IPP252 World Bank Financed Yunnan Urban Environmental Project Public Disclosure Authorized SOCIAL ASSESSMENT: INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized China Cross-cultural Consulting Center, Sun Yat-sen University July 13, 2007 Public Disclosure Authorized Yunan Province –World Bank 1 Group Huit –SCE YUEP-fasep706 Summary According to the OP4.10, TOR provided by SA expert of the WB, and under the guidance of DRA SA consultant, during Dec 1-19, 2006, the social assessment experts of the China Cross-cultural Consulting Center, Sun Yat-sen University (CCCC) conducted a field survey to identify the features, social impacts, benefit mechanism on the indigenous peoples (IPs) involved in the 34 subprojects under the World Bank Financed Yunnan Urban Environmental Project (YUEP). The Yunnan Urban Environmental Construction Project covers 86 Xiangs/towns/sub-districts in 22 counties/districts in Kunming, Dali, Lijiang and Wenshan Prefectures/Cities, Yunnan Province, with a total benefited population of 2.13million, including an urban population of 1.16 million (54.4%) and a rural population of 0.97 million (45.6%). The negatively impacted population is 11,1321(accounting for 0.52% of beneficiaries ) , including 3,667 in Kuming project area, 2,815 in Dali project area, 2,417 in Lijiang Project area, and 2,233 in Wenshan project area. The affected regions include 12 key counties for state poverty relief, including five IPs’ autonomous counties and two IPs' autonomous prefectures, 15 counties in total, namely Shilin Yi Autonomous County, Luquan Miao Autonomous County, Xundian Hui-Yi Autonomous County, Ninglang Naxi-Yi Autonomous County, Yulong Naxi Autonomous County, Dali City, Eryuan County, Funing County, Malipo County, Guangnan County, Yanshan County, Wenshan County, Qiubei County, Xichou County and Maguan County. The project areas involve 12 resident IPs, which are Hui, Yi, Miao, Bai, Lisu, Naxi, Dai, Zhuang, Tibetan, Pumi, Gelao, Yao and Bouyei, an IPs population of 822,800, accounting for 38.71% of the total affected population. The total population of negatively impacted IPs is 3,527, accounting for 31.68%. Specifically, the IPs in the Kunming project areas are mainly Hui, Yi, Miao etc, with an IPs population of 131,300, accounting for 15.03% of the total affected population in Kuming; the population of negatively impacted IPs is 52, accounting for 1.42% of the total negatively impacted population in Kuming. The IPs in the Dali project areas are mainly Bai, Yi, Hui etc, with an IPs population of 387,100, accounting for 63.59% of the total affected population in Dali; the population of negatively impacted IPs is 1981, accounting for 70.37% of the total negatively impacted population in Dali The IPs in the Lijiang project areas are mainly Naxi, Mosuo, Yi, Bai etc, with an IPs population of 104,400, accounting for 56.51% of the total affected population in Lijiang; the population of negatively impacted IPs is 1070, accounting for 44.27% of the total negatively impacted population in Lijiang. The IPs in the Wenshan project areas are mainly Zhuang, Miao, Yi, Yao, etc, with an IPs population of 200,000, accounting for 43.6% of the total affected population in 1 It refers to the people who will be affected by land acquisition and resettlement. Yunan Province –World Bank 2 Group Huit –SCE YUEP-fasep706 Wenshan; the population of negatively impacted IPs is 424, accounting for 18.99% of the total negatively impacted population in Wenshan. The Assessment Team has identified the IPs in each subproject area using the OP 4.10 criteria, and suggests that the IPs involved in the 20 sub-projects keep the specific ethnic identities, the ethnic culture and language in their compact villages/communities. The OP 4.10 fits to 17 sub-projects of them. And the IPs involved in the other 14 projects are scattered in urban areas, whose cultural characteristics are largely consistent with the main peoples in the project areas. Moreover, the Chinese (Han) language is popular in these areas. Accordingly, the Assessment Team thinks OP4.10 does not apply to these project areas. The SA Team carried out typical investigations of IPs in 34 Indigenous Peoples’ communities in 20 subprojects affected areas. The SA team collected the baseline information on the demographic, social, cultural, and political characteristics of the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities, the land and territories that they have traditionally owned or customarily used or occupied, and the natural resources on which they depend. Taking the baseline information into account, the SA team identified the key project stakeholders, and conducted the free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities. The Team communicated adequately with the indigenous stakeholders (especially women and poor IPs) in the IPs’ communities by way of questionnaire survey (980 questionnaires), interview, workshop(38 workshops) and observation, to learn their different needs for the Project, analyze the impacts of the Project, and obtain extensive support from