Agrarian Reform Communities Project II

Environment and Social Safeguards Monitoring Report 2009 - 2017

Project Number: 37749-013 Loan 2465/Loan 8238(OFID) May 2019

Philippines: Agrarian Reform Communities Project II

Prepared by ARCP II – NPCO for the Asian Development Bank

This report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and neither the ADB nor the Government shall be held liable for its contents.

ABBREVIATIONS/GLOSSARY

ARC Agrarian Reform Communities ARC Clusters Agrarian Reform Community Clusters ARCP II Second Agrarian Reform Communities Project CNC Certificate of Non-Coverage CNO Certificate of Non-Overlap CP Certification Precondition DAR Department of Agrarian Reform ECC Environmental Clearance Certificate EMB Environmental Management Bureau GOP Government of the Philippines IP Indigenous Peoples LGU Local Government Unit NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples NSAC National Subproject Approval Committee (composed of representatives (Assistant Secretary/Director level) from Department of Agriculture(DA)/National Irrigation Administration(NIA); NCIP, Department of Environment & Natural Resources (DENR)/Environment & Management Bureau (EMB); Department of Public Works & Highways (DPWH); Dept of Budget & Management (DBM) , Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) ; Department of Finance (DOF)/Bureau of Local Government Funds(BLGF) and Municipal Development Funds Office (MDFO) and National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) NGALGU National Government Assistance to Local Government Unit PAPs Project Affected Persons RSAC Regional Subproject Approval Committee (composed of Regional representatives of the DAR, DA, DPWH, DENR, NCIP and NEDA)

This environmental and social monitoring report is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Introduction and Project Overview

Safeguards Monitoring and Evaluation

Social Safeguards Performance Monitoring

Occupation and Health Safety

Grievance Redress Mechanism

Conclusion

Attachments

ATTACHMENTS

Annex I: List of Provinces/ARCs/ARC Clusters covered by ARCP II Annex II: Project Organizational Structure Annex III: ARCP II Safeguards Manual Annex IV: List of Approved Subprojects Annex V: ARCP II ESS Monitoring Form Annex VI. Sample ESS Monitoring Form Submitted by LGU (FMR; Irrigation) Annex VII. Photo documentation Please add Photos of consultation, training, etc.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Agrarian Reform Communities Project II or ARCP II is designed to enable agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) to reduce poverty and sustain improved incomes and quality of life. It aims at enhancing the capabilities and well-being of the poor and marginalized groups in 152 ARCs and 11ARC Clusters spread in 6 regions covering 19 eligible provinces and about 168 LGUs in the southern part of the country. It is an integrated and complementary package of assistance involving (a) community-driven development; (b) agriculture and enterprise development; (c) rural infrastructure; and (d) project implementation and management.

ARCP II is funded from loans from the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID) amounting to US$70 million and US$30 million, respectively. Loan effectivity is March 2009, with the original project completion date of December 2014 and loan closure of 31 December 2013 for OFID loan and 30 June 2015 for ADB loan. However, due to the significant delays encountered by the Project, the physical completion and loan closing dates for both the ADB and OFID loans were extended first to 31 December 2015 and June 2016, respectively. It was again extended to 31 December 2017 for its physical completion, while financial closure is 30 June 2018 for ADB and June 2017 for OFID loans.

As part of the Loan covenant, the DAR as the executing agency, together with ARCP II- National Project Coordination Office put in place the Environment and Social Safeguards of the Project. ESS Point Persons at the DAR national, regional and provincial levels were provided training and orientation by the ESS Consultant engaged by the Project. Thus, setting up the ESS system at the ARCP II. LGU partners were also oriented and provided with ESS Safeguard Manual and guidance in the preparation of safeguard documents. ESS Point Persons at the field level together with the MPDCs of the LGUs are part of the project team together with the Project Economist and Rural Infra Engineers, to ensure that ESS are not left out from project validation, preparation and implementation.

Under the rural infrastructure component, there are 475 approved subprojects of which 333 are physically completed, with 142 still ongoing. These subprojects complied with the ESS documentary requirements from securing of CNC/ECC, CNO/CP and ROW acquisition. Though it was disclosed to the community and project affected persons their right to be compensated for their affected lands and improvements, most of the PAPs have donated the affected lands or executed quit claim in favor of the LGUs. It is their way of helping the LGU to meet the cost sharing requirement under the ARCP II. But there are also PAPs that asked for payments for affected lands and crops, especially those affected by new or road opening. The LGUs of Daram and Almagro in West Samar compensated the PAPs affected by their farm-to-market roads.

Overall, the LGUs complied with environment and social safeguards in the implementation of their subprojects, especially in securing safeguards documents. The weakness is in the monitoring and reporting of safeguards implementation. The revised ARCP II ESS Monitoring Form was downloaded to the field almost third quarter of 2016, and was left out by the LGUs in lieu of ARCP II-related technical and financial documents and concerns.

I. Introduction and Project Overview

Project Number L2465/8238-PHI: AGRARIAN REFORM COMMUNITIES PROJECT II and Title: Safeguards Environment B Category Involuntary B Resettlement Indigenous Peoples A Reporting period: March 2009 – Dec 2017 Last report date: First Reporting Project  On 27 October 2008, Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Background and OPEC Fund for International Development (OFID) approved two loans key sub-project worth US$70 million and US$30 million (equivalent to P3.15 billion and activities: P1.35 billion, for a total of P4.50 billion), respectively, to the Republic of the Philippines to finance Agrarian Reform Communities Project II (ARCP II). The loan took effect on 4 March 2009 and is expected to be completed by December 2014. The Project was officially launched on 20 March 2009. Original project completion date was December 2014, while the loan closure dates were 31 December 2013 and 30 June 2015 for the OFID and ADB loans, respectively.

