ecotourism ecosystems, wildlife, social, community-based activities in BBSNP An and infrastructure encroachment monitoring assessment is planned at the components in tourism and reforestration. moment in the draft version of destination. . Political framework for the new work plan. species and habitat conservation is improved, financing sustained and

6

ESMP ESMP Monitoring Social & Environmental Completion Status: Mitigation measures Feasibility of mitigation Resources Responsibility Schedule Evidence of completion Impacts / Risks evidence/date/staff name good practices scaled up nationally and internationally. Community tourist education . Develop resort-level . Visitor education Ecotourism development approach through developing strategies for community materials; activities that have been visitor materials and guiding engagement . Guiding system; Promotion carried out are the formation system, coordination with . Capacity to support materials of ecotourism groups, tour agents on tourist do’s and community-based . Tourist guideline (include guide training, and don’ts. encroachment monitoring code of conduct) institutional assistance, and the creation of promotional and reforestration. . Tourism management plan materials. . Political framework for report species and habitat For the new developed work conservation is improved, plan we are aiming to develop financing sustained and ecotourism strategy and good practices scaled up some investments in nationally and ecotourism infrastructure (to internationally. be defined and refined). This incorporates planning processes, tourism packages, and guidelines and of course also mitigation measures if there is a potential that tourism might also cause negative effects. An monitoring process of evaluate all measures mentioned above is planned to be established Engaging private sector and Investment and village labour for Project Staff (WWF and Y 2 – Yr 6 Meeting / workshop records For coffee and cocoa other partners on market scheme to reward performance WCS) with private sector commodities, intensive access to support in monitoring boundaries and discussions with the private development of alternative regenration in abandoned sector have been conducted commodities (outreach to encroachments. DRAFT for market access, farmer educate buyers, etc.) formation, and support for conservation. Physical displacement, loss As above (RAP, advocacy As an additional or expanded Capacity to support community- Project Staff (WWF) Yr 2 (plan developed); . RAP document, with Baseline data activities on based encroachment monitoring of dwellings (homes) within and partnership support with activity (for ESMP), additional Project Coordinator Yr 2- Yr 6 (implementation) completed baseline and people residing in BBSNP will and reforestration. the national park areas and local government and resources may be required to community / FPIC be carried out by the Team in buffer areas. community cooperatives, support data collection, consultation records; the Village supported by the Indicative budget $30,000; long-term community planning and documentation . Record/minutes of meetings local government Team and

facilitators, and livelihoods of the RAP, and supervision / on/with provincial PPTKH; BBSNP. RAP data collection $12,000; program).. attention to implementation of . Guidelines (draft or final; The results of this data will be Extra government engagement physical resettlement used to conduct consultations on resettlement $12,000) evidence of advocacy on (monitoring outcomes resettlement handling); to find the best solution. requires additional resources. . Records of resettlement process in the project areas No RAP document available. during 2019 (PAP household The development has been monitoring data per village). planned in the draft version of the new work plan and budget plan (to be submitted in early 2019).

7

ESMP ESMP Monitoring Social & Environmental Completion Status: Mitigation measures Feasibility of mitigation Resources Responsibility Schedule Evidence of completion Impacts / Risks evidence/date/staff name Unfair or unequitable As above (Design and deliver Additional (ESMP) activity, . Socialize IPZ components of Project staff under PMU’s Yr 2 (develop strategy); Yr . Strategy documented and Communication strategy has treatment of PAPs leads to a proactive, multi-method feasibility confirmed based on the NP management plan to Communications Manager 2-Yr 6 delivery / use of wider implemented; materials been just developed, social jealousy and triggers communications strategy with existing resources, capacity local stakeholder, with and WWF (village livelihoods methods; KAP monitored available; including the dissemination of conflicts among communities, tailored messages, methods and availability of local and progress updates. facilitators). yr 3 and Yr 5 . Training records (targeting the implementation of patrols and between communities and materials on: laws, international examples. . Implement an outreach front line persons); in BBSNP to the community and officers. patrols, project activities, program to engage . KAP survey results and Revision and implementation changes to be anticipated in encroachers and community focused analysis on of the strategy will happen in law enforcement, community figures in discussion on effectiveness 2019 and ongoing. conservation role). encroachment and build communications methods in awareness of the ecological changing KAP / behaviors of and economic rationale for target groups; the Park. . Grievance log. Indicative budget $30,000 for

Research based design of strategy and materials; and $45,000 for materials production.)

Reduced or lost access to As part of the RAP, data As above; additional (ESMP) Capacity to support community- Project Staff (WWF) Yr 2 Documentation of IP Basic understanding about areas used for social/cultural collection and consultation to activity; feasibility confirmed. based encroachment monitoring consultations and indigenous communities purposes (non-economic include investigating social and reforestration. agreements; Material included affected by our project values). and cultural values that may in RAP and IP section of CCA activities is available through be affected for PAP including Indicative RAP budget $30,000; if appropriate. workshops and surveys (FPIC Indigenous Peoples. additional principles followed). Controlled access options Data collection $12,000; and (including providing extra government engagement RAP is not available and has information on options $12,000) not been planned in the already in law) and other current workplan and budget measures to be agreed with plan. But has been PAP and documented in incorporated into the new RAP. draft version which will be DRAFT submitted early 2019. PS.6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources Reforestation activities may Developing procedures and Project activity; Feasibility . Capacity to support Project Staff (WCS and Yr 2 – Yr 6 . Species list; The Standard Operation introduce or increase spread training for all relevant confirmed based on existing community-based WWF) with BBSNP. . Documentation of Procedures not yet of invasive plant species parties. Particular aspects to practices and examples. encroachment monitoring procedures; developed. These will (mantangan/Merremia sp and include: confirmation of and reforestration . Purchase order/supplier incorporate the procurement pakisan/Ceratoptoris sp). acceptable species list, . Capacity building and policy agreements stating local of seeds to avoid the exercising care in the use of aligmnet sources; development of accidentally invasive species. Multi-Purpose Tree Species, . Documentation of training; and attention to the source of . Photographs of field seedlings, as these can activities. inadvertently introduce invasive species. Involvement of communities As above. Until this semester, there has and parks personnel in been no planning for handling localized ‘campaigns’ to invasive species in a remove clusters of invasive participatory manner with the species is also planned as an community. Also training on occasional measure. how to handle invasive species to local communities.

8

ESMP ESMP Monitoring Social & Environmental Completion Status: Mitigation measures Feasibility of mitigation Resources Responsibility Schedule Evidence of completion Impacts / Risks evidence/date/staff name Successful restoration As above (awareness Project activity; IMZ design and management Awareness-raising records Human-Wildlife Conflict activities will increase wildlife program, expanding Feasibility confirmed based plan, funds through WWF and materials; mitigation is right now not well populations which may pose dissemination of existing on existing practices and Conflict records (data and represented in the work plan a risk of increased conflicts materials and procedures, examples. analysis); and budget plan. between people and wildlife. supporting Rapid Response KAP survey results; RRT system/teams). Depending if training records. The project partners use right conflicts with Tigers or now other small funds to Elephants, apply specific specifically invest in minor mitigation measures; use activities (like GPS collars to lessons learned from other get better data about projects in Sumatra; to be movements) to cope the updated in this file regularly Human-Elephant-Conflicts in this area. The project partner are right now discussing to include some mitigation measures into the new work plan and budget to be submitted early 2019. PS. 7: Indigenous Peoples Project area of impact may Ensuring consultation and Additional (ESMP) activity, . Support the Park to plan Project staff under PMU’s Yr 1 – Yr 6 Documentation of The Survey of indigenous affect local IP’s historical, activity implementation is feasibility confirmed based on and operationalize the IPZ. Communications Manager consultation and agreements peoples (interviews and economic and cultural consistent with FPIC existing resources, capacity . Develop resort-level and Livelihoods Coordinator; with IPs; Focus Group Discussion) to interests. particularly in Penal Laay, and availability of local and strategies for community WWF (village livelihoods have a better understanding Labuhan Mandi, Paku international examples. engagement facilitators). of the culture of Indigenous Negara, Ulok Mukti villages, . Capacity to support Peoples (Saibatin Lampung) and with indigenous peoples’ community-based around IPZ in BBSNP related representatives or encroachment monitoring to natural resource organisations in Lampung and reforestration management has been and nationally (where carried out. No specific . Performance based relevant). activities with indigenous incentives for Park people have been carried out protection and restoration DRAFT so far. IP land tenure and forest Including elements specific to . Support the Park to plan Yr 2 – Yr 6 . Documentation of FPIC and Not yet started and usages impacted (reduced or Indigenous Peoples in CCAs, and operationalize the IPZ. IP issues included in implemented strengthened) by law project activity plans and . Develop resort-level LG/Forestry Dept enforcement activities and monitoring processes, strategies for community consultations; livelihoods program. including reporting specifically engagement . Community Conservation on engagement with, and . Capacity to support Agreements (documents); impacts on, Indigenous community-based . Village Development Plans Peoples across key project encroachment monitoring and/ or social forestry activities (awareness raising, and reforestration implementation plans alternative economic activities . Performance based include adat areas/forest or and law enforcement). incentives for Park interests as agreed with protection and restoration communities.

