World Bank Document

TTHHEE RREEPPUUBBLLIIICC OOFF SSIIIEERRRRAA LLEEOONNEE

MMIINNIISSTTRRYY OOFF EENNEERRGGYY AANNDD WWAATTEERR RREESSOOUURRCCEESS ((MMooEEWWRR))

Public Disclosure Authorized BBuummbbuunnaa HHyyddrrooeelleeccttrriicc PPrroojjeecctt IImmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn UUnniitt ((BBHHPPIIUU))

Public Disclosure Authorized

FINAL DRAFT REPORT

Public Disclosure Authorized PROCESS FRAMEWORK (PF)

BBUUMMBBUUNNAA HHYYDDRROOEELLEECCTTRRIICC EENNVVIIRROONNMMEENNTTAALL AANNDD SSOOCCIIAALL MMAANNAAGGEEMMEENNTT && BBIIOODDIIVVEERRSSIITTYY CCOONNSSEERRVVAATTIIOONN PPRROOJJEECCTT

Prepared By: Dyson T. Jumpah [email protected]

Public Disclosure Authorized

7TH FLOOR, TRUST TOWERS FARRAR AVENUE, ADABRAKA ACCRA, GHANA.

AUGUST 2012

[Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project)] Page i

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... VI 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 19

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT COMPONENTS ...... 21 1.2 DESIGN OF THE LOMA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 22 1.2.1 Boundary ...... 22 1.2.2 Access ...... 23 1.2.3 Infrastructure ...... 23 1.2.4 Park Development and Management ...... 24 1.3 PROJECT LOCATION ...... 25 1.4 VILLAGES IN THE LOMA MOUNTAINS AREA ...... 26 2.0 CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE PROCESS FRAMEWORK ...... 30 3.0 PROCESS FRAMEWORK ...... 32

3.1 LEGAL FRAMEWORK ...... 32 3.1.1 The Republic of Sierra Leone Constitution (1991) ...... 32 3.1.2 Land Laws ...... 33 3.1.3 Tourism Act ...... 34 3.1.4 Legislative and Regulatory Framework for Environmental Management ...... 34 3.1.5 Forestry policy-draft 2010 ...... 35 3.1.6 National Policy and Institutional Frameworks for Natural Resource Management ...... 36 3.1.7 Conservation and Wildlife Policy-draft 2010 ...... 36 3.1.8 The Legislative and Regulatory Framework for Natural Resources Management ...... 38 3.1.9 Institutional Responsibilities and Capacities ...... 39 3.1.10 Local Government Act 2004 ...... 39 3.1.11 International Conventions ...... 40 3.2 IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS AND PROJECT AFFECTED PERSONS ...... 41 3.2.1 Identifiable Stakeholder Groups ...... 41 3.2.2 Project Affected Persons ...... 43 3.3 MECHANISMS FOR PARTICIPATION ...... 45 3.3.1 Planning Stage ...... 45 3.3.2 Implementation of Development Plans ...... 46 3.3.3 Communication Strategy ...... 47 3.3.4 Community Participation ...... 48 3.4 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY OF PROJECT AFFECTED PERSONS FOR ASSISTANCE ...... 50 3.4.1 Identification of PACs in and around LM Area ...... 50 3.4.2 Social Economic Conditions ...... 52 3.4.3 Potential Impacts of the LMNP Project ...... 55 3.4.4 Criteria for Determining Eligibility of Displaced Persons for Assistance ...... 60 3.4.5 Description of Methods and Procedures for choosing Mitigation and Compensation Measures ... 61 3.5 MEASURES TO ASSIST DISPLACED PERSONS AND OTHER AFFECTED PERSONS ...... 62 3.5.1 Methodology to Integrate APs and Communities into the Process of Developing Conservation Management Plans ...... 63 3.5.2 Training Needs and Training ...... 64 3.6 RESOLUTION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OR GRIEVANCES...... 66 3.6.1 Grievance Redress Mechanisms ...... 66

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project ii 3.6.2 Administrative and Legal Procedures ...... 67 3.6.3 Finances to Ensure Participation of PAPs ...... 68 4.0 MONITORING ARRANGEMENTS ...... 70

4.1 MECHANISMS FOR PARTICIPATORY MONITORING OF PROJECT ACTIVITIES ...... 70 4.2 MONITORING OF EFFECTIVENESS OF LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT MEASURES ...... 71 4.3 MONITORING INDICATORS ...... 71 4.3.1 Monitoring at the Regional/Landscape Level: ...... 72 4.3.2 Monitoring at the Community/Ecosystem Level ...... 72 4.3.3 Monitoring at the Species/Population Level ...... 72 4.3.4 Monitoring Socio-Economic Factors ...... 73 4.3.5 Monitoring Community Involvement and Participation ...... 73 4.3.6 Monitoring Institutional and Regulatory Factors...... 74 4.3.7 Monitoring Institutional and Regulatory Factors...... 74 4.3.8 Monitoring Management Capacity and Effectiveness ...... 74 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 76 6.0 ANNEXES ...... 81

6.1 ANNEX 1: MATRIX OF MONITORING INDICATORS ...... 82 6.2 ANNEX 2: SOCIO -ECONOMIC BASELINE SURVEY REPORT ...... 97 6.3 7.3 ANNEX 3: ENTITLEMENT FRAMEWORK , ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND MANAGEMENT MECHANISMS ...... 98 6.4 ANNEX 6: SUMMARY OF INTERNATIONAL /R EGIONAL TREATIES AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION ...... 100 6.5 ANNEX 4: PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE PLAN (PCDP) ...... 104 6.6 ANNEX 5: MINUTES OF CONSULTATIONS HELD ...... 105 6.7 ANNEX 6: FIELD VISITS PHOTO GALLERY ...... 129

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: LOMA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK ...... 25 FIGURE 2: LOCATION OF VILLAGES RELATIVE TO THE TRACED BOUNDARY AND PROPOSED REVISED BOUNDARY ...... 29

List of Tables

TABLE 1: TABLE 1.1: DISTRIBUTION OF VILLAGES IN THE VICINITY OF THE RESERVE BOUNDARY ...... 27 TABLE 2: NUMBER OF VILLAGES AND LOCATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE RESERVE BOUNDARY ...... 27 TABLE 3: IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDER GROUPS , THEIR INTERESTS , IMPORTANCE AND INFLUENCE ...... 42 TABLE 4: POPULATION : NEYA CHIEFDOM SECTION ...... 43 TABLE 5: POPULATION : NEINI CHIEFDOM SECTION ...... 43 TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF POPULATION IN LMNP RESERVE ...... 43 TABLE 7: POPULATION ESTIMATES BY QUADRANT ...... 53 TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LOMA MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK ...... 59 TABLE 9: COURSE OUTLINE FOR THE TRAINING IN PF SKILLS ...... 65 TABLE 10: PROCESS FRAMEWORK – IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES ...... 68 TABLE 11: INDICATORS AT THE REGIONAL LANDSCAPE LEVEL ...... 82 TABLE 12: INDICATORS AT THE COMMUNITY / ECOSYSTEM LEVEL ...... 83 TABLE 13: INDICATORS AT THE SPECIES /P OPULATION LEVEL ...... 85 TABLE 14: SOCIO -ECONOMIC INDICATORS ...... 87 TABLE 15: COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION INDICATORS ...... 89 TABLE 16: LEGAL AND REGULATORY INDICATORS ...... 91 TABLE 17: MANAGEMENT CAPACITY AND EFFECTIVENESS INDICATORS ...... 93

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project iii TABLE 18: ENTITLEMENT FRAMEWORK , ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND MANAGEMENT MECHANISMS ...... 98 TABLE 19: SUMMARY OF INTERNATIONAL /R EGIONAL TREATIES AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION ...... 100

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project iv List of Key Acronyms

BCP Biodiversity Conservation Project BP Best Practise CAPs Community Action Plans CBOs Community Based Organisations CMPs Conservation Management Plans CSMTs Conservation Management Teams EA Environmental Assessment EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework GEO Global Environmental Objective GoSL Government of Sierra Leone GPS Global Positioning System IEM Integrated Environmental Management LMNPP Loma Mountains National Park Project MAFFS Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security NaCEF National Commission on Environment and Forestry NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NEAP National Environmental Action Plan NEP National Environmental Policy NEPA National Environmental Protection Act NGOs Non Governmental Organisations NPRC National Provisional Ruling Council NSC National Steering Committee OoP Office of' the President OP Operational Policy OPN Operational Policy Note PDO Project Development Objective PF Process Framework PMT Project Management Team RPF Resettlement Policy Framework SLEPA Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency SLWCP Sierra Leone Wetlands Conservation Project

SO 2 Sulphur Dioxide UN United Nations WCP Wetlands Conservation Project

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The World Bank is assisting the Government of Sierra Leone (GOSL) to implement the Conservation and Management of the proposed Loma 1 Mountains National Park as an offset of the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Dam Project under the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Environment and Social Management Project. The proposed project is a component of the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Environment and social Management Restructured Project Implementation support with a lifespan of two years and will be implemented by the Forestry Division under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security (MAFFS)

OBJECTIVES

The BHP-BCP recognizes the need to address social priorities in order to achieve Loma Mountains National Park Conservation objectives. Communities in villages adjacent to the Loma Mountains Conservation and nearby areas are poor, and they lack income-generating opportunities. While local communities recognize the importance of supporting conservation objectives they may need to pursue sustainable alternative livelihoods in order to partly compensate for losses as may be incurred due the possible restriction of access to resources. The proposed project, therefore, aims to actively engage communities and traditional authorities in preparing and implementing conservation management plans, as well as in evaluating the overall impact of project activities.

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT COMPONENTS

Process outline for the gazetting activity of the LMNP to be followed involves: • Survey of boundary and participatory demarcation/pillaring of the revised boundary. , • Consultative meetings between government and local stakeholders in the Neini and Neya Chiefdoms • Signing of MOU by local stakeholders • Gazette notice indicating government intention; • Appointment of Reserve settlement of court officer • Invitation letters to principal land owners from the Reserve settlement Court official for the first court sitting in Yeffin for Neini Chiefdom; • Second court sitting for Neya Chiefdom at Kuranbola; • Submission of report sittings; • Investigation into claims and compensation payment • Constitution and declaration of National Park by Parliament

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project vi CRITERIA FOR ELIGIBILITY UNDER THE PROCESS FRAMEWORK

PROCESS FRAMEWORK

The purpose of the framework is to describe the process by which potentially affected communities will participate in resource planning and management. The Process Framework shows how development (and if necessary, resettlement) Action Plans, will be formulated and adapted with the local population during the design and implementation phases of the project. Action plans are instruments that emphasise actions to give communities a voice and that provide them with means to negotiate their position with project and government authorities. Their design and development provides the opportunity for involvement of NGOs and other partners in helping to empower local communities through various forms of capacity building. Once developed, an action plan, should become part of the natural resources management plan, and be approved by the World Bank.

This framework describes the participatory process by which:

specific components of the project will be prepared and implemented; the criteria for eligibility of affected groups will be determined; measures to assist affected groups in their efforts to improve their livelihoods, or at least to restore them, in real terms, while maintaining the sustainability of the park or protected area, will be identified; and Potential conflicts involving affected groups will be resolved.

POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK

This Process Framework (PF) has been prepared in compliance with the World Bank (WB) requirements as stated in the WB’s Policy on involuntary resettlement (OP 4. 12). The PF is also designed to meet the legal requirements of the GOSL.

Other policies, laws and regulations governing local government, land rights, land use planning and terrestrial and aquatic natural resource use considered are:.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project vii

• Land Laws: The Law of Property Act 1925 forms the basis for land law. The Unoccupied Lands Act, Cap 117 Other statutes relating to land are The Interpretation Act No. 8 of 1971, Cap 122, Public Health Act No. 23 of 1960 and Public Land Act 116.

• Tourism Act The Development of Tourism Act 1990 Tourism and Economic Development • Legislative and Regulatory Framework for Environmental Management • Forestry policy-draft 2010 • National Policy and Institutional Frameworks for Natural Resource Management • Conservation and Wildlife Policy-draft 2010 • Land Management and the Environment: • Enhancing the Contribution of Forestry to Economic and Social Development: • Local Government Act 2004 • International Conventions

IDENTIFICATION OF STAKEHOLDERS AND PROJECT AFFECTED PERSONS

Stakeholder groups or institutions that may be affected by the establishment of LMNP, are important to the achievement of the stated purpose of the Loma Mountain National Park Plan. They include government, civil society, and the private sector at national, intermediate and local levels. The identification of the key project stakeholders, their project-related interests, and the ways they affect project risk and viability is relevant for the preparation and implementation of the Process Framework considering their specific roles, the extent and and the manner of this involvement in the planning of the LMNP.

Identifiable Stakeholder Groups

The key stakeholders include: • Village communities located in/near the current/revised boundary; • Farmers and hunters form within the communities (as they ‘represent’ the two main activities that threaten the integrity of the Loma Mountains protected area; • Traditional leaders/authorities; • Women; • Youths (both sexes); • District Councillors; and • Respected community members such as teachers and religious leaders.

Project Affected Persons

It is estimated that the total population in the Loma Mountain area in the Neini and Neya chiefdoms is approximately 72,533 2 (Source, Koinadugu District Statistics Office). Details of the population in the two beneficiary and affected chiefdoms of the Loma Mountain National Park and its surrounding areas is as presented tables E1 and E2 below:

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project viii

Table E1: Population: Neya Chiefdom Section

Neya Chiefdom Sections Section Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent s Vali 3130 9.4 9.4 9.4 d Kulor Neya I 10148 30.4 30.4 39.7 Neya II 6944 20.8 20.8 60.5 Nyedu 6015 18 18 78.5 Saradu 7189 21.5 21.5 100 Total 33426 100 100

Table E2: Population: Neini Chiefdom Section

Neini Chiefdom Sections Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Sections Vali 6197 15.8 15.8 15.8 d Barawa Kalian 13931 35.6 35.6 51.5 Sumbari 6228 15.9 15.9 67.4 a Wollay 3017 7.7 7.7 75.1 Yiffin 9734 24.9 24.9 100 Total 39107 100 100

Table E3: Summary of Population in LMNP Reserve

LMNP Reserve Area Estimated Population

Total of Two Chiefdoms 72,533

MECHANISMS FOR PARTICIPATION

Process description for participation of displaced persons in Project Design

Planning Stage

Communities residing in and around reserves in the LMNP will become involved in changes in their use and management of local natural resources that bring about more opportunities for livelihoods development than they currently have. At the planning stage it is foreseen that three key linked participatory mechanisms will be used to involve communities.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project ix Implementation of Development Plans

Implementation of Development Plans will include activities that involve new or more stringent restrictions on the use of natural resources, as well as activities to mitigate the negative impacts of these. These may include: the establishment and management of multiple-use conservation areas (including formal and informal core PAs, appropriate buffer and support areas); the initiation of economic alternatives (environmentally sustainable tourism development, co-management, private sector partnerships in community based tourism etc.) to unsustainable, destructive use of natural resources by local communities.

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

A multi-media communications strategy will be formulated and implemented to ensure that timely and accurate information is readily available to project implementers and stakeholders and to other interested parties. This communication strategy will be an essential tool to help communities to accept and become involved in effecting livelihood changes. It will also ensure two-way communication and knowledge exchange between the different levels of local government institutions and communities within the Loma Mountains Forest Reserve Area in the context of development plans formulation and implementation.

Community Participation

All community consultation and planning groups established in support of LMNP activities will be involved in receiving individual or group grievances. These local structures will be assisted through the communication campaign to learn where to channel the information for redress.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY OF PROJECT AFFECTED PERSONS FOR ASSISTANCE

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project x If access to resources is limited or stopped as a consequence of this project, the first step in preparing compensation and other mitigation measures is to identify who are the project affected persons, which could be entire communities. Project affected persons are those who depend on access to the resources to maintain their standard of living. These persons/communities will be determined by a participatory rural appraisal (PRA) process. This diagnosis will serve as a point of reference to determine who the PAPs are at the project outset. It is critically important also to determine the identities and number of people/communities who depend for their livelihood on economic resources in the conservation areas.

SOCIAL ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

Koinadugu District It is by far the largest District in Sierra Leone in geographical area, Koindadugu District's capital and largest city is Kabala, which is also one of the main cities in Northern Sierra Leone. The District of Koinadugu had a population of 265,765 in the 2004 census, and has a total area of 12,121 km2 (4,680 sq mi). The District of Koinadugu borders Bombali on the west, Tonkolili District to the south-west, Kono District to the south and the Republic of Guinea to north east. Diamond mining is a major economic activity in Kono district, as well as agricultural production of rice, mango, groundnut, cacao, and coconut. Koinadugu is one of the most ethnically diverse district in Sierra Leone. Koinadugu is one of the most ethnically diverse districts in Sierra Leone.

The district is mainly muslim (95% of the population) and Islam dominates the religious and cultural practices in the district. Most schools in the district have Islamic religious affiliation. Christianity accounts for about 5% of the population.

The District of Koinadugu is governed with a district council form of government, which is headed by a District Council Chairman, who is responsible for the general management of the district and for seeing that all local laws are enforced. The District Council Chairman is elected directly by the residents of Koinadugu District. The Council Hall of Koinadugu District located in the district capital of Kabala.

See Annex 2: Socio-Economic Baseline Survey Report-Appendix 1

POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE LMNP PROJECT

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project xi authorities, in the preparation and endorsement of site specific plans, and interventions will include support for community development activities that are linked with conservation objectives. The project will also build awareness at the national and district levels of the needs and opportunities to mitigate or pre-empt threats to priority habitats or species in regional development planning.

There are a range of potential positive and negative impacts associated with the designation of an area as a National Park. These include but are not limited to effects on tourism, agriculture, the economy, the natural and built heritage, access and recreation and planning.

Table E4: Summary of Potential Positive and Negative Impacts Associated with the Establishment of the Loma Mountains National Park

Potential Positive Impacts Both Positive and Negative Impacts Impact Negative Impacts Area Tourism Increased visitors Replacement of Traffic congestion traditional jobs by Development tourism related jobs pressures associated (possibly seasonal). with tourist Tourism jobs often infrastructure. low paid and Increasing number seasonal. Possible of second homes. attraction of tourists from non-National Park areas. Agriculture Potential for new agric- Possible incentives Increased pressure environment schemes or for access ad for access and special scheme with National recreation provision recreation Park Management of visitors access issues. Use of National Park ‘brand’ for marketing purposes. Opportunities in agri-tourism.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project xii may develop. Socio- Increased income within the Loss of economics LMNP area. economically-mixed Increased number of jobs. communities and Use of National Park ‘brand’ potential loss of Support for local services. diversity in range of Preservation of aspects of employment sectors. natural and cultural heritage. Economic effects of the establishment of the national park on the national budget. Planning Increased levels of protection Separation of Higher house and for the natural and built development land process. landscape. planning and Higher design and siting development control Loss of mixed standards. communities. Higher house and land values.

MEASURES TO ASSIST DISPLACED PERSONS AND OTHER AFFECTED PERSONS

Project affected persons under the LMNP project will be assisted and their participation sought through the provision of community-based employment and development schemes, and through implementing conservation management plans. In these schemes and plans, mitigation measures will be taken in order to fully restore the income base of the affected people.

These community-based employment and development schemes and PA management plans will be stand alone documents and will be reviewed and approved by Project Steering Committee. They will comply with the provisions of the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) prepared under the Bumbuna Hydro Electric Project by the Ministry Energy and Water Resources (MoEWR).

The Administrative Structure of the SLEPA and FD/PMT jointly by the Bumbuna PMU responsible for the implementation of the LMNP Project be clearly defined and set up and may include the following:

- Project multidisciplinary Steering Committee - Project Technical Team - Central and Region Bodies - Local level structures (District, Chiefdom, Town, Village and Site Groups)

TRAINING NEEDS AND TRAINING

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project xiii participatory monitoring and evaluation, gender, fund raising, accounting, transparency, accountability and reporting.

Among other things, the main objective of the training will be to ensure basic awareness of the rationale, objectives, requirements and procedures for the PF and the main personnel to be involved in implementing them. It will also build on the skills of these people to a common level, since at the outset their skills and experience in the topic will differ greatly.

During the Mid-term of the project, depending upon when is deemed most suitable (and not during the height of the rainy season), a second training session will be organized. This will focus much more on topic 1.3 and those in module 3, and will processed in learning –by- doing manner. It will emphasize solving real problems encountered in the implementation of the project by conducting a series of evaluations of proposals, simulated audits and other practical skills. The specific outline will be determined nearer to the time. The World Bank will be requested to provide one senior trainer to ensure consistency with all `applicable social and environmental safeguards.

The training will be organized by SLEPA, with assistance from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security (MAFFS), Ministry of Energy and Water Resources (MoEWR), Ministry of Tourism, the Wildlife Division and participating donors like the World Bank.

GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISMS At the remedial level, local community-based authority and enforcement systems will be used whenever possible, making resort to official project and state systems only as a matter of last recourse. This may not always be possible since it will often be Wildlife Division staff, representing the state, who are enforcing a law or regulation concerning the PAs. Therefore it is the Wildlife Division, not a local community that is responsible to take penal action. Whenever possible the Wildlife Division will seek to work with rather than against local traditional authority structures.

If a law/regulatory infraction occurs and the perpetrator and local authority structure disagree with the application of law/policy as done by the Wildlife Division, this matter can be referred to the district liaison groups or Conservation management advisory council for debate and resolution. These bodies are not dominated by the Wildlife Division, or by the beneficiary community, but include all local stakeholders plus independent outsiders like NGOs supporting the PAs, CFs and communities.

District liaison groups, DECs and traditional authority structures will be the primary forums where dispute will be heard.

ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL PROCEDURES

The Wildlife Division and SLEPA are the custodians of the Process Framework, with overall responsibility to ensure that the requirements therein are implemented and complied with.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project xiv For instance, the Wildlife Division and SLEPA will ensure that district – based groups, the Conservation Management Teams, and DECs are established and rendered operational through training, technical and basic administrative support. The Wildlife Division and SLEPA, along with the MAFFS and the Ministry of Energy and Water Resources (MoEWR) will be responsible for ensuring that Conservation management teams are fully participatory, i.e that they represent the interests not of any powerful group or elite but rather all groups within the communities including the weak, poor and vulnerable. All agencies above will monitor that grievances are addressed with integrity, neutrality, speed and in accordance with the letter and spirit of this PF. The Wildlife Division and SLEPA will invite and collaborate with development agencies like the Conservation Society of Sierra Leone, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Environmental Foundation for Africa (EFA), Environmental Forum for Africa (ENFORAC) and others interested in working around the conservation areas ensuring that they adopt an approach that will support the voices of all members of society including the weak, poor and vulnerable, and mobilizes communities to take charge of their own development as planners rather than as passive recipients.

Table E5: Process Framework – Implementation Responsibilities Level Responsibilities Rural communities -Participate project designs, preparation of CAPs, formation CSMTs etc in project implementation activities, particularly those related to resource access restriction, alternative livelihoods developments and compensations payment where needed.

District -Implement Environmental Baseline Assessments(EBA) for rural sub-projects where possible -Monitor the actual implementation of environmental social mitigation measures at operation phase. Consultants -Implement Environmental Baseline Assessment for ancillary projects -Develop site specific EMPs where required (Schedule 2 sub-projects – Categories A and B) -Develop EIAs where required (Schedule 1 sub-projects) Supervise the implementation by construction contractors of environmental mitigation measures at construction phase (as part of technical supervision contract)

Region: MLCPE Finalize Environmental Baseline Assessment forms based on the framework proposed in the ESMF for the Bumbuna Hydro Electric Project. -Review EBAs (environmental Review) submitted by consultants and provide a quarterly report of Environmental Reviews. -Supervise the development by consultants of E1As where required review Terms of Reference, review draft E1As, participate in public consultation. -Supervise the development by consultants of Site-specific EMPs where required -Supervise the monitoring of construction environmental mitigations implemented by construction contractors. -Supervise the monitoring of operation environmental mitigations implemented by towns and /or operation contractors. SLEPA --Review the draft EA -Review EIAs were so prescribed by Sierra Leone EIA guidelines. -Monitor the overall implementation of EAs -Supervise the implementation of EAs. -Provide annual environmental monitoring report for review by the MLCPE and SLEPA . Ministry of Agriculture, -Supervise the overall implementation of EAs Forestry and Food Security -Provide an overall annual environmental monitoring report for review by MLCPE and (MAFFS) the World bank. World Bank -Review the draft EAs -Review E1As for schedule 1 sub-projects -Monitor the overall implementation of EAs, including the review of annual environmental reports provided by SLEPA.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project xv

MONITORING ARRANGEMENTS

The overall objective of the project’s Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system is to monitor progress, results and outcomes of the project’s interventions into developing a national wetland strategy and into managing selected priority wetland areas in Sierra Leone as well as to provide lessons learned for replication of the area-specific interventions. M&E will be the overall responsibility of the PMT in collaboration with Policy Evaluation, Monitoring and Statistics Division of MAFFS. While the PMT M&E Officer will coordinate development and implementation of the M&E System, project staff at the various levels, implementing partners and service providers will play an important role in M&E activities. Arrangements for monitoring implementation of this Process Framework fit the overall project monitoring plan for the MAFFS Biodiversity Conservation Project bring implemented by the Forestry Division.

Baseline information on socio-economic conditions of the villages and household, in particular the potential livelihood impacts of new or more strictly enforced restrictions on use of resources has been collected (see annex 2). These data will be used as the basis for determining the eligibility of villages and households for assistance under the process framework, as well as designing measures to assist the affected persons in their efforts to improve or restore their livelihoods.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Lessons learned from the consultations with the various stakeholders, field visits to the affected communities of the LMNP under the BHP Environmental and Social Management Project include the needs to consider the following conclusions and recommendations: (a) Potential Conflict Situation The implementers and key stakeholders need to recognize the potential conflict situations and ensure a participatory and transparent process of arriving at final decisions as to the location of LMNP Project facilities.

(b) Important Roles for the Traditional Authorities

• After the erection of the new boundary pegs, the traditional authorities should announce categorically and establish bye-laws to prevent people from encroaching on the LMNP.

• The LMNP protection should be included in the bye-laws of the Chiefdoms since every chiefdom has bye-laws.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project xvi • The Paramount Chiefs should be supported under the project to take the necessary steps to prevent farming, wood cutting, hunting etc in the forest.

• The Traditional authorities should be supported with tools and implements to continue to organize the youth and communal labour to improve the road access to the mountain and within the loma mountain area in the interim until actual road improvement activities begin. The BHP-BCP Project implementation budget could make some financial provision to support this initiative by the chiefs and their people in selected communities but very deprived.

(c ) Sustainable Alternative Livelihood Options

Some alternative livelihood options proposed by the communities are acquisition of vocational skills, setting up of cottage industries, mechanized agriculture, provision of loans to undertake trading, eco-tourism services and incentives for potential lost of access to cash crops such as cola nut, bitter cola, coffee, oranges and cocoa.

(d) Constraints and Opportunities to the Neini and Neya Chiefdom Communities for participating in the LMNPP Activities

It recommended that a nominee each will be selected to represent the two chiefdoms in matters relating to the LMNPP. Additionally each affected community should nominate a representative who will liaise with the nominees at the chiefdom level and provide feedback to their respective affected communities.

(e) Restriction of Access to the Natural Resources • The affected communities should not be entirely prevented from having access to Natural Resources. Agro-forestry and establishment of woodlots should be created. Co-management schemes should be developed as part of the Park Management strategies

(f) Threats to the Success of the Proposed LMNPP

According to the people of the Neya Chiefdom, the main threats to the LMNPP are the following: • The location of the Administrative headquarters of the LMNP. They claim that if the headquarters is not located in the Neya Chiefdom there will be a serious conflict. • Limitation of access to future agricultural land. Though the new boundary demarcation allows the farmers to continue their farming activities outside the new boundary they cannot expand such farms in the future.

(g) The benefits the community are anticipating from the LMNPP are: • Road infrastructure improvement, • Provision of alternative means of livelihood and alternative sources of protein in place of bush meat, • Provision of community schools with good facilities for their children, • Provision of health care centers with equipped facilities and man power • Provision of equipments and implements for the cultivation of grassland areas • A community meeting place

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project xvii (h) Potential threat to the LMNPP A failure to comply with agreements that will be reached under the LMNPP by all stakeholders will be the main threat to the project (i) Enforcement of Local Forest Reserve Regulating Bye-Laws Support is needed under the project to motivate and empower the chiefs to enforce existing bye-laws .