 The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is the executing agency (EA) with the assistance from different national government agencies (NGAs), local government units (LGUs), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and people organizations (POs) in the covered Agrarian Reform Communities (ARCs). The government agencies include all participating municipal LGUs and DAR offices at the regional and provincial levels, DAR-ARMM, the CARP implementing partner agencies such as the Department of Agriculture (DA), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) and specialized agencies such as the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) and the NCIP.

3. ARCP II is designed to enable the agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) to reduce poverty and sustain improved incomes and quality of life. The Project aims at enhancing the capabilities and well-being of poor and marginalized groups in 152 Agrarian Reform Communities (ARCs) and 11 ARC clusters spread across six regions, covering 19 eligible provinces and approximately 168 LGUs in the southern part of the country (Annex 1 List of Provinces covered by ARCP II).

4. The Project goal will be achieved through the implementation of an integrated and complementary package of assistance involving; (i) community driven development (CDD); (ii) agriculture and enterprise development (AED); (iii) sustainable rural infrastructure (SRI); and (iv) project implementation and management (PIM).

5. In 2009, the following key activities were carried out:

 Organized project offices, i.e., the National Project Coordination Office (NPCO) at the DAR Central Office, the Regional Project Management Office (RPMO) in 6 DAR Regional Offices (DARRO), and Provincial Project Management Office (PPMO) in the 19 DAR Provincial Offices (DARPO). Hiring of project consultants and staff, taking on board regular staff from DAR, and procurement of office furniture and equipment.  Project Executive Committee (PEC) and the National Subproject Approval Committee (NSAC) and Regional Subproject Approval Committee (RSAC) were organized. These committees are composed of official representatives from the oversight agencies and CARP implementing partner agencies at the national and regional levels. The PEC approves the Project’s annual work & financial plan. The NSAC review, evaluate and approve rural infrastructure subprojects costing more than US$75,000 (or its peso equivalent while the RSAC deals with the rural infrastructure subprojects below US$75,000. The NSAC deliberated on 18 rural infra subprojects but approved only 17 SPs (Annex IV- List of Approved Subprojects).  At the municipal level, a Local Project Office (LPO) is created through an Executive Order issued by the Local Chief Executive, to oversee the implementation of the approved rural infrastructure subprojects, and other ARCP II-related activities in the LGU. It is headed by the Municipal Mayor, and composed of the Municipal Planning & Development Coordinator (MPDC), Municipal Engineer (ME), Municipal Agriculture Officer (MAO), Municipal Accountant and other municipal officials involved in the project.  ADB Special Mission on Sept 23-24, 2009 participated in the Project’s regional/provincial orientation workshop while First Project Review Mission on October 19 -30, 2009 assessed ARCP II’s physical and financial progress for 2009.  ARCP II Project Operation Manuals for CDD, for AED, for Rural Infrastructure and for Environment and Social Safeguards was approved by ADB.  Orientation workshops on Rural Infrastructure and Environment and Social Safeguards for concerned DAR officials and partner LGUs for Region VIII, IX and ARMM.

6. In 2010, a total of 18 subprojects were approved by the NSAC (9) and RSAC (9). Orientation and training on FS/DE/ESS was conducted simultaneously for the DAR personnel assigned as Economist, Rural

Infra Engineers and ESS Point Persons in the covered DARROs and DARPOs. Other key activities include:

 A Special Loan Administration Review Mission dispatched by the ADB on June 21-23, 2010 to work on (i) LGU Ganassi and United Nation World Food Programme (UNWFP) collaboration; (ii) updating procurement packages of FMR as the template for other FMR SPs; and (iii) finalizing the TOR for the consultant team to assist the overall management of the Project.  The Mission obtained assurance that the UNWFP committed to finance unskilled labor to help the Ganassi, Lanao del Sur comply with the NG-LGU cost sharing mechanism; gathered justification to support the request of LGU to include the force account as an option and a template for RI component; and finalized the draft TOR for the consultant team to support project overall management.  For ESS, the NPCO and other project team members observed the safeguards requirements provided for in the ARCP II Environment and Social Safeguards Manual (Annex III), for subprojects presented to the NSAC for deliberation and approval.

7. In 2011, about 77 subprojects) were approved by the NSAC and RSAC. These SPs have varying degree of ESS compliance. During the year, the ADB conducted two (2) Loan Review Missions, one in July and in November. Among the recommendations of the Mission was to conduct a short (4-day) gender and social safeguards mission in the 2nd week of January 2012 to agree with revised Gender Action Plan’s (GAP) implementation milestone, resources and knowledge products; and address issues of marginal groups and microfinance and discuss reporting complaint mechanism for IP. Other major events/activities under the Project:

 Under the RI component, the GOP has approved the inclusion of costs for environmental and social safeguards such as permit fees, application fees, and cost of right of way as part of the LGU equity contribution.  In July 1, 2011, the DAR engaged two joint venture (J/V) partners namely Orient Integrated Development Consultants Inc (OIDCI) and Hineleban Foundation Inc (HFI) as Special Management Team (SMT) to support the implementation of ARCP II in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). SMT’s engagement is for 36 months, and started July 2011. The SMT assisted the ARMM LGUs in project proposal preparation and in securing the document required by the

ARCP and the NSAC including environment and social safeguards documents.  The DAR - ARCP II also engaged the services of the Engineering and Development Corporation of the Philippines (EDCOP), for quality assurance services for rural infrastructures.