9

Appendix A7

A Pre-assessment of Potential Risks and Categorization

DRAFT

Appendix A7 A Pre – Assessment of Potential Risks and Categorization for IPZ Project

Generic environmental and social issues and environmental and social impact characteristics were assessed to determine the social and environmental categorization. The environmental and social issues were defined according to the IFC Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Guidelines, Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation (MoEFR) No. 32 / 2009 Environmental Protection and Management. This national regulation as a systematic and integrated effort undertaken to preserve environmental functions and prevent environmental pollution and / or damage which includes planning, utilization, control, maintenance, supervision, and law enforcement.

Environmental and social impact characteristic define as per IFC Interpretation Note on Environmental and Social Categorization (2012):

. Potential adverse risk/impact: o Significant, for Category A o Limited, for Category B . Irreversibility. . Unprecedented. . Area of Impact. . Measured Mitigation Readiness.

Table A7.1 Social and environmental categorization basis.

Potential Adverse Impact Measured Generic Area of No. Description Irreversibility Unprecedented Mitigation E&S Issues Impact Significant Limited Negligible Readiness 1 Air Based on the proposed project activites, DRAFT- - - Not Not Applicable Not Not Emissions impacts to air emissions and ambient air Applicable Applicable Applicable and Air quality are not anticipated. Quality

2 Noise There is no potential source of noise from - - - Not Not Applicable Not Not the project activites e.g.: boiler, steam Applicable Applicable Applicable turbine and generator. Based on the proposed project activites, impacts to noise are not anticipated.

1 Potential Adverse Impact Measured Generic Area of No. Description Irreversibility Unprecedented Mitigation E&S Issues Impact Significant Limited Negligible Readiness

3 Odour There is no potential source of odour from - - - Not Not Applicable Not Not the project activities, e.g.: chimney from Applicable Applicable Applicable industrial area. Based on the proposed project activities, impacts to odour are not anticipated.

4 Wastewater Domestic wastewater (black and grey - - - Not Not Applicable Not Not and Water water) treatment has not been mentioned Applicable Applicable Applicable Quality yet in any documents. Generally, domestic wastewater is treated using individual septic tank. Based on the proposed project activities, impacts to wastewater and water quality are not anticipated.

5 Water There is no potential impact of water - - - Not Not Applicable Not Not Consumption consumption from the project activites. Applicable Applicable Applicable and Based on the proposed project activities, Conservation impacts to water consumption and conservation are not anticipated.

6 Hazardous Based on the proposed project activities, - - - Not Not Applicable Not Not Materials impacts to hazardous materials are not Applicable Applicable Applicable Management anticipated. DRAFT 7 Waste Based on the proposed project activities, - - - Not Not Applicable Not Not Management impacts to waste management are not Applicable Applicable Applicable anticipated.

8 Soil and Based on the proposed project activities, - - - Not Not Applicable Not Not Land impacts to soil and land are not Applicable Applicable Applicable anticipated.

9 Energy In general, energy consumption mostly - - - Not Not Applicable Not Not Consumption related with operation phase with generic Applicable. Applicable Applicable

2 Potential Adverse Impact Measured Generic Area of No. Description Irreversibility Unprecedented Mitigation E&S Issues Impact Significant Limited Negligible Readiness and activity of process heating and process Conservation cooling; and related to auxiliary system, generating compressed air; Heating, Ventilation and Conditioning (HVAC) system; or lighting system. Based on the proposed project activities, impacts to energy consumption and conservation are not anticipated.

10 Labour and The project will employ or support - - Y Not Unprecedented Project site Policy Working employment of community members in Applicable area (main framework Conditions patrol functions, and increase the project and (policy, effectiveness of the BBSNP authority; the supporting guideline, project will interact with key industries that facilities) and plan, have international distribution and affect associated procedure) labour availability in the region (i.e. coffee facilities, and related to plantations) such that protection of worker surrounding labour and rights can be highlighted through project villages. working effort, for example in the non- use of child conditions. labor in coffee production. However, there are potential negative social impacts such as community discord or tension related to law enforcement, perception of equality in working DRAFT opportunities (for working opportunities). Based on the interview with the partners, during the project there is no labour and working conditions issues for the project. On the other hand, to tackle the labour and working process will be conducted by each project partner.

3 Potential Adverse Impact Measured Generic Area of No. Description Irreversibility Unprecedented Mitigation E&S Issues Impact Significant Limited Negligible Readiness Based on the above description, the labour and working conditions issue anticipated as negligible.

11 Community The project includes activities that involve - - Y Not Unprecedented Project site Policy Health, labour in: Applicable area (main framework Safety and . forest patrols; project and (policy, Security supporting guideline, . mediating conflict between wild facilities) and plan, and animals and local human associated procedure) populations; facilities, and related to . law enforcement in potentially surrounding community, confrontational situations (hunting, villages. health and poaching); and safety. . The possible use of pesticides or other products (for removal of invasive plant species in forests) which may be harmful if misused. These activities all contain an element of risk, which can be anticipated so as to avoid adversity. No community health, safety and security issue for the Project. Based on the interview and document DRAFT review, impacts to community health, safety and security are anticipated to be negligible.

12 Occupational Based on the interview and document - - Y Not Unprecedented Project site Policy Health and review with the project partners, impacts Applicable area (main framework Safety to occupational health and safety are not project and (policy, anticipated. supporting guideline, facilities) and plan, and associated procedure)

4 Potential Adverse Impact Measured Generic Area of No. Description Irreversibility Unprecedented Mitigation E&S Issues Impact Significant Limited Negligible Readiness On the other hand, the occupational facilities, and related to health and safety issue needs to be surrounding occupational developed on this project and sub-project villages. health and activities. safety. Based on the above description, the occupational health and safety issue anticipated as negligible.

13 Land The project involves working with BBSNP - Y - Not Unprecedented Project site Policy Acquisition authorities and communities to facilitate Applicable area (main framework and the relocation of encroachers’ residences project and (policy, Resettlement and gardens/crops from forest areas, both supporting guideline, in the conservation zone and other areas facilities) and LARAP, and of the forest estate under BBSNP. associated procedure). Although the community members’ facilities. presence and activities (farming, harvesting NTFP and hunting) are mostly illegal activities, the improved enforcement of regulations will mean restrictions on access to some sources of livelihood for select groups. So far, no involuntary displacement or resettlement is required for the project. 14 Biodiversity The project activities are concentrated in DRAFT- - - Not Not applicable Not Not and Natural national parks and protected areas. The applicable applicable applicable Resources anticipated impacts are positive and aim to balance conservation objectives by supporting human development needs. Key activities include reforestation, with consideration of selection of appropriate species; a key impact is increased wildlife and ecosystem services.

5 Potential Adverse Impact Measured Generic Area of No. Description Irreversibility Unprecedented Mitigation E&S Issues Impact Significant Limited Negligible Readiness Based on the proposed project activities, adverse impacts to biodiversity and natural resources are not anticipated;. most likely related to positive impacts.