(j) Involvement of Traditional Authorities in LMNP Management

Areas that the Paramount Chief think Chiefs can be involved in the management of the LMNP are: • Community sensitization and training, particularly in wildlife ecology; • Development of alternative livelihood for the communities • Provision of community development projects such as roads, guest houses, schools, conservation education, fuel-wood collection, bee keeping etc • Controlling of wild fire

Additionally, • traditional authorities should be involved as PRO’s between their subjects and the project management teams. • NGO’s must be made to work with traditional authorities and avoid unilaterally introducing alien priorities to the communities. The communitities should be given adequate participation in the project planning and prioritization. • There should be transparency in the administration of the project;

(k) Involvement of the Koinadugu District Council in Natural Resources Management

There should be a regular stakeholder meeting among the District Council, the Forestry Division, the Bumbuna Project Implementation Unit, the Ministry of Tourism and other relevant parties to discuss relevant issues about the LMNP project that will ensure a collaborative effort for a successful project.

(l) Involvement of SLEPA and Ministry of Tourism and Culture

SLEPA should be involved in the monitoring of implementation programmes. To promote ecotourism in the Loma Mountains area, the Ministry could conduct a needs assessment so as to integrate it in their planning.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project xviii 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The World Bank is assisting the Government of Sierra Leone (GOSL) to implement the Conservation and Management of the proposed Loma 3 Mountains National Park (see figure 2 below) as an offset of the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Dam Project under the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Environment and Social Management Project. The proposed project being a component of the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Environment and social Management Restructured Project Implementation support with a lifespan of two years and will be implemented by the Forestry Division under the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security (MAFFS)

The Bumbuna Conservation Area (BCA) was initially designed as the environmental offset for the impact of the dam biodiversity, in the immediate upstream section of the dam and reservoir. However, the additional studies carried out by the project in the reservoir area revealed biodiversity of global importance, thus requiring the establishment of a more significant and sustainable offset, as required under the World Bank safeguard policy OP 4.04 on Natural Habitats. Besides the offset of the immediate vicinity of the reservoir, it was decided to upgrade the nearby Loma Mountains Non-Hunting Forest Reserve (33,200 ha) into the Loma Mountains National Park (LMNP). This approach was endorsed by the Environmental and Social Advisory Panel (ESAP) and the Cabinet has approved the principle of designating Loma Mountains as a national park.

One of the objective of theBCP is the upgrading of the current Loma Mountain non-hunting forest reserve to National Park status as a significant measure required to offset the impact of the Bumbuna Hydroelectric project as part of Component A; Environmental Management, under the BCP It will enable the Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL) to consolidate and expand on the ecological coverage of ongoing initiatives to build a coherent national conservation programme and also ensure the efficient maintenance and functioning of Loma Mountains National Park as an environmental offset that mitigates the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Dam Project impact on biodiversity. Expected outcomes of the BCP include:

i. Functioning ecosystem maintained in terrestrial areas and plans for improvement agreed with stakeholders; ii. Capacity for management and planning of Loma Mountains ecosystems strengthened and iii. Enabling environment to support Loma Mountains Conservation strengthened. The project will fund international expertise and national concerted efforts to build capacity for Loma Mountains Conservation, and will expand conservation management to potential habitat not included in the scope of the Loma mountains national park status upgrade.

One of the three components of the proposed project is the strategic planning for terrestrial habitat conservation. The envisaged field investments will cover 33,201 hectares of globally

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 19 significant terrestrial ecosystems and improve the status of protection and management of key habitats of global biodiversity importance. The Loma Mountains being one of the priority sites identified in the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP, 2003), following consultations with Central and Local Government, traditional authorities, and local communities. As an initial step, selection criteria were established for guiding the consolidation of the protected areas system and sites have been selected to include priority protected areas ecosystems based on biological significances level of threat, feasibility of achieving conservation impacts, and availability of donor support. The selected sites will enhance the ecosystem representativeness within the protected area system, and also provide the potential for future tourism development. The first priorities are to control further degradation and loss, establish effective management and jointly develop strategies for sustainable conservation together with local stakeholders. The BHP and BCP will provide technical assistance support for the establishment of Loma Mountains National Park. This will include:

a. Undertaking Feasibility Studies; b. Completing biodiversity studies c. Preparing survey and legal documents for national park status; and d. Developing a strategic plan for terrestrial habitat conservation

Implementation of the LMNP Management Plan, will entail:

iv. Establishing conservation site management team (CSMT) at Loma Mountains and building partnerships among government, Non-governmental organizations, community-based organizations, traditional village leaders and the private sector; and

v. Developing LMNP Management Plan that will be endorsed by traditional and local authorities. It will entail (i) community outreach and awareness through strategic local and national communities programmes that will include contributing to schools curricula, preparing information materials, extension by field staff, and developing nature clubs, and (ii) conservation-linked community development through the preparation and implementation of the process framework, which will, jointly with local stakeholders, identify priority threats to conservation in Loma Mountains and explore options for addressing them. Activities under the process framework may include: (a) providing training for developing conservation linked income-generating activities; (b) supporting potential small-scale entrepreneurs to develop business plans and partnerships in support of conservation-linked investment initiatives; (c) supporting local practices for sustainable land use; (d) strengthening linkages with government programmes and service providers (such as farmer field schools); and (e) possible introduction of energy-saving technologies to reduce unsustainable dependency on natural resources.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 20 opportunities. While local communities recognize the importance of supporting conservation objectives they may need to pursue sustainable alternative livelihoods in order to partly compensate for losses as may be incurred due the possible restriction of access to resources. The proposed project, therefore, aims to actively engage communities and traditional authorities in preparing and implementing conservation management plans, as well as in evaluating the overall impact of project activities.

The project may entail: (i) limited relocation of the boundary works as the boundaries of proposed conservation site has already been resized) and (ii) restriction of access to selected resources (e.g. seasonal gardening, harvesting of non timber forest products (NTFP) etc. from within the national park.

The Bumbuna Hydroelectric Environment and Social Management Project triggered the following Safeguard Policies of the World Bank: Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01); Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04); Forests (OP/BP 4.36) and Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12). The project is ranked as a Category B project for which a Process Framework including socio-economic baseline survey and Public Consultation and Disclosure Plan is needed for the LMNP.

This Process Framework (PF) therefore provides guidelines for the development of Conservation Action Plans during LMNPP implementation that: i) define the restrictions on access to natural resources in proposed conservation areas under the LMNP, ii) identify and quantify the impacts that those restrictions may have on different segments of the local population, iii) measures to assist the affected persons in their efforts to improve or restore, in real terms, to pre-displacement levels, their livelihoods (e.g., as appropriate, alternative grazing areas, cultivation of unique non-timber forest products, or investments in community infrastructure) iv) provide grievance resolution mechanisms in order to resolve any issues that may arise due to restrictions on resources over the course of the project. It also provides a description of the arrangements for implementing and monitoring the process.

1.1 Description of Project Components

It has been proposed that the future conservation and management of the Loma Reserve, including its function as an ‘offset’ for the riverine forest and other habitats submerged by the Bumbuna reservoir, will be best met by elevating its status from a Non-Hunting Forest Reserve to a National Park. It would then also become one of the National Parks to be supported by the Biodiversity Conservation Project.

The gazetting of the new park has to follow the set process outlined in the table …x below. The first three stages in the process (boundary survey / delineation, subsequent consultation with local stakeholders and signing of MOU by stakeholders) have been done. The remaining stages of the processes will be implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture,

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 21 Forestry & Food Security (Conservation & Wildlife Management Unit within the Forestry Division) according to the Annexe 1 schedule (to be revised). The target date for declaration of the Loma Mountains National Park by Parliament is therefore November 2011(need to confirm).

1.2 Design of the Loma Mountains National Park Management Plan

Following the field survey and local consultations, the following features of the proposed Loma Mountains National Park Management Plan which apply specifically to involvement of surrounding communities include:

1.2.1 Boundary

The revised boundary has been accurately mapped onto the Spot image, so that good illustrative maps of the National Park area can be printed and distributed locally. Moreover, much of the boundary follows existing well-established paths or streams, and some parts of the boundary are still marked with the Gmelia trees planted when the Loma Reserve was first gazetted. In the circumstances, physical marking of the whole boundary is considered to be unnecessary (and potentially damaging). However, it is recommended that the boundary should be marked with concrete cairns or posts at significant boundary turning points and along those sections of the boundary which have been revised to exclude villages from the Park or to include new land within the Park. It is expected that this will be supervised by the two surveyors from the Ministry of Lands, Country Planning & Environment who participated in the March 2010 boundary survey, i.e. Mr Mamadu Muntaga Jalloh and Mr Alhaji Banta Dumbuya. The participatory approach adopted in this PF will maximize the use of local labor, under a cash-for-work (CfW) scheme.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 22 1.2.2 Access

The PF clarifies the (i) eligible populations who will be involved in the management of LMNP; (ii) measures to improve livelihoods of eligible affected communities; and (iii) grievance resolution arising from disputes over access to LMNP. There are currently three access points to the Loma Reserve. It has been recommended that two of these should be adopted as the official entry points to the National Park, i.e. Faudala on the eastern boundary and Kondemhaia on the western boundary. The latter entry point is also the access point for the track to the ‘base camp’ at UTM Zone 29 264481;1019074 that has previously been used as the base for both research work and ascents of Mount Bintumani. By limiting official entry to these two points, access to the National Park can be controlled to some extent, i.e. only persons who have been recorded at the entry points have the legal right to be present in the park. Both of the entry points are accessed by 4WD tracks and are approximately two-hours drive from the nearest tarmac roads. In the circumstances, it can be expected that the majority of visitors will adhere to the proposed entry requirements.

Discussions will be needed between the Conservation & Wildlife Management Unit and local community leaders to determine what access rights and restrictions local people will have once the National Park has been established. The participation or involvement of the neighbouring communities in the park management is to be encouraged for the benefit of both the communities and the protection of the park. The taking of fallen branch wood and medicinal plants would probably be acceptable (as has been the case for the Loma Reserve), but bearing in mind that any access can provide a pretext for illegal hunting / trapping activities.

1.2.3 Infrastructure

The objective of the LMNP Management Plan is to provide sufficient infrastructure for safe access to the National Park, but to keep it as near to its present undeveloped state as possible. That means a policy of absolutely minimising the erection of any structures in or near the Park. By the same token, the number of staff living close to the Park should be at a minimum, and should not be accompanied by families, domestic animals, etc. All buildings must be constructed using traditional materials, including thatched roofs. The presently envisaged infrastructure requirements are:

• Repair of bridges on the approach tracks in order to extend 4WD access into the wet season.

• Gate House / Ranger Post at each of the two access points to issue permits, record visitors, etc., and act as bases for ranger patrols (to include WC, solar panels, communications equipment, etc).

• Park HQ buildings, outside the National Park. (These could be constructed near to the Kondemhaia Gate.) The requirement would be for an office building for the

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 23 Warden / staff (including a communications room), an education / information centre, a workshop, a secure store, a garage, a generator house / solar panels and a water supply / storage. Some houses will need to be built for staff, but it will be preferable if they are in a nearby village rather than at the HQ complex.

• Base Camp rondavel – a small hut will be needed at the base camp for Park staff to stay overnight if necessary. • Base Camp Cabins – some minimal buildings will be needed at the Base Camp to facilitate overnight stays by researchers, ecotourists and visitors to Bintumani. These can be ‘bothy’ style buildings providing one step up from camping under canvas, e.g. a dormitory, a shower/WC block, a kitchen, generator house / solar panels, simple water supply / storage, etc. Whilst these facilities have been budgeted for, the private sector should be encouraged to provide them as part of a programme to attract ‘appropriate’ visitors to the Park. (If a private sector tourism operator wishes to erect a more luxurious ‘lodge’, it should probably be located just outside the National Park.

• Cross-Park Track – an existing pathway connecting the two access points should be developed into a track that can be navigated at least by motorcycle. This connection between the two gates will facilitate access for tourists and improve security / patrols by park staff.

1.2.4 Park Development and Management

Once the National Park has been gazetted, it will be necessary to embark upon a development and management programme for the Park (which will presumably be part of the Biodiversity Conservation Project). This will need to include the following elements: • Participatory Demarcation of boundaries with communities • Gazzetlement of the Park, describe the participatory process, meetings undertaken, court sittings and legal establishment. • • Inventory studies of wildlife in the Park (to extend the studies previously undertaken) describe • Ecosystem mapping of the Park (using images and GIS from the NKUK study as the base; • Recruitment of Park Staff describe, it was advertise twice to make sure opportunity to indigenous people from the area were included as part of the team etcc • Development of Park Management Plan (5-year) describe the participatory process • Development of Infrastructure - describe, local material, the district council engineers are in charge of the design, employ local people etc etc

Preparation or revision of the LMNP management plan (MPs) would follow a participatory approach, in which the roles of local communities in the management of natural resources

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 24 would be strengthened, and appropriate measures would be identified with local communities to enhance the sustainability of natural resource-based livelihood activities. Include other approaches proposed by the BCP, take a look at their work plan.

1.3 Project Location

Loma Mountains comprise the northernmost outlying forest in Sierra Leone, and the largest area of montane forest in the country. Bintimani peak is the highest in West Africa. The Loma Mountain range has a rich bird fauna, quite different from that of the lowland forests such as Gola.

Figure 1: Loma Mountains National Park

Loma 4 mountains forest reserve is found in the Nieni and Neya Chiefdoms in the Koinadugu District, Northern Province, about 346 km northeast of Freetown.

4 Loma Mountains National Park is a protected area in the African country Sierra Leone . Located in the northeast of the country. It is situated in the mountains Loma, which is the highest mountain range in the whole West Africa . Protected area was proclaimed here as early as 1952. Currently Loma Mountains National Park occupies an area of 33 201 ha. It consists Loma Mountains, which is covered by tropical rain forests.

The park also boasts the highest mountain country Sierra Leone , Loma Mansa (1945 m). Loma Mountains National Park and no longer referred to mount one of the most popular tourist destinations in the country .

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 25 The forest reserve is found on a range of hills of wide altitudinal range (400 – 1900 m), the highest being Bintimani Mountain (1945 m), which is the highest in West Africa - west of Cameroon. Many rivers drain the mountain range and two of Sierra Leone's major rivers have their sources from this region; the Sewa to the southwest and Rokel to the northwest.

This forest reserve is one of the regions in Sierra Leone that has attracted the interest of many ornithologists. Granville (1961) recorded 60 species at Bintimani peak. Several earlier surveys were conducted in an effort to produce a list of birds of Sierra Leone (see Bannerman, 1953). Recent surveys include Atkinson et al (1992) and they recorded 245 species, of which five are globally threatened – Lesser Kestrel (Vu), Rufous Fishing Owl (En), Yellow-throated Olive Greenbul (Vu), White-necked Picathartes (Vu) and Sierra Leone Prinia (Vu) - and four near-threatened. The little known Rufous Fishing-owl was seen three times along the same stretch of river in two weeks (Atkinson et al., 1992), and the Sierra Leone Prinia occurs in the gallery forests on the plateau. Survey by H. Thompson and P. Wood in 1991 discovered five active colonies with nine nesting sites of White-necked Rockfowl in the reserve (see Thompson, 1997). It also holds 60% of Guinea-Congo forest biome species recorded in the country.

Ten species of primates and several other large mammal species occur at Loma. Included among these are threatened primates such as Western Chimpanzee (En), Red Colobus monkey (Vu), Black-and-White Colobus Monkey (NT), Sooty Mangabey (NT) and Diana Monkey (En). Other threatened mammals are, Forest Elephant (Vu), Leopard (Vu), Pigmy Hippo (Vu), Water Chevrotain (NT), Savanna Buffalo (NT), Jentink's Duiker (Vu), Black Duiker (NT) and Maxwell Duiker (Vu).

Kabala, which is 100 km to the northeast and Bendugu, 40 km to the northwest, are the nearest big towns. Roads leading to the Loma Mountain region are poor, though motorable with the use of strong vehicles. Yiffin, the chiefdom headquarters, which is about 15 km away, has a government clinic run by a dispenser, and there is a modern missionary compound nearby. The Tingi Hills forest reserve and Lake Sonfon are within 40 km to the east and northeast respectively.

1.4 Villages in the Loma Mountains Area

The Loma Mountains area is culturally homogenous being entirely inhabited by Koranko. A number of the villages were located on/near ‘motorable’ roads connecting them to larger settlements and markets. However, some of these roads are only motorable with difficulty by 4WD vehicles and are often impassable in the wet season.

The villages are varied considerably in size: from the smallest having ~10 houses to the biggest with ~200. In almost all villages there were new houses being constructed. Such houses were often bigger (but not always) than the norm and had corrugated iron roofs. These houses indicate an influx of money enabling the structures to be erected. Such new houses do necessarily mean an expanding population as some are replacements for existing houses.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 26 The villages were not evenly distributed around the Reserve boundary. If the Reserve is divided into 4 quadrants then the following distribution is obtained (See Table 1).

Table 1: Distribution of Villages in the vicinity of the Reserve Boundary

Quadrant Number of Villages N/NE 6 S/SE 10 Sub -total 16 N/NW 4 S/SW 5 Sub-total 9 Total 25

It can be seen that most villages are located toward the eastern ‘half’ of the Reserve (64%). The reasons for the uneven distribution are not clear. It may be due to ease of access to the ‘outside’/markets or availability of good agricultural land and water resources or all of these factors.

Villages were plotted with respect to their position relative to the Reserve boundary (See Figure 2 and Table 2). Since the Reserve boundary is not precisely defined it is difficult to be definite as to which villages are actually ‘on the boundary’; hence some villages are categorized as being ‘on/very close the boundary’ (those clearly astride the boundary or ‘touching’ it).

Table 2: Number of villages and location with reference to the Reserve Boundary Location Villages Number Within the Reserve Nendu, Buria, Kamaya, Seidu, 8 Sukralla, Gbluma Kundor, Brukuma, Masonia On/very close to the Boundary Gbonkokoro, Siria I*, Siria II* 5 Sinikoro, Gbenekoro (north)+ Outside Reserve, but within 4 km of Pirankoro, Meria, Gbenekoro 11 the boundary (4 km is chosen (west)+ , Kruto, Konombaia, Kania, because it represents a distance Bandakarfaia, Yalba, Keimadu, beyond which most, but not all, Bumbukoro, Kombamaserer villagers do not farm) * Although Siria I and Siria II have a single Chief and are clearly related they are classed as two distinct villages as they are separated by a distance of about 0.75 km. +Two villages share the name ‘Gbenekoro’ (they are distinguished by location: one is to the west and the other to the north of the Reserve boundary).

The existence of 13 settlements either within the Reserve or located on/very close to the existing boundary explains the extent of existing human encroachment on the Reserve (mainly visible through signs of human activities such as agriculture and hunting). Signs of use of non-timber forest resource, such as leaves/bark for medicines and honey, are less easily visible.

The distribution of villages shows that there are significantly more villages located either in the Reserve/on/close to the boundary on the eastern compared to the western side. A number of the western villages are located at some distance from the boundary (for

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 27 example, Meria, Kruto, Kania, and Bandakarfaia). Despite the distances between some of these villages and the boundary there appears to be a relatively regular pattern of encroachment albeit around periodic ‘hotspots’.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 28

Figure 2: Location of villages relative to the traced boundary and proposed revised boundary-

(Source: NKUK Combine Report-Loma Mountains Reserve Boundary Report, May 2010)

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 29

2.0 Criteria for Eligibility Under the Process Framework

The legal and regulatory provisions of XXXX define limits to access to natural resources inside the LM nature reserve after it is demarcated as a national park. Since the Loma Mountains Forest Reserves and supporting biodiversity conservation and natural resources management under the LMNPP include development of the Loma Mountains protected area, it is part of the component of the IDA and GEF financed Biodiversity Conservation Project (BCP). It also constitutes an “environment offset” for lost biodiversity in connection with the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project (BHP). The Loma Mountain National Park Management Plan includes the gazetting of the National Park, boundary survey and delineation and consultation with local stakeholders. Other activities will involve the development regulations, criteria, procedures and institutional structures for planning, management and development in order to conserve critical flora and fauna that have been identified in the baseline biodiversity surveys and monitoring their habitat. It is recognized that some of the activities to be undertaken under the various project components may lead to the imposition of restrictions on resource use within the new demarcated boundary areas.

The potential restriction of access to the proposed conservation areas raises social and environmental concerns. These concerns may lead to disruptions in social and community structures, dislocations of social networks and loss of assets and incomes. These in turn may lead to long -term hardship, impoverishment, and environmental impacts, unless appropriate measures are taken. These imply there will be restriction of access to natural resources by the local communities in the Loma Mountains Forest Reserves and in buffer zones. Communities living in the neighbourhood of the Loma Mountains Forest Reserve are also potentially affected insofar as natural resource use areas will be affected by the boundary establishment and development scheme for sustainable resource use. An important feature of LMNP Management Plan is the role of the MAFFS/MoEWR-BHP in minimizing economic displacement such as restrictions to access both now and in the future for those communities nearby who either are encroaching on the Reserve or are likely to do so in the future. Given the location of the communities and the current proposed revised boundary, then no village is within the boundary. Even if Government of Sierra Leone were to decide that no habitation was to be allowed within the protected area there would be no physical displacement of people and hence no need for physical relocation and an accompanying Resettlement Action Plan. Nevertheless, despite the fact that there would be no relocation of households, the LMNP will create and develop eco-tourism related and other sustainable livelihood activities that contribute to the development of local communities inside these areas and introduce the Farmer Field School initiative in the District. 5

There are settlements either within the Reserve or located on/very close to the existing boundary (see population estimates in section 4.2) and many actively and sometimes unsustainably engage in encroachment on the reserve through human activities such as

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 30 agriculture and hunting. The LMNPP Management Plan includes a significant tourism component focusing on involving local communities in co-management of the LMNP once it is established. Additionally, some activities may aim at promotion of business partnerships to obtain direct concrete benefits from tourism initiatives in the reserves and buffer zones. It is also expected that by using an integrated development planning approach, and based on participatory planning principles which integrate territorial planning issues with socio- economic interests, some add-on effects and greater sustainability of socio-economic impacts of community-based tourism may be attained. In this manner, conservation activities will be achieved. It is expected that these factors will contribute to minimizing the potential impact of restriction of access to natural resources.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 31 3.0 PROCESS FRAMEWORK

The poorest and most vulnerable sectors of rural populations are often the most dependent on renewable natural resources for income generation and risk management strategies. Rural communities often bear direct and indirect costs from living in or near conservation areas, in terms of loss of access to resources, and damage to or loss of crops, livestock and human life caused by wildlife. To become partners in biodiversity conservation, local communities must derive sufficient benefits from it to compensate for these costs, and participate in and share responsibility for Reserve management.

If affected populations do not participate in identifying their resources, designing and agreeing on restrictions to these, and in proposing the mitigation measures, it is unlikely that they will comply with conservation plans.

This framework describes the participatory process by which:

3.1 LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Policies, laws and regulations governing local government, land rights, land use planning and terrestrial and aquatic natural resource use intersect with, and need to be consistent with, those governing wildlife.

3.1.1 The Republic of Sierra Leone Constitution (1991) Protection from Deprivation of Property (21).(1) “No property of any description shall be compulsorily taken possession of, and no interest in or right over property of any

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 32 description shall be compulsorily acquired, except where the following conditions are satisfied, that is to say-

(a) The taking of possession or acquisition is necessary in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, town and country planning, the development or utilization of any property in such a manner as to promote the public benefit or the welfare of citizens of Sierra Leone; and (b) The necessity therefore is such as to afford reasonable justification for the causing of any hardship that may result to any person having any interest in or right over the property; and (c) Provision is made by law applicable to that taking of possession or acquisition- (i) For the prompt payment of adequate compensation; and (ii) Securing to any person having an interest in or right over the property, a right to access to the court or other impartial and independent authority for the determination of his interest or right, the legality of taking of possession or acquisition of the property, interest or right, and the amount of any compensation to which he is entitled and for the purpose of obtaining prompt payment of that compensation.

3.1.2 Land Laws

The Law of Property Act 1925 forms the basis for land law. Public Land of the State is inalienable and indefeasible. Rights of occupation over public land may be granted under warrant. National public property includes water flows, lakes, ponds, and springs, islands, sandbanks and riverbanks formed in rivers, underground streams, mineral and mining deposits, navigation and irrigation channels, waterways, drainage and sewage systems, communication means, airports, telecommunication systems, power generation works for public utility, and protective devices, geodesic and topographic boundaries and landmarks, national defense works and their perimeters of protection, public monuments, and collections or objects of cultural interest belonging to the state or to a subordinate public entity.

The state has the power, conferred by the Unoccupied Lands Act, Cap 117, to take possession of unoccupied land. All land shall be deemed to be unoccupied land where it is not proved, by the person/persons claiming the same that beneficial use thereof for cultivation, inhabitation or industrial purposes, has been made for twelve years.

Other statutes relating to land are The Interpretation Act No. 8 of 1971, Public Health Act No. 23 of 1960 and Public Land Act 116.

In the Provinces, Customary Law co-exists with statute and where there is a conflict, statute takes precedence. As far as land tenure is concerned, this is governed predominantly by customary law. Land is vested in the chiefdoms and communities and can never be owned

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 33 freehold. Land always belongs to the communities under the different forms of tenure under customary law (e.g. family, communal or individual).

There are statutes like Cap 122, the Provinces Land Act, which regulates holding by non natives in the provinces. Non natives being loosely defined as those who do not have any inheritance rights in the chiefdoms. That is anyone outside the community.

In section two of the Local Courts Act, customary law is defined as “any rule or law other than the general law having the force of law in any chiefdom in the provinces”. It also provides that there is established for every chiefdom a local court authorized to administer customary law in that chiefdom. However, by most interpretations of customary law, there can exist as many variations of customary law as there are chiefdoms or ethnic communities. But with land tenure the principles of customary law cuts across ethnic differences and the most common forms are: Family Tenure, Communal Tenure and Individual Tenure.

3.1.3 Tourism Act st On February 21 1991, Sierra Leone’s Parliament passed the Development of Tourism Act 1990 which aimed ‘to make new and better provisions for the promotion and development of tourism in Sierra Leone’. This Act established the National Tourist Board (NTB) as a corporate body to be supervised by the MoTCA.

As articulated in Part II Section 9 of the Act, the general mandate of the NTB is to develop all aspects of the tourist industry in Sierra Leone, to promote its efficiency and a high international standard of facilities. The NTB is further responsible for undertaking a wide range of functions including research, experiments and operations to determine the impact of tourism policies, classifying tourist facilities including hotels, casinos and night clubs, registering and licensing of these tourist facilities, recommending the declaration of National Tourism Development Assets to the Government and providing or ensuring the provision of training for tourism industry employees, among others.

Importantly, the NTB serves as a bridge between the public and private sectors, and liaises with various institutions and key stakeholders in order to carry out its mandate effectively. Although no amendments have been made to the Act since it was approved by Parliament in 1991, critical recommendations were put forward in 2008 which indicate a pressing need to review and update the legislation.

3.1.4 Legislative and Regulatory Framework for Environmental Management

The National Environment Policy (1994) and the National Environmental Protection Act (2000), cover environmental management including environmental impact assessment. The 2008 Environmental Protection Agency Act, which repeals the former Act, established the

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 34 Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency (SLEPA) with authority for technical implementation and licensing of environmental management activities. Policies, laws and regulations governing local government, land rights, land use planning and terrestrial and aquatic natural resource use intersect with, and need to be consistent with, those governing Wetland Conservation.

3.1.5 Forestry policy-draft 2010

Sierra Leone’s Forestry and Wildlife Sector policy has been inadequate in addressing contemporary issues in forestry governance and management. The Forestry Act of 1988 remains the principal legislation guiding the management and regulation of forestry and Forest Reserves in Sierra Leone. The Wildlife Conservation Act of 1972 is the principal legislation guiding the management and regulation of wildlife and protected areas.