8. In 2012, the Loan Review Mission (intermittently from November 23 to December 19, 2012) aimed to review the project implementation and the projected contract awards and disbursements from 2013-2015. Environment and social safeguards was not discussed in the review. The recommended conduct of a short (4-day) gender and social safeguards mission in the 2nd week of January 2012 did not materialize.

About 252 subprojects were approved both by NSAC and RSAC. During the period the National Government Assistance to LGU (NGALGU) was approved. Such was a big support to the LGU, as NGALGU provides the 25% of the LGU counterpart funds for every approved subproject of the LGU. It was also in 2012 when:

 In 5 January, ADB approved the request of the ARCP II- NPCO to make use of a Pro-forma Barangay Resolution expressing the commitment of Barangay to ensure Environment and Social Safeguards in the implementation of Social Infrastructure Subproject under the ARCP II, in lieu of the identified project safeguards requirements for Rural Infrastructure. The Pro- forma SB Resolution on Social Infrastructures/ for Social Infrastructure subprojects, is a Sangguniang Barangay Resolution ensuring that the barangay shall take care of the environmental and social safeguards concerns, including right of way sans the safeguards documents required by ARCP II per its Safeguards Manual. Social infrastructures subprojects are health station, day care centers, multi-purpose building, tribal centers and school buildings.  A back to back M & E and ESS Training Workshop for ARCP II’s M & E and ESS Point Persons, respectively of the 19 provinces and 6 regions was conducted in August, wherein sharing of experiences and good practices in ensuring safeguards compliance was done. The proposed MOA among IA/PO, LGU and ARCPII was crafted for irrigation subprojects.

9. In 2013, a total of 84 subprojects were approved by both NSAC and RSAC. However, in September, the NGALGU was stopped due to

issues raised on the constitutionality of the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) which is the source of NGALGU funds. Other major project-related events that somehow impacted ARCP II implementation.

 Changes in Project Management, with a new NPCO Coordinator. Implementation of the DAR Rationalization brought changes at the field level as most of the ESS Point Persons either availed of the early retirement packages, promoted or transferred to other assignments in the DARPOs/DARROs. Also, for LGUs as the local election brought changes in MPDCs as well in some LGUs.  Joint (OFID and ADB) Loan Review Mission conducted September 12 -17, 2013, aimed to (i) assess project physical progress, issues and mitigation measures; (ii) review financial progress including disbursement, contract awards and discuss strategies to improve the Project physical and financial performance; (iii) conduct project site visits and interact with project stakeholders; (iv) review the Project’s compliance with loan covenants; and (v) review and explore mitigation measures to overcome outstanding issues and improve the overall project performance and loan utilization. Per Mission’s MOU, as most of the subprojects are for rehabilitation, there are no issues raised on environmental and social safeguards.

10. In 2014, as the ADB loan period is to expire in 31 December, DAR requested for one (1) year extension to NEDA and DOF to bring project completion date to 31 Dec 2015. OFID and ADB approved the loan extension on 6 Oct and 29 Oct, respectively. During the year, there are 18 approved subprojects approved by NSAC.

 Mid Term Review Mission was conducted June 24 – July 8, 2014 and recommended major ”actions” in project implementation. Among those with reference/impact to environment and social safeguards implementation are: a. EDCOP and NPCO to make available knowledge (in the form of simple manual) on what the ARBOs could do to maintain rural infrastructure subprojects—such as the types of trees, planting distances and other techniques -- and to provide support to enhance their roles in rural infra operations and maintenance (O&M); LGUs and ARBOs to put in place measures in concerned areas to reduce the risk of heavy vehicles to damage RI SPs.

o NPCO/EA to identify subprojects to be delisted, with “as not yet started” as basis by DAR cut-off date of 30 June 2014.  In the same Mission, a social safeguards review team from ADB was fielded July 1, 2014 to discuss social safeguards issues with relevant DAR and NPCO staff, review available safeguards documentation and reports and discuss observed gaps with NPCO staff. The special safeguards mission’s objective was to clarify the following: i) whether the conduct of social safeguards is fully understood by the project team and whether training at the beginning of the project has been conducted; ii) if project screening and categorization of subprojects as per RF and IPPF is identified and included in the feasibility report; iii) whether LARR (short and long version and SDLAR) and IPP has been prepared as part of the FS for every SP prior to approval of SPs; and iv) whether M & E system and progress report, annual reports should capture progress of IPPF/RF. The TOR can also include verification whether the staff are: i) sensitive to gender differences in agricultural enterprise responsibilities and resource access; ii) sensitive to ethnic group differences in land use and decision making processes for CDD, infrastructure and other project components; and iii) adaptable to different community absorption rates based ability to speak or read or write Philippine languages; and iv) skill in dealing with multi IP and intercultural communication, and in applying inclusive approach. Recommendation of the Special Safeguard Mission:

Agreed Action Status

 NPCO/EA to provide ADB  NPCO submitted said with a consolidated report on report as scheduled due diligence by 15 Aug  ADB to strengthen oversight  ADB issued NOL for the guidance safeguards issues engagement of an ESS for remaining project consultant implementation period  NPCO to strengthen its  NPCO ensure inclusion of safeguards - related safeguards in its quarterly documentation, monitoring reports and reporting  EA to hire a social  Engaged the services of an safeguards consultant with ESS Consultant in October the following Terms of 2017 Reference: i) advise the

project team in completing the documentations related to requirements for RF/IPPF; ii) facilitate refresher training for Project staff on LFR and IPPF requirements and how to fulfill them in the on-going projects; iii) provide a template for due diligence for some completed small infra subproject and prepare or complete the Project valuation form; iv) advise on how to report progress on social safeguards; v) advise on how to improve inclusion of IPs and vulnerable people in the on-going project and avoid elite capture, strengthening group dynamics and organization from various starting points; and vi) undertake due diligence for any other outstanding issues related to RF/IPPF.  ADB to provide NPCO with  ADB provided NPCO with the required template for the GAP monitoring GAP monitoring/reporting template used by ARCP II in the GAP report submitted to ADB