15 Ecosystem Environmental setting of non-timber forest - - Y Not Unprecedented Project site Not Services products is utilized by surrounding Applicable area (main applicable. communities, e.g.: Damar resin. project and The government has established a forest supporting area where the community takes Damar facilities) and resin to become a Limited Production associated Forest area. facilities, and surrounding

villages. Potential negative impacts of eco-tourism development are also flagged for consideration during impact analysis. Based on the above description, the ecosystem service issue anticipated as negligible.

16 Indigenous In some targeted villages as well as the - - Y Not Unprecedented Not Not Peoples wider area of influence. While access applicable applicable applicable. restrictions apply to all people, certain IPs may be more impacted. It is noted DRAFT however that local regulations allow access and utilization of resources for certain traditional purposes (linked to identity, health etc.); this effectively protects them but may also create dual systems which may generate local tensions. No identified potential adverse risk or impact related to IPs.

6 Potential Adverse Impact Measured Generic Area of No. Description Irreversibility Unprecedented Mitigation E&S Issues Impact Significant Limited Negligible Readiness

17 Livelihoods Decreasing livelihoods is not identified in - - - Not Unprecedented Not Not this. Most likely related to positive impact. Applicable applicable applicable

18 Cultural No identified potential adverse risk or - - - Not Not applicable Not Not Heritage impact related to cultural heritage. applicable applicable applicable

Based on the description above, therefore the Project is categorize as:

Table A7.2 Project categorization.

Project Project Type Remarks Relevant E&S Issues Criteria Basis Categorization

Moderate: Project with B Category B projects will require the Land acquisition and Limited potential adverse anticipated insignificant preparation of Initial Environmental resettlement. risk/impact with small – scale adverse impact on the Examination (IEE) with environmental area of impact and readiness environment and social. mitigation and monitoring programs of measured mitigation. required to obtain environmental clearance.

DRAFT

7

As part of the review of environmental and social risks and impacts of a proposed investment, the IFC uses a process of environmental and social categorization to reflect the magnitude of risks and impacts. The resulting category also specifies IFC’s institutional requirements for disclosure in accordance with IFC’s Access to Information Policy. These categories are:

Category A: Business activities with potential significant adverse environmental or social risks and/or impacts that are diverse, irreversible, or unprecedented.

Category B: Business activities with potential limited adverse environmental or social risks and/or impacts that are few in number, generally site-specific, largely reversible, and readily addressed through mitigation measures.

Category C: Business activities with minimal or no adverse environmental or social risks and/or impacts.

Category FI: Business activities involving investments in financial institutions (FIs) or through delivery mechanisms involving financial intermediation.

This category is further divided into:

FI–1: when an FI’s existing or proposed portfolio includes, or is expected to include, substantial financial exposure to business activities with potential significant adverse environmental or social risks or impacts that are diverse, irreversible, or unprecedented.

FI–2: when an FI’s existing or proposed portfolio is comprised of, or is expected to be comprised of, business activities that have potential limited adverse environmental or social risks or impacts that are few in number, generally site-specific, largely reversible, and readily addressed through mitigation measures; or includes a very limited number of business activities with potential significant adverse environmental or social risks or impacts that are diverse, irreversible, or unprecedented.

FI–3: when an FI’s existingDRAFT or proposed portfolio includes financial exposure to business activities that predominantly have minimal or no adverse environmental or social impacts.

8

Appendix A8

Participatory Social Assessement Guidelines

DRAFT

Appendix A8 Participatory Social Assessment Guidelines

Community consultations will be based on free, prior and informed consultation to gauge support for the proposed sub-projects. Objectives of community consultations are to: (i) provide background information to various stakeholders and different populations; (ii) receive feedback from civil society organizations (CSOs) including non-government organizations (NGOs), community based organizations (CBOs), local leadership and other publics on issues and perceived concerns; and, (iii) discuss methods and resources to maximize the proposed sub-project initiatives and activities’ environmental and social performance. These participatory and consultative meetings will provide PPID with an opportunity to discuss grievance redress mechanisms and monitoring for those different populations and communities which may be impacted adversely from implementation of the proposed sub-projects.

Ensuring that the sub-projects’ impact assessment includes a participatory and gender-responsive social analysis is an important element of each stage or level of the project lifecycle. The starting point for effective gender mainstreaming in infrastructure sub-projects is to undertake the required gender analysis once specific proposed sub-project initiatives and/or activities’ locations have been identified. A gender analysis typically involves examining potential impacts of the project intervention on women and men and may include the collection of sex‐disaggregated or gender‐sensitive data. A gender analysis examines the different roles, rights, and opportunities of men and women and relations between them (i.e., the economic and social relationships between females and males which are constructed and reinforced by social institutions). It also identifies disparities, examines why such disparities exist, determines whether they are a potential impediment to achieving results, and looks at how they can be addressed (USAID 2011). Measures must be proposed to address these issues, along with specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound (SMART) indicators to monitor the intended social benefits and development outcomes and risks of the sub-projects.

Conducting a gender analysis when designing a new project or activity will help to:

. Analyze gender roles in project design;

. Identify root causes of existing gender inequalities in that context so that they can be addressed in the project design; DRAFT . Identify different needs and priorities of men and women in both the near and long term;

. Collect sex‐disaggregated baseline data;

. Avoid perpetuating traditional power imbalances; and

. Enhance the likelihood of strong and sustainable project results.

As indicated, the project aims to reducing anthropogenic pressure on priority areas in the BBSNP, improving national park and conservation zone management including establishing an Intensive Management Zone (IMZ), and thereby effectively protect the habitat of endangered species (Sumatran rhinoceros, Sumatran tiger, and Sumatran elephant) is effectively protected. The objective of the project is: Conservation of highly threatened tropical rainforest in the BBSNP as priority habitat for critically endangered species and carbon sink through innovative management concepts and sustainable land use management in cooperation with local communities and the national park authority.

1

Component 2 of the project ‘Establishment and Implementation of an IMZ’ will help to increase the Sumatran rhinoceros population in the BBSNP. Relatedly, Component 3 of the project ‘Land-use pressure on the IPZ is diminished through improved land use management and community development’ will help to reduce illegal poaching and encroachment risk and support scalable resilient approaches for improve the biodiversity found within the BBSNP.

During the initial interim period preceding the project, no noteworthy economic or political changes have occurred at either the national level or provincial level, which might be seen as a major risk to the planned project outcomes.

As part of the IPZ socialization process, the Head of BBSNP will disseminate material that explains the purpose and function of the IPZ. The specific IPZ socialization activity will be updated as necessary during the development of the IPZ management strategy.

Currently, two main approaches to achieving sustainable outcomes with the BBSNP authority have been prioritized for attention from the outset. These are:

. Ensure a smooth and gradual hand over of NGO partner roles and responsibilities to the BBSNP particularly for the SMART patrol system in the BBSNP. An integral part of this process will be the ongoing and capacity building support that WCS and YABI provide. This would include providing accredited training syllabuses specifically produced for each of the main components of SMART. The accreditation part is important because it means that trained civil servants will receive career points.

. Ensure the completion of a comprehensive protected area financing analysis for the BBSNP by 2018 that provides a compelling argument for allocating sufficient funds to cover the costs of forest and wildlife protection and related activities including education and awareness raising and community-based forest management initiatives. After this, WCS would work towards transitioning from project to governmentDRAFT funding for the core activities.

2

Appendix A9

Key Stakeholders

DRAFT

Appendix A9 Key Stakeholders

The MoEF supports the IPZ project and actions to improve participation, public consultation and information disclosure. Implementation relies on national strategies, legislation and procedures and will be supplemented - as necessary - by IFC Performance Standards for participation, consultation and disclosure concerning the safeguards aspects of the sub-project as described in the ESMF.

Components 3, 4 and 5 will pursue a process of meaningful consultation and engagement that includes national and local government, and relevant stakeholders. Similarly, the sub-projects, once defined, will support consultative decision making by ensuring public access to information on environmental and social aspects. In addition to ensuring that free, prior and informed consultation (FPIC) activities are undertaken in relation to potential environmental and social impacts, the consultation process will also inform and explain the proposed sub-project initiatives to affected communities, gather information from impacted populations, and conduct gender sensitive awareness raising.

Table A9.1 lists national and local government bodies, key stakeholders, various public entities and different populations who may be involved directly or indirectly in Components 3, 4, and 5.

Table A9.1 Stakeholders and various public agencies.