To date, the most complete statement of policy is the draft Forestry and Wildlife Sector Policy from 2003, which was never formally adopted by the Government of Sierra Leone (GoSL). The 2003 draft policy includes a wide-ranging pre-amble covering background issues and external sector policies that impact on forestry and wildlife but the policy statement itself is brief, covering less than twenty percent of the document and touching on general policy issues, as well as policies for community forests, private forests state forests and bio-prospecting. The main objective of the wildlife policy section was to integrate the propagation, conservation and exploitation of wild animal life and wild vegetation into the national land use policy.

The Constitution of the Republic of Sierra Leone provides that the State shall “harness all the natural resources of the nation to promote national prosperity and an efficient, dynamic and self-reliant economy” (Section 7(1)a). This policy provides one tool by which this constitutional requirement is met.

Specific policy statements and strategies within the Forestry policy find support in other relevant provisions of the Constitution. This includes Section 18, which permits restrictions on activities within forests “which is reasonably required in the interests of … conservation of the natural resources” (§18); and Section 10.D which requires “respect for international law and treaty obligations, as well as the seeking of settlement of international disputes by negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or adjudication.”

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 35 The Forestry Policy also supports strategies outlined in the Framework for Effective Management of Natural Resources, found in Section 11 of the Sierra Leone Poverty Reduction Strategy II, “Agenda for Change” (PRS II).

The Vision driving the Forestry Policy, is “An integrated forest sector that achieves sustainable, rights-based management of forests for economic, social, cultural, aesthetic, and environmental benefits for the present and future generations of Sierra Leone, and for humankind in general”

The principles sustainability, equitable economic benefits sharing and rural livelihoods improvement, public awareness creation and education, consideration of cultural heritage etc are some of the key guiding principles of the Forestry Policy.

3.1.6 National Policy and Institutional Frameworks for Natural Resource Management

The Division of Forestry is housed within the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security. The Division of Forestry is responsible for forest management and biodiversity conservation within Sierra Leone. The Division of Forestry recently reorganized at the national level into three Units, “the three C’s” to emphasis their management priorities: Conservation, Commercial and Community.

The Forestry Act of 1988 is the primary basis for law that guides forest management in Sierra Leone. In 2008, development, exploitation and trade reforms were introduced with Cabinet approval of regulations. The reforms standardize the processes and guidelines for leasing Community and Forest Reserve forests, issuing logging permits, use of stumpage fees, benefit sharing from forest exploitation, transportation of forest products, urban tree management services, export permits, import of chain saws and sawmills, registration of timber and wood product enterprises, and establishes a Conservation Trust Fund.

The Environmental Protection Act of 2000 created the National Environment Protection Board which is charged with coordination of all environmental programming between Ministries, agencies and local authorities. The Act also identified the need for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for certain projects, and provides guidelines for the scope of the EIA. In 2008, legislation created the Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency (SLEPA) through which overall responsibility for environmental management was allocated.

3.1.7 Conservation and Wildlife Policy-draft 2010

The main objective of the wildlife policy section was to integrate the propagation, conservation and exploitation of wild animal life and wild vegetation into the national land use policy.

This Conservation and Wildlife Policy supports application of three sections of the constitution of the Republic of Sierra Leone:

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 36 1. Section 7. (1) a. “ harness all the natural resources of the nation to promote national prosperity and an efficient, dynamic and self-reliant economy ”. 2. Section 18. (1) 3 a. concerning restrictions on freedom of movement “which is reasonably required in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health or the conservation of the natural resources, such as mineral, marine, forest and other resources of Sierra Leone, except in so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society ”. 3. Section 10. d. concerning Foreign Policy Objectives “ respect for international law and treaty obligations, as well as the seeking of settlement of international disputes by negotiation, conciliation, arbitration or adjudication .

The Conservation and Wildlife Policy supports the second national Poverty Reduction Strategy 2008-2012, “ an Agenda for change ” Section 11 “Framework for Effective Management of Natural Resources” which commits to “Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss”. In addition the following sections are addressed by this policy:

3.1.7.1 Tourism and Economic Development:

“The major asset for the development of the tourism industry in Sierra Leone is the country's natural beauty ... the biodiversity of the forest reserves and protected areas within the country bear potential for development, which remains untapped”;

3.1.7.2 Land Management and the Environment:

“The Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency will] Act in liaison and cooperation with Government agencies, local councils and other bodies and institutions to ... promote studies, research, surveys and analyses for the improvement and protection of the environment and the maintenance of a sound ecological system ... promote effective planning in the management of the environment ... establish a data bank on natural resources management and utilization”

3.1.7.3 Enhancing the Contribution of Forestry to Economic and Social Development:

“Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and program and reverse the loss of environmental resources ... there is an urgent need to conserve the remaining natural rainforests, the Government will also explore possibilities for investment in sustainable financing mechanisms, for example through carbon markets and trading schemes, under the current and future Climate Change protocols, as well as by signing up to future Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) programmes”.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 37 3.1.8 The Legislative and Regulatory Framework for Natural Resources Management

Policies and laws designed to foster the conservation and national management of natural resources date back to the colonial era. In the 1960’s most of these laws were incorporated into the laws of Sierra Leone. The military interregnum in 1992, of the National Provisional Ruling Council (NPRC) saw some of these laws replaced by decrees.

Legislation dealing with biological diversity can be classified under three categories. (g) Laws dealing with Agro-biological diversity; (h) Laws dealing with Forestry Biological Diversity; and (i) Laws dealing with coastal and marine Biological diversity.

There is no specific legislation for the protection and Conservation of biological diversity as a whole. The provinces Land Act Cap 122 of the laws of Sierra Leone 1960 on Land Tenure, the Wildlife Act of 1972, the Forestry Act of 1988 and the Fisheries Management and Development Act of 1996 form the current basis for the conservation of biological diversity in Sierra Leone. Some of the provisions of these legislations are insufficient, obsolete and above all, the institutions set up to implement the legislation lack manpower capacity to effectively implement the provisions contained therein.

In 1990, the Wildlife Conservation (Amendment) Act was passed. It was captioned “Being an Act to Amend the Wildlife Conservation Act of 1972”. The amendment merely relates to definition of terms, modifications and qualifications. For instance section 25 of the Wildlife Act of 1972 prohibits hunting of elephants in prohibited forest reserves only where as section 7 of the wildlife (Amendment) Act of 1990 prohibits hunting elephants in any forests, protected areas or National Parks without the written permission of the Chief Conservator. Further, the 1990 wildlife (Amendment) Act provided for the change of name from the Forestry Department to Forestry Division. Despite these minor amendments, the 1972 wildlife Conservation Act and the Forestry Act of 1988 are still regarded as the substantive legislations on forest biological diversity in Sierra Leone.

Legislations relating to biological resources have traditionally been split amongst a number of statutes, many of them covering other materials with little to do with the area of conservation. However, this is undoubtedly changing as the international concern and political importance for the conservation of natural resources has gained momentum. This is substantiated by the enactment of the Environmental Protection Act of 2000 in which an attempt is made to make provision for the effective protection of the environment and the institutional and administrative machinery for its implementation.

Responsibility for wildlife conservation is housed within the Forestry Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security. The Division of Forestry is responsible for forest management and biodiversity conservation within Sierra Leone and was recently reorganized at the national level into three technical Units, “the three C’s” to emphasis their management priorities: Conservation, Commercial and Community.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 38

Current wildlife legislation is widely recognized as out of date. The Wildlife Conservation Act of 1972 does not reflect the great advances in biodiversity conservation in the last forty years, nor international obligations. Draft wildlife conservation regulations of 1997 were not promulgated and also do not reflect modern conservation requirement. Given that wildlife management is currently part of the forestry sector, Forestry legislation is important, but again the Forestry Act of 1988 and its implementing Regulations of 1990 are not compatible with modern forest or wildlife management. As described in Section 1 a combined draft forestry and wildlife sector policy was prepared in 2003, but was never adopted.

3.1.9 Institutional Responsibilities and Capacities

The conservation and management of biological diversity in Sierra Leone currently cuts across several sector Ministries, Divisions and Units-including the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security; the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources; the Ministry of Lands County Planning and the Environment, the University of Sierra Leone and several Non-Governmental Organizations. The Institutions have different capacities but generally lack trained manpower, and equipment to execute their mandates. Other institutions with indirect responsibilities for the conservation of biological diversity include the Ministries of Finance, Tourism; Economic Planning and Development, Transport and Communications; Energy and Power and Mineral Resources.

Several International and National Non-Governmental Organizations have an indirect bearing on the environment. However, it is only the Conservation Society of Sierra Leone that directly carries out conservation of biological diversity activities.

The main institutions that will be involved in the implementation of the LMNP Management Plan, which will include this process framework will be:

• FD, ( park management team, rangers etc) • The BCP Project Management team, add description and responsibilities

3.1.10 Local Government Act 2004

Section 20. (1) A local council shall be the highest political authority in the locality and shall have legislative and executive powers to be exercised in accordance with this Act or any other enactment, and shall be responsible, generally for promoting the development of the locality and the welfare of the people in the locality with the resources at its disposal and with such resources and capacity as it can mobilise from the central government and its agencies, national and international organisations, and the private sector.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), it shall be the function of a local council to:

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 39 (a) Mobilise the human and material resources necessary for the overall development and welfare of the people of the locality; (b) Promote and support productive activity and social development in the locality; (c) Initiate and maintain programmes for the development of basic infrastructure and provide works and services in the locality; (d) Be responsible for the development, improvement and management of human settlements and the environment in the locality; (e) Initiate, draw up and execute development plans for the locality; (f) Coordinate and harmonise the execution of programmes and projects promoted or carried out by public corporations, other statutory bodies and non-governmental organisations, in the locality; (g) Cooperate with relevant agencies to ensure the security of the locality; (h) Oversee Chiefdom Councils in the performance of functions delegated to them by the local council; (i) Determine the rates of local tax;

Section 31. (1) There shall be a Local Council Chief Administrator for each local council who shall be appointed by the local council after consulting the Commission. (2) The Local Council Chief Administrator shall be the secretary to the local council and the head of the administration of the local council.

3.1.11 International Conventions

Sierra Leone has ratified a range of international treaties and obligations that affect the biodiversity conservation, though in most cases national legislation does not reflect these instruments. Sierra Leone is party to various regional and international treaties and agreements related to forestry.

International conventions include: • The Convention on Biological Diversity; • Convention on International Trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (CITES); • Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention); • Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention); • United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; • United Nations convention to Combat Desertification; • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;

Regional Agreements include:

• Convention for Co-operation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central African Region; • Convention Establishing a Permanent Inter-state Committee for the Control of Drought in the Sahel;

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 40 • African Convention on Nature and Natural Resources; • Mano River Declaration; • Memorandum of Understanding concerning Conservation Measures for Marine Turtles of the Atlantic Coast of Africa; • Memorandum of Understanding concerning Conservation Measures for the West African Populations of the African Elephant;

Sierra Leone expresses its intention to sign, ratify and implement two additional international conservation agreements relating to migratory species:

• Convention on Migratory Species (CMS or Bonn Convention) • Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds

See Annex 6: Summary of International/Regional Treaties and their implementation.

As well as meeting formal international obligations, this policy will seek to apply international best practice in wildlife conservation. The last twenty years has seen an explosion of experience in implementing wildlife conservation in developing countries, with many documented approaches and outcomes. Analysis of success, failure and a range of outcomes in between, has led to a body of accessible best practice consensus which is applied in this policy.

3.2 Identification of Stakeholders and Project Affected Persons

3.2.1 Identifiable Stakeholder Groups

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 41

Stakeholder Analysis:

Table 3 : Identification of Stakeholder Groups, Their Interests, Importance and Influence

Stakeholder Groups Interest(s) Effect Importance of Stakeholder for Degree of Influence of at Stake of Project on Success of Project Stakeholder over Project in Relation to Project Interest(s) U – Unknown U – Unknown 1 – Little/No Importance 1 – Little/No Influence + 0 - 2 – Some Importance 2 – Some Influence 3 – Moderate Importance 3 – Moderate Influence 4 – Very Important 4 – Significant Influence 5 – Crucial Player 5 – Crucial Player General public: those who are directly or indirectly Jobs and employment creation, livelihoods + affected by the project (women’s groups, protection and enhancement 5 5 individuals and families, indigenous groups, religious groups)

Government: civil servants in the relevant Implementation of Government programmes + ministries, cabinets, etc and projects 4 4

Representative assemblies : elected governme nt Government Policy dissemination, enforcement + bodies (parliament, national and local of laws, revenue generation and tax collection assemblies, district and municipal assemblies, 5 5 paramount chiefs, traditional leaders, elected community leaders

Civil society organizations: networks, national and Community interest protection, biodiversity + international NGOs, grassroots conservation, land use rights etc organizations, trade unions, policy development 3 3 and research institutes, media, community based organizations.

Private sector: umbrella groups representing groups Development of Tourism facilities such as within the private sector, professional hotels, restaurants,entertainment spots,etc 2 2 associations, chambers of commerce. +

Traditonal Authorities, Paramount Chiefs, Chiefs Community improvement and grievance issues + 5 5 Donor and International financial Institutions Compliance with Policies and safeguard issues + 4 4

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 42

3.2.2 Project Affected Persons

It is estimated that the total population in the Loma Mountain area in the Neini and Neya chiefdoms is approximately 72,533 6 (Source, Koinadugu District Statistics Office). Details of the population in the two beneficiary and affected chiefdoms of the Loma Mountain National Park and its surrounding areas is as presented below:

Table 4: Population: Neya Chiefdom Section

Neya Chiefdom Sections Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Sections Valid Kulor 3130 9.4 9.4 9.4 Neya I 10148 30.4 30.4 39.7 Neya II 6944 20.8 20.8 60.5 Nyedu 6015 18 18 78.5 Saradu 7189 21.5 21.5 100 Total 33426 100 100

Table 5: Population: Neini Chiefdom Section

Neini Chiefdom Sections Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Sections Valid Barawa 6197 15.8 15.8 15.8 Kalian 13931 35.6 35.6 51.5 Sumbaria 6228 15.9 15.9 67.4 Wollay 3017 7.7 7.7 75.1 Yiffin 9734 24.9 24.9 100 Total 39107 100 100

Table 6: Summary of Population in LMNP Reserve

LMNP Reserve Area Estimated Population

Total of Two Chiefdoms 72,533

The primary stakeholders are the affected communities, especially those in the immediate vicinity of the LMNP boundaries, who are considered highly important to the LMNPP outcomes but who have little real influence over these. They are the main social focus of LMNP management plans, district development plans and the Park Development and Management. Secondary and external stakeholders have greater influence over the

6 See table in Appendix A.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 43 outcomes of the Park Development and Management, and over what primary stakeholders will gain or lose as a result of planning and implementing them. Thus the affected communities themselves are the ones who are least influential with the highest interests in the Park Development and Management results, while government and NGOs that are variously influential and with varying interests in the outcomes of the Park Development and Management are mostly secondary and external stakeholders. Secondary and primary stakeholders will be those involved as implementing agencies and beneficiaries respectively in the LMNP development and management plan.

3.2.2.1 Traditional leaders There are 5 sections in the Neini Chiefdom. These are Yiffin, Kallian, Siradu, Wollay and Barawah sections. There about 150 villages. The estimated current population of the Chiefdom as at May 2011as revealed by the Paramount Chief during a focus group interview as well as key informant interviews, ranges between 46,000-50,000 comprising of female 52% and male about 48%. The main ethnic group Korankos. There are some minorities Temnes.

Involvement of Traditional Authorities in the LMNP Management

There is no formal involvement of the chiefs in the management of the LMFR though the resources in the reserve are in the custody of the Paramount Chiefs. It is very important to get the traditional authorities involve in the management of the LMNP by putting the relevant structures in place for decision making and participation in the management of the park.

Other areas that the Paramount Chiefs think Chiefs can be involved in the management of the LMNP are:

• The P.Cs. and traditional authorities should be involved as PRO’s between their subjects and the project management teams. • Community sensitization and training, particularly in wildlife ecology; • Development of alternative livelihood for the communities • Provision of community development projects such as roads, guest houses, schools, conservation education, fuel-wood collection, bee keeping etc • Controlling of wild fire Description of roles and responsibilities of the mammy queen Womens groups in the area Youth groups Significance of the LMNP

It is the main source of income for the development in the communities within the chiefdom and if properly managed it will give rise to a boom in the ecotourism sector.

Suggestions for Improving the LMNP Management

• Government should put a premium on the Loma Mountain due to its economic viability to the chiefdom and the entire country.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 44 • The project should provide employment opportunities to the youth and other skilled people. • Maintain the cultural heritage (history and traditional dance) of the people. • Opening up of the chiefdom to foreigners and investors to bring in the needed developments and trade for business boom. • There should be transparency in the administration of the project; • Community development projects should concentrate on road projects considering the deplorable state of roads in the area.

A few NGO facilitators have worked with communities in the PAs in the past years. Name NGOs or government projects that work or have worked in the area. Their impact has not been very durable, but where they have collaborated with government in sanctioned participatory approaches that have been clearly organised and linked with issues of sustainability there has been more impact. During the consultation a Paramount Chiefs was of the view that NGO’s must not be involved in the management of the LMNP. It was reasoned that the NGOs bring alien priorities to the communities. The communities should be given adequate participation in the project planning and prioritization. A profile of livelihoods related factors characterising communities living in the LMNP area can be seen in Annex 2.

A screening process will be used to determine the need for environmental and social impact assessments when specific physical development activities are planned. At scoping level this process will identify communities and/or individuals directly or indirectly affected by sub- project activities. Impact assessments will detail the impacts and the exact numbers and categories of affected groups and individuals, and include or recommend mitigating actions designed via Action Plans: Community Development Action Plans, Resource Access Management Plans (RAMP) or if involuntary resettlement is unavoidable, Resettlement Action Plans (RAP).

3.3 MECHANISMS FOR PARTICIPATION

Process description for participation of displaced persons in Project Design

3.3.1 Planning Stage

Establishment and sitting of Courts for the Neya and Neini Chiefdoms, Dispute Resolution Mechanisms New Boundary survey and demarcation, Land use mapping or spatial zoning plans which define which activities in the reserves are sanctioned and which prohibited, and the implementation norms;

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 45 Development of Park Management Plan to draw together stakeholders and sectoral, local and upstream development plans in a coherent and a strategic fashion.

The ESMFs for the Bumbuna Hydro Electric Project, Sierra Leone Biodiversity Projects and the Process Framework will provide information leading to the development of overall LMNPP development. Sustainable Infrastructure facilities planning involve the key component of stakeholder identification and consultation producing resource use information that will set the scope for stakeholder consultation. Participatory production of development plans will involve stakeholder meetings at the community level through to district levels that will aim at arriving at a consensus about boundaries and permitted resource use activities.

Initially, the participatory process identifies local priorities through local stakeholders’ workshops and consultation meetings to produce EIAs and development plans. The participatory development plan formulation process will result in comprehensive development strategies for the National Park. Planning processes will be initiated in the selected areas and then to other areas as resources become available over time.

In order to be meaningful, the development plans will have to be fully owned by the key stakeholders and decision-makers: Chiefdoms, communities, district authorities and provincial governments which are assuming increasing control and responsibility for local development under Sierra Leone’s decentralization policy. The ultimate objective is for Development Plans to have a legal standing and to be fully compatible with local development plans. Community participation in plan formulation should be simple, not replicated in other planning process, but instead be integrated and complementary to them. The formulation of Development Plans should involve communities and all district stakeholders from relevant sectors as well as some key stakeholders from provincial level.

3.3.2 Implementation of Development Plans

Expected results of this phase of the LMNP, survey and delineation of revised boundary and Process Framework Preparation is the constitution and declaration of the Loma Mountains National Park by Parliament and attribution of different resource use restrictions in the Loma Mountains Forest Reserve Area. These will be defined and implemented via the core Park management plan. Community participation in the decision-making processes

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 46 concerning their future use and access to local natural resources is expected to ensure their buy-in, and through a capacity building processes their active participation in gaining benefits from these changes. Thus affected communities are expected to participate in the identification and implementation of priority projects identified under the LMNP Project.

3.3.3 Communication Strategy

Communication is the basis for creating awareness, for consensus building, for generating participation in processes of change and development, for making informed decisions and for resolving conflicts. A communication strategy at community level should focus on:

The need to ensure access to information for all local stakeholder groups; The need to strengthen the ability of all stakeholders to articulate, disseminate information and make their own decisions.

The main social groups targeted by the communication strategy will become involved in activities that promote their socio-economic development. The strategy should initially create awareness among communities about the LMNP project and opportunities associated with it, the planning processes, eligibility and options for participating in development activities. The communication campaign should consist of groups listening, seeing, discussing and analysing among themselves what they should do in relation to processes (such as boundary survey and delineation, selection of access points to the Loma Reserve, sites selection for infrastructure facilities, tourism development options, etc) and opportunities presented. They will be gradually encouraged to take up certain options or entitlements according to the Park Development and Management Plan, or to make requests for assistance with specific development activities.

By choosing certain entitlements as part of the projects selection and development planning process, groups will effectively be beginning to buy into the LMNP development programme. Eligibility criteria for social groups should be transmitted as part of the communication campaign. Criteria might include whether they are affected by the project, geographical quotas, gender criteria, and evidence of commitment in similar undertakings. These kinds of criteria can ensure transparency and equal opportunity.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 47 Facilitators or intermediaries from local government and outsourced from NGOs and / or the private sector should assist in this process. Non-government facilitators may be recruited locally, trained in interpersonal communication and facilitation.

By combining a communication approach with a focus on livelihoods development, household livelihood security can be promoted and activities to develop early warning systems of difficulties developed. Redress would focus on improving the resilience of vulnerable groups. This might involve programmes which focus on: networking links with small and medium enterprises opportunities, income generating skills acquisition, reproductive health awareness raising, institutional development and empowerment. Most livelihood promotion activities focus on the longer-term and tend to use participatory methodologies and an empowerment philosophy.

The institutional arrangements for communicating concerns to the project authorities and receiving feedback will follow the same channels as those established for grievance procedures as described in section 3.6.

3.3.4 Community Participation

Community participation throughout developments planning and implementation should at a minimum consist of: Individual consultation with local influence or opinion leaders and recognised traditional authorities; use of participatory methods such as participatory rural appraisal (PRA) to identify local resources, mobility and existing resource use management, ranking importance and management preferences, locating and mapping land-use boundaries, and verifying customary procedures for decision- making and land use for cultivation and management of resources etc. A communication strategy for inputs that supply information about the objectives of the project, planning procedures, opportunities and eligibility to participate in different livelihood development activities, and grievance communication mechanisms. Consultation at group level with project affected people to raise awareness about the participatory planning processes and objectives of the project, explain policy and procedures for spatial planning and Process Framework (PF) and build trust in the participatory process. Establishment of Community Planning and Development Forums (CPDF) in affected communities in the LMNP area (including representatives from village councils or committees where these already exist) related to the management of the LMNP, and support the establishment of Consultative Councils (CC) for development planning where community representatives interact with local government. Building capacity of community planning and development councils in use of communication methods, identification of assets, opportunities and constraints to local resource use, identification and assessment of the adverse impacts of

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 48 restrictions on resource use, definition of scope of restrictions, identification of criteria for who is eligible for mitigation assistance, identification of appropriate mitigation actions, livelihoods development project identification and prioritisation and proposal formulation, the identification of monitoring indicators, counselling, managing information and monitoring. Building capacity of communities and private companies to enable them to interface better with one another in ways that generate community cooperation and benefits. Participatory processes should involve PRA methods, consensus decision-making or voting as appropriate, efforts to work with social groups (men, women, youth, elderly, leaders, etc.) separately to ensure they can express their own needs and priorities without inhibitions, use of interest groups drawn from territorially diverse locations to make consultative groups more representative, continuously improve representativeness and equitable attribution of benefits or rights to participation in livelihoods support activities. Consultation should be carried out regularly through annual planning and evaluation activities at community and interest group levels to verify progress. Monitoring through community structures linked to local authorities and communities development planning Coordinators should listen to, verify and respond to grievances as entitlements are understood and taken up or as they change over time. District and local government teams, LMNP Park manager and rangers should be involved in progress and impact monitoring as a joint learning process. The status of vulnerable groups should be regularly monitored through consultation.

Community participation in district development planning is in the process of becoming institutionalised. The decentralized district development planning guidelines being promoted by the Ministry of Local Government clearly demonstrate the roles and responsibilities of community and local government institutions involved. Although this instrument is specifically orientated towards local investment planning, it is important that this legalised model for community dialogue with local government authorities through consultative councils and community forums is taken into account in establishing community level participation structures. This model, currently being implemented in most of the northern and central provinces of the country, depends on the participation of NGOs to provide capacity building assistance.

For viability reasons, preparation and implementation of LMNP development plans must be complementary to this approach at all levels, but particularly at community level. LMNP development plans themselves will complement and share elements (such as the spatial development / physical planning component) with district development plans. As implementation of the national programme for decentralized district planning is expanded, so its alignment and incorporation of elements of other plans for using scarce resources will be required - in the most coherent and efficient manners.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 49 All community consultation and planning groups established in support of LMNP activities will be involved in receiving individual or group grievances. These local structures will be assisted through the communication campaign to learn where to channel the information for redress (see details in section 3.6 below).

3.4 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY OF PROJECT AFFECTED PERSONS FOR ASSISTANCE

If access to resources is limited or stopped as a consequence of this project, the first step in preparing compensation and other mitigation measures is to identify who are the project affected persons, which could be entire communities. Project affected persons are those who depend on access to the resources to maintain their standard of living. These persons/communities will be determined by a participatory rural appraisal (PRA) process. This diagnosis will serve as a point of reference to determine who the PAPs are at the project outset. It is critically important also to determine the identities and number of people/communities who depend for their livelihood on economic resources in the conservation areas.

Potentially affected communities will be involved in identifying any adverse impacts, assessing of the significance of impacts, and establishing of the criteria for eligibility for any mitigating or compensation measures necessary.

Incentives and mechanisms are needed to encourage participation in the co-management of the natural resources. In order to promote the participation of the affected community, the following participatory processes should be considered: - The project should enter into an agreement with the community on the clear terms and conditions for the implementation and management of the conservation of the project taking cognizance of their needs at the local level and anticipated benefits; - The involvement of the community people in the project implementation and management ; - Provision of a voluntary services scheme under the project. - The socio economic challengesof the women in the conservation areas is their concern. The women therefore expect support to the community in terms of food security, health care service, education, communications- cel phone network, mosque and churches, and provision of benefits to the community in terms of community infrastructure. • Interaction among local leaders, village chiefs, officials and the poor and marginalized groups in the project area. • Mechanisms to be set up in the project to disseminate information to channel any grievances of the community members.

3.4.1 Identification of PACs in and around LM Area

3.4.1.1 Loma Mountains Non Hunting Forest Reserve Loma Mountains comprise the northernmost outlying forest in Sierra Leone, and the largest area of montane forest in the country. Bintumani peak is the highest in West Africa. The

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 50 Loma Mountain range has a rich bird fauna, quite different from that of the lowland forests such as Gola.

3.4.1.2 General description

Loma mountains forest reserve is found in the Nieni and Neya Chiefdoms in the Koinadugu District, Northern Province, about 346 km northeast of Freetown.

The forest reserve is found on a range of hills of wide altitudinal range (400 – 1900 m), the highest being Bintimani Mountain (1945 m), which is the highest in West Africa, west of Cameroon. Many rivers drain the mountain range and two of Sierra Leone's major rivers have their sources from this region; the Sewa to the southwest and Rokel to the northwest.

The reserve encompasses a wide range of habitats. The vegetation consists of montane evergreen forest up to 1680m, with montane grassland and gallery forest at the plateau and wooded savanna at lower altitudes. Forest trees are of great variety and include species of Piptadenia, Carapa, Fagara, Afzelia, Bombax, Parkia, Terminalia and Uapaca . In the savanna regions, there is a dominance of tall grass species of Chasmopodium, Andropogon and Hyparrhenia . The common savanna tree species are Parkia biglobosa , Pterocarpus erinaceus , Lophira alata , Bauhinia thonningii , Cassia sieberiana and Crossopteryx febrifuga . The area records an annual rainfall of between 2286mm and 2540mm. Temperatures show slight variation with season; mean daily values lie between 15-32 0C in the dry season, and 19-26 0C in the wet season. Relative humidity at 1500h varies between 38% and 77% annually. The Loma mountain range is founded on Precambrian - Birrimian granite that underlies half of the country.