 About 123 subprojects were delisted  In In response to the recommendation of the Mid-Term Review Mission, ARCP II in close collaboration with EDCOP, extended capacity building with regional and provincial engineers on construction management supervision and materials testing supervision as well as capacity building on O & M of completed subprojects such as access infrastructure, potable water system irrigation system and post-harvest facilities and social infrastructure for RI engineers and CDD coordinators.

11. In 2015- Considering the significant delays encountered by the Project, the physical completion and loan closing dates for both the ADB and OFID loans were extended to 31 December 2016 and June 2017, respectively. In the Aide Memoire for the October 26-30, 2015 ADB Mission, Social Safeguards staff of SEER joined the said mission to meet with NPCO staff responsible with ESS and to follow up on the status of agreements/recommendations made during the Midterm Review Mission held in 2014. Based on her findings, the Mission recommends that the:

 NPCO to prepare a summary per province identifying the subprojects that still have pending safeguards documents and specifying which safeguards documents are lacking, and the status of implementation of these subprojects. For subprojects with pending safeguards documents, NPCO to prepare an action plan for obtaining these documents including target dates and specific persons responsible for following up in obtaining documents.  NPCO to carry out an in-depth analysis of the project impacts to IPs with reference to the measures described in the IP development framework (IPDF). ADB and NPCO to discuss and agree on the schedule of preparation and submission of this report. The analysis to be submitted to ADB prior to the next review mission.  DARPO to send reports to NPCO that clearly indicate the results of the monitoring and mitigation activities on the ground.  NPCO to check whether there is compliance to EMMP, and  To check the plausibility of the monitoring reports sent by DARPO. Such reports have to state that the impacts during construction, and during operation are mitigated as per IEE and that the EMMP follow the requirements of the IEE.

12. In 2016, a Safeguards Review Mission for ARCP II was fielded on February 1 to 5 and analyzed whether (i) environment and social safeguards requirements are met; (ii) monitoring, evaluation and mitigation of impacts are carried out; (iii) monitoring reports reflect content of EMMP and Indigenous Peoples Development Framework (IPDF); (iv) communication and documentation of results is functioning. Though the Mission found deficits of the current environmental and social safeguards system, it was noted that the inspected subprojects are all appreciated by the community and in general have low environmental and social impacts. The following actions were agreed between the Mission and NPCO for improving compliance with safeguards requirements:

o Templates for more comprehensive monitoring updated, in terms of environmental safeguards, the Project monitoring template should be used to check whether (a) IEE/EMMP was done and its content is in accordance with overall IEE; (b) IEE/EMMP is implemented; (c) stating main problems and mitigation. Prior to distribution to DARPOs, the updated template should be sent to ADB for review and approval. o Quarterly reports need to monitor, not only compliance in terms of submission of documents, but also safeguard implementation. o ESS staff capacity needs to be strengthened by assigning dedicated ESS Specialist at provincial level and additional capacity development for staff at provincial and local level or LGUs. No training should be conducted after June 2016. o Since the Project will be completed in December 2016, the focus should be on institutionalizing O & M after project completion. Therefore an O & M Plan is needed for each SP, which captures ESS for O & M as well as the responsibilities. NPCO analyses the quality (deadline for plans is March 2016), and will send final version of one example to ADB for review and approval. o NPCO to carry out inventory of safeguards status. This should cover not just whether all required documents have been submitted , but also inventory of ESS staff and include due diligence on whether or not the actions mention in mitigation plans pending safeguard issues have been addressed. If not, then corrective actions prior to project completion must be implemented.

 The NPCO together with ADB finalized the new ARCP II Safeguards Monitoring Form, and was downloaded to the field offices. Orientation on the new form was done through one on one with LGU alongside PBGS Performance Measure Assessment, as the DAR Undersecretary for Finance disapproved almost all project-related activities including hiring of consultants and renewal of Project staff, claiming that the Project extension was just time extension with no budget.  With the change in Administration in July, the ARCP II was again back to its full swing, including the resubmission of proposal for engaging of ESS Consultant and capacity building for the new ESS Point Persons, and the DAR’s request for another one (1) year extension of implementation period and validity of loans. The said request was approved by the Investment Coordination Committee (ICC)/NEDA Board and was forwarded to Department of Finance on 21 December 2016 for endorsement to ADB.

13. In 2017 - The DOF officially endorsed the request for extension to of ARCP II to ADB and OFID on January 9, 2017. The ADB and OFID approved the extension on April 5, 2017 and May 4, 2017, respectively. Hence, the physical completion of the Project is 31 December 2017, while financial closure is 30 June 2018.