No. Entity Key Stakeholder

1 Government and MoEF, BBSNP, Badan Informasi Geospasial (BIG) / Geospatial Information regulatory agencies Agency, Badan Pertanahan Nasional (BPN) / National Land Agency, Badan Konservasi Sumber Daya Alam Ekosistem (BKSDAE) / Ecosystem Natural Resource Conservation Agency, Badan Perencana Pembangunan Daerah (BAPPEDA) / Regional Development Planning Agency , Badan Layanan Umum (BLU) / Public Services Agency, Badan Pengelolaan Lingkungan Hidup Daerah (BPLHD) / Regional Environmental Management Agency, OPD, and PPID.

2 Private sector Private sector companies with the technical expertise and capacity, companies engineering capability to implement the sub-projects. These may include both national and international companies.

3 Civil society International, national and regional non-governmental organizations (e.g., organizations Korut, YasasnDRAFT Alas Indonesia, Lembaga Konservasi 21, and Repong Indonesia).

4 Local stakeholders Local civil society organizations including community-based organizations (CBOs), village and regional level committees, cultivation commitees, regional and national Adat committees, 30 Household Heads, 10 Household Heads, street management committees, religious institutions and other local groups.

5 Academic and Environmental research groups, universities and technical institutes (e.g., research institutions University of Lampung, University of Indonesia)

6 Beneficiaries and Sub-project beneficiaries will be consulted at community level during the affected communities preparation phase. In addition, potential sub-project affected households will and households be consulted on the potential impacts and mitigation measures. Particular attention will be given to different populations (i.e., ethnic minorities and vulnerable groups – women and female/male youth and children, men, the elderly and disabled, etc.) to enhance their benefits and avoid or mitigate adverse impacts.

7 Ethnic peoples If proposed sub-project initiatives are planned in areas where ethnic group’s communities are located then, a process of free, prior and informed consultation will be undertaken with communities in the region of influence.

Appendix A10

List of Consulted Stakeholders

DRAFT

Appendix A10 List of consulted stakeholders.

Date Stakeholders Methodology Location

1 October Community consisting of two women, two Visual observations, interviews Bumi Hantatai 2019 men and two youth from Bumi Hantatai and discussion of personal Village Village information, knowledge of the IPZ project, current condition and potential social impacts

Community consisting of two men and Visual observations, interviews Penengahan two youth from Penengahan Village and discussion of personal Village information, knowledge of the IPZ project, current condition and potential social impacts

2 October Community consisting of two women, two Visual observations, interviews Sukabanjar 2019 men and two youth from Sukabanjar and discussion of personal Village Village information, knowledge of the IPZ project, current condition and potential social impacts

Community consisting of two women, two Visual observations, interviews Pemerihan men and two youth from Pemerihan and discussion of personal Village Village information, knowledge of the IPZ project, current condition and potential social impacts

3 October Focus Group Discussion with two women Focus Group Discussion in three Sunset Beach 2019 and two men from Bumi Hantatai Village, separate sessions: Hotel, Krui, two women and two men from 1. Women consultation Pesisir Barat Penengahan Village, two women and two Regency, 2. Men consultation men from Sukabanjar Village and two Lampung women and two men from Pemerihan 3. Combined consultation Province Village. between women, men, BBSNP officers and project The BBSNP officer and project partners partner representatives (WCS, WWF, and YABI) officer also joined the discussion. The main objective of theDRAFT discussion was to gather public opinions related to IPZ project activities.

Appendix A11

Stakeholder Consultation Objectives

DRAFT

Appendix A11 Stakeholder Consultations

Importance of Stakeholder Consultations

Public consultations occur at all stages of sub-project preparation and planning of feasibility studies and detailed design. Public participation and consultations take place through individual, group or community meetings. Additionally, different media may be used (e.g., public notice boards, official invitation letter, electronic communication including internet websites, email or cell phone) to disseminate information. To ensure that IFC consultation and disclosure policies are followed, project affected people (PAP) and communities (PAC) in the region of influence are engaged through free, prior and informed consultation to gauge support for the proposed sub-projects. In this manner, stakeholders, various publics and different populations are consulted during several stages of sub-project preparation, including:

. Project Identification: preliminary consultations were conducted during identification of Component 1 whereby local government authorities were consulted to ensure that the IPZ project aligned with national policies and legal frameworks, sectoral and local plans and strategies. Relevant stakeholders were consulted during development of the ESMF. Documented records of engagement and consultations are documented in Appendices A11 and A12: Stakeholder Consultations. Similar consultations will be held for each sub-project when they are identified.

. Project Preparation: consultations will be conducted during preparation of the feasibility and design studies to: (i) obtain detailed background information; (ii) conduct environmental and social surveys; and, (iii) informing as well as collecting opinions of key stakeholders, various publics and different populations on potential environmental and social impacts;

. Project Implementation: for sub-projects under IFC Category A that might be nationally controversial, a Communication Plan including a grievance redress mechanism will be developed for the proposed sub-project(s) and implemented prior to implementation. Participation of local leaders in disseminating information and resolving any disputes will be important. However, it should be noted that the proposed sub-projects can be categorized under IFC Category B; CategoryDRAFT A projects will not be funded under the IPZ project. . Monitoring and Reporting: national and local level government, stakeholders, various publics and different populations should participate throughout the proposed sub-project development, implementation and operational period. Participation mechanisms should be assessed during the feasibility and design phase.

Site-Specific Contextual Gender Information

The Ministry of Woman Empowerment and Children Protection of the Republic of Indonesia, concerning Gender Mainstreaming (INPRES No. 9/2000) aims at reducing the gap between Indonesian women and men in accessing and obtaining development benefits, as well as to increase participation in and control over the development process. The guidance in this regulation created momentum for the advancement of women and the promotion of gender equality, which recently extended to gender- inclusive planning and budgeting. There has been a shift in socio-cultural norms and values to better protect the rights of women and men as reflected in several laws that have been revised. There are also signs, however, of an emergence of religion-inspired discriminatory legislation at the local level. The challenge now is to strengthen the implementation of gender mainstreaming by improving legislative and policy frameworks, to enforce coordination of gender mainstreaming efforts among

1 national ministries and all levels of public institutions, and to replicate good practices displayed throughout Indonesia.

Indonesia’s Gender Development Index shows that challenges remain to achieving gender equality. The 2010 Human Development Report (HDR), commissioned by the United Nations Development Programme, ranked Indonesia 108 out of 182 countries according to a Human Development Index (HDI), which measures development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income. The report also highlighted Indonesia as a country with the greatest progress in recent decades, along with China, Nepal, Lao PDR and the Republic of Korea. The HDI, however, does not measure the degree of gender equality within these development indicators. The Gender Development Index (GDI) aims to show inequalities between men and women in the following areas: health, education, and standard of living. Although Indonesia ranked 93 out of 155 countries in 2009, there has been a consistent improvement in Indonesia’s GDI rank although the country still faces challenges in achieving gender equality in all key development indicators. [Note: the GDI is the HDI adjusted downwards for gender inequality. This means that GDI falls when the disparity between the achievement levels of men and women increases. If there is no inequality, the HDI and the GDI will be equal (UNDP.org, 2010)].

An initial round of stakeholder consultations for the ESMF development was held in Krui, Pesisir Barat Regency, on 3rd October 2019. To ensure gender-specific project concerns were captured, discussions with residents were gender segregated. In general, female respondents supported and welcomed the project and believed it will improve their quality of life. Human-wildlife conflicts close to the harvest season often occur although they may occur throughout the year. Women are worried about their husbands and children who work in and play around the farmland. Female respondents also said that they have enough space and freedom to express their opinions in the community.