3.4.1.3 Conservation Issues

Government Policy and Gazettement

Government gazetted the area as a forest reserve in 1930 and the status was upgraded to a non-hunting forest reserve in 1973. There is a plan by the Forestry Division to declare the reserve a national park, and this is supported by a wider proposal put forward to Global Environmental Facility (GEF), through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for the protection of biodiversity in Sierra Leone (2003c). The reserve lacks appropriate law enforcement as a result of poor access and low staff morale. No clear-cut reserve boundary currently exists. However, under the proposed establishment of the Loma Mountains National Park, boundary demarcation exercises are ongoing.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 51 3.4.2 Social Economic Conditions

3.4.2.1 Demography

Koinadugu District is by far the largest district in Sierra Leone and with an estimated population of 265,765. The major ethnic groups in the district are the Mandingo (who predominate in the district's largest city of Kabala), Kuranko, Fula and Limba and Yalunka (predominant in Musaia and Falaba areas) Areas bordering the republic of Guinea (Conakry).

Kulor, Neya 1, Neya II, Nyedu and Saradu are the main Sections in the Neya Chiefdom. As per the 2004 Population Census, the population of the Neya and Neini Chiefdoms are 33,426 and 39,107 respectively. The main sections in the Neini Chiefdom are the Barawa, Kalian, Sumbaria, Wollay and Yiffin, which is the chiefdom capital.

3.4.2.2 Population of Affected Communities

See Annex 2: Socio-Economic Baseline Survey Report-Appendix 1

Korankos are polygamous and family units/households can be extensive and occupy more than one house. In one village visited, one male individual stated that he had 7 wives and 14 children with 4 houses occupied. Such a family/household gives a figure of 5.5 individuals per house. The results of the 2004 Census (Statistics Sierra Leone, 2006) gives an average household size for Koinadugu District (where all the villages are located) of 6.1 individuals

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 52 per household. However, a previous Bumbuna Hydro-electric Project, Project Implementation Unit study (2008) based on a survey of three ’northern’ villages (Bandakarfaia, Sinikoro, and Bumbukoro) gives a mean household size of about 11 individuals. The Environmental Impact Assessment Report for the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project (Nippon Koei UK, BMT Cordah Ltd and the Environmental Foundation or Africa, 2005) states that a survey of villages in the vicinity of the dam/reservoir (also a rural area and with a mix of Limba and Koranko villages) showed that the average household size was 7.6 individuals per household. Given the uncertainty involved, estimates of population are presented as a range based on 6 and 9 individuals per household respectively.

Using data on the number of houses it is possible to provide reasonably credible ranges for population estimates. Due to the considerable uncertainties in the calculations, the absolute numbers are not presented as being ‘correct’. It is the differences between the estimates that is of more relevance and interest.

Again dividing the Loma Reserve into the same quadrants, the following population figures were obtained (See Table 7).

Table 7: Population Estimates by Quadrant

Quadrant Population Range 6 individuals per household 9 individuals per household S/SW 2,820 4,230 N/NW 3048 4,572 Sub-total 5,868 8,802 S/SE 3054 4,581 N/NE 3060 4,608 Sub-total 6114 9189 Total 11,982 17,991 Source: Loma Mountain Boundary Survey Report, May 2010

The population figures indicate that there is less of a difference in population numbers between, broadly, the western and eastern ‘sides’ of the Reserve than would be expected despite the considerable disparity in the number of villages in these areas (See Table 1). Basically, there are fewer villages on the western side, but the villages are larger. There are only 4% more people on the eastern ‘side’ compared to the western ‘side’.

At present, it is estimated that approximately 2,976 to 4,468 people are living within the Reserve (25% of the total for all 25 villages) and approximately 1,728 to 2,592 people are living on/very close the boundary (14.5% of the total). Therefore, approximately 39.5% of the population is either located in the Reserve or living on/very close to the boundary. Again, these numbers help explain the evidence of human encroachment on the Reserve resources.

In the future, the numbers inhabiting the villages is likely to grow. It is expected that most, if not all, villages are characterized by a fairly balanced sex ratio. This assumption is based on data, obtained by the Bumbuna Hydro-electric Project, Project Implementation Unit (2008), for the three ‘northern’ villages surveyed. The survey showed that there were marginally more females (50.3%) than males (49.7%) a sex ratio which contrasts markedly with other rural areas which have seen an exodus of young men, to the towns and cities, leaving many villages with significantly more females than males.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 53

Also, village discussions revealed that a few of the villages were ‘founded’ by people from nearby villages (Yalba and Brukuma) due to water shortages or availability of better agricultural land. There is a small risk that new villages in the future may be founded within/near to the Reserve boundary.

What about internal migration, are men/women moving to other sities in search of mining realted jobs?

3.4.2.3 Access and Facilities

3.4.2.4 Education and Health Facilities There about 40 primary schools and 6 secondary schools in the Neini Chiefdom. There are about 500 teachers in the schools in the area.

The Chiefdom has Seven (7) Health Care Centers with only one (1) Community Health Officer and seven (7) Supervising Nurses. The sources of water for the communities are from Bore Holes (30), Streams (120) and Gravity Water Supply for 4 communities(Source: Neini Chiefdom Paramouncy ) Source? Road conditions are very poor and accessibility in many of the communities is only seasonal.

The main food crops are rice, groundnut, cassava, cocoyam, potatoes and beans. Coffee and cocoa are the main cash crops. Vegetable crops are pepper, garden eggs and tomatoes. Gold and Blackstones (iron ore) mining are some other non-agriculture activities in the chiefdom. Land ownership status is communal. Enough land is available for farming in the chiefdom.

3.4.2.5 Importance of the LMFR The LMFR is the main source of bushmeat-hunting (60%) and fish (30%). Domestic sheep/goats provides about 10% of the community people protein needs. The supply trend of bushmeat in the communities is declining due to the enforcement of laws prohibiting hunting in the Loma mountain forest reserveThe main source of energy for cooking and lighting is wood collected from the bush. There are local bye-laws regulating the LMFR but it has not been codified. Which laws? Are this laws in the legal framework?

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 54 3.4.3 Potential Impacts of the LMNP Project

Project strategy recognizes the need to address social priorities in order to achieve conservation objectives. Villages and communities adjacent to the conservation sites are extremely poor and often lacking access to basic social infrastructure such as schools, health centers, drinking water, etc. Many villages are physically isolated, especially during the rainy season, and income-generating opportunities are often absent. This leads to pressure on the accessible natural resources from slash-and-burn agriculture, wood harvesting for domestic use, use of non-timber forest products and hunting. While local communities are aware of the restrictions imposed by the establishment of the conservation sites, and recognize the importance of supporting conservation objectives, basic livelihood alternatives need to be developed and supported in order to compensate for losses incurred due to the restriction of access to resources and further strengthen support for conservation. Consequently, the project will actively engage communities and traditional authorities in preparing and implementing conservation management plans, as well as in evaluating the overall impact of project activities. In particular, local communities will play a key role in identifying and quantifying threats to wildlife and natural resources, stakeholder mapping, surveys, training workshops, and outreach programs, and will be represented in the Conservation Site Management Committees, which will endorse site plans at the local level.

The status of the small number of human settlements adjacent to the project sites will be verified in the early stages of implementation when boundaries will be confirmed and demarcated. As an alternative to relocation, the Forestry Division is assessing the possibility of regularizing settlements and zoning conservation areas in accordance with plans that will be agreed with local communities. In the event that resettlement is considered to be the optimal course of action, it will be carried out in accordance with the Process Framework.

The entire project constitutes an environmental mitigation and management plan. It has been designed and will be implemented in a participatory manner in order to build capacity to address specific threats to the ecological integrity of the Loma Mountain Forest Reserve. It will also benefit from the BCP to share best practice with managers and other stakeholders at other priority conservation sites, thereby leading to mitigation or prevention of existing or potential impacts on Biodiversity conversation in Sierra Leone. Threats include loss of natural ecosystems or key species, as well as destruction and disturbance of habitats. The project will involve local communities and other stakeholders, including traditional authorities, in the preparation and endorsement of site specific plans, and interventions will include support for community development activities that are linked with conservation objectives. The project will also build awareness at the national and district levels of the needs and opportunities to mitigate or pre-empt threats to priority habitats or species in regional development planning.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 55 3.4.3.1 Economic Effects

An obvious positive effect of national park designation is the potential availability of direct government funds for the establishment and running of respectively, a National Park and the management body. There is also potential for additional special funding initiatives associated with issues or activities within the Park. For example, a Sustainable Development Fund which encourages community-based sustainable development projects could be set up under the LMNP Project.

The economic effects of national park establishment are generally positive though studies on the negative effects are infrequent. The positive effects include:

• Effects on property values; • Increases in numbers of tourists, increased visitation by visitors and people recreating and concomitant tourist/visitor spend.

Providing research and information services to the Wildlife and Forestry Division of MAFFS: • Employment associated with management of the National Park and visitor Services; • Direct government expenditure in support of the establishment and running of the National Park Authority.

The economic impacts of visitors to national parks fall into three main areas: • Direct expenditure on travel, eating (guest house, cafes, restaurants etc.), accommodation and the service sector (entertainment, guided walks, cultural dance shows, handicrafts etc.); • Indirect expenditure by businesses from purchasing, transportation, training etc. • “Induced’ effects from the injection and cycling of visitor income through the local economy in and adjacent to the LMNP (e.g. increased expenditure by the catering sector).

Typically the LMNP Management would be allocated an operational budget which would be spent primarily in the local economy, conservation work, countryside recreation, management and access work, fuel, vehicles and office-running costs.

3.4.3.2 Planning

In respect to the issue of planning within a proposed Loma Mountains National Park it is likely that a LMNP Management may have a role that may not involve a day-to-day planning administration and enforcement. In a situation, in which the LMNP Management has only a statutory consultee role in development proposals, the ability of the LMNP Management to positively influence planning decisions will be limited. In opposing development proposals the LMNP Managementwould have a more high profile and public role in the interests of park protection .

3.4.3.3 Impacts on Property Values

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 56 A considerable body of evidence indicates that designation of a National Park would increase property values. This is due to the fact that prices tend to be increased where the property has a view of the coast, mountain, river, lake or park. However, the impact on prices is likely to be related to whether or not the property market is already well-developed in the area. In addition the degree of increase will be dependent on the ‘desirability’ of the area as a place to live, to invest, or have a second home in.

3.4.3.4 Impacts on Housing Stock/Affordability

An issue of concern to respondents to the national park consultation was in relation to affordability of housing and the associated likelihood that local people would be unable to afford to live within a National Park and would be forced to live adjacent to it, typically in neighbouring towns and villages. In addition to the potential increases and unaffordability of existing or newly built properties, the restrictive policies on development within park boundaries (in the interests of landscape protection) also has the effect of reducing the availability of affordable housing within the park boundaries.

It is likely that a serious shortage of affordable housing within LMNP area may have a particularly acute effect on young people and key workers.

3.4.3.5 Impacts of Traffic and Roads

The consultation highlighted that a large number of respondents felt that increased visitors to the LMNP are would have a detrimental impact, arguing that ‘the existing infrastructure is poor and neither roads nor hotels are adequate to cater for increased numbers. There is a need to ensure the provision of facilities adequate for the demand, and located to guide visitors to where there is capacity, or capacity can be provided.

This potential impact is a significant negative impact at various park areas. In many cases, the level of impact is dependent on the current infrastructure and pressures prior to designation as a national park. It is understood that conferring national parks status will serve to increase the number of visitors considerably. The main increase in visitors will be associated with people seeking easy access to particular natural attractions, and the increased traffic associated with formal tours and tour packages being attracted to the area. It is very often the case that key features are going to act as the key attractants in visits. The provision of adequate road networks and parking facilities to, at and from major attractions is important in design and management considerations.

For National Parks such as the proposed LMNP, traffic management plans and the National Parks officers group has to develop an accord with the Provincial and District Surveyors agreeing the following principles: • Transport planning for the national parks should be undertaken strategically;

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 57 • Transport to, within and across the LMNP should be integrated; • Traffic management measures in the LMNP should make the best use of the road network, through the development and implementation of a local road hierarchy; • Public transport should be actively developed and promoted; • Non-motorised modes of transport should be actively developed and promoted; • A parking strategy should be develop, covering visitors and resident parking issues • There should be a jointly agreed local transport strategy.

3.4.3.6 Impacts of the Built Environment and Heritage The protection of the landscape and its nature conservation interest at the heart of the rationale for National Park designation. The designation brings a local focus and generates a deeper appreciation of the natural environment by local communities and, via the management authority, enhanced levels of protection of the environment are central to park management plans.

Opportunities for support for meeting specific park management objectives may be available. The designation of National Park may increase the emphasis on habitat management or restoration within sites with additional designations, than within areas outwith the national park.

A potentially negative impact of designation is that associated with increased visitation pressure which can lead to environmental damage, indirect problems (e.g. disturbance to species). Consequently LMNP Authorities need to recognise the importance of nature conservation in their management plan and ensure that this work is adequately resourced. The built heritage is often an important component within a national park. The designation and land use policies within the national park plan would be expected to provide improved protection for the built heritage and a greater incentive to maintain vernacular buildings. The use of traditional building skills and often locally sourced materials has resulted in retention of local traditional skills and employment.

3.4.3.7 Agricultural Impacts Communities near the Loma Mountain Forest Reserve areas are predominated by landscapes which have farming cottages which are on marginal land and relatively remote from markets.

The possibility of utilising the National Park brand for increasing the value of agricultural produce through attracting a premium is another potential positive impact of designation for the agricultural and associated (e.g. food processing) sectors. If effective schemes are put in place to link the National Park brand with quality control processes and promotion, there is widespread evidence of the commercial gains which can be made through branding.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 58

Table 8: Summary of Potential Positive and Negative Impacts Associated with the Establishment of the Loma Mountains National Park

Potential Positive Impacts Both Positive and Negative Impacts Impact Negative Impacts Area Tourism Increased visitors Replacement of Traffic congestion traditional jobs by Development tourism related jobs pressures associated (possibly seasonal). with tourist Tourism jobs often low infrastructure. paid and seasonal. Increasing number of Possible attraction of second homes. tourists from non- National Park areas. Agriculture Potential for new agric- Possible incentives for Increased pressure for environment schemes or special access ad recreation access and recreation scheme with National Park provision Management of visitors access issues. Use of National Park ‘brand’ for marketing purposes. Opportunities in agri-tourism.

Employment in countryside management Natural Landscape conservation Potential effects of Heritage Maintenance of biodiversity tourism on and Built conservation of built heritage biodiversity. Heritage potential for increased resourcing Possible impacts of for preservation of local buildings visitor pressure on (for tourism purposes). buildings/visited sites Access and Incentives to increase access Pressure on access recreation including funding for access and sites. recreational projects. Potential conflicts with Increase in recreational visitors landowners. Inability to manage unofficial sites which may develop. Socio- Increased income within the LMNP Loss of economically- economics area. mixed communities Increased number of jobs. and potential loss of Use of National Park ‘brand’ diversity in range of Support for local services. employment sectors. Preservation of aspects of natural Economic effects of the and cultural heritage. establishment of the national park on the national budget. Planning Increased levels of protection for Separation of Higher house and land the natural and built landscape. development planning process. Higher design and siting and development standards. control Loss of mixed Higher house and land values. communities.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 59 3.4.4 Criteria for Determining Eligibility of Displaced Persons for Assistance

Many affected people and settlements in the Loma Mountain Forest Reserve area may become particularly vulnerable to hardship as a result of new or strengthened restrictions on access to natural resources. Communities may lose use rights, or traditional access to resources when areas are designated as legally protected for the purpose of the establishment of the National Park and when management of the Park begins to be more effective in implementing restrictions on access and use of resources. Overall there are three major categories of project affected people: First are the Communities who will be directly affected since they are subject to total restrictions on access and use of resources such that their livelihoods or enterprises are constrained through loss of rights to firewood collection, hunting, farming and collection of non-timber forest produce etc.

Two other issues warrant careful consideration in some cases. Second is the consideration of how the interests of non-residents, who also may use the resources, are to be accounted for. Thirdly, the need to justify the exclusion of people engaging in some forms of resource use (for example, poaching of protected wildlife or opportunistic encroaching into areas already subject to customary resource management) as illicit or inappropriate for sustainable resource management. The challenge faced by communities and other stakeholders is how to establish appropriate criteria to determine what is poaching and opportunistic, as opposed to genuine livelihood activities. Eligibility criteria are based on resource use and the impact restrictions may have on PAP livelihoods. An outline of potential criteria, management and mitigating mechanisms can be seen in Annex 3.

The Forestry and Wildlife Law defines resource use in and around protected areas in the following way: (a) National Parks with total protection of flora, fauna, landscapes, geology; no hunting, agriculture or livestock rearing, no natural resource exploitation, land modification or alien species permitted. (b) National Reserves with total protection of specified plant and animal species and/or ecosystems; resources may be utilised by license within norms established by a management plan. (c) Areas of Historical and Cultural Value (Communal Use Zones) are set aside for forests with religious interest, and sites of historical and cultural use; resources are only to be used in accordance with customary practices and norms of communities. (d) Multiple-use areas (or Buffer Zones) can be designated by Ministerial Council around any protection area, within which multiple resource use may be allowed according to a management plan.

As part of the overall LMNP development plan process, where access to resources is to be limited a resource access management plan (RAMP) will be prepared with local communities, this will comprise of locally produced Community Development Action Plans (community level depending on the scope of interests). Where it may be necessary to define new concession areas for community based tourism for example, plans for community land delimitation and certification should be included in a RAMP and development plan.

Community Development Action Plans will be the lowest level components of a RAMP which itself should constitute part of a Development Plan, as well as being coherent with LMNP Management Plans. Action Plans will be formulated in a participatory fashion and

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 60 specify potential community projects / activities that help mitigate the effects of restrictions of access to resources. In these, the number of PAPs that can be expected to earn enough income to at least replace that lost, as well as the number of PAPS who have decided to participate in more than one activity will be identified. Since generally only a small number of people can profitably engage in sustainable tourism activities without drastically reducing everyone's income, it will be necessary to monitor and work with communities to identify alternative sources of income.

The production of Action Plans (including RAMPs) will follow a structured participatory process that is based on stakeholder consultation in groups and individual semi-structured interviews. The principles of information sharing and informed transparent participatory decision-making will be pursued at all levels from community through to planning and management structures. Additional technical inputs may be contracted as required by community organisations or partnership organisations to carry out socio-economic baseline studies, technical feasibility studies, EIAs for infrastructure developments and so forth.

Community planning development forums will be created to facilitate planning and development at local level in the different resource use areas of the Loma Mountains and their surroundings, may be convened and local government or district representatives of relevant sectors invited as technical advisors for the development of Action Plans (including RAMPs). In addition, specialists should be present to provide inputs to decision making relating to eligibility criteria for participating in alternative livelihoods activities.

3.4.5 Description of Methods and Procedures for choosing Mitigation and Compensation Measures

PAPs include all groups of stakeholders and their families and dependent/households dependent on the resources of the conservation areas as primary or secondary sources of livelihood. They include, for example, fishermen and all fisheries-related people, agriculturists, Non-Timber Forest Product (NTFP) collectors, crafts people, pastoralists, hunters, artisinal miners, firewood collectors, and other wood-cutters/users. PAPs include groups that practice seasonal occupations or second –profession activities and who depend on this second activity as alternate source of income when their main livelihood falls due to whatever reason.

Depending on the type of PAP and the identified impact, affected people will be able to benefit from a menu of compensation and mitigation measures including, in the short term, temporary unskilled labour for civil works contract and alternative income generating activities like cash crops, Protected Area employment and others to be identified and negotiated over the medium and long terms. PAPs will participate in the decision-making processes that may restrict or deny access to the resources as outlined in the participatory management structures to be established under the project.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 61 All communities adjacent to the Loma Mountains Forest Reserve areas are to be considered as involved. PAPs are a separate and distinct group from Communities Involved by the Project (CIPs) insofar as they live in adjacent villages. All adjacent villages are CIPs. Villages situated further away, which are traditionally dependent on the CIPs through customary land tenure, are also considered CIPs. People other than those in the CIPs, i.e. non-adjacent PAPs depending in one way or another on resources in the protected areas will be identified and eligible for compensation measures.

In general, affected communities are likely to use one or more of four strategies:

• Devising transparent, equitable, and fair ways of more sustainably sharing the resources —Recognition of rights to resources and more transparent resource management practices may significantly reduce pressure on forest products, for example. • Obtaining access to alternative resources or functional substitutes—Access to electricity or biomass energy may eliminate overuse of timber for firewood, for example. 16 • Obtaining public or private employment (or financial subsidies)—Local residents may need alternative livelihoods or the means to purchase resource substitutes. • Providing access to resources outside the park or protected area—Of course, a framework promoting this strategy must also consider impacts on the people and the sustainability of the resources in these other areas.

3.5 MEASURES TO ASSIST DISPLACED PERSONS AND OTHER AFFECTED PERSONS

The Administrative Structure of the SLEPA and FD/PMT jointly by the Bumbuna PMU responsible for the implementation of the LMNP Project be clearly defined and set up and may include the following:

- Project multidisciplinary Steering Committee - Project Technical Team - Central and Region Bodies - Local level structures (District, Chiefdom, Town, Village and Site Groups)

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 62 3.5.1 Methodology to Integrate APs and Communities into the Process of Developing Conservation Management Plans To integrate the APs and Communities into the process of developing the conservation management plans the following will be the methodology and procedures for the design and implementation of community action plans:

(i) establishing conservation management teams (CSMTs) and building partnerships among government, non-government organizations, community- based organizations, traditional village leaders and the private sector; (ii) developing conservation management plans (CMPs) that are endorsed by traditional and local authorities; (iii) implementing conservation management plans (include minor infrastructure improvements for staff and visitors such as observation posts, water supply, road access, research facilities, trails and camp sites; boundary demarcation; working with local communities to improve resources management, implementing monitoring systems, exploring financing options; and (iv) building capacity of field staff and key stakeholders to undertake conservation planning, management, eco tourism and enforcement through joint training programs.

As part of the Community Mobilization and Outreach and Conservation-linked Development Community Action Plans (CAPs), which will, jointly with local stakeholders, identify priority threats to conservation in the National Park and explore options for addressing them will be prepared and implemented.

Activities under the CAPs may include: (a) providing training for developing income- generating activities; (b) supporting potential small-scale entrepreneurs to develop business plans and partnerships in support of conservation-linked investment initiatives; (c) supporting local practices for sustainable land use; (d) strengthening linkages with government programs and service providers (such as Farmer Field Schools); and (e) possible introduction of energy-saving technologies to reduce unsustainable dependency on natural.

The SLEPA will hold public consultations with stakeholders including Government Agencies, NGOs, Service providers, local Government officials, PAPs, and community groups on every aspect of the project activities during the entire project cycle.

The stakeholders shall be involved in project inception, design, implementation and monitoring and Evaluations. Public Consultation shall be ongoing during all activities including preparation of development plans, environmental impact assessment and during the drafting and reading of project contracts, terms and conditions.

Sufficient notice would be given through established channels before the public consultations. Consultations would take place through meetings, town criers, discussion of public documents and settlement terms.

All payments shall be done in a transparent manner with the active involvement of the PAPs and the socio-political heads of the affected communities.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 63 3.5.2 Training Needs and Training

Communities with PAPs and those affected by the project will need support in defining their development needs in an exclusive manner, in realistically determining and monitoring their losses and livelihoods improvements, and in ensuring local decision- making forums operate to improve all local residents’ well being, especially the weak and vulnerable. Regardless of which development partner(s) support rural livelihoods around the National Park areas over the medium and long terms, which cannot be determined with certainty at the time of preparing this Process Framework. SLEPA will engage future partners to ensure that pro-poor structures like the Community Development Committee model are used. This will ensure that communities themselves are able to define and direct development support to make it most effective and to identify problems and take corrective actions in collaboration with those responsible for the PF.

NGOs will continue working with the Wildlife Division, SLEPA, MAFFS, MoEWR and other project stakeholder organizations, developing skills in PRA and assessments/monitoring of natural resource use.

Under LMNP Project, state, private and civil society agencies at local, district and national levels will be trained in Conservation area management, wildlife protection, conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, monitoring and evaluation, geographic information systems and mapping, and knowledge management systems. Training will include strengthening the scientific and technical knowledge base, developing improved tools for monitoring and improving data and information reliability, retrieval, accessibility and distribution through development of a geo-referenced biodiversity information management system, appropriate knowledge and experience through regional and global information networks.

Training will also be provided to staff and partners involved in conservation areas management by developing training packages to cover areas such as participatory planning and programming, conflict management and resolution, public information management, participatory monitoring and evaluation, gender, fund raising, accounting, transparency, accountability and reporting.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 64 Table 9: Course outline for the training in PF skills

Target Course description Duration Resource 1. environmental and Social policies, procedures and guidelines 2 days Because the three training - SLEPA staff responsible for EIA 1.1 review and discuss Sierra Leone’s national environmental module will follow one and audits policies, procedures and legislation as well as the relevant another, a total budget of - Environmental Committees and international conventions informing Sierra Leone’s policies, $25,000 is proposed for the District Environmental Committee procedures and legislation three of them. The course is staffs 2.2 Review and discuss the Bank’s safeguards policies to occur at or near Loma - selected LMNP Project Staffs of the 1.3 Strategies for consultation, participation, conflict prevention, Mountains Forest Reserve Wildlife Division at Targeted conflict resolution and social inclusion areas. The World Bank will Conservation areas supply a senior trainer for -selected Conservation Management 2. Selected topics on environmental protection modules 1 and 3 Committee leaders 2.1 Principles of ecology and the importance of the wetlands 2 days, - Rural and local Communities and Conservation following the site groups on National Park 2.2 Principles of sustainable wetland resource use methods above Management. Selected number of 2.3 safe waste disposal and implications on public health module people from the communities will be 2.4 protection and management of water resources trained, plus some reasonable 2.5 Disaster preparedness (civil conflict, flood , others) number of trainers and organizers. However additional Park 3. Environmental and Social Management Process: Management staff will be pulled into 3.1 Review of environmental and social management processes topics 1.3, 2.1, 2.2,2.3, 2.4 and 2.5 3.2 Use of screening forms and the checklist to determine adverse 5 days, impact from sub-projects including 3.3 How to measure cumulative adverse environmental and social field impacts exercises, 3.4 Design of appropriate mitigation measures following the 3.5 How to review and clear the conservation area management plans above 3.6 the importance of public consultations modules 3.7 How to monitor mitigation measures 3.8 How to embed the environmental & social management process into civil works contracts.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 65 During the Mid-term of the project, depending upon when is deemed most suitable (and not during the height of the rainy season), a second training session will be organized. This will focus much more on topic 1.3 and those in module 3, and will processed in learning –by- doing manner. It will emphasize solving real problems encountered in the implementation of the project by conducting a series of evaluations of proposals, simulated audits and other practical skills. The specific outline will be determined nearer to the time. The World Bank will be requested to provide one senior trainer to ensure consistency with all `applicable social and environmental safeguards.

3.6 RESOLUTION OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OR GRIEVANCES

To avert or significantly minimize opportunities for conflict between communities and / or individuals, the project must both attempt to prevent conflict and ensure remedial conflict resolution when conflict occurs. At the preventative level, the aim is to identify potential conflicts and to foresee, through participatory methods described above, ways to reduce these conflicts. To avoid conflict, setting up communications that favour existing networks is essential, as well as setting up precise and widely publicized rules for the management of resource (embodied in the Conservation Action plans), known and accepted by all with clear right & duties of each actor, as well ad the modes of penalization.

A forum for communicating and debating potential conflict will be established by participatory management and communications in Conservation management. This is the primary means to address PAPs complaints. The activity consist, first of “creating and holding regular meetings of relatively informal district-based liaison groups that will be responsible for ensuring effective 2-way flow of information between local communities and Conservation Management Team concerning conservation issues, opportunities (like development possibilities), problems and more. They will not have decision-making authority. Local authorities, youth representatives, women’s groups, as well as chiefs will be represented in these groups. District-based liaison group will be broad based and include all socio-economic groups like wood users, hunters, fishermen, farmers, miners, teachers, women, youth and representatives of all other PAPs.