 In October 13 – November 3, intermittent, ADB dispatched a Review Mission to (i) to assess the project implementation programs; (ii) visit project sites; (iii) examine the government’s request for partial loan cancellations; (iv) review consultants recruitment, contract awards and disbursements; (v) ;

 Status of Project Implementation as of 31 December 2017, physical performance: Component Global Accomplishment Accomplishment Weight (Based on (Based on Original Targets) Revised Targets)

Community Driven 3.00 3.00 3.00 Development Agriculture & 15.00 13.03 13.03 Enterprise Development Rural Infrastructure 77.00 55.42 66.66

Project Management & 5.00 5.00 5.00 Implementation Total 100.00 76.61 87.85

On financial, for the same period: ADB OFID Total

Net Commitment (US$ M) 67 21.609 88.609

Scheduled Availment (US$ M) 67 21.609 88.609

Actual Availment (US$ M) 38.78 7.40 46.18

Utilization Rate (%) 57.87 34.25 52.11

Availment Rate (%) 57.87 34.25 52.11

Time Elapsed 100 100

 The Project has approved 598 rural infra subprojects but with 123 delisted/withdrawn subprojects, the total number of SPs approved and were implemented now stands at 475 summed up as follows: : o 267 access infrastructure with a total length of 947.67 km o 13 communal irrigation facilities with a total service area of 5,022.75 hectares o 15 units of potable water system o 39 SPs of post-harvest facilities

o 141 social infrastructure such as 60 classrooms and 54 units of multi-purpose centers, day care centers, tribal halls and 27 health centers Table 1: No of SPs by type of infrastructure and status by Region Region Status FMR Irrigation PWS PHF Social Infra

IV-B Completed 13 3 2 0 13

On going 5 0 0 0 0

V Completed 63 2 4 12 45

On going 18 1 0 0 12

VI Completed 7 0 0 3 3

On going 3 0 0 0 0

VIII Completed 46 2 1 1 0

On going 23 0 1 1 0

IX Completed 35 3 3 11 48

On going 15 2 0 0 0

ARMM Completed 10 0 1 0 14

On going 29 1 3 11 5

TOTAL Completed 174 10 11 27 123

On going 93 4 4 12

 Of the 475 subprojects, 333 were reported completed, with 142 rural infrastructure SPs still with ongoing civil works (Annex IV).

Report prepared by: Rosario R. Regalado, DAR Point Person for ESS, ARCP II

II. Safeguards Monitoring and Evaluation

1. Although the most desired scheme for this development project is to have none or have the least number of people that will be negatively affected by its project activities, it is virtually impossible to only have positive impacts on all its possible stakeholders. Therefore,

a set of guidelines was prepared for implementers to guarantee that appropriate measures are applied in terms of ensuring integration of environmental and social concerns during planning, design, implementation and operation of projects funded under ARCP II. These guidelines were discussed in the ARCP II Safeguards Manual approved by ADB in 2009.

2. The Safeguards Manual covers the following: i) Land Acquisition, Resettlement and Rehabilitation (LARR) Framework and Guidelines; ii) Guidelines on Environment Safeguards; and iii) Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples. It was prepared consistent with the relevant ARCP II Project Documents: Report and Recommendation to the President (RRP), Project Administration Memorandum (PAM) and the ARCP II Main Report, ADB Policy on Involuntary Resettlement, Guidelines on Environment Safeguards and Indigenous Peoples.

3. The ADB approved the revised ARCP II Environment and Social Safeguards Monitoring Form (Annex V). This addresses the needed improvement in monitoring safeguards implementation for rural infrastructure subprojects. Said form was discussed with the PBD Chief Agrarian Reform Program Officers (CARPOs) of the DARPOs in 2016 to ensure that the work will be undertaken by the ESS Point Person in the provinces, in the ARCP II year end assessment.

II. a Summary of Compliance on Environmental Safeguards

4. Of the 475 approved rural infrastructure subprojects, 59 subprojects were issued with Environmental Compliance Certificates and 254 issued with Certificate of Non Coverage. Others are social infrastructures with SB Resolution. Of those with ECC, 38 subprojects were already completed while those with CNC, 175 SPs are completed (Annex IV-A: List of Subprojects issued with ECC; Annex IV-B: List of SPs issued with CNC).

5. Among the subprojects issued with ECC are five (5) irrigation subprojects with a total service area of 2,400 hectares. These are rehabilitation of existing irrigation system and there are no environmental issues encountered during the subproject implementation. The LGU of Hilongos and the farmers are grateful for the ARCP II assistance. Both Tagbawto CIS and Tabuunok CIS were badly damaged by typhoon hence, the rehabilitation of the dam prevented both irrigation system from being totally damaged and unoperational. Farm-to-market roads were also implemented with no environmental concerns as necessary permits and clearances were secured. It also helped that the EMMP as well as the conditions in the ECC were discussed with the contractor and the community during pre-construction.

6. Implementation problems, technical in nature were addressed and remedied with variation orders approved by the LGU and ARCP II. The engagement of an engineering firm that looked into quality control and monitoring of subprojects is a big factor in ensuring environmental soundness and technical problems during implementation are avoided.

7. As for the safeguards monitoring report, a number of LGUs from Palawan, Leyte, Northern Samar, West Samar, E. Samar, Negros Occidental, Iloilo, Zamboanga del Norte and Sur submitted their safeguards monitoring form for 62 subprojects. The DARPOs continually remind the LGUs that suitable mitigation measures stated in the EMMPs and the conditions in the ECC should be implemented (Annex VI – Sample ESS Monitoring Form submitted by LGUs).

8. Review of the environmental compliance monitoring report of subprojects submitted by the LGUs showed mitigation measures implemented such as provisions of access thru the

road rehabilitation site implementing proper scheduling of rehabilitation works along the road and/or assigning a “Barangay Tanod” to handle traffic management of pedestrians and vehicles. In some subproject sites, there were no waste disposal facilities, but during the site inspection, the contractor was urged to provide waste bins in compliance with the RA 9003. In controlling the increase of suspended dust particulates along the unpaved roads and gas emission from vehicles and equipment, the contractor of Gen. Malvar Pontevedra FMR had particularly complied to the mitigation measures. One most common ECC condition that was not done by the LGUs was to submit report to the EMB-DENR. The LGUs were reminded of their compliance to this requirement.