The abovementioned gender-related findings can be further interpreted and put into actionable recommendations for the sub-projects, including:

. Inclusion of gender considerations in early stages of the project is highly recommended. This can be done by engaging gender expertise at project design and as an integral part of the implementation team. The link and information exchange between IPZ Project Partners and gender focal points from bothDRAFT national and sub-national government entities and CBOs should be strengthened. Once the proposed sub-project locations have been identified then, sufficient time and budget should be set aside to conduct a thorough gender-related analysis;

. Ensuring equal participation amongst men and women in the planning process remains the key to informed sub-project development. Consultation with communities should be handled to avoid raising expectation. The community should be well informed about how the sub-project(s) will be implemented, what the outputs will be and what the expected benefits are (i.e., the reason for doing the sub-projects);

. The shift in decision making and balance of power between men and women is a gradual process which demands effort to be invested in further capacity building, knowledge and awareness- raising amongst women and, which should be done by involving men so as to gain their support for more inclusive decision-making. The sub-projects could contribute to this gender mainstreaming process and women’s empowerment in an incremental manner; and

. Suggested the role of community monitoring and reporting (particularly, women’s potential involvement) should be well reflected in the terms of reference and tender documents to ensure community concerns are addressed.

2

Appendix A12

Stakeholder Consultation Responses - FGD

DRAFT

Appendix A12 Stakeholder Consultations Responses – Focus Group Discussions

Community focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted over a four-hour period on 03 October 2019 in Krui village, Pesisir Barat Regency (Table A11.1). The participants consulted during the FGDs were Javanese, Malay and Sudanese ethnicities.

Table A12.1 Stakeholders’ responses during the FGDs.

Responses Project Issues Women Group (eight participants) Men Group (eight participants) Mixed Group (25 participants) Issues related . We are concerned that we will lose our . We are concerned that we will lose our . Agree that people are not allowed to own land to BBSNP farmland. farmland. in the national park area. boundary . We are afraid that in the future, we will no . The boundary of IPZ should be socialized . Based on GoI regulations, anyone who owns enforcement. longer be able to maintain our farms in properly. land must pay the land ownership tax. How the current field location. should they pay taxes on land owned in the . The IPZ boundary should be socialized national park? properly. . Forest rangers cannot to blame about the lack of clarity on the national park boundary line as there are some boundaries without signage. Issues related . Most of the villagers carry out gardening . Most of the villagers carry out gardening . The project will provide training on alternative to changing activities within the national park as their activities within the national park as their economic programs. economic main source of income. The project main source of income. The project . The community hopes that solutions and conditions. activities will have an impact on their activities will have an impact on their alternatives will be offered if they have to move. livelihoods. livelihoods. . People are looking for a solution such that in the . Incomes will be reduced. . Incomes will be reduced. future, residents will not have land in the . Increased uneployment because of lost . Loss of dwellings. national park but are still allowed to collect non- farmland . Transmigration for the PACs. timber forest products. Issues related . Actually, we are happy for the IPZ . DRAFTHuman-wildlife conflicts will increase. . Need public notification about the human- to changes in implementation. . In Pemerihan vilage, we still using our wildlife conflict program in all communities. ecosystems and . We have a strong wish that our children previous graveyard which is located inside . The communities around the national park conservations. will still be able to see the protected the National Park. boundary need information about the mitigation animals in the future. . Indirectly, the IPZ activities will be increase measures for human-wildlife conflict/avoidance. . Human-wildlife conflicts will increase. the wildlife population and it will make us . There was a forum or community group - Forum . we will feel fear and worry when we are fear and worry when we are around or Sahabat Gajah - that looked at human-elephant around or close to National Park or IPZ close to National Park or IPZ boundary conflicts in the Pemerihan village. boundary lines lines. . Good for reforestration process . Wildlife population will increase.

1 Responses Project Issues Women Group (eight participants) Men Group (eight participants) Mixed Group (25 participants) What Kind of . Appropriate and tranparent land . Appropriate and tranparent land . Increased collaboration with stakeholders. policy you are compensation process. compensation process. . Ecosystem restoration will involve the the expected on . There will be an agreement that we can . Resettlement provided. community in the process. the lives of the still collect NTFPs inside the national park . More intensive rangers patrol throughout . Appropriate and tranparent land compensation project . We will still be permitted to stay within the BBSNP and also surrounding villages. process. National Park Area. . The communities hope to be included in conservation activities organized by the team.

DRAFT

2

Appendix A13

Stakeholder Consultation Responses - Interview

DRAFT

Appendix A13 Stakeholder Consultations Conducted

Consultations were conducted during the field program and site visits during the week of 30 September to 04 October 2019. During these consultations, meetings, discussions and interviews were conducted to gather community perceptions on the IPZ project. The IPZ project has employed a number of Community Officers (CO) to conduct regular engagement with the stakeholders at the project site. This interview process followed by the consultant team was flexible, open and not structured as a formal setting. Interview questions focussed on individual information in such as personal life history, socio- economic condition, livelihood, sacred place or local cultural heritage and knowledge of conservation programs as well as flora and fauna conservation. Communities’ interviews consisted of two women, two men and two youths. Stakeholders consulted in Bumi Hantatai village

Consultations were held on 01 October 2019 in Bumi Hantatai village (Table A13.1).

Table A13.1 Stakeholders comments from Bumi Hantatai village.

Topics Responses

Residents’ Identities . The respondents included three women, two men and two youths who are knowledgeable on the history of this villlage. . Most respondents have a high school education.

Kinship with the village where the . The residents in Bumi Hantatai village are generally a mix of community live Lampung (Malay) and Javanese. Javanese people came to Lampung aorund 1905. . The respondents were quite satisfied with the development of infrastructure in their village. . The youth respondents are not entirely satisfied with the development in the village because they compare their village with infrastructure developments in other areas closer to the regional government center. . Most of the village residents have land in the BBSNP and some of their houses are inside the BBSNP boundary. These lands have been DRAFTmanaged and occupied by their families for four or five generations. Socio – Economic Conditions . Most of the villagers are as farmer. Agricultural crops include: coconut, nutmeg, durian, langsat, and cocoa. Some of the villagers also have a paddy fields. . All respondents stated they have one to two hectares per farmer. . The respondent’s monthly incomes range from 500,000 to 2,000,000 rupiah. Some have part-time or temporary daily side jobs although the respondents did not quantify the income from these jobs. . The respondents were quite satisfied with the development of infrastructure in their village. . Residents do not yet have an alternative income source should the farmland they manage within the national park area be returned to the state. . They have sold products that they harvested in their own neighborhoods, to village market and to middlemen in the village or from other villages.

The existence of sacred sites . There are sacred sites in Bumi Hantatai village named Ngedukuk around the village Sakti in Paninjauan. One sacred site is the cemetery of the first

1 Topics Responses people who came to Bumi Hantatai village. There is also a cemetery for local noble people on the outskirts of the village . The cemetery of village ancestors is often used by non-family members to pray for personal purposes.

Knowledge of conservation . Mostly the villagers are aware of the conservation program that programs already been introduced by YABI but were not aware that WWF and WCS are project partners. . All the villagers think that the IPZ will not disturb their main livelihoods because, in general, they know that IPZ activities have a positive impact. . Villagers feel that there are no IPZ programs implemented in Bumi Hantatai village and hopes the villagers will be included in the IPZ project programs. Other information . The primary tree species harvested inside the National Park for wood that is used for construction purposes in the village are Ambonia Pitch Tree (Damar) and Silk Tree (Sengon). . Villagers are accustomed to conflict with wild boars but not with other wildlife.

Stakeholders consulted in Penengahan village

Consultative interviews in Penegahan village were conducted after the site visit to Bumi Hantatai village (Table A13.2). As the consultant team arrived in the evening, women respondents were not available. Participants for the consultation consisted of one village head (male), three men and two youths.

Table A13.2 Stakeholders comments from Penengahan village.

Topics Responses

Residents’ Identities . The respondent include four men and two youths who are knowledgeable on the history of this villlage. . DRAFTMost respondents have a high school education. Kinship with the village where the . Village residents in Penengahan village area generally a mix of community live Lampung (Malay), Javanese, Minang (West Sumatera) and Indigenous People (Laay). . Generally, the villagers were quite satisfied with the extent of infrastructure development in their village. . Some of the villagers have land within the BBSNP, but no residential buildings are located within the BBSNP boundary. The lands that they manage and occupy has been occupied by their families for four or five generations.

Socio – Economic Conditions . Most of the villagers are Damar resin tappers. The tappers are allowed by the BBSNP management authority to tap Damar resin inside the national park boundary. Some of the villagers have farmland around the village outside the BBSNP area. The agricultural crops that they grow in their farmland include coconut, durian, stink beans, rice (paddy fields) and langsat. . Some villagers also cultivate rattan and honey.