3.6.1 Grievance Redress Mechanisms

At the remedial level, after the conflict has already happened, local community-based authority and enforcement systems will be used whenever possible, making resources to official project and state systems only as a matter of last recourse. This may not always be possible since it will often be Wildlife Division staff, representing the state, who are

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 66 enforcing a law or regulation concerning the PAs. Therefore it is the Wildlife Division, not a local community that is responsible to take penal action. Whenever possible the Wildlife Division will seek to work with rather than against local traditional authority structures.

District liaison groups, DECs and traditional authority structures will be the primary forums where dispute will be heard. Should a PAP refuse an agreement or settlement arrived at by the above forums, or should a dispute between groups arise during the implementation of the conservation management plans which cannot amicably be resolved by the above forums, then an appeal to the conservation advisory council can be made. Should the grievance persist, a civil court will settle the litigation. All individual PAPs have the right to refuse the provisions proposed by the district liaison group / DEC traditional court and take their cases to the Advisory Council / CEC when other grievance redress measures have failed. This grievance process will be clearly communicated as part of the establishment of the district liaison groups, DEC, Conservation Management Advisory Council and CEC(s).

3.6.2 Administrative and Legal Procedures

The Wildlife Division and SLEPA are the custodians of the Process Framework, with overall responsibility to ensure that the requirements therein are implemented and complied with. For instance, the Wildlife Division and SLEPA will ensure that district – based groups, the Conservation Management Teams, and DECs are established and rendered operational through training, technical and basic administrative support. The Wildlife Division and SLEPA, along with the MAFFS and the Ministry of Energy and Water Resources (MoEWR) will be responsible for ensuring that Conservation management teams are fully participatory, i.e that they represent the interests not of any powerful group or elite but rather all groups within the communities including the weak, poor and vulnerable. All agencies above will monitor that grievances are addressed with integrity, neutrality, speed and in accordance with the letter and spirit of this PF. The Wildlife Division and SLEPA will invite and collaborate with development agencies like the Conservation Society of Sierra Leone, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Environmental Foundation for Africa (EFA), Environmental Forum for Africa (ENFORAC) and others interested in working around the conservation areas ensuring that they adopt an approach that will support the voices of all members of society including the weak, poor and vulnerable, and mobilizes communities to take charge of their own development as planners rather than as passive recipients.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 67 During the execution of the proposed project, the Wildlife Division of MAFFS and SLEPA will provide technical assistance to coordinate project implementation. With specific reference to this PF, SLEPA will ensure that (a) the baseline studies are done with adequate rigor and detail to determine PAPs, affected communities and the livelihood impacts which will form the basis for determining mitigation measures and compensation; (b) district- based liaison groups, the Conservation Management Teams, and later DECs are established, their roles are known and understood, and they receive a basic introductory training in their responsibilities with regard to the PF and follow-up training; (c) the Wildlife Division, SLEPA and the above committees keep adequate records to monitor the implementation of this PF (keeping copies in the project files for reference by the World Bank as requested); and (d) independent groups like NGOs and others conduct follow-up surveys to monitor changes in incomes, further losses (if any) and improvements in livelihoods of PAPs.

3.6.3 Finances to Ensure Participation of PAPs

The meaningful and effective participation of PAPs can be ensured only when financial resources are made available to and accessible by them, thereby enabling PAPs to participate in project activities that would restore their incomes to at least pre-project levels. The project budget (subcomponents …. and …..) reserves approximately $.... for assessing arid monitoring surrounding communities' forest resource use, wildlife-human conflicts, development needs and incomes/livelihoods.

Table 10 : Process Framework – Implementation Responsibilities

Level Responsibilities Rural communities -Participate project designs, preparation of CAPs, formation CSMTs etc in project implementation activities, particularly those related to resource access restriction, alternative livelihoods developments and compensations payment where needed.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 68 -Supervise the monitoring of construction environmental mitigations implemented by construction contractors. -Supervise the monitoring of operation environmental mitigations implemented by towns and /or operation contractors. SLEPA --Review the draft EA -Review EIAs were so prescribed by Sierra Leone EIA guidelines. -Monitor the overall implementation of EAs -Supervise the implementation of EAs. -Provide annual environmental monitoring report for review by the MLCPE and SLEPA . Ministry of Agriculture, -Supervise the overall implementation of EAs Forestry and Food -Provide an overall annual environmental monitoring report for review by Security (MAFFS) MLCPE and the World bank. World Bank -Review the draft EAs -Review E1As for schedule 1 sub-projects -Monitor the overall implementation of EAs, including the review of annual environmental reports provided by SLEPA.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 69 4.0 MONITORING ARRANGEMENTS

4.1 Mechanisms for Participatory Monitoring of Project Activities

SLEPA is responsible for external monitoring of environmental management, land use plans and development plans.

The LMNP management will use monitoring and evaluation as tools to ensure the continued relevance of project direction and activities. Participatory tools will be developed wherever feasible so that communities take responsibility for verifying the impact of the project and alternative livelihoods activities on affected communities and individuals.

Community consultation and participation in the development planning process will build community capacity to identify indicators and together with planning facilitators they will develop participatory monitoring tools. These will be used to formulate project proposals, and for participatory monitoring and feedback to external monitors during the implementation of the development plans. Communities will also participate in external evaluation of outcomes of development plans.

At community level, the Community Planning and Development Forum will be the main forum involved in participatory monitoring, it will identify indicators for Action Plans developed with its participation, and will be trained on how to manage the information for the project’s and Forum use. Other relevant community management structures linked to local authorities and the National LMNP Coordinator should listen to, verify and respond to grievances as entitlements are understood and taken up or as they change over time.

The district Stakeholder Group will be responsible for coordinating its members for monitoring, regulating and supervising development plans preparation and ensuring

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 70 coherence with the district planning process and outputs. Development Information Centres will contain monitoring information managed by the district technical team. District and provincial technical teams will regularly monitor status of vulnerable groups through consultation, and where necessary follow-up work with communities and individuals will identify activities and sources of income that can improve their well-being.

Written agreements between Government and community representatives will be jointly monitored and where possible community organizations will be responsible for ensuring the compliance of community members.

The LMNP project Monitoring and Evaluation specialist will be responsible for development and oversight of all monitoring and evaluation activities. The project Coordinators must have the capacity to carry these tasks in coordination with the National LMNP Coordinator.

Via the adaptive management model the quality of monitoring processes should be regularly reviewed and improved. Issues such as leadership, representation, equity, and treatment of individuals vulnerable to specific hardships must be adequately addressed through monitoring. Training of all participants in how to use monitoring and evaluation for adaptive management decisions and how to use it as a basis for good communication flow will be essential for good project management

4.2 Monitoring of Effectiveness of Livelihood Improvement Measures

The objectives of monitoring implementation of the PF are (a) to ensure that the bodies established and tasked, inter alia, with implementing the PF are performing their duties adequately and if not, to ensure their capacity is built to do so, (b) to ensure that the actions taken to resolve conflicts, to compensate losses, to distribute benefits catalysed by project and to improve overall welfare in the peri-Conservation Areas are having their intended Impacts and to take corrective action if not, and (c) to conduct a final evaluation of whether or not the PAPs identified have been affected in such a way that their living standards are equal or higher than before the project.

The PF will be considered successfully implemented if affected individuals, households and communities maintain their pre-project standard of living or Improve on it, and local community support is built and remains supportive of the project.

A number of indicators could be used to determine the status of PAPs and of affected communities. Definitive indicators and milestones of success will be developed in a participatory manner after the project start date by local community representatives chosen to represent the views of district based liaison groups, representatives of conservation establishment committees, Wildlife Division, Department of Environment, MAFFS, representatives of development organisations and NGOs. They will be communicated to the World Bank for comment and a no-objection approval.

4.3 Monitoring Indicators

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 71 Biodiversity projects are designed on the assumption that project interventions will lead to conservation of key biological resources. Monitoring and evaluation are the primary mechanisms to assess whether a project is meeting its targets and objectives. Most threats to biodiversity result from human activities which, in turn, depend on social and economic factors. Monitoring of beneficial and adverse impact indicators on affected persons in the Loma Mountain areas as well as socio-economic factors, therefore, are the main areas of focus of these monitoring arrangements under the LMNP Project.

The meaningful and operational relevant biodiversity monitoring system for the LMNP Project will encompass a broad scope of levels and subjects to be monitored. These have been categorized as follows:

4.3.1 Monitoring at the Regional/Landscape Level:

The important aspects of landscapes can generally be quantified in terms of area, diversity and pattern. Area measures such as “change in total area habitat” or “increase in area encroached” are often relatively easy to calculate providing the data are available. In addition, a range of indices has been developed which can be used to characterize the spatial arrangement of elements within landscapes. Table 1 (Annex 1) provides some examples of classes and specific indicators which might be used at this level.

4.3.2 Monitoring at the Community/Ecosystem Level

At the community/ecosystem level, monitoring will be concerned mainly with the effectiveness of maintaining extent and quality of habitat, and of maintaining ecosystem processes. Because the maintenance of ecosystem processes directly affects the success of biodiversity conservation it is desirable that these processes should be monitored. However there are few simple, easily monitored indicators available for this task. Some species of plants and animals can be linked with ecological processes, e.g. keystone species such as major herbivores, top carnivores, important fruiting trees, seed dispersers and pollinators for keystone tree species, and species which favour regenerating or disturbed environments. Changes in the number and distribution of well chosen examples of such species can sometimes be indicators of ecosystem processes. Table 2 (Annex 1) provides some examples of classes and specific indicators which might be used at this level.

4.3.3 Monitoring at the Species/Population Level

SmaIl population size is ultimately the most serious threat to species survival. Habitat destruction, overharvesting or overhunting can lead to local species extinction. Species monitoring is especially relevant to sustainable use projects. Low or decreasing population size is a significant indicator for important species, but

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 72 demographic trends (population age and sex structure, age at reproduction) are usually more important than absolute population size. Detailed demographic studies of key or harvested species may need to be undertaken at regular intervals to confirm population viability, to calibrate population indicators, or provide information on sustainability of harvesting levels. The change in harvest per unit effort can be an indicator of the sustainability of the harvest, but it is difficult to quantify without the close cooperation of local people. The difficulty of sighting many species of wildlife means that secondary indicators such as signs of presence (e.g. tracks, scats, rubbing posts, etc.) or signs of removal (e.g. butchered carcasses, used traps, poacher vehicle tracks, etc.) have to be used. Table 3 (Annex 1) provides some examples of classes and specific indicators which might be used at this level.

4.3.4 Monitoring Socio-Economic Factors

Socioeconomic indicators should relate directly to use or pressure on biological resources. In the Loma Mountain areas where the population is at an early stage of economic development due the proposed establishment of the National Park, there will generally be connections between changes in wealth, either of whole communities or of subgroups within the communities, and utilization of biodiversity resources. It would be unwise, however, to make assumptions about the direction of this relationship. Increasing wealth might imply less need for reliance on biological resources, or might be a result of increased harvesting responding to better access to markets.

Similarly, there are likely to be connections between changes in population and biodiversity health. In particular, rapid population growth is often associated with biodiversity loss. However, the raw data on human population change will often be less meaningful than information about changes in population characteristics such as age distribution, number in paid employment, education level, disposable income, time available for recreation, etc.

Some human activities which impact on biodiversity resources are not easily measured with any degree of accuracy and can only be estimated on the basis of indirect measures such as human population distribution or structure, or the presence of roads or other infrastructure.

In general, no reliance should be placed on a single socioeconomic indicator in isolation because of the general uncertainty of the relationship between this type of indicator and the state of biodiversity health. Table 4 (Annex 1) provides some examples of classes and specific indicators which might be used.

4.3.5 Monitoring Community Involvement and Participation

Community involvement in resource management is often an integral element of sustainable use. Monitoring community involvement will help to identify avenues

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 73 for cooperation as well as training and capacity building needs. In addition, participatory management which has appropriate roles for local stakeholders can also make a contribution to maintaining biodiversity.

It is important to recognise that community involvement per se will not necessarily lead to enhanced biodiversity conservation. The nature and extent of community involvement that is appropriate will vary with site, community dependence on the resource and the biodiversity objectives of the project. The impact of community involvement in decision making for management needs to be monitored closely to ensure that it is promoting biodiversity goals. Table 5 (Annex 1) provides some examples of classes and specific indicators which might be used to monitor community involvement.

4.3.6 Monitoring Institutional and Regulatory Factors

Biodiversity conservation can only be achieved within a supportive legislative and regulatory framework. National legislation may be inconsistent, or executive orders contravene one another. National policy changes necessary for project success should be identified and indicators established to monitor progress. A range of factors will influence capacity to manage for biodiversity conservation. These include supportive and appropriate legislation and appropriate legal status for special areas; legal status and authority of management institutions; and appropriate policies on land tenure and resource use rights. Table 6 (Annex 1) provides examples of classes and specific indicators which might be used for legal and regulatory factors.

4.3.7 Monitoring Institutional and Regulatory Factors

Biodiversity conservation can only be achieved within a supportive legislative and regulatory framework. National legislation may be inconsistent, or executive orders contravene one another. National policy changes necessary for project success should be identified and indicators established to monitor progress. A range of factors will influence capacity to manage for biodiversity conservation. These include supportive and appropriate legislation and appropriate legal status for special areas; legal status and authority of management institutions; and appropriate policies on land tenure and resource use rights. Table 6 (Annex1) provides examples of classes and specific indicators which might be used for legal and regulatory factors.

4.3.8 Monitoring Management Capacity and Effectiveness

Biodiversity conservation is achieved directly through management activities which reduce pressure on biodiversity. The capability or capacity of the Wildlife Division of MAFFS and BHP of MoEWR through which the management of the LMNP

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 74 operates, and effectiveness of the management which is carried out, will clearly affect biodiversity conservation. However, it is necessary to note that capacity for management is not always translated into effective management. Thus, two different sets of indicators are required - one set to measure capacity, and the other to measure effectiveness. Table 6.7 (Annex1) provides examples of classes and specific indicators of management capacity and effectiveness.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 75 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Following from the arguments from the Neya Chiefdom people and their position, there is a likelihood of an underlying conflict situation regarding the location of facilities under the LMNPP. The implementers and key stakeholders need to recognize this potential conflict situation and ensure a participatory and transparent process of arriving at final decisions as to the location of LMNP Project facilities.

(b) Important Roles for the Traditional Authorities

• After the erection of the new boundary pegs, the traditional authorities should announce categorically and establish bye-laws to prevent people from encroaching on the LMNP.

• The LMNP protection should be included should be included in the bye-laws of the Chiefdoms since every chiefdom has bye-laws.

• The Traditional Authorities should be encouraged to provide accommodation and security to the LMNP Project Staffs to ensure the success of the project. This could be achieved if the traditional authorities are adequately involved in the project planning and implementation process so as to give them a sense of ownership of the project. • iv)The Paramount Chiefs should be supported under the project to take the necessary steps to prevent farming, wood cutting, hunting etc in the forest.

(c ) Sustainable Alternative Livelihood Options

Prior to thinking of any sustainable alternative livelihood options, the communities would want to see clear boundary demarcations on land but not only paper in order to be sure that their farms are not affected. The physical boundary demarcation

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 76 exercise should be planned and implemented with relevant affected communities. Some alternative livelihood options proposed by the communities are acquisition of vocational skills, setting up of cottage industries, mechanized agriculture, provision of loans to undertake trading, eco-tourism services and incentives for potential lost of access to cash crops such as cola nut, bitter cola, coffee, oranges and cocoa.

(k) Constraints and Opportunities to the Neini and Neya Chiefdom Communities for participating in the LMNPP Activities

The Neya Chiefdom communities have constraints that they have put in their needs assessment document submitted to the Forestry Division to be addressed under the project. Their key concerns are the lack of good feeder roads construction and transportation facilities, communication, schools and hospitals and water supply in their chiefdom. Some of the opportunities they are expecting under the project are: Improvement of feeder roads, access to Chiefdom Headquarters, health post, reduction in child mortality rate, communications improvement, water supply, awarding of scholarships to the vulnerable, better and improved education and housing facilities for the accommodation of visitors. The Neini Chiefdom also have similar expectations. These are indeed high expectations considering the fact that the project is not mainly an infrastructure provision or upgrading project. However, these issues need to be given a careful attention and the expectations properly managed in a participatory and transparent manner.

(l) Restriction of Access to the Natural Resources • The affected communities should not be entirely prevented from having access to Natural Resources. Agro-forestry and establishment of woodlots should be created. • Energy saving stoves to reduce energy consumption should be provided • Micro-credit schemes should be established for the people to help improve their livelihoods. This must be developed in a sustainable manner. • Co-management schemes should be developed as part of the Park Management strategies

(m) Threats to the Success of the Proposed LMNPP According to the people of the Neya Chiefdom, the main threats to the LMNPP are the following: • The location of the Administrative headquarters of the LMNP. They claim that if the headquarters is not located in the Neya Chiefdom there will be a serious conflict.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 77 • Failure to compensate people who will no longer have access to the forest reserve may be compelled to encroach the park, which will be detrimental and a big threat to the project. • Limitation of access to future agricultural land. Though the new boundary demarcation allows the farmers to continue their farming activities outside the new boundary they cannot expand such farms in the future.

(h) Potential threat to the LMNPP A failure to comply with agreements that will be reached under the LMNPP by all stakeholders will be the main threat to the project (ii) Enforcement of Local Forest Reserve Regulating Bye-Laws Support is needed under the project to motivate and empower the chiefs to enforce existing bye-laws such as the following: • No cutting of spices trees, bitter cola trees and trees in high forest areas . A culprit will pay a fine of one cow ; • Farming is allow only in the low lying areas but not the upland areas, • Outsiders and natives are not allowed to hunt in the forest, • Frequency of entry into the forest by any person is at least once or at most twice in the year as a measure to protect the wildlife.

(j) Involvement of Traditional Authorities in LMNP Management

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 78 communitities should be given adequate participation in the project planning and prioritization. • There should be transparency in the administration of the project; • Community development projects should concentrate on road projects considering the deplorable state of roads in the area. • Create a system for the people to work on the LMNP fully employed so that they will fully concentrate on the management. • Sensitization to protect what is in the forest. There should be forest guards to protect both plant and animal species. • There should be a proper monitoring system in place to ensure that special biodiversity species are not taken away. • People leaving in the neighbouring affected communities should be provided with sustainable alternative means of livelihoods such as introduction of mechanized farming, domestication of livestock. etc

(k) Involvement of the Koinadugu District Council in Natural Resources Management

The Koinadugu District Council is involved in the management of natural resources. The Forestry Unit at the District is within the District Council. If the LMNP is well developed, the District will benefit significantly and it will help improve the economic status of the people of the District through the patronage of goods and services by foreigners and visitors. It will also change the social life of the people. It will also bring more revenue to the District as well as the Government.

Involvement of the Koinadugu District Council as a member of the management committee and the implementation of the project is vital for the improvement of the LMNP project management.

There should be a regular stakeholder meeting among The District Council, the Forestry Division, the Bumbuna Project Implementation Unit, the Ministry of Tourism and other relevant parties to discuss relevant issues about the LMNP project that will ensure a collaborative effort for a successful project.

(l) Involvement of SLEPA and Ministry of Tourism and Culture

SLEPA should be involved in the monitoring of implementation programmes. Some Environmental Monitoring Indicators to consider are rate of deforestation are people still cutting wood, logging, poaching, occurrence of bushfire, water quality, air quality etc. Social Indicators -Interview people to find out if benefits have been received and are actually improving their lifestyle and total income, the level of participation of the affected people and communities in the co-management practices, involvement of the people in tourism programs and the promotion of the

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 79 use of local materials to make attractive products that can be sold to tourist to generate income. Education and sentization for the people to understand the LMNPP

To promote ecotourism in the Loma Mountains area, the Ministry could conduct a needs assessment so as to integrate it in their planning.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 80 6.0 ANNEXES

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 81 6.1 Annex 1: Matrix of Monitoring Indicators

Table 11 : Indicators at the Regional Landscape Level

Class Indicator Data Set Method Comments

Habitat area Change in total area of particular Remote sensing Manual methods using Shows whether habitat is being gained or lost over the monitoring habitat type data (vegetation overlay maps, or GIS area. maps to be where feasible. prepared if not Ideally the monitoring area should extend outside the immediate already available Aerial surveys project area. Comparison between the project/no-project areas may for baseline) be useful.

Change in area of largest block of Long-term population viability is endangered if area is small a particular habitat type especially for species which occur at low density.

Change in average size of a Suggests whether losses are spread over the whole monitoring area. particular habitat type

Landscape Change in mean nearest distance Remote sensing Suggests likelihood of migration between habitat blocks. Can be pattern between bocks of a particular data or measured in modified to mean distance between a particular block and neighbors malysis habitat type the field where the particular block is in a protected area (PA). More complex approaches to landscape pattern analysis may be appropriate in some circumstances Change in average width of break Shows changes in effectiveness of the corridor. Changes in the gap in an identified habitat corridor width should be a trigger for management attention. However significance depends on the species of concern and the type of land use in the gap. Conservation Change in number or total area of Spatial plan GIS or overlay maps Shows change in conservation status (and therefore likelihood of status PA protection) of land/habitat.

Land use type Change in total area of and uses Area of Identified Remote sensing data or Shows change in area likely to support biodiversity conservation - compatible with biodiversity compatible land field reports. Land use significance may depend on the focus of biodiversity value in the conservation in the monitoring uses maps are Likely to be area. area available from other agencies.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 82 Table 12 : Indicators at the Community/ Ecosystem Level

Class Indicator Data Set Method Comments

Vegetation Change in crown cover Canopy cover in Standard canopy cover Significant habitat disturbance is generally indicated by structure percent % at upper methods, possibly changes in canopy cover and dominant species. However, canopy level done seasonally, or at records need to be long term to take into account short-term fluctuations due to factors such as tire and weather patterns. (whether tree, least annually in the Not likely to provide early warning of changes which are not shrub, grass) same season. revealed by other, possibly easier, methods. Habitat Change in location of habitat Location of Long-term (possibly Can show expansion or retreat of crucial habitats. Changes distribution boundaries boundary in every two to five may take many years to establish and generally background defined years) survey of sites, effects need to be removed. quadrants or and/or fixed point transects photography

Change in vegetation along Area of riparian Remote sensing or Changes in riparian vegetation can have significant effects on water courses vegetation type. transect quadrant aquatic biodiversity through direct (change in water Boundary of survey temperature and light availability) and indirect (increased vegetation, etc. run-off, siltation, etc.) impacts. riparian vegetation, etc

Keystone or Change in number and/or Transect or wide Survey of transects or Can suggest changes in ecological processes, particularly to indicator distribution of keystone or area survey sites, frequency provide early warning of possible changes. Examples include species indicator species results depends on the species keystone or indicator species involved species important in seed distribution (certain birds, rats, species etc.), bat species involved favoring different vegetation structure. Change in limiting factors for Numbers or Transects, quadrats, Can provide early warning of impacts on species before key species, e.g. nest holes for presence or general observations. changes in numbers become obvious. parrots, fruit bat roosting absence depends on the factor trees. involved. Invasive Change in presence, location, Survey, transect Transect, quadrats or The significance of the invasive species for the biodiversity

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 83 Class Indicator Data Set Method Comments species area, numbers of invasive or quadrat results, interviews values which are of concern needs to be known. In many plant or animal species patrol reports, cases plant invasions are an indicator of disturbance. reports from community members

Indicator Changes in frequency of Patrol reports, Incorporate into patrol Events should be of a type which is related to biodiversity events events such as landslips aerial surveys, reporting. Carry out health at the community/ecosystem level. remote sensing specific surveys for identified events

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 84 Table 13 : Indicators at the Species/Population Level

Class Indicator Data Set Method Comments

Abundance Change in abundance of Encounter rate (e.g. Management staff Indicates possible changes in population size and/or shift key animal species sight, sound, sign) monitor transects (e.g. in range (interpretation should be subject to knowledge along transects. sections of track) on demography and comparison with other indicators). Needs to be standardized (e.g. by time/distance/habitat). regular patrols. Number of More rigorous methods must be used occasionally to calibrate encounter rate against total population. individuals at Regular counts at concentration points concentration points such as colonies or roosts.

Management patrol report

Change in proportion of Records kept by Management staff Can show changes due to environmental factors, particular species in fish community collect information overharvesting, and/or introduction of exotics catches ar specified from community seasons

Stock Difference between Average sizes/lengths Some community This is one example of a fisheries management approach. management largest/longest of given of fish of given members paid to parameters species in fish catch and species in catches. collect data, or fish Other may be appropriate in particular situations. largest/longest recorded marketing staff collect size for the species Maximum sizes from data literature

Range occupied Changes in range of Combination of National level staff Indicates expansion or reduction of species range. Could designated species sighting data and combine indicator be associated with population changes, loss of habitat or (either total range or transect sign data for data for al relevant disruption of migratory pathways. all relevant areas range within monitoring areas

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 85 Class Indicator Data Set Method Comments

area)

Hunting/Harvest Changes in total amount Amount of resources Record keeping by Trends in amount harvested should give early warning of changes of plant or animal species harvested in a defined community or a sub- over-harvesting, especially when combined with the harvested in a defined area as recorded by group following indicator site the local community

Changes in amount of Amount of resource Community, sub- Changes in harvest per unit effort can indicate developing designated resource harvested per unit group of community, over-harvesting situations. harvested per unit effort. effort or nominated individuals keen records

Changes in number of Combination of field Information collected An increase may indicate a developing management confirmed instances of evidence and village by management problem. A decrease should be interpreted only in hunting and/or and market surveys. patrols, from villagers conjunction with other information. harvesting of designated or from market species in a given time traders. period

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 86 Table 14 : Socio-economic Indicators

Class Indicator Data Set Method Comments

Human Change in total human National or local Formal census data Rapid growth likely to indicate negative impacts on biodiversity. In population population inside and around (e.g statistical data or obtained from relevant addition, any increase inside PA might suggest illegal incursion. dynamics within 20 km) conservation areas. survey returns agency Interpret in combination with next indicator.

Data from baseline Surveys, possibly and repeated socio- involving sampling. economic surveys Monitor every 2-5 years

Change in demographic pressure Indicates possible changes in level and nature of pressure on on biodiversity values. biodiversity values. Relationships are neither constant nor well Relationships are factors (age understood. For example, increasing level of education may structure, settlement correlate with reduced interest in a subsistence lifestyle; or patterns, education levels, etc.) of increasing time available for recreation may lead to recreational relevant human population in or hunting. May be more useful for assisting in the interpretation of around conservation areas other indicators than as an indicator of biodiversity health itself. Careful conservation areas analysis is required. Socio- Change in proportion of income Survey returns Participatory techniques While reliable income data is notoriously difficult to gather, data on economic derived from biodiversity (RRA, PRA, etc.) and proportional importance of different sources, without requiring situation resources other socio-economic specific figures, is easier to collect. survey techniques, possibly every two or three years.

Change in proportion of income Requires training of survey personnel, and the relatively low derived from alternative frequency of survey may mean that ut is more effective to use livelihood activities outside, specialist teams.

Resource Change in resource consumption Survey returns, Participatory techniques Relatively standard survey techniques exist for this. Utilization for household use vs marketing management (RRA, PRA, etc) and records, market other socio-economic survey survey techniques, possibly every two or

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 87 Class Indicator Data Set Method Comments

three years.