III. Social Safeguards Performance Monitoring

9. ESS compliance monitoring report per subproject reflected that the LGUs had given full attention to consultative meetings with equal representation of men and women, on PAPs. The subprojects were fully discussed to them, and LGUs had given prior coordination and consultation with women's groups, with Barangay Development Councils, with Irrigators Service Association, School Board/Officials, and peoples organizations. Welfare, and Multi- Purpose Cooperatives. People were oriented about the project descriptions and given awareness of ARCP II environment and social safeguards guidelines and requirements.

III.a. Summary of Compliance with IR/IP Requirements

Table of SP with RP

Reg No. Deed of Deed of Joint of Donation Conveyance Quit SPs with Quit Claim Claim IV-B 11 9

10. On Land Acquisition and Resettlement, there are 171 subprojects with Project Affected Persons (PAPs). These PAPs have either portion of their lands affected, or improvements in their lands such as crops, trees and structures. Only 66 subprojects have prepared a short resettlement plan, wherein an inventory of PAPs, affected lands and improvements were discussed including the arrangement with the PAP. (Annex IV- C list of SPs with PAPs) Table 1: Subprojects with Project Affected Persons (PAPs) Region/Province No. of SPs Region IV-B (MIMAROPA) 11 Oriental Mindoro 3 Palawan 1 Romblon 7 Region V 20 Camarines Norte 7 Camarines Sur 8 Sorsogon 5 Region VI 10 Iloilo 5 Negros Occidental 5

Region VIII 47 Leyte 16 Northern Samar 6 Eastern Samar 14 West Samar 11 Region IX 67 Zamboanga del Norte 28 Zamboanga del Sur 31 Zamboanga Sibugay 8 ARMM 21 Lanaodel Norte 18 Maguindanao 1 Sulu 2

11. The Resettlement Plan (RP) contains the ROW acquisition, which in most cases are donated to the LGU. Only 66 subprojects have RP, other SPs were supported only by masterlist of PAPs and legal documents for the right of way documentation. Legal documents executed by the PAPs are deed of donation, deed of conveyance with quit claim, joint quit claim, permit to enter, and usufruct as the proposed infrastructure subprojects have been the clamor of the beneficiaries, hence the PAPs are very much willing to help the LGUs raise the needed equity by donating portions of their lands and assets just to ensure that the project will be implemented. Table 2: No of Subprojects with RP and Type of ROW document Region No of SPs RP Deed of Deed of Joint/Quit Permit to Donation Conveyance Claim Enter; SB with Quit Claim Resolution, etc IV-B 11 8 9 2 2 V 15 6 7 3 4 VI 10 4 4 8 VIII 47 29 29 12 4 13 IX 67 18 36 2 19 14 ARMM 21 1 13 5 5

12. As the right to be compensated and their entitlement was disclosed during barangay consultations, there are also PAPs that asks for payment especially for subprojects that involved relatively big portions of affected land and improvements like opening or new farm- to-market road construction. Like the four ( 4 ) farm-to-market road subprojects in Samar Province, the LGUs provided compensation to the Project Affected Persons: Daram, Samar i) Construction of Mabini – Mayahay – San Roque FMR ii) Construction of Pob 02 – Talisay FMR iii) Construction of Mabini – Astorga – San Vicente – Bono-anan FMR Almagro, Samar i) Construction of Poblacion – Costa Rica I FMR

13. There are also 298 subprojects that have no PAPs as certified by the LGUs. These subprojects are mostly rehabilitation or improvement of an existing farm-to-market road, with

the Right of Way (ROW) already secured by the LGU before ARCP II or social infrastructure subprojects.

III. b Indigenous People 14. On Indigenous Peoples (IPs), though the ARCP II was not specifically designed for the IPs as it aims to benefit the agrarian reform beneficiaries and farmers in the Agrarian Reform Communities, these ARCs may be in areas inhabited by the indigenous peoples, hence the IPs, in the ARCs and ARC Clusters were not left out by the project.

15. Rural infrastructure subprojects are required to secure Certificate of Non Overlap/Certification Precondition (CNO/CP) from the NCIP. A total of 225 subprojects were issued CNO and 40 subprojects were issued and Certification Precondition (Annex IV-D: List of Subprojects issued with CNO; Annex IV-E: List of SPs issued with CPs).

Table 3: No of SPs issued with Certification Precondition and Certificate of Non Overlap Region NO of subprojects with CP No, of subprojects with CNO IV-B (MIMAROPA) 0 21 V 2 85 VI 2 7 VIII 0 30 IX 36 21 ARMM 0 43

16. Most of the subprojects issued with CPs are in the Zamboanga Provinces. The IPs, mostly Subanen in Leon Postigo and Siayan, Zamboanga del Norte shared that they were consulted during the planning of their proposed subproject, in fact, they were the ones who requested said subprojects from their LGUs. In Bgy. Mangop Elementary School, Leon Postigo, the Project provided 2 school rooms. About 70% of the 244 enrollees in school year 2017 - 2018 are IPs. The facilities are not only used as classroom for the Grade VI pupils but as computer room as well. It also served as meeting venue for Parent Teachers Associations (PTAs) and other activities that requires a bigger area. While the Bgy Health Station in Sta. Maria, Leon Postigo provides for the immediate health services of the community from consultation, immunization, pre-natal, birthing and family planning. About 75% of the 242 households are Subanen. The FMR in Bgy Moyo, Siayan is highly appreciated by the all Subanen community. They are thankful that it is now easier for them to transport their products to and from the market. It also helped them in emergencies, as the LGU’s ambulance can now respond to them in bringing their sick family member to the doctor, whereas before they use to carry patient in a hammock, and walk thru to the town proper to avail of health services.