2 Topics Responses . The respondents’ monthly income range from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 rupiah. Some have part-time or temporary daily side jobs although the respondents did not quantify the income from these jobs. . The community hopes that the BBSNP management authority will allow the villagers to continue to collect NTFPs from the national park area besides Damar resin such as durian, rattan, brown sugar and langsat. . All respondents stated they have one to two hectares per farmer. . They have sold products that they harvested in their own neighborhoods, to village market and to middlemen in the village or from other villages

The existence of sacred sites . There are sacred sites in Penengahan village named Darahi, Ulok around the village Banding and Pekon Lom. . The sacred sites are cemeteries that are visited by the villagers before Ramadhan and during Eid Al-Fitr day for pilgrimage. Knowledge of conservation . Most of the villagers know the conservation program and the three programs project partners: YABI, WWF and WCS. . All the villagers think that the IPZ will not disturb their main livelihoods because, in general, they know that IPZ activities have a positive impact. Other information . Some of the villager also harvested the primary tree species for wood that is used for construction purposes in the village are Ambonia Pitch Tree (Damar) and Silk Tree (Sengon) outside the BBSNP area. . Some of the villagers also laying traps for songbirds. . Villagers still often encounter several wild animals including wild pigs, tigers, long-tailed macaques, deer and many birds.

Stakeholders consulted in Sukabanjar village

Consultative interviews were held at Sukabanjar village on 03 October, 2019 (Table A13.3). Participants for the consultations consisted of one woman, two men and two youths. One BBSNP officer also joined the discussion at the village head’s houseDRAFT with the consultant team and project partners. Table A13.3 Stakeholders comments from Sukabanjar village.

Topics Responses

Residents’ Identities . The respondents consisted of one woman, two men and and two youths who are knowledgeable on the history of this villlage. . Most respondents have an elemantary school education.

Kinship with the village where the . Resident in Sukabanjar village are generally a mix of Sundanese community live (West Java) people who came from Banten Province and Javanese people. The Sukanjar village head is Sundanese who came from Banten Province. . Sundanese and Javanese people have been living in Sukabanjar village for 26 to 32 years and most of them were born in Lampung. . Generally, the villagers are not satisfied with the development of infrastructure in the village.

3 Topics Responses . The respondents stated that the village wants to receive more programs from the local government to enhance their farming activities.

Socio – Economic Conditions . Most of the villagers are farmers. Agricultural crops grown include coconut, stink beans, coffee, palm oil, cocoa and durian. There are also paddy fields in the village. Honey is also cultivated in the village. . Currently, the village has a program for processing coconuts and produces coconut oil and virgin coconut oil. . The respondents’ monthly income range from 500,000 to 3,000,000 rupiah. . Based on interview known that they have alternative income as a daily construction workers. For instance, if there are residents who are going to build or repair a their house then they will ask the nearest neighbor to be a worker for it. This development activity usually takes around 1-3 months. . All respondents stated they have one to three hectares per farmer. . The villagers sell products harvested from their lands in their own neighborhood, to village market and to middleman in the village or from other villages.

The existence of sacred sites . There are sacred sites called Siti the Long Hair and Monument of around the village Syekh Jafar Sidik . Both of these sites are visited by people from outside of the village when they have a wish or want something and praying in that place. In a month there is at least once a prayer come to the sacred place.

Knowledge of conservation . Most of the villagers know about the conservation program and the programs three project partners: YABI, WWF and WCS. . All the villagers think that the IPZ will not disturb their main livelihoods because, in general, they know that the IPZ activities have a positive impact. . WWF delivered alternative economic programs for honey, coconut oil and virgin coconut oil production. . Many of the respondents have farmland within the BBSNP forests DRAFTthat are classified as limited Production Forest. They are allowed to collect forest products and also replant the land that was previously used by logging companies. They are replanting the land with non- timber producing plant species. Other information . Most villagers collect NTFPs including rattan fruit (Jering), resin, rattan, and pomelo (Jabung) in the forest. . The respondents stated that some villagers still set out traps for boars and deer. . Some villagers cultivate long peanut, corn, and tomato as well as wood for building materials (boards and planks) such Acacia, mahogany and silk tree. . Some families maintain chicken and goat (livestock) in the village. . Some of the villagers also set out traps for songbirds. . Villagers still often encounter several wild animals including wild boar and tapir.

4 Stakeholders consulted in Pemerihan village

Consultative interviews were held in Pemerihan village on 03 October 2019 (Table A12.4). The consultant team specifically conducted interviews in Pemerihan village due to the high incidence of human – wildlife conflicts reported. During the consultative interviews, the consultant team observed that one of the villagers stood by with a noise maker in case an elephant came through the village during the team’s visit. Consultative interviews included two women, one man and two youths.

Table A12.4 Stakeholders comments from Pemerihan village.

Topics Responses Residents Identities . The respondents consisted of two women, one man and two youths who are knowledgeable about the history of this villlage. . Most respondents have a high school education. Kinship with the village . Residents in the Pemerihan village are mostly Lampung (Malay) and where the community live Javanese people who migrated to Lampung around 1905. . In the western parto of Pemerihan village, there is a wide open access to National Park. . In 2010 approximately 80 familiy agree to leave BBSNP area but their graveyard is still located within the BBSNP. . Residents are not satisfied with the level of development for infrastructure in the village. Socio – Economic . Most of the villagers earn their living as farmers. Agricultural plants grown on Conditions the farms include pepper, coffee, rubber and corn. Some of the villagers also have a paddy field. . The respondents’ monthly income range from 500,000 to 1,000,000 rupiah. Some have part-time or temporary daily side jobs although the respondents did not quantify the income from these jobs. . All respondents stated they have half to three hectares per farmer. . They used to sell products harvested on their farms in their own neighborhoods, at the village market and to middleman in the village or from other villages. . Currrently, villagers are being supported by an alternative economic program being delivered by YABI. The program established a joint venture fund into which DRAFTthe women in the village contribute from making handicrafts and selling them at the local government exhibition. . Most villagers do not gather forest products. The existence of sacred . There are no sacred sites in Pemerihan village. sites around the village Knowledge of . Mostly the villagers know the conservation program and the three project conservation programs partners: YABI, WWF and WCS. . WCS is providing technical support to villagers on how to manage human– wildlife encounters with elephants that frequently (approximately every three months) come into the village. . All the villagers think that the IPZ will not disturb their main livelihoods because, in general, they know that the IPZ activities have a positive impact. . They also were helped by the BBSNP program because the program enabled them to gather and cutting invasive species plant (Mantangan plant) in BBSNP and making the leftover into handicraft and Fertilizer. Other information . The main wood that used as building material are Ambonia Pitch Tree (Damar) and Silk Tree (Sengon). . Villagers are used to conflict with wild boars but not with other wildlife.

5

Appendix A14

Questionnaire

DRAFT

Appendix A14 Questionnaire for personal interview during village visit.

KUESIONER Bukit Barisan Selatan National Park Environmental and Social Management System

Dusun Penelitian

Desa/Kecamatan

Tanggal & Jam

1. IDENTITAS RESPONDEN

101 Nama

102 Jenis Kelamin

103 Umur

104 Status Perkawinan Menikah Belum/Tidak Menikah

105 Agama Islam Hindu

Kristen Konghucu

Katolik Lain-lain: sebutkan ......

Budha

106 Suku/Etnis

107 Pendidikan Tidak Sekolah SMA

SD Perguruan Tinggi

SMP Lain-lain: sebutkan ......

2. KETERIKATAN DENGAN TEMPATDRAFT TINGGAL DAN KEKERABATAN

201 Apakah bapak/ibu lahir di desa ini? Ya Tdk

202 Berapa lama bapak/ibu tinggal di desa ini?

203 Apakah orang tua bapak/ibu berasal dari desa ini? Ya Tdk

204 Apakah bapak/ibu merasa nyaman tinggal di daerah ini? Ya Tdk

205 Apakah bapak/ibu puas dengan perkembangan desa ini? Sgt Puas Krg Tdk puas puas puas

206 Suku/etnis apakah yang pertama kali tinggal di desa ini?

207 Bapak/ibu berasal dari daerah mana? Ya Tdk

208 Apakah bapak/ibu memiliki keluarga yang tinggal di desa ini? Ya Tdk

1 3. KONDISI SOSIAL EKONOMI

301 Berapa jumlah anggota keluarga yang tinggal di rumah saat ini?

302 Dari mana sumber penghasilan utama bapak/ibu? Berkebun/berladang

Buruh tani

Wiraswasta

PNS

TNI/Polri

Serabutan

Lain-lain sebutkan:......