Change in rate of consumption of Survey returns, Participatory techniques May show which groups are increasing or reducing their resource biodiversity resources by different management (RRA, PRA, etc) and use, suggesting whether project initiatives have been successful ( or groups (e.g. local communities vs. records, market other socio-economic are appropriately targeted).

outside interest) surveys survey techniques, Provides a check that reduction in resource use by the target group possibly every two or is not part of an overall reduction unrelated to project initiatives. Change in number or percent of three years. May have a direct bearing on biodiversity health. Lower numbers, people harvesting biodiversity combined with other socio-economic data, may give a clear resources. indication of likely future trends in involvement in biodiversity- impacting activities. Change in levels of exploitation toward or away from sustainable use

Alternative Change in number or percent of Survey returns, Participatory techniques Participation data may be relatively easy to gather because of the livelihood people engaging in alternative management (RRA, PRA, etc) and need to register for assistance, loans, supplies, etc. livelihood activities records, market other socio-economic May have a direct bearing on biodiversity health if this group has surveys survey techniques, also given up biodiversity-impacting livelihood activities, though possibly every two or data should not be taken for granted. three years.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 88 Table 15 : Community Involvement and Participation Indicators

Class Indicator Data Set Method Comments

Attitudes and Change in Results of Structured interviews Participation indicators rely on the assumption that understanding understanding/acknowledgement structures and questionnaires participatory management will make a positive of co-management principles by interviews and contribution to biodiversity conservation. the Forestry and Wildlife Division questionnaires staff

Extent to which community feels Without these factors, participation will not be involved in management at sustainable in the long term different levels (e.g. decision- making, consultation, etc.) Extent to which community Lack of agreement with management approaches understands and agrees with suggests low likelihood of cooperation and/or low management approaches understanding of basis for management. Both will detract from effectiveness of biodiversity conservation

Existing Existence of community-based Structured Structured interviews If a system exists then a better indicator would be the resource use natural resource management interviews effectiveness of that system systems systems

Biodiversity Increase in cash or in-kind Project records, Review relevant Assumes that these benefits wil lead to a reduction in conservation benefits returned to community as alternative records, carry out biodiversity impacts. benefits a result of biodiversity income scheme interviews conservation accounts, survey results

Change in number and/or nature Project reports, Examine reports and Employment of local people on project activities has a (full time, seasonal,etc.) of project records every one or range of potential benefits which may act to reduce community members employed in employment two years. biodiversity impacts. For example: community members immediate improvement in income and/or standard of project and related activities. records. living; training which improves long-term employment

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 89 Class Indicator Data Set Method Comments

options; training in organizational skills which are relevant to community development; increased awareness of project objectives and background. Conservation Number of awareness programs Project reports Annual surveys Indicates community interest in and commitment to awareness undertaken sustainable resource use/conservation activities and education Number of schools visited

Participation Change in community Results of Interviews and PRA Cooperation suggests commitment to meeting in cooperation with conservation interviews and management objectives, including biodiversity management staff (such as anti-poaching PRA with conservation. activities, monitoring) communities and Forestry and Self monitoring by resource users Wildlife Division May depend on traditional natural resource management system in place staff

Establishment of clearly defined Project records, Review records, rules These are criteria for establishment of a successful boundaries and membership of local rules, and regulations participatory resource management system. resource using group regulations (annually or less Indicators might be framed as changes in the effectiveness of these factors/ frequently)

Existence of representative This could have positive or negative effects on coordinating or management biodiversity. Should be analyzed as a long-term trend. body Monitored at specific intervals rather than on an on-going basis.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 90 Table 16 : Legal and Regulatory Indicators

Class Indicator Data Set Method Comments

Status of Change in the legal and Official gazette, Review of status of Changes can indicate positive or negative effects on appropriate regulatory framework at the national existing and pending biodiversity health. The enactment of a poorly drafted law legislation and national level regulatory law legislation and or lack of enforcement of an appropriate law can have significant negative impact on biodiversity. Monitoring of policies registry policies, including this indicator needs to include some assessment of the legislation on LMNP quality, appropriateness and enforcement of the changes to areas and endangered the laws. species

Legal status of Change in the legal status of Review status of Changes can be positive or negative. For example, an area the LMNP an area (e.g. legal boundary demarcation with high and sensitive wildlife values may suffer reduction gazettement), including in biodiversity value as a result of declaration as a national definition of boundaries park rather than a strict wildlife reserve. Status and Change in permanent Structural Evaluate incorporation Management structures may exist at the national, province, sustainability institutional arrangements organization of of project management chiefdom, local and site levels. Monitoring may be separate of and/or management structure management units into permanent or combined, depending on the project objectives. management structures, co- bodies management arrangements, decentralization of management

Policy of use Change in use rights at a Government Track the Are use rights not only recognized but also appropriately rights project site policies and laws development and allocated in a way which supports any traditional on use rights implementation of management system and which will encourage sustainable management? policies and laws which define user rights in an area.

Understanding Change in local level or Survey and Surveys and Unless key groups are aware of the important components

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 91 Class Indicator Data Set Method Comments and/or resource user/regulator interview data interviews of the laws, the law will have no effect. Voluntary adherence awareness of awareness of the important is preferable to reliance on enforcement alone. legislative components of relevant controls resource management laws and regulations.

Effectiveness Change in level of Evidence of Establish agreed Zero infringements is generally not a realistic or necessary of regulatory infringements infringements acceptable level and target. In most situations some level of infringement is system (physical calculate the tolerable. The difference between this and the actual level of infringements provides an indication of the effectiveness of evidence in field, difference annually, or the regulatory community at an interval agreed system. reports, official with stakeholders. records)

Change in percentage of Field and official/ Calculate from field “Number of arrests” is not a useful indicator as there are too arrests leading to conviction court reports and many factors which may affect it. If arrests are well founded official/court reports and properly carried out (legal requirements followed, evidence properly gathered, etc.) then convictions are likely to result. Change in percent of repeat If the regulatory system is efficient and well designed (e.g. offenders appearing in court penalties match offenses and socio-economic conditions) then the percentage of repeat offenders should decrease.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 92

Table 17 : Management Capacity and Effectiveness Indicators

Class Indicator Data Set Method Comments

Budget/funding Change in proportion of Budget documents Identify highest Project implementation (or design) should have budget allocated to highest priorities and review identified the highest priorities. This indicator may not priority conservation budget allocation be effective during project implementation because of substitution of project funds for normal budget management annually. allocations. areas/functions

Change in sustainability of Information on Review information This indicator may not be effective during project funding for management (proposed or actual) annually or less often implementation because of substitution of project management funding funds for normal budget allocations. sources.

Change in availability and Annual budget. Calculate from This can be a hidden factor paralyzing an otherwise timeliness of release of funds official records and apparently well established and potentially effective Local financial records. interview results biodiversity conservation system.

Results of Interviews with local management staff

Change in extent to which Results of interviews Interviews with local Unless local management staff have a meaningful role field and local management with local management management staff in the preparation and allocation of budgets, funds staff are involved in, and staff may not be directed to the most important issues understand, the budgetary process.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 93 Class Indicator Data Set Method Comments

Facilities and Change in quality and /or Management records, Identify the Include vehicles, field equipment, survey equipment. equipment quantity of facilities and inventory equipment and data recording and storage equipment. equipment facilities needed and available

Staffing Change in the number of Staffing levels Calculate necessary Needs to be combined with other indicators such as trained staff in relevant staffing levels and performance ratings, time in the field, etc agencies or areas (needed check actual staffing vrs actual) levels annually.

Staff Change in the rate of Staff records Calculate from Rapid turnover is clearly likely to reduce the performance turnover of staff a site official records effectiveness of biodiversity protection

Change in average Results of individual Develop and use a Training is not an indicator of effective performance. It performance rating staff at a performance evaluations performance rating is the way skills and knowledge gained through particular location (duty, statements, system and update training are translated into improved performance training history, work and changed behaviour that shows effectiveness. ratings every 1-2 programs, field patrol Performance rating systems take time to design, records), interview years require a basis of duty statements and capability results criteria for designated positions, and should be developed and implemented in a participatory manner. Change in the (average) Time sheets and field Calculate field time It may be more indicative to use an average of field amount of time (person- reports days per management staff member, so that efforts by days) spent in the field. one or two staff, or special projects, do not skew the results. Management Existence of representative Project/government Examine records or In addition to being effectively representative, such a structures and coordinating or records, community conduct interviews structure should make/improve links between field arrangements management dody which interviews level and development decision-making levels. An additional indicator is the change in the effectiveness involves stakeholders of such structures.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 94 Class Indicator Data Set Method Comments

Existence of formal An additional indicator is the change in the conservation agreements effectiveness of such agreements.

Awareness Change in level of Results of structured Structured interviews Specific target groups should be monitored separately, levels understanding of interview/questionnaires and questionnaires e.g. filed management staff, resource user groups, biodiversity concepts and local government officials. conservation objectives

Ongoing Change in budget allocated Results of review budget, Review budget, If there is no ongoing monitoring capability then the monitoring to monitoring, or number of staffing management staffing and sustainability of biodiversity conservation is at risk. capability staff trained in monitoring systems management systems The capacity to monitor must exist before effective monitoring can occur. annually or less frequently.

Status of monitoring Management systems Review of existing information management systems system

Change in integration of Annual work program Review annual work Acceptance of biodiversity monitoring as a normal biodiversity monitoring into and patrol reports programs and patrol part of management activities suggests that it will be the routine duties of field reports sustainable. staff

Effectiveness of Change in extent and Management records Calculate whether Failure to implement planned biodiversity management timeliness of management bodies conservation activities on time or as planned could bodies implementation of are meeting agreed lead to biodiversity loss in the long term. scheduled/planned targets activities

Threat levels Change in number and Recorded evidence of Calculate from This applies to resource conflict, hunting, fire damage, nature of threats to the unlawful activity, field official reports. Carry forest clearing, poaching, etc. Requires a ranking of te

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 95 Class Indicator Data Set Method Comments

LMNP reports and aerial out threat review. threats to determine whether a change in nature of surveys, results threat is positive or negative trend. Effectiveness will be minimal unless there are clear guidelines as to what constitutes a threat and how much effort needs to be extended in identifying threats. A fairly gross indicator at best. Encroachment Change in rate of Remote sensing data, Remote sensing, Shows direct impacts on biodiversity health. Easy to encroachment into the field reports and land aerial surveys, map analyze, though data gathering may be difficult, LMNP reserve areas. use data. overlays, GIS should depending on resources and capability. be repeated every two to five years

Conflict Existence of an agreed Project or government Review records and If a conflict resolution mechanism already exists, then resolution procedure for conflict records, documentation documents, a better indicator would be the effectiveness of the resolution on natural of traditional resource interviews mechanism management regime resource management issues

Change in proportion of Project and Wildlife and conflicts which are Forestry Divisions successfully resolved. records, interview results, PRA results. Change in tolerance of Community and Can indicate acceptance of conservation objectives, wildlife on community land management records usually linked to benefits accruing to communities.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 96 6.2 Annex 2: Socio-economic Baseline Survey Report

SOCIO-ECONOMIC BASELINE SURVEY REPORT

SEE ATTACHED AS APPENDIX 1

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 97 6.3 7.3 Annex 3: Entitlement Framework, Eligibility Criteria and Management Mechanisms

Table 18 : Entitlement Framework, Eligibility Criteria and Management Mechanisms

Eligibility Criteria of Project Type of Impact Management Mechanism Potential Mitigating Activities Affected People

People living inside Loma Mountain Total or partial LMFR Management Plan, Co-management of LMFR area, employment by LMNP Forest Reserve Areas restriction on resource Community Action Plans, Management, formation of legal community entities, use for livelihoods Resource Access Management community capacity development, partnerships with Plans, Development Plan private sector for eco-tourism, and other public and private partnership for tourism concessions.

People living outside LMFR Areas Partial restriction on LMNP Management Plan, Formation of legal community entities, community but use resources inside the LMFR resource use for Community Action Plans, capacity development, partnerships with private sector Area for their livelihoods livelihoods Resource Access Management for eco-tourism, and other public and private Plans, Development Plan partnership tourism concessions. Identification of alternative resource-use options, secondary small and medium enterprise activities, community lodges, tour guides, photographic and cultural tourism experiences

People who live outside LMFR Areas Partial restriction of LMNP Management Plan, Joint planning to ensure safe access and realization of but who belong to social groups with access to cultural or Community Action Plans, necessary rituals, customs, traditions, protection of sites, cultural or social assets inside the social assets Resource Access Management and respect of cultural values. LMFR area which require Plans, Development Plan observation of certain ritual or customary commitments.

People living outside the LMFR area Potential restriction on LMNP Management Plan, Formation of legal community entities, community who are involved in using the area resource use for Community Action Plans, capacity development, partnerships with private sector for tourism purposes livelihoods Resource Access Management for eco-tourism, and other public and private Plans, Development Plan partnership tourism concessions Identification of

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 98 Eligibility Criteria of Project Type of Impact Management Mechanism Potential Mitigating Activities Affected People

alternative resource-use options, secondary small and medium enterprise activities, community lodges, tour guides, photographic and cultural tourism experiences.

People living outside LMFR area Potential restriction on Community Action Plans, Formation of legal community entities, community who may be subject to influx of local resource use for Resource Access Management capacity development, partnerships with private sector resource users from access to these in livelihoods Plans, Development Plan for eco-tourism, and other public and private the LMFR area or from other areas to partnership tourism concessions Identification of seek benefits from development alternative resource-use options, secondary small and activities. medium enterprise activities, community lodges, tour guides, photographic and cultural tourism experiences.

People who suffer damage or loss of Partial loss of livelihood LMNP Management Plan, Participation in macro-zoning, in local area development property as a result of wildlife resources Development plan planning and resource management activities in and outside of LMFR areas

Illicit or unsustainable users of Potential restriction on LMNP Management Plan, Community involvement in resource management and natural resources in the LMFR area resource use for Development plan use and capacity development of community courts to livelihoods redress local issues.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 99

6.4 Annex 6: Summary of International/Regional Treaties and their Implementation

Table 19 : Summary of International/Regional Treaties and their Implementation

Convention/Treaty Adoption Ratification Date Objectives Implementation Date Programs/Projects

1. Convention on Biological June 1994 December 12, 1994 1. Promote Conservation of Biological Diversity 1. Development of National Biodiversity Strategic Diversity (CBD) 2. Sustainable use of its components Action Plan (NBSAP). 3. Fair and equitable sharing arising out of the utilization of genetic resources

2. The Cartagena Protocol January 2000 2003 1. To contribute to ensuring an adequate of protection 1.National Biosafety on Biosafety to the in the field of living modified Framework Project Convention on Biological launched in 2002. Diversity Organisms resulting from modern biotechnology 2. Establishment of Biosafety Clearing house.

3. United Nations June 1994 September 25, 1995 1. To combat desertification and mitigate the effect of 1.Development of National Convention to Combat drought in countries experiencing serious droughts Action program (NAP) Desertification and or desertification 2. Development of Medium Size Projects (MSP) to combat land degradation.

4.The United Nations May 1992 April 1996 1.To achieve stabilization of green house gas 1.Initial Communications to Framework Convention on Concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would fulfill the Country’s prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 100 Convention/Treaty Adoption Ratification Date Objectives Implementation Date Programs/Projects

Climate Change the climatic system Obligations to the UNFCCC

5.Kyoto Protocol December 10 th November 2006 1.To strengthen the commitment of developed country 1.National Capacity Self 1997 Parties with a view to reduce their overall emissions Assessment

6.The Vienna Convention September April 1993 1.Protect human Health and the environment against 1. Phasing out of Ozone on Protection of Ozone 1987 adverse effects resulting from modifications of the Depleting Substances (ODS) Layer and Montreal Protocol ozone layer form anthropogenic emissions of by 2010 on Substances that Deplete substances proved scientifically to have high ozone the Ozone Layer depleting potential 2. Capacity building of Institutions dealing with ODS

7. The Basel Convention on March 1989 April 1993 1. To reduce transboundary movements of hazardous the Control of and other wastes to a minimum consistent to their Transboundary Movements environmentally sound management of Hazardous 2. To treat hazardous wastes and other wastes Wastes and their Disposal 3. To minimize the generation of hazardous

wastes

8. Protocol on liability and December 1.To provide for a comprehensive regime for 1999 compensation on damages liability and for adequate and prompt resulting from transboundary movements compensation for damages resulting from the trans- of hazardous waste and boundary movements of hazardous wastes and their their disposal disposal including illegal traffic of those wastes

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 101 Convention/Treaty Adoption Ratification Date Objectives Implementation Date Programs/Projects

9. Bamako Convention on January 1991 April 1993 1. To protect by strict control the human health of the ban of the import into African population against adverse effects which may Africa and the control of result from hazardous waste by reducing their transboundary generation to a minimum in terms of quantity and or hazard potential movements of hazardous wastes within Africa 2. To adopt precautionary measures ensure proper (Bamako convention) disposal of hazardous waste and to prevent dumping of hazardous wastes in Africa.

10. Stockholm Convention September 9, 2003 1. To strengthen National Capacity and to 1. Enabling activities to facilitate early action on the on Persistent Organic enhance knowledge and understanding amongst implementation of the Pollutants (POPs) decision makers, managers, industry and the public at Stockholm Convention on large on POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in Sierra 2. To develop a National implementation Plan (NIP) to Leone. manage the elimination of POPs.

12. Abidjan Convention June 7, 2005 1.For the Cooperation in the Protection and 1. Guinea Large Marine And Protocol on Ecosystem to Combat Management And Development of the Marine and Coastal Living and Fisheries Marine Depletion Protection Of Coastal and Environment of west African region

Marine Environment In The Sub-Region

13. Ramsar Convention On June 7, 2005 1. To manage wetland systems so that the human uses Wetlands of these areas are undertaken in such a way as to retain

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 102 Convention/Treaty Adoption Ratification Date Objectives Implementation Date Programs/Projects

their natural capital for future generation.

2. To encourage and support countries to develop and implement national policy and legislative frameworks, education and awareness raising programs, as well as inventory, research and training projects.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 103 6.5 Annex 4: Public Consultation and Disclosure Plan (PCDP)

Following the first and second field visits the consultant is of the opinion that three (3) disclosure workshops at Neini and Neya Chiefdoms and Freetown, need to be held in order to solicit comments on the Process Framework from the directly and indirectly Affected and Indirectly Affected Communities as well as other relevant Stakeholder institutions.

The public consultation and disclosure plan (PCDP) would include the range of information detailed in Annex C. It would cover:

• The Sierra Leone’s regulations and requirements for public consultation

• Evaluation criteria or indicators for assessing the effectiveness of the consultation plan

• A review of previous consultations undertaken in relation to the project

• An inventory of the key stakeholders who will be informed and consulted

• A program and schedule for the disclosure of project information and public consultation at various stages in the Process Framework preparation process and during the LMNP project implementation phases. The program would include:

A summary of the types of methods to be used

An outline noting the time schedule and/or agenda

A schedule of consultation activities and a plan for integrating them into other project activities and stages

An estimated budget for carrying out consultation activities, such as hiring consultants, organizing meetings, providing transportation subsidies for poor and vulnerable groups to attend the public meetings, et cetera, and associated expenditures, such as translation, production, and distribution of materials

Staff and management resources to be allocated to the tasks

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 104 6.6 Annex 5: Minutes of Consultations Held

Date 10/05/2011 Time: 13.00

Chiefdom/Section/Co Chiefdom: Neya Chief dom mmunity Section: Communities: 1.Masofinaian 2.Ward 154 3.Buria 4. Bungokoro 5. Seria-1 6. Seria-2 7.Kamaya 8.Masonia Key Persons Present 1. P.C. Jallof (P.C. of Neini Chiefdom) 2. Edward Lahai Marah -(Councilor Ward 154), 3. Karifa Kamara -(Town Chief of Bu ria), 4. Alie Marah-(Town Chiefof Bungokoro), 5. Manso Kamara-(Town Chief of Seria-1), 6. Foday Kamara-(Town Chief of Seria-2), 7. Hawa Mansaray Kamara (Mammy Queen of Seria-2), 8. Foday Fofonah-(Town Chief of Kamaya), 9. Musah Mara-(Town Chief of Koma Masere) 10. There were about 100 community members comprising of Community Elders, Farmers, Tribal Authorities, Women, Youth and Children.

Mr Mohammend Sylvanus Koroma (Dep. Northern Provincial Secretary), Mr. Kalie .I. Bangura( Senior Game Reserve Superintendent- MAFFS), Joseph A. Kaindaneh (Admin Officer-BHPIU-MoEWR), Bernada Perez (World Bank Social Development Specialist), John Conteh(Game Ranger-MAFFS), Michael Tommy (Game Ranger-MAFFS), Dyson Jumpah (ESMF & PF Consultant) Issues Discussed New boundary demarcation presentation by Mr. Bangura as part of Governments arrangement to the declare the Loma Mountains Non-Hunting Forest Reserve as a National Park and a Biodiversity Offset in fulfillment of the conditionality for the funding of the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project. He stressed that the new boundary demarcation is to avoid involuntary resettlement of neighbouring communities. Efforts are also underway to address issues of environmental and social safeguard implications and restriction of access to natural resources by the ACs. In so doing all affected villages and communities have been taken out of the proposed demarcation for the establishment of the LMNP. The redemarcation however enables the ACs and villages to have adequate land to continue to farm but they cannot trespass into the new boundary.

The Rep for the Koinadugu District Chairman (Mr Mohamend Sylvanus Koromah) said the LMNPP is to help the District Council so the Communities must welcome it and that the new boundary benefits both the Neini and Neya Chiefdoms more than the old boundary. He said the project will also benefit the entire country.

The PF Consultant interacted with the community members on the following areas:

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 105 (viii)Principal owners of natural resources and land in the area. (ix)Mechanisms to be set up in the project to disseminate information to channel grievances of community members. (x)Constraints and opportunities for participation in the LMNPP activities. (xi)The short and longterm risks that different stakeholder groups are likely to face because of the LMNPP interventions. (xii)The threats to the success of the proposed LMNPP. Responses f rom the The Communities asked “what is the main difference between the Old and New Boundary?”. The P.C. Jalloh , answered that “The main Communities difference is that there are no more any community or village with the new boundary unlike the old boundary. However, the people still hunt, collect herbs, cola nuts, bitter cola etc from sites within the new boundary, which has to been addressed through the preparation of a Process Framework and recommendation of sustainable alternative means of livelihood through a participatory approach with the ACs.

Councilor Edward Lahai Marah-Ward 154 said he is very glad about the LMNPP and that the project is not one man’s business. He said the Loma Mountains Forest Reserve is their treasure since they don’t have diamond or any other mineral and that the project will offer them several benefits. He added that their Leaders residing in Freetown are aware that the LMNPP is a good one otherwise they would have alerted the community. He welcomed the further consultations to be undertaken by the ESMF/PF Consultant.

The Town Chief of Masonia said the LMNPP is a good project for all and not Masonaian alone and that they are happy with the new boundary demarcation. He added that they are glad, God should bless the Government and everybody must communicate freely with the Consultant. He concluded that the Paramount Chiefs and Councilors deserve the praise by the communities for the new arrangement and God should bless them.

Karifa Kamara (Town Chief of Buria ) said he is happy and thankful to everybody. He said since their birth they are aware of the Loma reserve challenges. He said they used to be only 2ft from the old boundary. They are therefore happy for the new demarcation. He said they live right under the Loma Mountains and are very glad and accept the new boundary demarcation proposal.

Alie Marah (Town Chief of Bungokoro) said he is very thankful to all and that ever since he knew Loma is a site of significance. He is therefore happy with the project. He prayed that God should help the Chief, expressed his gladness and concluded that he therefore accepts the new boundary demarcation proposal

Manso Kamara (Town Chief of Seria-1) said he doesn’t have much to say but he is very happy. He said the reduction of the boundary is welcomed and glad that the LMNPP is happening in his area.

Foday Kamara (Town chief of Seria-2) said he is in full support of the new boundary and the proposed LMNPP.

Hawa Mansaray Kamara (Queen of Seria-2) said she is very happy about the new boundary demarcation but has nothing else to say.

Foday Fofonah (Town Chief of Kamaya ) said he is very happy about the new boundary. He said they get their herbs and food from the old boundary so they are now happy that they are no longer affected with the demarcation of the new boundary and that the old boundary is their source of livelihood. He requested that they need road improvement to enable vehicular movement instead of bicycles only.

Musah Marah (Town Chief of Koma Masere ) said he is very happy. He said they harvest wood from the forest so does the new

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 106 boundary demarcation only prohibits hunting? He was replied that no farming, wood cutting, hunting etc are allowed in the res erve in order to ensure that the wildlife resources are protected and also to provide the anticipated tourism objectives such the viewing of rare wildlife species by visitors. It was further explained that some other benefits to the community from the project will be the payment of revenue and royalties at various percentages yet to be determined by Government. Such inflows on an annual basis could be used to provide social infrastructure for the area.

Some the key responses by the ACs to the interactions of the PF Consultant are: -Korankos are the main ethnic group in the Loma area. -Yes, there are sites within the LMFR for customary and traditional rites. However, clear demarcations needs to be done to ascertain these places. -Livestock rearing including poultry, construction or civil works, provision of clinics are some of the expected livelihood alternatives listed by the people. -Some of the important role the community people expect of their Chiefs is the organization of the communities for the creation of awareness and sensitization. Chiefs are also expected by the people to enforce the terms of agreements to be reached with all parties and stakeholders for the LMNPP. -Some other benefits communities are looking forward to are road infrastructure improvement, tools for community level road works, provision of gravity water supply system, deep wells, and schools to train their children particularly the girl-child. Opportunities the people are anticipating from the LMNPP are job opportunities for the youth such as tour guides. -Killing of animals that invade the communities and slash and burning of land for agricultural purposes were listed as some key environmental concerns. -To address grievances, the communities suggested the establishment of a position for a liaison officer, who will also sensitize people and create awareness.

Women Issues: The women expressed concerns about the following: -Proper understanding of what a National Park means, -What are the benefits? -Need for assistance to convey their vegetables to the market centres, -The LMFR is their main source of herbal medicine since there are no clinics in their communities so what happens? -Need for alternative sources of protein, -Lack of communication facilities in the area, -The need for micro-finance schemes, -Worries about the batter system of food for clothing in Kono, -What will they get in return for giving Loma to government? -Weaving used to be their traditional practice. They wish this is restored.

Date 10/05/2011 Time: 17.00 Chiefdom/Section/Co Chiefdom: Neya mmunity Section:

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 107

Community: Kurubonla, Chiefdom Headquaters for Neya

Key Persons Present 1. Demba Marah -(T A) 2. Bala Marah -(TA) 3. Lahai Marah -(TA), 4 Abu Kamara - (Town Crier) 5. Demba Marah -(Farmer) 6. Ibrahim Marah-(Farmer), 7. Feremanso Marah-(Family Head), 8. Mohamend Marah-(Farmer) 9. Manso Marah-(Head Teacher) 10. Saio Marah-(Town Chief) 11. Foday Kamarah-(Farmer), 12. Lamini Koromah-(Farmer), 13. Sheiku T. Marrah-(Councilor) 14.Konkoro T. Marah-(Teacher), 15. Ibrahim Mansaray-(Farmer), 16. Lamini Marah- Self Emp.) 17. Hassan K Marah-(Speaker) 18. Adulai Turay-(Regent P.C. for Neya Chiefdom), 19. Fakonde Marah-(Farmer) 20. Kalie Marah-(Youth Chairman) 21. Foday Marah-(Farmer), 22. Saio Marah-(Farmer), 23.Sidique Marah-(Farmer), 24. Yanku Kamarah-(Farmer) 25. Balah Kamarah-(Farmer), 26. Foday Marah-(Farmer), 27. Mamoud Marah-(Farmer), 28. Hassan Marrah-(Farmer) 29. Idrissa Kamara-(Cleaner), 30. Denkey Marah-(Farmer), 31.Sheiku Marah-(Carpenter), 32. Saio Marah-(Farmer) 33. Mohamend K.T. Marah-(Farmer Federation District Coordinator) Other persons present at the community consultation meeting were: John Conteh(Game Ranger-MAFFS), Michael Tommy (Game Ranger-MAFFS), Dyson Jumpah (ESMF & PF Consultant)

Issues Discussed Mr. Michael Tommy led the team to exchange greetings with the community mem bers assembled and told the gathering the reason for the meeting.

New boundary demarcation presentation was made by the Mr Dyson Jumpah-The Process Framework Consultant. He said the new boundary demarcation is part of Government’s arrangement to the declare the Loma Mountains Non-Hunting Forest Reserve as a National Park and a Biodiversity Offset in fulfillment of the conditionality for the funding of the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project. He stressed that the new boundary demarcation is to avoid involuntary resettlement of neighbouring communities. Efforts are also underway to address issues of environmental and social safeguard implications and restriction of access to natural resources by the ACs. In so doing all affected villages and communities have been taken out of the proposed demarcation for the establishment of the LMNP. The redemarcation however, among other things, enables the ACs and villages to have adequate land to continue to farm but they cannot trespass into the new boundary.