17. In Zamboanga del Sur, there are six (6) units of tribal centers provided by the Project. These subprojects directly benefits the IPs. Of the tribal centers visited this year, those in the municipalities of Kumalarang, Josefina and San Miguel are already being used by the indigenous peoples and their council. It serves as a regular meeting place of the tribes where they conduct rituals in celebration of the IP Day, in settling conflicts, as storage of their costumes, musical instruments and other common properties the tribe uses in their rituals. In Kumalarang, the tribal center also serves as temporary shelter for the Subanen students, where they eat their lunch and spend their break time. It also serves as a venue for their school of living traditions (SLT). The Subanens in Kumalarang have already applied their CADC.

18. The tribal centers in Labangan is not yet turned over to the IPs, as the IP community found defects in the building. The LGU of Labangan promised that the defects will be repaired and the tribal center will be completed and turn over for use of the Subanen in December 2017. The Subanens in Binayan have been longing to have a more permanent place where they can meet as a tribe. At present, they request the use of barangay hall or the church building if the Timoay’s call for a meeting.

19. Though there are also IPs or Subanens member of the SACASIG Irrigators Association, in Sagrada Familia Irrigation Project being rehabilitated by the ARCP II, these IPs are very much mainstreamed due to inter-marriages. Not much is known on their beliefs and traditions, even their children hardly speak the dialect, as most of them use the Visayan language. They said the children does not want to be identified as IPs. However, they also said that there are efforts now from the Timoays to strengthen and to practice their traditions.

IV. Occupational, Health and Safety (OHS) Performance Monitoring

20. Part of the Project’s commitments to social safeguard is to promote safety and health to workers, personnel and visitors in the construction project site. Moreso,, that the Project requires the contractor gave hiring preference to qualified local community residents, and when there is lack of skilled work force in the affected barangays, some hired workers were from the outside community.

21. As the LGUs and the Contractor involved in the implementation of subprojects take care of the occupational health and safety of the workers in the construction site and the possible health impacts of the subproject in the community and the environment. These are frequently asked during subproject monitoring, whether OHS is observed, such as use of protective equipment (PPE) among others. There is a Contractor that provided not only PPEs but medicines/antidotes to help the workers overcome waterborne parasites.

22. ECCs issued to ARCP II subprojects also stipulated the Regulatory Conditions such as, compliance to the PD 442 or the Labor Code of the Philippines including occupational safety and health. Cited in their respective ECCs that close monitoring of the project be undertaken by the proponent to maintain a high level of safety and efficiency at all stages of the operation, provisions of PPEs to workers for safety, and immediately address to any environmental hazard/change that may occur.

V. Grievance and Redress Mechanism

23. As discussed in the Safeguards Manual, complaints and grievances will be managed through a Complaints and Grievance Committee (CGC) at the barangay level. It shall be established to hear the complaints and grievances of the PAPs regarding the acquisition of land and other assets, compensation, resettlement, rehabilitation and other entitlements. Through a Sangguniang Barangay Resolution, a Complaints and Grievance Committee shall be created and will form part of the Barangay CARP Implementing Team (BCIT) as one of its committees. Members of the CGC shall include the Barangay Captain (BIT Chairman), a member of the Barangay Justice (Lupong Tagapamayapa), committee heads of the BCIT as well as formal and informal representatives of the affected community. The complaint, grievance and appeal shall have the following levels:  LEVEL 1 PAP addresses complaints and grievances to the Barangay CGC. The Committee will have to document its investigation to the facts presented and provide

a written response to the PAP, within fifteen (15) calendar days of receiving the complaint.  LEVEL 2 If the PAP is not satisfied with the decision of the Committee; the PAP may appeal the case to the Project Local Office thru the MPDO within fifteen (15) calendar days of receiving the written decision/s from the Barangay Committee. The decision of the MPDO shall be rendered within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the PAP's appeal after validating the facts of the complaint. Through a Sangguniang Bayan Resolution, a Complaints and Grievance Committee at the municipal level shall be created and will form part of the Project Local Office (PLO) designating the MPDO as Grievance Officer for the LGU. Members of the municipal CGC shall include a member of Sangguniang Bayan, committee heads of the PLO and representative from the barangay CGC. The MPDO shall be responsible in providing regular reports to the Office of the Mayor on grievance related matters.  LEVEL 3 If the PAP is not satisfied with the decision of the MPDO; the PAP may appeal the case to the PARO/Provincial Project Manager (PPM) within fifteen (15) calendar days of receiving the written decisions from the MPDO. The decision of the PARO shall be rendered within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the PAP's appeal after validating the facts of the complaint.  LEVEL 4 If the PAP is not satisfied with the decision of the PARO/PPM; the PAP may appeal the case to the DAR Regional Director/Regional Project Manager (RPM) within fifteen (15) calendar days of receiving the written decisions from the PARO. The decision of the DAR Regional Director shall be rendered within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the PAP's appeal after validating the facts of the complaint

o If the PAP is not satisfied with the decision of the PARO, the case may be submitted to the ARCP 2 NPCO through the National Project Coordinator (NPC) and Environment and Social Safeguards Specialist (ESS) for consideration. The decision of the NPCO shall be rendered within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the PAP's appeal.

o PAPs will be exempted from all administrative and legal fees. o Unresolved grievance can be elevated to the proper courts. However, resorting to courts prior to availment of this complaint and grievance process will make the appellantior to availment of this complaint and grievance process will make theop remedies.