303 Rata-rata penghasilan bapak/ibu dalam satu bulan Diatas UMR saat ini?

304 Apakah bapak/ibu memiliki 1. Rp. sumber penghasilan yang lain?Jika iya, darimana sumber penghasilan tersebut? 2. Rp.

3. Rp.

4. Rp.

305 Apakah bapak/ibu memiliki tanah yang digunakan untuk berladang/ bertani? Ya Tdk 306 Berapa jumlah tanah yang bapak/ibu miliki?

307 Jika ya, berapa luas tanah yang bapak miliki? (hektar) Tanah 1 Tanah 2 DRAFT Tanah 3 Tanah 4 308 Ditanami apakah tanah bapak/ibu Tanah 1 saat ini? Tanah 2

Tanah 3

309 Apakah status tanah tersebut? Milik sendiri Sewa Milik bersama Pinjam Lainnya: sebutkan ......

2 310 Kemana biasanya bapak/ibu menjual hasil ladang/sawah? ke rumah-rumah (keliling) Di pasar desa Di pasar kecamatan Ke pasar kabupaten Keluar daerah Lainnya: sebutkan ......

4. TEMPAT KERAMAT

401 Apakah ada kuburan di sekitar pekarangan rumah bapak/ibu? Ya Tdk Tdk tahu

402 Jika tidak ada, di manakah letak kuburannya?

403 Apakah di sekitar desa ini masih ada tempat-tempat yang Ya Tdk Tdk dikeramatkan? tahu (jika tidak langsung ke pertanyaan 601)

404 Jika ya, apakah nama tempat keramat tersebut?

405 Di manakah lokasi tempat keramat tersebut?

406 Pada saat apa masyarakat mengunjungi tempat keramat tersebut?

5. RESPON TERHADAP PERUBAHAN

501 Dengan adanya rencana program 1. kawasan konservasi di daerah ini, apakah ada gangguan yang mungkin timbul terkait kegiatan DRAFT mata 2. pencaharian bapak/ibu?

3.

502 Bagaimana cara bapak/ibu 1. mengatasi persoalan tersebut?

2.

3.

503 Apakah bapak/ibu pernah terganggu oleh jenis program yang dilaksanakan oleh BBSNP?

3

6. LAIN-LAIN

Untuk pemenuhan kebutuhan sehari-hari, Ya (uraikan) Tdk apakah ada kegiatan lain yang berhubungan dengan pemanfaatan hasil hutan yang dilakukan 601 warga desa ini?

602 Untuk tujuan pemakaian sendiri atau dijual (dari Berburu: ...... Pasang masing-masing kegiatan berikut ini): jerat/jebakan: ...... Mengambil madu: ...... Memanen rotan: ......

Pemanfaatan tanaman Untuk konsumsi untuk obat-obatan : ……. sayur mayur : ……… ………

Untuk konsumsi buah- Pemanfaatan kayu buahan : …………. untuk bahan bangunan: ......

Lainnya (sebutkan):......

603 Apakah warga di desa ini melakukan budidaya ? Kebutuhan sayur mayur dan buah-buahan

Kebutuhan kayu untuk bahan bangunan

Kebutuhan protein hewani

Kebutuhan rotan

Kebutuhan madu

604 Adakah daerah khusus di kawasan hutan yang Ya Tdk dianggap keramat oleh warga di desa ini? Jika Daerahnya: ada, tolong sebutkan daerahnya? ...... DRAFT 605 Apakah ada satwa tertentu atau tumbuhan Ya Tdk tertentu yang dianggap keramat oleh warga di Sebutkan jenis satwa atau desa ini? Jika ada, tolong sebutkan jenis satwa tumbuhan tersebut : atau tumbuhan tersebut? ……………………………… ……………………………… ………………………………

606 Jenis tumbuhan (kayu) hutan apa yang dijadikan sebagai bahan bangunan warga di desa ini?

607 Apakah anda pernah bertemu dengan hewan liar?hewan apa, kapan dan dimana?

4 Appendix A15

Sign Up Sheet DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

Appendix A16

Grievance Redress Mechanism Principle and Institutional Arrangement

DRAFT

Appendix A16 Grievance Redress Mechanism Principles

GRM is a tool for early identification, assessment and resolution on any grievance on the activities and physical investment in this project. The objectives of the GRM in this Project are four-fold:

. To provide easy access to public especially the affected community members to file grievance and/or concerns on a particular activity or physical investment (subproject);

. To identify and assess the nature of grievance and/or concerns and agree on solution as early as possible so that constructive inputs can be considered in the design of an activity or a physical investment;

. To avoid stalled activities or physical investment in the later stage due to the ignorance of grievance, leading to unmanageable and high costs;

. To obtain support from the impacted communities for the proposed activities or physical investment; and

. To achieve sustainable tourism development whereby communities have strong ownerships, participation and get fair benefits from the sustainable utilization of tourist attractions, either man-made assets, culture and values, and/or natural resources.

GRM in this Project will be important to ensure that relevant concerns and suggestions delivered during public consultations of the ESMF are incorporated at the planning and implementation stages of any activities and physical investment under the Project. Effective GRM can accelerate the achievement and improve the quality of the Project outcomes. It is important for this KfW BBS project to strengthen the current GRM system that has already in place in various agencies/entities at the national, provincial and district/city levels to better manage grievance handling resolution processes particularly for those related to the tourism development.

Although the discussion on GRM in this ESMF is targeted for environmental and social issues, it is not, however, exclusively implemented for these two issues but for any issues related to the KfW BBS Project. The GRM covers broader aspects such as technical-related aspects of construction, environmental and social issues relatedDRAFT to subproject construction, social issues that may arise (e.g. resettlement), and any other grievance directed towards the KfW BBS project. The GRM applies for grievance handling resolution during project preparation, implementation and completion.

KEY PRINCIPLES OF GRIEVANCE MECHANISM

Key principles of grievance mechanism resolution will be based on the applicable regulations, which as follows:

. Free. The stakeholders can submit the grievance without fees, through diverse channels, which are available at each different level, namely village, district, provincial and national;

. Fairness. Stakeholders who submit grievance must be treated fairly and non-threatening access, and the follow-up grievance resolution regardless of their origin, ethnicity, religion, nationality status, social and economic background;

. Immediate response. Grievance will be resolved as early as possible, at the lowest levels. The cases that cannot be resolved at a lower level will be brought to a higher level;

1 . Options. The aggrieved PAP or PAH are given various options for settlement and they can be invited for negotiations to reach an agreed resolution and can be accepted by all parties;

. Objective and Transparent. The system for handling Grievance will safeguard the principle of objectivity, transparency and justice, by having an Independent Advisory Team, which will be formed based on needs and willingness to help those who grievance at any level.

For the aggrieved PAP or PAH, who are still dissatisfied with the follow-up or settlement provided, can continue to seek another settlement through the litigation process in accordance with Indonesian laws and regulations.

GRM STRUCTURE

The Project’s Grievance Redress Mechanisms (GRM) comprises of four-tier system, i.e. village, district/city, provincial and national level. Basically, the GRM of KfW BBS project will use existing mechanisms that have been applied in each institutional authority (OPD). Therefore, the stages and the time period for handling grievances will depend on the existing mechanism. The institutional authority in every level is responsible to handle the grievance resolution.

The grievance will be divided into three issues, including: grievances related to land and territorial issues, grievances related to the human – animal conflict, and others including those related to the program. Therefore, at the national level the submission of grievances can be through a website that has been available and managed by Director General of Law Enforcement (DGLE), Director General of Social Forestry and Environment Partnership (DGSFEP), and Information Management and Documentation Officer (PPID). The PPID has mandated by the ministry will be responsible for handling grievances at the national level.