The ESMF/PF Consultant also interacted with the community members on the following areas:

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 108 (xi)The short and longterm risks that different stakeholder groups are likely to face because of the LMNPP interventions. (xii)The threats to the success of the proposed LMNPP. Responses from the The following questions were asked and the appropriate responses were given by the Process Fra mework Consultant supported by the Communities Team of Field Officers. 1. Mr Balah Marah-(Tribal Authority ) asked when with the LMNPP commence? Response: The Process Framework Consultant said the LMNPP has actually started and this consultation exercise currently taking place is part of the commencement activities intended to involve the affected communities in the design and the implementation activities for various components. 2.Lamini Koromah-From Bumukoro Community - Asked that now that the new boundary is being established purposefully for the National Park, if in future other people or companies want to enter the reserve to undertake activities such as mining how can it be prevented? Response: The LMNP is being established under law so it will not be possible for the purpose of the establishment of the LMFR as a National Park to be changed for other purposes such as mining. 3. Ibrahim Takie-(Kulia Community)- He said the new boundary for the LMNP cannot be established with the consent of his community for the fear that wild animals from the reserve will come from the reserve to attack people in the community. What can be done to address his fear? Response: The LMNP is being established under international standard practices so the appropriate measures will be put in place to address his fears and that the LMNP is not the only reserve in Sierra Leone so learning experiences from other safe operating reserves will be applied to address his fears. 4. Sheiku T. Marah-(Councilor)-It was alleged earlier that the project headquarters will be located in Konobaia in the Neini Chiefdom. Is it now going to be in Neya? Any explanation? Response: The Process Framework Consultant explained that consultation processes for the design of project components are still in progress and the appropriate decision will be made involving all the relevant stakeholders.

Some Reaction by the Regent Paramount Chief Abdulai Turay . The Regent said he is very thankful to God for this LMNPP. He said his people must be particularly thankful to God for creating the Loma Mountains and the people working on the project. His prayer is that God will help the Government and the World Bank for more projects in the area. He said was one of the 5 Paramount Chiefs invited at the initial stages of the LMNPP. He said the other Paramount Chiefs invited were for Neini, Bumbuna,Faduku and Diang Chiefdoms. He said he recollects that in the said meeting it was agreed the LMNPP will be done under the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project and Neya Chiefdom will benefit from a Tourist Centre. The Regent wanted to know whether the Tourist Centre Project for Neya will take place or not? He said he do also recollect that it was agreed at that meeting that he should agree with his community people on their project of interest to be accordingly provided.

The Process Framework Consultant thanked the Regent for his intervention and assured him that all agreements and understandings reached under this project will be fulfilled with their full involvement and support. At this point it was getting dark i.e. about 19.00 so the Regent requested that the Consultation meeting should be adjourned to the following day, 11 th May 2011 at 08.30.

Second Day 2 Date: 11/05/2011 Tmie: 08.30 Kurobonla Continuation of The Regent of the Neya Chiefdom, Abdulai Turay, opened the Consultative meeting and directed that a document dated 14 th March

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 109 Questions and 2011 on needs assessment of the Neya Chiefdom in respect of the establishment of the LMNP which was prepared after the Neya Responses at Chiefdom Council meeting be read to the entire gathering. The major highlights of the needs assessment are: Kurubonla 1.That the Park Headquarters be located in the Neya Chiefdom because the access to the Loma Mountain is through the Neya Chiefdom. 2.The construction of feeder roads within the Neya Chiefdom, starting with the most strategic ones leading to the Loma Mountains namely: i. Kondeya Village through Bumbukoro, Seredu to Loma mountains; ii) Kumba Wullen Ballia to Yirandu, Kamaro Seredu to Loma; iii) Kumba Foraia to Fankoya, Sangbania, Sokrulla to Loma; iv) Fandala, Mansonya to Loma Mountain; v)Bonkokoro to Loma and vi) Dunamaro, Kamaya to Loma Mountains. 3.Improvement of Health Facilities 4.Mobile Communication 5. Employment (Job Creation) for citizens of the chiefdom, both skilled and unskilled. 6. Improvement in Education-More schools to give access to distant students;Trained and qualified teachers and scholarship scheme for students and teachers. 7. Improvement in Agriculture-Tractors for mechanical farming in low land areas; Fish ponds to provide alternative to dependence on consumption of bushmeat from the Loma Mountains.

Neya Chiefdom Structure, Composition and Ownership of the Loma Mountain It was disclosed that the Neya chiefdom is an amalgamated chiefdom made up of 4 other chiefdoms, namely Nyedu, Kulor, Seredu and Neya, which is the headquarters. It was mentioned that Nyedu are the owners of the Loma Mountain. It was also disclosed that the proposal on the needs assessment for the Neya Chiefdom was made by the assembly of all these amalgamated chiefdoms and that it was a collective decision. This received a loud applause by the gathering as a proof of acceptance. Responding to a question from the Process Framework Consultant as to whether they accept the new boundary demarcation, the answered in the affirmative. It was mentioned that Seredu, Sokuralla, Brumakudor,Brokuma, Mansonia,Nyedu,Bonkokoro, Kombamansarayan, Seria-1, Seria-2, Kamaya and Perankoro are communities at the foot of the mountain and about only 2km away, so they should be fully informed and involved in the construction of the new boundary pegging for the LMNPP.

Saio Marah-(Town Chief)- Said that the Seradu Community are leaving under the foot of the mountain and their main economic activities are farming, hunting, trapping of animals and collection of herbs for medicinal purposes. Their main concern therefore is how to get their livelihood when the LMNP is established. They are also very much concerned about knowing the exact visible new boundary as soon as possible before the farming season begins. The Traditional Head of the Town admitted that the mountain is owned by both the Neya and Neini Chiefdoms with Neya owning about two-thirds(2/3) whilst Neini owns one-third(1/3) and that the mountain is only accessible through Neya. He said that the Custodian/Stakeholders of the chiefdom are the owners of the natural resources. He disclosed that the traditional boundary dividing the Loma Mountains between the Neya and Neini chiefdoms is a Kankankoe stream that traverses the mountain through the following points:1) Serelenko Hill , 2)Loma Ferenba (Feremosu), 3)Loma Kalama and 4)Perakonko(Perankoro). He said the Bintimani mountain, which is the most distinguished and highest point of the Loma Mountain is located in the area that belongs to the Neya chiefdom. He added that the main access road to the mountain is through the Neya Chiefdom without any constraint. This road they said is called te road of the Loma Mountain. The said the road goes through Sokuralla, which is in the Neya Chiefdom.

Ethnicity The main ethnic group is the Korankos. The people said there are 16 villages in Neya and II Villages in Neini. They said Neya Chiefdom’s population is about 42,000 and the Nyedu section has a population of about 16,000. Hence, the Neya Chiefdom people basing their

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 110 argument on their population figures, they want the administrative headquarters of the LMNPP to be built in the Neya Chiefdom . They further argue that Neya Chiefdom is the main access to the mountain. They also admitted that Neini also provides a shorter access to the mountain. Potential Conflict Situation Following from the arguments from the Neya Chiefdom people and their position, there is a likelihood of an underlying conflict situation regarding the location of facilities under the LMNPP. The implementers and key stakeholders need to recognize this potential conflict situation and ensure a participatory and transparent process of arriving at final decisions as to the location of LMNP Project facilities. The following list of persons put forward by the Neya Chiefdom should be involved in future discussions and dialogue regarding location of project facilities and resolution of potential associated conflicts or grievances: 1.Rugie Marah- (Councilor of Neini Chiefdom and Deputy Chair Lady of Koinadugu District Council), 2. Augustine K. Koroma (Councilor Neini Chiefdom) 3.Foday Umaru Jalloh-(Neini Chiefdom), 4. Abdulai Turay: 077452106-(Regent P.C. Neya Chiefdom), 5. Sheiku T. Marah:078357424-(Councilor, Neya Chiefdom Ward 153), 6. Edward Lahai Marah-(Councilor Neya Chiefdom Ward 154), 7 Bunduka Mansaray-(Councilor Neya Chiefdom Ward 155), 8.Demba Mara-(Tribal Authority and Spokesman, Neya Chiefdom Bunmukoro), 9.Fasowa Marah-(Nyedu Section Chief), 10. Hassan Kalie Marah-(Neya Chiefdom Speaker), 11. Balah N. Marah: 077350257 -(Liaison Project Officer), 12. Sirah T. Marah-(Chair Lady Neya Chiefdom), 13. Yirah Turay-(Neya 1 Section Chief), 14. Yirah Marah-(Town Chief Kurubonla)

Traditional and Customary Rites relating to the LMFR The people of Neya Chiefdom disclosed that there are traditional and customary rites they perform in the Loma Mountains. Some of these are Traditional Secret Society activities for both male and female (the Bondo Society for women and Gbangbanie for men). There are ceremonial ancestral centres where oracles are consulted. The spirits of the dead are also invoked. The Chiefs and Elders stressed that before the erection of the new boundary is done the necessary rites have to be performed to pave the way for entry of foreigners. It was also disclosed that it is a taboo for foreigners to enter the forest without necessary rites being performed. All these rites are to be done to apiece or satisfy the gods in order that the LMNPP will succeed. The LMFR is also considered a mystic place so the consultation of performance of the necessary rites prior to the entry of the site for the real take-off of the LMNPP is vital.

Equity and Gender Issues Regarding Access to Natural Resources in the Loma Mountains The Neya Community people said both men and women have equal access to the natural resources in the Loma Mountains. They believed that the Loma Mountains is possessed by both Men and Women Devils. Most of the rites performed there are done by both men and women. Additionally, women and men all equally enjoy resources from the forest without any discrimination nor restriction by gender.

Sustainable Alternative Livelihood Options Prior to thinking of any sustainable alternative livelihood options, the people would want to see clear boundary demarcations on land but not only paper in order to be sure that their farms are not affected. Some alternative livelihood options the people proposed are acquisition of vocational skills, setting up of cottage industries, mechanized agriculture, provision of loans to undertake trading and compensation for potential lost of access to cash crops such as cola nut, bitter cola, coffee, oranges and cocoa.

Important Roles for the Traditional Authorities

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 111 i) After t he erection of the new boundary pegs, the traditional authorities should announce categorically and establish bye -laws to prevent people from encroaching on the LMNP. ii)The LMNP protection should be included should be included in the bye-laws of the Chiefdoms since every chiefdom has bye-laws. iii) The Traditional Authorities could provide accommodation and security to the LMNP Project Staffs to ensure the success of the project. iv)The Regent Paramount Chief has already began taking the necessary steps to prevent farming, wood cutting, hunting etc in the forest. v) The Traditional authorities will organize the youth to improve the road access to the mountain in the interim until actual road improvement activities begin. However, some financial support is needed as soon as possible in respect of this initiative by the people.

Mechanisms to Address Grievances The Neya Chiefdom community people think that they do not anticipate grievances because the LMNPP is the only project coming to their area, which is considered the most deprived. They will therefore rather expect that communication infrastructure and facilities are provided to enable them disseminate information about the project. They were emphatic that there are no grievances here and that there is already good cooperation and collaboration among the stakeholder communities.

Constraints and Opportunities to the Community for participating in the LMNPP Activities The Neya Chiefdom said their constraints are all that they have put in their needs assessment document and that should be addressed under the project. The key ones which are feeder roads construction and transportation facilities, communication, schools and hospitals and water supply. Some of the opportunities the re-echoed are: Improvement of feeder roads, access to Chiefdom Headquarters, health post, reduction in child mortality rate, communications improvement, water supply, awarding of scholarships to the vulnerable, better and improved education and housing facilities for the accommodation of visitors.

Threats to the Success of the Proposed LMNPP According to the people of the Neya Chiefdom, the main threats to the LMNPP are the following: i) The location of the Administrative headquarters of the LMNP. They claim that if the headquarters is not located in the Neya Chiefdom there will great conflict. ii) Failure to compensate people who will no longer have access to the forest reserve may be compelled to encroach the park, which will be detrimental and a big threat to the project. iii)Limitation of access to future agricultural land. Though the new boundary demarcation allows the farmers to continue their farming activities outside the new boundary they cannot expand such farms in the future.

Date 11/05/2011 Time: 17.20 Chiefdom/Section /Co Chiefdom: Neini Section:………………………………. Community: Gbenekoro mmunity Key Persons Present 1. Mohamend Koroma -(Town Chief), 2. Bankali Mara -(Youth Leader), 3. Musa Mara -(Tribal Authority), 4.Kulako Koroma -(TA) 5.Fasali Koroma-(TA), 6. Siniba Koroma-(TA-Women), 7. Jakuba Koroma-(T.A), 8. Saio Koroma-(Chair Lady), 9.Persi Koroma-(TA), 10. Yeri Koroma-(TA-Women), 11. Sheiku Koroma-(Youth Chairman), 12. Bala Mansaray-(TA), 13.Dauda Koroma-(Teacher), 14. Ibrahim K. Mara-(Teacher), 15.Mohamend Mara-(Imam), 16.Musah Mara-(Farmer), 17.Suruku Koroma-(3 rd Imam), 18.David Koroma-(Dep Headmaster), 19. Sheiku Sessay-(Farmer), 20. Bala K. Koroma-(Pastor), 21. Kalie Koroma-(Farmer), 22.Bala Tronka- (Farmer),23.Kumba Koroma-(TA), 24. Mohamend Sessay-(Farmer), 25. Sheiku Faro-(Trader), 26.Kuya Koroma-(Secrtion Chief Woman), 27. Maa Sali Koroma-(Speaker-Women Side), 28. Jomba Mara-(2 nd Speaker), 29. Feren Findaboh-(Imam’s Wife), 30. Konkofa

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 112 Koroma -(Farmer), 31. Bangali Mara -(Blacksmith), 33.Y ayah Koroma -(Farmer), 34 Bala Musa Tronka -(Farmer), 35.Bambeh Mara, 36. Ferenkeh Koroma-(Farmer), 37 Lansana Mara- (Farmer). 38. There were over 100 other community members present.

Other persons present at the community consultation meeting were: John Conteh(Game Ranger-MAFFS), Michael Tommy (Game Ranger-MAFFS), Dyson Jumpah (ESMF & PF Consultant)

Issues Discussed Mr. Michael Tommy led the team to exchange greetings with the community members assembled and told the gathering the reason f or the meeting.

New boundary demarcation presentation was made by the Mr Dyson Jumpah-The Process Framework Consultant. He said the new boundary demarcation is part of Government’s arrangement to upgrade the Loma Mountains Non-Hunting Forest Reserve as a National Park and a Biodiversity Offset in fulfillment of the conditionality for the funding of the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project. He stressed that the new boundary demarcation is to avoid involuntary resettlement of neighbouring communities. Efforts are also underway to address issues of environmental and social safeguard implications and restriction of access to natural resources by the ACs. In so doing all affected villages and communities have been taken out of the proposed demarcation for the establishment of the LMNP. The redemarcation however, among other things, enables the ACs and villages to have adequate land to continue to farm but they cannot trespass into the new boundary.

The New boundary poses restriction to access to natural resources in the forest reserve. The communities are therefore expected to discuss their concerns resulting from this access to natural resources restriction with the ESMF and Process Framework Consultant. collaborate with the project implemters to design various project components and also fashion out sustainable alternative livelihoods the affected communities would like to engage in.

The PF Consultant also interacted with the community members on the following areas:

(i)The Socio-cultural background of various groups of persons living adjacent to the LMFR. (ii)The Customary and traditional rites related to natural resources in the LMFR. (iii) Equity and gender issues regarding access to natural resources, utilization and sharing of benefits from natural resources. (iv)Land acquisition issues and/or restriction of access to natural resources. (v)Sustainable alternative livelihood options and community based activities that the local people might be interested in to pursue. (vi) Social issues of concern to the affected communities. (vii)Environmental issues of concern to the affected communities. (viii)Principal owners of natural resources and land in the area. (ix)Mechanisms to be set up in the project to disseminate information to channel grievances of community members. (x)Constraints and opportunities for participation in the LMNPP activities. (xi)The short and longterm risks that different stakeholder groups are likely to face because of the LMNPP interventions. (xii)The threats to the success of the proposed LMNPP. Responses from the The People said their population is about 850 including both men and women. Their main ethnic group is Korankos. Community The Gbenekoro people said they have no traditional nor customary rites that they perform in the forest reserve. Land is owned by their ancestors namely Kangbe Koroma, Farah Koroma, Jonkor Monso which has been passed on to the present grand children such as Poreh Koroma, Paa Faseli Koroma, Foray Mara, Musa Mara, Kulako Koroma, Joseh Mara, Keli Koroma, Suruko Koroma, Mohamend Mara, Sheiku Koroma, Mohamend Koroma, Faseli Koroma etc.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 113 The Gbenkoro community Chiefs , Tribal Authorities, Elders etc admitted that they are aware of the proposed LMNPP and the new boundary demarcation . They pointed out that though the Gbenekoro Village is outside the new boundary they are confronted with the issue of restriction to access to natural resources. The community people said they farm, hunt, collect medicinal herbs, cola nuts from the forest. They however do not know the exact boundary yet to enable them have a complete idea of the extent of the actual impact the new boundary might have on them. The community people mentioned that Gbenekoro is about 1 mile from the old boundary. The main social issues of concern are the following: • The Loma Mountains Forest is their source of livelihood so restricting access to the forest will deprive them of their livelihood. • Lack of water supply, health centre, community school, shelter etc. Notwithstanding the above social concerns the community expressed their desire to have the project go on with the expectation that the project will provide them with job opportunities. They expressed their preparedness to offer any support they can to the project.

The main threat to the project from their perspective will be the lack of opportunity to feed themselves if they are not able to farm in the forest. They said they are not aware of any conflict among any group of people about the resources in the Loma mountains. The women said they depend on their husbands who farm in the forest so if their husbands have agreed to move from the forest they have no objection. The community said alternative land will be available for farming but these lands could only be cultivated with the help of tractors and other farming equipments.

Date 11/05/2011 Time: 20.25 Chiefdom/Section/Co Chiefdom: Neini Section:………………………………. Community: Konobaia mmunity Key Persons Present 1. Sheiku Marah -(Town Chief),2.Shenbureh Marah -(Mami Queen), 3.Kelfa Marah -(Famer), 4.Kelly Koroma -(Y outh Leader), 5.Musa Jawara-(Farmer), 6.Saio Koroma-(Farmer), 7.Mohamend Marah-(Farmer), 8.Fasalie Kamara-(Farmer), 9.Daniel Marah-(Head Master), 10.Sundu Marah-(Community Based Officer), 11.Konkofa Koroma-(Community Based Officer), 12. Foray Sesay-(Farmer), 13.Ferengbe Koroma-(Farmer), 14. Maforay Marah-(Farmer), 15.Fallah Marah-(Farmer), 16.Mantenneh Koroma-(Farmer), 17.Finnah H. Koroma- (Farmer), 18 Other communities members present counted were over 143. Issues Discussed Same as above Responses from th e The Town Chief expressed his happiness about the project and appreciation to the Government. He said this project calls for t he Community involvement of all and that though a new boundary has been established they need to know the exact location of the boundary on the ground. He said they have been living in extremely deprived conditions and the lack of development around the Loma Mountain for so many years and that the takeoff of the LMNPP is what they have been waiting for. The estimated population of the community provided by the people is about 960, including women and children. The people said th Konobaia community is about 2miles from the mountain. The Chief stressed that the Loma Mountain is very important to the community and listed the following as some of the benefits they derive from the LMFR: -Main source of livelihood -Place of religious significance -Source of water The Chief enumerated the following as their main concerns : -Lack of good community schools, educational facilities and teachers. Children have to walk several miles to attend school. -Lack of health centres with the necessary health facilities to provide good health services to the people. The community therefore

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 114 depends solely on herbs from the LMFR. The predominant diseases in the area affecting the people are hernia, pneumonia and malaria. Other health related problems pregnancy and malnutrition. -A very poor road network as one the major problem to the community, -Lack of communication network in the whole area.

The Women Leader lamented that they are really struggling to survive, particularly with reference to maternity health facilities for pregnant women. She said several pregnant women have lost their lives as result of child birth complications due to the lack of maternity health facilities and the need to walk several miles for health assistance on very poor roads.

The benefits the community are anticipating from the LMNPP are: -Road infrastructure improvement, -Provision of alternative means of livelihood and alternative sources of protein in place of bush meat, -Provision of community schools with good facilities for the children, -Provision of health care centers with equipped facilities and man power -Provision of equipments and implements for the cultivation of grassland areas -A community meeting place

Potential threat to the LMNPP A failure to comply with agreements that will be reached under the LMNPP by all stakeholders will be the main threat to the project.

Date 12/05/2011 Time: 07.30 Chiefdom/Section/Co Chiefdom: Neini Section:………………………………. Community: Krutor mmunity Key Persons Present 1.Dagbala Koroma -(Town Chief), 2. Daboh K. Poreh -(Teacher) 3. About 80 Community members were present Issues Discussed Same as above Responses from the The Chief expressed his deep satisfaction about the project. He said the ownership of the Loma Mountain belongs to all in Sie rra Leone Community but the immediate communities are the directly affected people and for that matter they must receive the immediate benefits. His main concern is what will be the alternative to the natural resources that they derive from the forest. He mentioned that two rivers, namely River Gbagbeh and River Say have been a major constraint to the village. The traditional leaders are the land owners. They said portions of the Loma forest is owned by the community. The main areas of the Loma Forest they own are Henekuma, Kintibaha, Nyafaraya, Laiah, Yirah, Namaya, Kulburoh, Gberikelia and Tinfay. They disclosed that the community is about 7miles from the mountain. They said the community does not have enough forest farm lands. The land areas available for farming are mainly grassland where tractors will be needed for cultivation. The estimated population figure provided by the community is 3,500 (male-1700 and female-1800). The main ethnic group is Korankos. Their main food crops are rice, cassava, millet, maize, potatoes, yam and beans. Coffee, Cocoa, Cola nut and Palm are their main cash crops. Market gardening crop is pepper. Pineapples, pear and oranges are some of their fruit crops. Local Forest Reserve Regulating Laws -No cutting of spices trees, bitter cola trees and trees in high forest areas are allowed. A culprit will pay a fine of one cow ; -Farming is allow only in the low lying areas but not the upland areas, -Outsiders are not allowed to hunt in the forest, -Frequency of entry into the forest by any person is at least once or at most twice in the year as a measure to protect the wildlife.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 115 Traditional customary rites are per formed in the month of April every year in the forest.

Main Diseases and health related problems Hernia, appendicitis, malaria, diarrhea , Cough, epilepsy, measles, cholera, convulsion, pneumonia, chicken pox, TB, asthma, typhoid and pregnancy problems.

Education Facilities available: There is one Government assisted Primary school called the MCA Primary School of Krutor. The school has a pupil population of 853 made up of 401 boys and 452girls. There are 10 teachers (1 female and 9 males) in the school. Seven of these teachers are on government payroll whilst the remaining three(3) are paid by the community.

Potential Benefits the Community anticipate from the LMNPP and alternatives due to restriction to natural resources -Assistance to undertake livestock rearing such as cattle as an alternative to bushmeat from the forest; -Fish ponds to promote aquaculture to complement protein needs of the community; -Incomes from cola nut, bitter cola, spices, herbs enables the people to among other things to construct their buildings. Support to provide shelters will be expected if these income sources will dry-up as a result of restriction of access to natural resources in the LMFR. -Provision and improvement of roads. According to the people, Krutor has never benefitted from any infrastructure from the Government and that they have been totally cut-off. -Better structures and facilities for the Krutor community school and provision of training centers for vocational skills training. -Provision of healthcare centers. -Support for mechanized farming -Community centre and community food storage facility. -Creation of job opportunities for the youth whose lives are much dependent on the LMFR in order to avoid any social menance and migration to the cities. -The community depends on unwholesome water from streams. The only available hand pump well is not functioning properly. There is therefore the need for a good source of drinking water for the community. -A community member suggested that there is the need to ensure that employment conditions in the management of the park are done in a manner to avoid teachers leaving the classroom for lack of good teaching conditions as it is happening now in the mining areas at Ferengbeya in the Diang Chiefdom.

Threat to the LMNPP The community people thinks that the major threat to the project will be the failure to fulfill their concerns and requests that are being put forward. If their concerns and requests are met, they themselves will provide the needed security for the project.

Date 18/05/2011 Time: 13.30 Chiefdom/Section/Co Chiefdom: Sandor Section:………………………………. Community: Kayima mmunity Note: The Sandor Chiefdom and the Kayima community were selected for the Chiefdom level interview because of the strategic location of the chiefdom with reference to the Neya and Neini Chiefdoms. The Sandor Chiefdom and Kayima are like the anchor chiefdom and community to the Neini and Neya Chiefdoms. The Sandor chiefdom also share boundaries with the

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 116 Neini and Neya Chiefd oms and 7 other Chiefdoms. Key Persons Present 1.Paramount Chief Sheiku Amadu.Tejan. Fasuluku Sonsiama III, Sandor Chiefdom Issues Discussed • Community level rapid socio-economic assessment covering community demographic information- population, ethnicity, and basic community infrastructure facilities available such as schools, health centres, electricity, water, road, communication etc. • Understanding the main economic activities of the community, main food crops, main cash crops and gardening/vegetable crops; • Land Ownership status, adequacy of land available and information on other non-agricultural activities; • Importance of wildlife to the community, investigation about local laws for regulating natural resources, main sources of energy for cooking and lighting and the extent of the community involvement in natural resources management; • Significance of the Loma Mountains Non-Hunting Forest Reserve to the community; and • Suggestions from the community for the improvement of the management of the Loma Mountains Non- Hunting Forest Reserve.

Responses from the Kayima is the Headquarters of the Sandor Chiefdom. There are 9 sections in the Sandor Chiefdom. The Sandor Chiefdom shares Paramount Chief boundaries with Neya, Neini, Lei, Faima, Gbanse, Kamara, Nimikoro, Nimiyama (Kono District), Neini and Neya (Koinadugu), Konikesanda (Tonkolili Dist). Sandor has a population of about 49973. The main ethnic group is Konos. The Korankos and Mandigos are small ethnic groups present in the Chiefdom. Education Facilities Nursery Schools-7, Primary-72 and Secondary-4 For 47 schools there are 8925 Pupils with 47 teachers. Health Facilities 1 Health care centre and 8 PHU under the management of Community Health Officers. Economic Activities Main food crops are cassava, rice and potatoes. Coffee, Cocoa are the main cash crops. Sandor is the leading Chiefdom in cash crop production. Pepper is the main vegetable grown in the Tama Forest as well as some okro and spring onions. Land Ownership is entrusted in the hands of the Paramount Chiefs and Town Chiefs. Adequate land is available for farming. There is however the need for a proper land use planning. Importance of the LMNP The LMNPP is very important to the Sandor Chiefdom. Sandor is like the hub of the LMNPP and could benefit significantly from the LMNPP and is prepared to collaborate with the project stakeholders in many ways. Involvement in LMNP Management Areas that the Paramount Chief think Chiefs can be involved in the management of the LMNP are: -Community sensitization and training, particularly in wildlife ecology; -Development of alternative livelihood for the communities -Provision of community development projects such as roads, guest houses, schools, conservation education, fuel-wood collection, bee keeping etc

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 117 -Control ling of wild fire Suggestions for involving traditional authorities in the LMNP management: The P.C. suggested that traditional authorities should be involved as PRO’s between their subjects and the project management teams. Suggestions for improving the LMNP Management -NGO’s must not be involved in the management. NGOs bring alien priorities to the communities. The communitities should be given adequate participation in the project planning and prioritization. -There should be transparency in the administration of the project; -Community development projects should concentrate on road projects considering the deplorable state of roads in the area.