24. There were no reported grievances related to subproject construction raised to NPCO. During monitoring, the LGUs claimed that complaints or queries were immediately addressed or settled at the local project office and that there are no formal complaints that are elevated. Issues cited were more on request of PAPs to have a family member be hired or provided with job in the construction, and were accommodated or immediately acted upon by LGUs, as this is also in the project policy to involve the community residents in labor in the subproject implementation. Most of the complaints, were on the delays of project implementation or delays in payments of contractors due to late releases and slow liquidation.

VI. Information Disclosure, Socialization including Capacity Building

25. In 2009, during ARCP II launching and orientation of Project partners like the Local Government Units, Environment and Social Safeguards policies were among the topics discussed with the LGUs. The activity was carried through in the ARCs, as the community, including the project affected persons were informed of environment and social safeguard policies of the ADB, especially their right to be compensated.

26. DARRO/PO ESS Point Persons together with Regional ESS Consultants conducted more ESS-focused orientation with the LGUs particularly with the Municipal Planning and Development Coordinators (MPDCs).

27. Aside from the training provided by ARCP II to the ESS Point Persons of the DAR Provincial and Regional Offices covered by the Project, FS/DED/ESS writeshop were conducted with the LGUs for provinces that requested assistance from the NPCO like, Samar, Mindoro Oriental, Lanao del Sur and Sosrogon. Results and agreements from the training were incorporated in the quarterly progress reports submitted to ADB.

Table 4: List of Safeguards Training and Workshops Number of Region Training Date Participants Participants Trained DARRO & Orientation/Workshop on DARPO VI & VIII August 5-6, 2009 24 Infrastructure & ESS assigned to ARCP II DARRO & IVB & Orientation/Workshop on DARPO Aug 13-14, 2009 28 V Infrastructure & ESS assigned to ARCP II DARRO & IX & Orientation/Workshop on DARPO Sept 23-24, 2009 36 ARMM Infrastructure & ESS assigned to ARCP II ESS point Persons, IV-B FS/DE-POW/ESS Training May 25-27, 2010 4 ESS Economist & Engineers ESS point Persons, V FS/DE-POW/ESS Training March 17-19, 2010 4 ESS Economist & Engineers ESS point Persons, VI FS/DE-POW/ESS Training May 25-27, 2010 3 ESS Economist & Engineers ESS point Persons, VIII FS/DE-POW/ESS Training March 17-19, 2010 5 ESS Economist & Engineers ESS point Persons, IX FS/DE-POW/ESS Training March 17-19, 2010 4 ESS Economist & Engineers ESS point ARMM FS/DE-POW/ESS Training May 25-27, 2010 4 ESS Persons,

Economist & Engineers FS/DE-POW/ESS Training for MPDCs & Mun VIII Sept 27-30, 2010 8 LGUs Northern Samar Engineers FS/DE-POW/ESS Training for MPDCs & Mun VI & VIII October 5-7,2010 10 LGUs Irrigation Subprojects Engineers M & E and ESS 26 ESS All M&E - ESS Training August 7-9,2012 Point Persons Point regions (Region & Prov) Persons Workshop on the ARCP II DARRO & All safeguards monitoring form Sept 27 – 29, 2016 DARPO 26 regions (during the ARCP II ssessment) CARPOs

VII. Conclusion

28. The ARCP II is dubbed as the most challenging Foreign-Assisted Project implemented by the DAR either seriously or just in jest, such can be attributed to the following: national policy on cost-sharing when the Project was approved was not affordable for the LGUs; cancelation of the NGALGU that helps address cost-sharing difficulties; extreme natural and man-made calamities such as earthquake, typhoons especially Typhoon Yolanda, the Zamboanga siege, and the Marawi siege; changes in administration brought about by three (3) local elections and two (2) national elections; and changes in ARCP II point persons and staff from NPCO to PPMOs.

29. With such backdrop, overall environment and social safeguards implementation in ARCP II subprojects was observed by the LGUs and contractors. ESS documentary requirements, from tree cutting permits, ECC/CNC, CNO/CP and ROW documentations were painstakingly complied with by the LGUs. It is in the monitoring and reporting of the mitigation measures where the Project was lacking, as efforts was focused on the LGUs compliance to the documentary requirements.

30. Among the challenges encountered in ESS implementation where we can learn from and to better improve safeguards implementation in succeeding projects are:

 Capacity and consistency of the implementing agency to oversee the overall safeguards performance of the project and monitor the same at the project level. Such oversight responsibility includes provision of timely advice and support to the proponents;

 Hiring of full time qualified environmental and social safeguards specialists at the Project Management Office and at Provincial Project Offices throughout project duration;

 Integration of the Environment and Social Safeguard Management Plan in the bidding documents, design and reporting on the actual delivery of safeguards on a regular basis during subproject implementation, to avoid ESS as just an add-on to the many concerns in project implementation.

 On Right of Way acquisition, particularly for donated lands, more thorough review of documents should be done and ensure that annotation on the title of area donated to the project is documented.

 Capacity building on environmental and social safeguards for the subproject proponent is integral to the project and should not be taken for granted. Hence, orientation and training of subproject proponents should always be provided.

Monitoring of ongoing projects will be taken up in the next reporting period.

ANNEX I: LIST OF PROVINCES COVERED BY ARCP II Page 1 of 22 Agrarian Reform Communties Project 2 (ARCP 2) Covered Local Government Units (LGUs) and Agararian Reform Communties (ARCs) with Barangays