the IPs communities. The results of free, prior, and informed consultation suggest that: the project positive impacts include improving the overall environment of the IPs’ communities and the health level of the IPs, providing the IPs’ villages with nonagricultural job opportunities, increasing their income, promoting local economic development, specially in tourism and urbanization, and helping build the sense of the residents as the subject of environmental protection; the negative impacts on the IPs include land requisition, relocation and change in land use, resulting in income reduction and nonagricultural changes in livelihoods to the affected peasants; causing noise and safety problems to the affected villages, and possibly affecting the trip and agricultural production of the IPs. Based on the participatory consultation with IPs, the SA team discussed on how to conduct projects by the culturally appropriate way, and avoid, minimize, mitigate the project adverse effects with the stakeholders including PMOs, project owners, design Institutes and RAP institute, provided the action plan of measures to control and compensate for these adverse effects (See SA general report “Chapter 7. Conclusion, Suggestion and Action”), and elaborated the culturally appropriate process for consulting with the Indigenous Peoples at each stage of project preparation and implementation (See SA general report “Chapter 6. Communities’ participatory strategies”), to ensure the key issues of IPPs can be included in the projects’ general designs. In accordance with World Bank OP4.10, the SA Team further judges the need for an IPP based on the proportion of benefited IPs population, impacts on lands and related natural resources of IPs, whether commercial development of IPs cultural resources is involved and whether the new poverty of IPs will be brought. The SA Team thinks that: Yunan Province –World Bank 3 Group Huit –SCE YUEP-fasep706 In terms of proportion of benefited IPs population, the affected areas of the 20 projects that comply with OP4.10 are mostly IPs’ communities. The proportion of the benefited IPs population is above 50% in most projects, except the “Municipal Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Project in Luquan County”. The IPs are the main part of the benefited population in most projects, and the key issues of IPPs have been included in the projects design. In terms of whether a subproject’s affected area is under IPs autonomy, except the Lijiang Lion Mountain Environment Renovation Project, Second Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant and Associated Sewer Network in Lijiang City, Municipal Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Project in Lijiang City, the other 17 subprojects that comply with OP4.10 are under IPs autonomy. There are a range of policies, regulations and preferences from the state to the local level in IPs autonomous places in place to assure the freedom of the affected IPs to maintain or reform their own cultural customs and practices; under state planning, they are free to arrange and manage local economic construction activities, manage and conserve local natural resources; the autonomous organs in these places are also ensuring that all IPs in these places enjoy equal rights. A project carried out in IPs regions must conform to these policies and regulations, which are the basis of the IPs’ equal benefit from the project. In the Municipal Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Project in Luquan County in which the IPs population is not a majority of the benefited population, the above policies and regulations have already provide for the IPs’ equal rights in politics, economy, culture and natural resources and can ensure the IPs benefit equally from the project. In terms of impacts on lands and related natural resources of IPs, engineering land requisition and relocation, and change in land use of IPs are the main negative impacts of the Project. The culturally appreciate Resettlement action plan are preparing for the affected IPs to guarantee the source of income of the farmers who lose their land, and reduce the negative cultural, economic and social impacts arising from resettlement. In terms of whether commercial development of IPs cultural resources is involved, the Assessment Team thinks the Project will not conflict with the IPs customs, religious beliefs and cultures, and except Municipal Infrastructure Construction in Nu'erguo Town of Ninglang County, no project will involve the commercial development of the traditional cultural resources of the IPs. In terms of whether the new poverty of IPs will be led to, the SA Team has found that most projects’ designs and RAPs can avoid the IPs new poverty, and will not aggravate the poverty of the affected poor IPs, except the project of “Municipal Infrastructure Construction in Nu'erguo Town of Ninglang County”. The Yi villages covered by this project are poor villages in the affected area and are still very backward despite of the past domestic and international poverty reduction projects.