Date 20/05/2011 Time: 1600 Chiefdom/Section/Co Chiefdom: Neini Section:………………………………. Community: Krutor mmunity Key Persons 1. Paramount Chief Almamy Umaru Foday Jalloh III interviewed Issues Discussed Same as above Responses from the The P.C. said there are 5 sections in the Neini Chiefdom. These are Yiffin, Kallian, Sirad u, Wollay and Barawah sections. There about 150 Paramount Chief villages. He said the population of the Chiefdom ranges between 46-50,000 comprising of female 52% and male about 48%. The main ethnic group Korankos. There are some minorities Temnes. Education and Health Facilities There about 40 primary schools and 6 secondary schools. There are about 500 teachers in the schools in the area. The Chiefdom has Seven(7) Health Care Centers with only one (1) Community Health Officer and seven (7) Supervising Nurses The sources of water for the communities are from Bore Holes (30), Streams (120) and Gravity Water Supply for 4 communities. Road conditions are very poor and accessibility in many of the communities is only seasonal. The main food crops are rice, groundnut, cassava, cocoyam, potatoes and beans. Coffee and cocoa are the main cash crops. Vegetable crops are pepper, garden eggs and tomatoes. Gold and Blackstones (iron ore) mining are some other non-agriculture activities in the chiefdom. Land ownership status is communal. Enough land is available for farming in the chiefdom. Importance of the LMFR The LMFR is their main source of bushmeat-hunting (60%) and fish (30%). Domestic sheep/goats provides about 10% of their protein needs. The supply trend of bushmeat in the communities is declining due to the enforcement of laws prohibiting hunting in the Loma mountain forest reserve. The main source of energy for cooking and lighting is wood collected from the bush. The chief disclosed that there are local laws regulating the LMFR but it has not been codified. Involvement in the LMNP Management The P.C said there is no formal involvement of the chiefs in the management of the LMFR though the resources in the reserve are in the custody of the P.Cs. Suggestions for Involving Traditional Authorities in the LMNP Management The P.C. said it is very important to get the traditional authorities involve in the management of the LMNP by putting the relevant structures in place for decision making and participation in the management of the park. Significance of the LMNP

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 118 It is the main source of income for the development in the communities within the chiefdom and if properly managed it will gi ve rise to a boom in the ecotourism sector. Suggestions for Improving the LMNP Management i).Government should put a premium on the Loma Mountain due to its economic viability to the chiefdom and the entire country. (ii)The project should provide employment opportunities to the youth and other skilled people. (iii).Maintain the cultural heritage (history and traditional dance) of the people. (iv)Opening up of the chiefdom to foreigners and investors to bring in the needed developments and trade for business boom.

Date 23/05/2011 Time: 07.00am Chiefdom/Section/Co Chiefdom: Neya Se ction:………………………………. Community: Konobaia mmunity Key Person 1.Daniel N. Marah -(Head Master, Konobaia Primary School) Interviewed Issues Discussed Same as above Responses from the The population of the Konobaia community is 966. T he main ethnic group is Korankos. The Fulas and Temnes are minority ethnic Community Liaison groups in the community. Officer Facilities There is only 1 Primary school in the community with a total enrollment of 666 comprising 294 boys and 372 girls and 9 teachers. The school receives pupils from other neighbouring communities. The community has no health facilities. Streams are the main sources of water for the people. Road condition in the area is very bad and only seasonal. Rice, maize, soghum, cassava and potatoe are the main food crops. The main cash crops are cola nut, palm oil, cocoa and coffee. Pepper and tomatoes are the main vegetable crops. Other non-agricultural activity in the community is hunting with traps. The LMFR is their main source of bushmeat-hunting (80%) and fish (20%). The availability trend of bushmeat is declining due to the enforcement of restrictions. The main source of energy for cooking and lighting is wood collected from the bush. Land ownership is Communal. The community has adequate land for farming. There are local laws regulating the LMFR. The community is involved in the management of the LMFR through the making and enforcement of local bye-laws Significance of the LMFR to the Community i)Source of wood ii) Collection of cola nut and medicinal herbs iii) Source of fishing iv) Planting of bamboo and v) Source of water for the community. The main suggestion made for the improvement of the management of the LMFR is the improvement and control of the access to the LMFR. Suggested alternative livelihood activities i)Keeping of livestock and poultry. (ii) Fishing ponds for aquaculture (iii) Provision of equipments to undertake mechanize farming. (iv) Vocational training centre to offer skills training to the youth (v) Provision of health facilities, water, schools etc.

Date 23/05/2011 Time: 11.00am Chiefdom/Section/Co Chiefdom: Neini Section:………………………………. Community: Yifin

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 119 mmunity Key Person 1. Mr Mamorie G.P. Mara -(Principal, Yiffin Secondary School) Interviewed Issues Discussed Same as Above Responses from the There are 5 sections and 119 vilages in the Neini Chiefdom. Some of the Key Communities are Yiffin, Alikalia, Kumala, Sumbari a, Principal of Yiffin Firawa, Krutor, Konobaia and Bandakarfaia. The Neini Chiefdom has about 40,000 population. The main ethnic group is Korankos. The Secondary Limbas, Temne, Mendes and Konos are other minority ethnic groups in the Neini Chiefdom. Facilities There are about 60 Primary schools with about 5000 pupils population and 7 secondary schools, each at Yiffin, Alikalia 1,Sumbaria, Kumala, Firawa,Kaya and Alikalia MCA with the following students and teacher populations respectively-(560;15), (300;8), (150;6), (200;5), (200;5), (120;7) and (130;7). There are 6 clinics with CHOs (2) at Yiffin and Fariwa. The main food crops are rice, maize, cassava, potatoes, millet, yams. Coffee, cola nut and palm oil are the main cash crops. The main vegetable crop is pepper. Land ownership is communal. Adequate land is available for farming. Importance of LMNP Primary souces of protein are fish (60%) and bushmeat (40%). Bush meat is mainly obtained from around farms in the forest. Hunting of animals is declining but fish availability is normal. There are no local laws in the regulating of the LMFR. The community only interprets and enforces government laws against hunting. Involvement in LMNP management Ensuring the compliance of laws regarding the LMNP. Local authorities adopt their own conservation practices such as prohibition of slashing and burning. Suggestions for Involving traditional Authorities in LMNP management i)Sensitization of the traditional authorities and empowerment to manage and enforce laws protecting the LMNP. ii)Create incentives for those complying with laws in order to inspire and motivate others. iii) Changing the methods of farming which are not favourable to the protection of the forest eg Mechanized farming in the lowland areas. Significance of LMNP to the Chiefdom i)The LM is very significant to the chiefdom because the people know that the Bitimani is the highest mountain in Sierra Leone and a pride to the people. ii)The LM has huge tourism potential (iii) Income from tourism to the people in the community (iv) Protection of the Forest Reserve will contribute to the global warming reduction efforts. (v) The LM is a source large volumes of water feeding the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project. Suggestions for improving the LMNP management i) Create a system for the people to work on the LMNP fully employed so that they will fully concentrate on the management. (ii) Sensitization to protect what is in the forest. There should be forest guards to protect both plant and animal species. (iii) There should be a proper monitoring system in place to ensure that special biodiversity species are not taken away. (iv)People leaving in the neighbouring affected communities should be provided with sustainable alternative means of livelihoods such as introduction of mechanized farming, domestication of livestock. etc

Date 23/05/11 Time: 16.00

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 120 Chiefdom/Dist rict Kabala Koinadugu District Council Key Person 1.Umaro Jalloh -Deputy Chief Administrator for Koinadugu District Council Interviewed Issues Discussed • District level rapid socio-economic assessment covering the Neini and Neya Chiefdoms demographic information-population, ethnicity, and basic community infrastructure facilities available such as schools, health centres, electricity, water, road, communication etc. • Understanding the main economic activities of the community, main food crops, main cash crops and gardening/vegetable crops; • Land Ownership status, adequacy of land available and information on other non-agricultural activities; • Importance of wildlife to the community, investigation about local laws for regulating natural resources, main sources of energy for cooking and lighting and the extent of the community involvement in natural resources management; • Significance of the Loma Mountains Non-Hunting Forest Reserve to the community; and • Suggestions from the community for the improvement of the management of the Loma Mountains Non- Hunting Forest Reserve.

Responses from the The populations of the Neini and Neya chiefdoms are 39,107 and 33,426 respectively as per the 2004 population and housing cen sus. Deputy District The main ethnic group of the two chiefdoms is Korankos. Administrator Facilities There are very few secondary schools in the two chiefdoms. Neya has only 1 secondary school whilst Neini has 3. Another new secondary school is under construction for Neini due to be completed in September 2011. The Loma Mountain National Park project is the “baby” of the Koinadugu District. However, on several occasions interactions and discussions with the communities have been held by various stakeholders without the prior consent of the District Office. The Dep Chief Administrator said the District Office initiated the LMNP project as far back as 1975 but new demarcations are being done today without the full involvement of the Koinadugu District Council. He said this has led a conflict between two Councilors which the District is not happy about. A complaint letter on this situation has been sent to the Forestry Ministry copied to the Ministry of Tourism and Culture. He expressed the dissatisfaction of the Council on the situation whereby institutions neglect them when they are visiting the communities around the Loma Mountains and only revert to the District when they are confronted with problems. He said the country is aware of the ongoing proposal to elevate the LMFR into a Park status but the role of the District Council as the overall development agent has not been defined. They however appreciate the project and would want to be fully involved. The Dep Administrator expressed their concern about the new locations for project facilities identified by Mr Bangura of the Forestry Division as against that of the Council which was done in 1975. He said there was a previous document pertaining to the previously identified project locations. He Mr. Bangura’s action has led to a serious conflict between the affected sections. The council expects that the stakeholders will work together as a team. Another major concern of the council as expressed by the Deputy Administrator is that the main activity of the affected communities is farming and hunting so their dilemma is as ACs are likely to be restricted what will be the sustainable alternative means of livelihood. Involvement of the District in Natural Resources Management The Koinadugu District Council is involved in the management of natural resources. The Forestry Unit at the District is within the

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 121 District Council. He said nurseries for both private and district forests establishment are being encouraged. He the funding for Forestry comes to the District Council. Significance of the LMFR to the District If the LMNP is well developed, the District will benefit significantly and it will help improve the economic status of the people of the District through the patronage of goods and services by foreigners and visitors. It will also change the social life of the people. It will also bring more revenue to the District as well as the Government. Suggestion for improving the LMNP Management Involvement of the Koinadugu District Council as a member of the management committee and the implementation of the project is vital for the improvement of the LMNP project management. An understanding was reached between the Process Framework Consultant and the Deputy Administrator that a stakeholder meeting among The District Council, the Forestry Division, the Bumbuna Project Implementation Unit, the Process Framework consultant and other relevant parties will be held at a convenient date to further discuss relevant issues about the LMNP project that will ensure a collaborative effort for a successful project.

Date 23/05/2011 Time: 16.55 Chiefdom/District Kabala Koinadugu District Council Statistics Office Key Person 1.Mr M. S. Koroma -District Director for Statistics Interviewed Issues Discussed A brief background on the Loma Mountains National Park Project, the new boundar y demarcation consultation exercise and the ongoing affected communities’ consultations in connection with the preparation of the ESMF/PF including socio-economic survey was presented by the Consultant. The consultant requested population data on affected communities in the Neini and Neya Chiefdoms, which are in the Koinadugu District. Responses from the The District Statistics Director presented chiefdom level maps showing the affected communities and an abridge 2004 Statistics Director for the document to the Consultant. The Director has promised to compile section level population figures to the consultant. District Statistics Office

Date Makeni City Council 1/06/2011 Time: 10.30 District Stakeholders 1. M.S.Koroma -(Deputy Provincial Secretary ), 2.P.C. Foday Jalloh -(P.C. Neini),3.P.C. Abdulai Turay -(Acting P.C. Neya), 4.Mr Sheku Lahai Marah-(Council of Elders-Wolley Section), 5. Ismail M. Bangura-(Councilor), 6.Kalil Kanu-(Chairman-Drivers Union), 7. Amara Sillah- (Section Chief), 8. Foray M. Marah-(Youth Rep), 9. Alice S. Kamala-(Agriculture Coop), 10. Augustine K. Koroma (Councilor 157), 11. Shieku Marah 12.Balla Marah 13. Lansana Conteh-(Stakeholder), 14 Foday Marah-(Journalist), 15 Mohamend Marah-(Stakeholder), 16. Adama F. Conteh-(Councilor), 17. Isatu B. Tarawali 18.Raymond I.B.Sharkah-(PS Coord North DNS), 19. Blima T. Koroma-(Councilor), 20. Alhaji M.L Koroma-(Chief Imam), 21. Haja Sento Conteh-(Councilor), 22. Joe Pfeh-(Coalition Chairman), 23. Rugie Marah-(Ag Chairman), 24. Davis S. Koroma-(LUC SLP) 25. Ben Bella Koroma-9Chiefdom Councilor), 26. Alex Kapotho Koroma-(Councilor), 27. Dyson Jumpah-(ESMF/PF Consultant), 28. Kate M.B. Garnett-(Asst Dir Cons and Wildlife), 29. Sheku T. Marah-(Councilor), 30.Hon Danda M. Kruleh-(M.P), 31. Abdul Jalloh (Director-MoEWR), 32. Hon Momorie M. Koroma-(M.P), 33. Abdul M. Kamara-(Councilor- MCC), 34, Moses Turay (Councilor- MCC), 35 Joseph A. Kaindaneh-(AO,MoEWR-PMU) 36.Alimamy B. Koroma-(CA-Koinadugu Distric Council

Responses from Key We lcome Address by The Deputy Mayor of Makeni City Council

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 122 Stakeholders The Deputy Mayor welcomed all the participants present and expressed her wish for a successful stakeholders meeting. She task ed every stakeholder to actively participate in the meeting. Purpose of the Meeting Mr. K.I. Bangura said the Forestry Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Security (MAFFS) in partnership with the Bumbuna Project Management Unit are endeavoring to effect a Cabinet Conclusion to establish the Loma Mountains Non-Hunting Forest Reserve as a National Park with the objective to: -elevate the current status of Loma Mountains Non- Hunting Forest Reserve to National Park to develop ecotourism and -estab;ish te Loma Conservation area as an offset to the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Dam Project. He said the above intention has been met with stiff resistance from only one out of the four (4) communities assembled for the consultation meetings held on various dates in May 2011 in order to seek community opinions and support for the changed boundary. This is considered the first step to constitution of the Loma Mountains to National Park status. But the uncompromising attitude of the some of the stakeholders has been an obstacle to the process of constitution. He said the project is time bound, two years of which one year is almost wasted, and it is very likely that the World Bank, which is funding the project through the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project will withdraw its funding should this problem continue. Mr. Bangura concluded that it is on the basis of the above that the stakeholders’ meeting was being held to find a solution the impasse.

Address by Hon Northern Residence Minister The Hon Minister welcomed all the stakeholders. He said the caliber of stakeholders present at the meeting is a demonstration of the seriousness of the stakeholders meeting. He extended the greetings from the President and said the President and the Government of Sierra Leone has approved the Loma Mountains National Park Project so everybody must do what they can to support the project. He said government is desirous to work with the affected communities on the way forward. He said the main issue is for the affected communities to engage in dialogue for their benefits otherwise posterity will judge them. The following were other key points in his address: -There is the need to ensure that there is clarity on every aspect of the project; -Lessons must be learnt from how the affected communities near the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project collaborated with Government and all stakeholders to make the project successful, -The LMNP project is mainly intended to bring development to the people but nothing else. The affected communities may need various assistance such as equipments to undertake mechanized farming etc. -He noted that the underlying grievance of the concerned communities has to do with internal Chieftaincy agreements, He welcomed their initiative to express their grievances but requested of them to adopt a give and take approach taking cognizance that the project is a development project. -The division of sections is not the duty of MAFFS. Sections division emanates from the action of Paramount Chiefs brought to the attention of Government. In his conclusion, he said the following should be well noted: (i) The Government of President E.B Koroma has approved the LMNP Project (ii) Affected communities should put their concerns forward but must not stand against the project, (iii) Chiefdom Internal Agreement is the underlying problem of the grievances by some of the affected communities but not that they are against the project. (iv) It is the sections and Chiefdoms who has power for sections division but nobody else. He finally stressed that in countries like Kenya and other Eastern African countries significantly depends on tourism and they have good democratic systems of governance. He urged the affected communities to take the project as their own and their “diamond” and that the LMNP project is the only project that is likely to give the area an international road in the future.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 123 MP -Neya Chiefdom The MP said the Neya Chiefdom and he himself as the MP for the area completely dissociate themselves from the so called complaint letter. He said the writers of the said letter have not been nominated to represent the Neya Chiefdom and communities. The MP however, expressed his concern about the number of Neya representatives present at the meeting considering that the Loma Mountain is in the Neya Chiefdom according to Sierra Leone Geography. He said it is not true that 75% of the Loma Mountain is in the Neini Chiefdom. The MP appealed to all the affected communities to cooperate with the Forestry Division and other stakeholder institutions to make the LMNPP succeed since the area does not have mineral resources such as diamond. He said if the project is developed it will bring revenue to the people. He cautioned that nobody can intimidate anybody to get any appointment on the project. Anyone who need job must goe through the appropriate procurement processes. -MP-Neini Chiefdom He urged the affected communities to support the LMNPP. His concern is the lack of transparency and accountability and that the truth is not being told. He encouraged the affected communities to be concerned about the benefits that they could get under the project rather opposing the project. He said the issues of ownership are factual and are already documented. The Deputy Permanent Secretary mentioned that there are no other documents on the LMNP and that the New Boundary demarcation report is the only report available now. The other documents which are being prepared which requires the consultation with the affected communities and all relevant stakeholders is the Process Framework. Dr Abdul Jalloh-Director of BHPIU-MoEWR He said the World Bank is supporting the LMNPP with all funds but within a period. He said any delay will cause the project funds to be repatriated at the close date of the project in 2012. He said Neya Chiefdom has been giving their full cooperation and support for the project. It is only the Wolley Section that is not cooperating.He asked the people to consider the long-term benefits of the project to the affected communities and the entire Sierra Leone. He made reference to Cape Verde, which has 10 water bodies, which have been developed into attractive tourist sites. He said similarly, the LMNPP will create opportunities for tour guides. The project would not give rise to the relocation of neighboring affected communities. The main issue is the restriction of access to natural resources and loss of livelihoods. Addressing the concerns of the lack of accountability and transparency, Dr Jalloh said the World Bank Project funds cannot be spent without accountability and transparency and that he is eager to ensure that the people and all interested parties are involved in the processes and given access to all project documents.

Mr. Sheku Mansaray-Director, Forestry Division of MAFFS H e expressed his satisfaction of how other speakers have spoken and that the manner of the discussions is helping clear doubts and ambiguities some people are harboring. He said Forestry Reserves are mainly in the hands of Government for management for the people of Sierra Leone. The Forest Reserves serve several benefits to the entire country; He said there are about 48 Forest Reserves in the East, South and Northern Provinces of Sierra Leone. He said the Governments concern is how the affected people and communities will benefit as developments move to these Forest Reserves.. He said tourism is governments’ major development priority and that the World Bank is supporting the Kangari Hills, OTNK and LMNPP with a $5million facility. He the Loma Mountains proximity to the Bumbuna Hydroelectric Project provides more advantage hence its use as an offset to the BHEP with a $2million funding. The Director of the Forestry Division explained the need to prepare the required World Bank Environmental and Social Safeguards Document as a requirement for the funding of these Forest Reserve projects. He said for the LMNPP there are no resettlement issues as result of the revision of the old boundary. However, there issues of restriction of access to natural resources and potential

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 124 environmental issues for which an ESMF and a Process Framework are being prepared. He said there will be categories of beneficiaries’ depending on the proximity of the affected communities to the new boundary. There is therefore the need for the affected communities to nominate liaison persons to coordinate between the communities and MAFFS. He said the Government stands for transparency, awareness, fairness and respect. He pointed out that the Process Framework document being prepared will become working document for the project. He disclosed that under the LMNPP exceptions will be granted to certain activities such as bee keeping, collection of NTFPS that could take place in the reserve but this will be agreed upon with the communities through management plans. Additionally, job opportunities to be created under the project will be distributed through proper procurement processes and procedures. He said the issue of the location for the park headquarters for the project officers is being informed by vehicular access and that other two sites in the south east and north east will be provided with tourist centers. The development of these facilities will be uniform and beneficial to all the communities without any bias or marginalization. Due consideration of all the 27 communities around the Loma Mountains will be factored into the strategy for the siting of LMNP facilities to avoid any impression of dividing any Chiefdom. The Deputy Permanent Secretary made the communities understand that the selection of the venues even for the consultation meetings within the communities are being informed by the proximity of the communities and convenience for the MAFFS project officers. Ruggie Marah-Deputy Chairlady, Koinadugu District Council Expressed her resolve not to allow the LMNPP to elude the District. She said she expects that 2 MPs to take active role in the project and that she is very happy of their presence and participation in the stakeholders meeting. She added that once the MPs are present, her main role is to observe proceedings and report to the District Council.

Paramount Chief Foday Jalloh III The PC said the stakeholders meeting is the greatest opportunity so far to discuss issues pertaining to the LMNPP, which is a national project. He said the Loma Mountains is the only asset in the area, which has been totally cut-off. He expressed his gross dissatisfaction about the people who wrote the letter to the Ministry of Forestry complaining about the project. He said the complainants need to learn from the community elders and that the issue of transparency and accountability are already being addressed through the processes being followed. He said there was a new boundary sensitization workshop, which has been followed by affected community and affected persons consultations by the Process Framework Consultant. P.C. Jalloh said the time frame for the project is very critical. He therefore asked that all stakeholders join hands to make te project work according to schedule. He said as a leader, he does not have to be selfish but to be accountable to his people and ensure their well being. His main expection is unity among the his people and other affected communities.

Paramount Chief Abdulai Turay He said the people of Neya are so happy about the LMNPP. He said he was part of the first meeting on the LMNPP where pledge his full support. He recollects that there are three (3) components of the project out of which Neya was to benefit from a tourist site. He however expressed his worries that some things are being done without involving the Neya Chiefdom which owns about 70% of the Loma Mountains. He blamed Mr. K.I. Bangura for the previous meeting but he is now happy about the stakeholders meeting, which is intended to smoothen the rough edges. He said Neya Chiefdom has no hesitation against the project but would like transparency and fair share of benefits to be observed. The MP of Neini has pledge the full support for the project and that his people has no grievance any longer and are in 100% support of the LMNPP. Ruggie Mara said she has no biases on the project but the promises made to Bandarkarfaia to provide them a bridge must be carefully addressed because the announcement of this promise was done in her presence by Mr. K.I. Bangura . Otherwise, she will have problem with her people. The MP for Neya interjected that the emphasis must be on affected communities and not sections. He requested that

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 125 the PF Consultant must visit the affected Sukralla Community.

Update on Preparation of Process Framework including Socio-economic Survey by the PF Consultant

Process framework

The PF document for LMNP will describe methods and procedures by which communities in the area will identify and choose potential mitigating or compensating measures to be provided to those adversely affected, and procedures by which adversely affected community members will decide among the options available to them.

The PF document will describe the process for resolving potential disputes relating to resource use restrictions that may arise between or among affected communities, especially those in the immediate vicinity of the LMNP boundaries, and grievances that may arise from members of communities who are dissatisfied with the eligibility criteria, community planning measures, or actual implementation.

In addition, the PF will specify how affected communities can be provided with health care, schools, and other services, particularly for pregnant women, infants, and the elderly, or those vulnerable populations identified.

Socio-economic Survey

The objective of the socio-economic baseline survey is to enhance the understanding of the LMNP project designers, managers, implementers and other relevant key stakeholders of the directly affected communities and persons so as to develop or modify activities with the participation of the ACs according to the context in which the ACs and APs live.

Sheiku Lahai Mara-(Wolley Section) He requested that there should be more sensitization about the project and that the project must ensure that there is peace in the communities. Their main concern is the roads in the Loma Mountain areas and would want the World Bank to assist them. The remaining affected communities (17 in number) which have not been consulted yet or refused to participate in the earlier consultations demanded that they are consulted as part of the Process Framework preparation and the socio-economic survey. Bala Marah-(Kurubonla) He said they are very happy and glad about the project which will benefit their children’s children. Mohamend Mara-(Complainant 1) He thanked the Hon Resident Minister, whom he said acted like a father. He thanked the MPs too as well as the organizers of the stakeholders meeting. He said they are not against the project but here is the issue of internal Chiefdom agreements. He added that their desire is for a stakeholders meeting like this to be held ato involve the affected communities fand the monitoring of contractors to be engaged under the project. Lansana Conteh-(Complainant-2) He expressed concern for the lack of adequate communication. He said the section chiefs will testify that they didn’t prepare the complaint letter in search of job. He concluded that they have no objective to oppose the implementation of the LMNPP.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 126 WAY FORWARD It was agreed that a nominee each will be selected to represent the two chiefdoms in matters relating to the LMNPP. Additionally each affected community will nominate a representative who will liaise with the nominees at the chiefdom level and provide feedback to their respective affected communities. The Process Framework consultant and field team are to visit the remaining affected communities and those who refused to participate in the earlier consultative meetings and socio-economic survey.

Date 02/06/2011 Time: 10.00 SLEPA Freetown Youyi Building Key Person 1.Mr Momodu A. Bah -Director for Inter Secto ral Division Interviewed Issues Discussed The proposed Loma Mountains National Park Project and the preparation of ESMF/PF including socio -economic survey, Expectation of the EPA from the managers of the LMNP and the role of EPA under the project. Responses from th e Expectations of SLEPA SLEPA Director -SLEPA expects the LMNP to be registered with the EPA -The SLEPA expects the preparation of Environmental and Social safeguard documents and submission to the EPA. An EMP containing Community Development Action Plan including monitoring indicators should be prepared. -There should be disclosure workshops on the Environmental and Social Safeguard documents being prepared to the affected communities so that they will know the contents of the reports and associated benefits to the communities. The Consult should really visit the project communities to collect baseline information and involve the people in the preparation of the safeguard documents. -Approved safeguard documents will be the basis for the monitoring the LMNPP. -SLEPA expects that the following stakeholders are contacted and involved in the processes: • Ministry of Tourism and Culture • Environmental Forum for Action (ENFORAC)-An umbrella for all Environmental NGOs • Ministry of Works and Infrastructure-Improvement of Feeder Roads • Ministry of Lands, Country Planning and Environment

Suggestions from SLEPA -The affected communities should not be entirely prevented from having access to Natural Resources. Agro-forestry and establishment of woodlots should be created. -Energy saving stoves to reduce energy consumption should be provided -Micro-credit schemes should be established for the people to help improve their livelihoods. This must be developed in a sustainable manner. -Co-management schemes should be developed as part of the Park Management strategies Role of SLEPA SLEPA should be involved in the monitoring of implementation programmes. Some Environmental Monitoring Indicators to consider are rate of deforestation are people still cutting wood, logging, poaching, occurrence of bushfire, water quality, air quality etc. Social Indicators -Interview people to find out if benefits have been received and are actually improving their lifestyle and total income, the level of participation of the affected people and communities in the co-management practices, involvement of the people in tourism programs and the promotion of the use of local materials to make attractive products that can be sold to tourist to generate income. Education and sentization for the people to understand the LMNPP

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 127

Date 2/06/2011 Time:11.00 Freetown Ministry of Tourism and Culture Key Person Mr. Ensah Kamara -Tourism Officer Interviewed Issues Discussed -Awareness of the LMNPP by the Ministry of Tourism and Culture -The Role of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture -How the affected communities will benefit from the project -Visit to the Loma Mountain areas by the Ministry -Intentions of the Ministry of Tourism the establish a Special Development Fund under the LMNPP Responses • The Ministry of Tourism is responsible mainly for the policy formulation. The implementation of the policies is done by the Tourism Board. There is the 1990 Act of Tourism which is under review as well as the National Policy on Tourism. • The Ministry is only aware of the LMNPP on paper but not aware of any actual activity on the ground in connection with the project by the Forestry Division. The Ministry attempted to visit the Loma Mountains but the nature of the roads and accessibility constraints could not enable them to do so. The trip for the visit ended at Kabala and had a meeting with the Chief of Kabala. This was in MAY 2011. • The Ministry is making efforts to revive the Ecotourism sector under the new Minister, Hon Victoria Saidu Kamara. • To promote ecotourism in the Loma Mountains area, the Ministry could conduct a needs assessment so as to integrate it in their planning.

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 128 6.7 Annex 6: Field Visits Photo Gallery

1. Neya Communties Consultation at Masofinia 2 Community Consultation at Kurubonla

3.Second Day of Community Consultation at Kurubonla, Neya 4.Community Consultation at Gbenekoro, Neini Chiefdom Chiefdom

5.Community Consultation at Konobaia, Neini Chiefdom 6. Community Consultation at Krutor, Neini Chiefdom

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 129

7. Commun ity Consultation at Krutor, Neini Chiedom 8. State of Road Crossing from Krutor to Yiffin, Neini Chiefdom

9.State of Access Road Krutor to Konobaia, Neini Chiefdom 10.Administration of Questionnaire at Kurubonla, Neya Chiefdom

11.Administrati on of Questionnaire with Bumukoro Community 12. Some Deforestation Activities in the Neini Chiefdom teacher

Draft Process Framework for BHP Environmental and Social Management Project 130