All grievances that deliver to district, provincial and national levels will be documented through the PPID System managed by the PPID. The grievance handling and reporting is coordinated by the Regional Secretary (SEKDA) at each level. In terms of recording, monitoring and reporting, SEKDA will be assisted by Dedicated Functions that are recruited from the IPZ Program. GRM in the lower level may hierarchicallyDRAFT relates to the higher levels (and vice versa), depending on the nature of the grievances and at what level the follow-up. aggrieved PAP or PAH could submit their grievance directly to the authorized institution (OPD) in each level or facilitated by dedicated function hired by IPZ Program. Dedicated function will deliver the grievance to the authorized institution to handle.

Grievance mechanism has been consulted to the stakeholders such as local communities including IP and Adat Community, Regional Organizations (or Organisasi Perangkat Daerah/OPD).

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

The GRM has been exist at the local to national level. When a grievance cannot be resolved at lowest level will escalate to the higher level. At the end, the grievance will be transferred to the relevant unit in MoEF that handles grievances in national level. The unit will adopt key principles by having a dedicated function who will be available to assist the person(s) raising the grievance(s) and work with all the units. The institutional arrangement at National level will be coordinated by PPID. At the provincial and district level the arrangement will be coordinated by SEKDA. SEKDA will have a dedicated function to record, monitor, and report the any grievance related KfW BBS project.

2 High risk conflicts will be resolved using the following mechanisms:

. Conflict reporting can be done using on-line system developed by DG Law Enforcement (Gakum On-line), Task Force at district and provincial levels (Environmental Agency and Plantation Agency), and system for reporting tenurial conflict and customary forest (DG Social Forestry and Environmental Partnership);

. Conflict resolution done by Plantation Agency (resolving disturbances to plantation), and Environmental Agency. Additionally, social Forestry Working Group;

. Conflict resolution done by “flying team” from MoEF (e.g., DG Conservation of Natural Resources and Ecosystem and DG Social Forestry and Environmental Partnership – Directorate Tenurial Conflict and Customary Forest - PKTHA)

The institutional arrangement is responsible to record the grievance, follow up the action, monitor the settlement process, and report to the IPZ Program.

IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS AT NATIONAL LEVEL

At the national level, GRM to be hosted under the Directorate General of Law Enforcement on Environment & Forestry (Ditjen PHLHK or also well-known as Ditjen GAKUM), Directorate General of Social Forestry and Environmental Partnership (Perhutanan Sosial dan Kemitraan Lingkungan/Ditjen PSKL), or a new established unit for KfW BBS-GRM under Information Management and Documentation Officer (PPID), in which PID (Public Information Data System) is placed (Table A16.1).

Table A16.1 National agencies involved in the implementation of the IPZ Program.

National Agency Status Roles

Information Management and National . Management of the National Registry Documentation Officer (MoEF) Dedicated . Finalization and implementation of function of safeguards plans Environmental . Finalization and implementation of the GRM and Forestry . Technical Assistance DRAFT. Handling the Grievance process at national level; . Updating grievance handling based on PID.

Director General of Law Authorized . Grievance Recording, screening, Enforcement Institution investigating, handling, and reporting under the Jurisdiction; . Publish the grievance process and result.

Director General of Social Authorized . Grievance Recording, screening, Forestry and Environment Institution investigating, handling, and reporting under Partnership the Jurisdiction; . Publish the grievance process and result.

3 IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS AT PROVINCIAL LEVEL

At the provincial level, the responsible party for KfW BBS project implementation is the Provincial Secretary (Sekda Provinsi Lampung), with the Provincial Environmental Service (Dinas Lingkungan Hidup) acting as coordinator or undertaking the day-to-day PMU of the KfW BBS project. During the implementation of the KfW BBS project, the Sekda will be advised by the Provincial Information Management and Documentation Officer (Pejabat Pengelola Informasi dan Dokumentasi - PPID).

The Regional Information Management and Documentation Officer (PPID) in Lampung, Lampung Province is a key partner in the implementation of the KfW BBS project (Table A16.2). Grievance that are submit at the provincial level will follow applicable procedures at each authorized institution (OPD). The district secretary (SEKDA) will coordinate all activities including handling grievances that have been and are being handled regarding the KfW BBS project.

Table A16.2 The provincial agencies involved in the implementation of the IPZ Program.

Agency Status Role

Provincial Secretary Executing Agency at Province . Responsible for Implementation and (SEKDA) Level achievement of KfW BBS project in the Province

The Regional Information Advisory . Providing advice and inputs to local Management and government in relation to KfW BBS Documentation Officer project including grievance handling; (PPID)

Lampung Environmental Implementing agency . KfW BBS project implementation Agency (Dinas Lingkungan . Grievance handling Hidup)

Other Provincial Implementing Agencies . KfW BBS project implementation Government Services (OPD) . Leading consultation processes within their respective jurisdictions; . Grievance handling; Individual/institutional ProvincialDRAFT Dedicated Function . Project assistance, monitoring, recording, and reporting of KfW BBS project implementation.

IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS AT VILLAGE AND DISTRICT/CITY LEVEL

At the district/city level, the KfW BBS project will be carried out by the District Environmental Service under coordination of District Secretary (SEKDA). Each respective district/city government will be responsible for the implementation of the KfW BBS project in its region (Table A16.3). At the village level, the village government, including the local community, is responsible for the emission reductions in their village region.

The GRM is under the responsibility of each institutional authority (OPD) at the district, sub-district and village level and handled under the coordination of the SEKDA.

4 Table A16.3 The district/city agencies and village levels involved in the implementation of the KfW BBS project.

Agency Status Role

District/City Secretary Executing Agency at . Responsible for Implementation and District/City Level and achievement of KfW BBS project in the Feld Site District and Field Site

OPD District/City Implementing Agencies . Implementing KfW BBS project at District/City and Field Site; . Grievance handling

Customary Council Partner . Grievance Mechanism for customary/ IP’s customary land/ assets.

Village Government Implementing Agencies . Implementing KfW BBS project at District/City and Field Site . Grievance handling

As noted above, accountability for program implementation, at least for the public agencies, is facilitated through the national governance system, where district institutions are accountable to the province, and the province is accountable to the Center. Program activities are largely based on policies and commitments that have come from the province and district levels. This includes Lampung protection for conservation area commitments, the Governor’s moratorium on issuing licenses in primary forests, district-level commitments to sustainable estate crop development, and ongoing sustainability efforts by the private sector.

At the Project level, grievances which are filed beyond the head of one of the authorities mentioned above are addressed by the authorized institution (OPD). Grievances typically include decisions regarding gazettement of state forest area, changes in forest land ownership status, forest area conversion etc. Grievance redress mechanism process is based on the existing mechanism in each authorized institution (OPD) and Indonesian Regulation. For affected customary communities,DRAFT the grievance mechanism shall follow existing customary law (if any) or any mechanism provided by local government based on community request. Communities can raise their grievances to MoEF based on Decree No. 24/Menhut-II/2015 on the Establishment of a Team for Addressing Environmental and Forestry-Related Grievances. At village level, individual PAPs may bring their grievances to the village and/or customary leader. If the village/customary leader cannot settle the grievance, the process will be escalate to higher level.

DEDICATED FUNCTION AND ACCESS POINT

Provincial government organizations generally appoint a Section Head of related agencies to monitor the program implementation update. The Section Head can also be appointed to receive and follow up the grievances. He/she can ask to village government to help in connecting to the relevant district government organizations regarding to the grievances. The connecting point for handling grievances resolution is the District and Provincial Environmental agencies that handle the environmental issues.

The Grievance Channel must be easily accessed, and it need to disclosure to the public, especially to the affected community groups. Publications are carried out through multi-media public channels, including social media, as well as through village offices or village halls in affected villages. This reception channel can include from or all of the following: telephone, whatsapps, sms, social media,

5 page, or mailing address, which is managed by the regional device carrying out the activity. The Grievance box is also placed in the district Office of Environmental Services, the Provincial Environmental Service, and the Ministry of Environment and Forestry.

The KfW BBS project will assign a person as dedicated function, which will ensure that all the submitted grievances from stakeholders have been resolved by the relevant working units.

DRAFT

6