IPP665 v2 MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS IN BELIZE PROJECT Social Safeguards Operational Policy 4.10 CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS AND INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PLANNING FRAMEWORK July 31st, 2014 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................ 1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES..................................................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT ACTIVITIES ...................................................................................................................................... 2 KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS........................................................................................................................... 4 PROJECT BENEFICIARIES.............................................................................................................................. 5 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................ 8 CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE CONSULTATION PROTOCOL.......................................................... 10 Obtaining broad community support ............................................................................................................. 10 Consultation Principles: Free, Prior, and Informed Consultation............................................................... 12 Institutional and Legal Framework................................................................................................................ 13 COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS ............................................................................................................... 14 Positive Impacts of Community Consultations ............................................................................................ 15 Positive Impacts of Indigenous communities consultation .......................................................................... 15 Community participation in the preparation of the project ......................................................................... 15 THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PLANNING FRAMEWORK .................................................................. 17 Consultations with Indigenous Communities ............................................................................................... 18 Steps and protocol for consulting indigenous Maya communities .............................................................. 19 Application of the IPPF during Project Implementation ............................................................................. 20 Social Assessments .......................................................................................................................................... 20 Indigenous Peoples Plans................................................................................................................................ 21 MONITORING AND REPORTING ARRANGEMENTS.......................................................................... 22 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM....................................................................................................... 22 DISCLOSURE ARRANGEMENTS FOR IPPs ............................................................................................. 25 Annex 1: Map of Chiquibul Forest and Adjacent Communities........................................................................ 26 Annex 2: Stakeholder Consultations ................................................................................................................... 27 1.1 Inception Workshop ........................................................................................................................................ 27 1.2 Field Visits Notes ............................................................................................................................................. 40 1.3 KBAs target areas selection process ............................................................................................................... 46 1.4 Participants List for Validation Workshop....................................................................................................... 51 1.5 Toledo Consultation Workshop ...................................................................................................................... 69 1.6 Indigenous Leaders Consultation .................................................................................................................... 78 1.7 Summary of Concerns from all consultations & Response ................................................................... 83 Figure 1: THE KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS IN BELIZE USING IUCN RED LIST OF SPECIES ........................................... 5 Figure 2: THE TARGET KBAs FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................... 6 Figure 3: Social Development consultant presenting social assessment .............................................................. 52 Figure 4: Participants at the validation workshop ................................................................................................ 53 Figure 5: Mayan Translator conveying message in Kekchi for the community representatives .......................... 71 Figure 6: Representative from TIDE expressing his support for the project ......................................................... 72 Figure 7: Alcalde of Indian Creek voicing his concern regarding demarcation of protected areas boundary...... 73 Table 1: Selected Priority Sites for the Project ....................................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Adjacent Communities, Ethnicity and Application of Indigenous Peoples Consultation Protocol ......... 10 Table 3: Grievance Redress Mechanism ............................................................................................................... 23 Table 4: Disclosure Arrangements ........................................................................................................................ 25 Table 5: Ranking Results for Selection of Target Sites .......................................................................................... 47 Table 6: Terrestrial Prioritization Criteria ............................................................................................................. 48 INTRODUCTION The Management and Protection of Key Biodiversity Areas in Belize Project is part of the World Bank’s Country Partnership Strategy for Belize (CPS FY12-FY15), which focuses on supporting the Government of Belize to achieve “Inclusive and Sustainable Natural Resource-Based Growth and Enhanced Climate Resilience.� The design of the CPS was based on (a) wide Government and non-government stakeholder consultation in Belize, (b) the need for selectivity in the areas of intervention, (c) an evaluation of other donor programs to ensure the CPS fills key gaps/complements other donor programs in order to most effectively address the country’s development challenges, and (d) the Bank’s comparative advantage and the potential impact it could have given the importance of natural resources in Belize’s development and growth prospects. This project seeks to protect the natural capital of Belize, and thereby help to improve the country’s growth prospects and accrue benefits to the poor who often depend on natural resource-driven sectors. It will support many of the measures identified in the First National Communication on climate change, such as the introduction of forest management plans, the promotion of agro-forestry, the restoration of abandoned agricultural lands, the establishment and maintenance of protected areas, and the development of a national forest fire management plan. The Culturally Appropriate Community Consultation and The Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) provide information on the types of programs and subprojects to be proposed for financing under the KBA project. It outlines how communities will be consulted and the principles of the consultation. The framework is divided into two sections: the first section provides information on the project objectives and components. The second section identifies the selected adjacent communities proposed to participate in the project. Specials considerations for Indigenous Peoples are outlined. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The Project’s Development Objective (PDO) is to strengthen natural resource management and biodiversity conservation through the mitigation of threats to Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) in Belize. These threats include:  Illegal logging, hunting, farming, and extraction of non-timber forest products (NTFP);  Inadequate management structures, institutional arrangements, policy and legislative instruments, and capacities for forest governance, including understanding and application of sustainable forest management (SFM), sustainable land management (SLM), biodiversity conservation and sustainable human development;  Poverty; and  Limited awareness among resource users and resource managers that the potential benefits from the management and protection of Belize’s natural capital could be harnessed for human development, and the advancement of Belize and Belizeans. 1 PROJECT ACTIVITIES The Project will finance the following four components: Component 1: Supporting Forest Protection and Sustainable Forest Management Activities in Key Biodiversity Areas (1.1) Forest protection (1.1a) Support for the review of the Belize’s land tenure legislation with a view to identifying potential improvements to such legislation; (1.1b) Support for training required to promote a REDD+ program; and (1.1c) Support for the development and establishment of a fire incidence rapid response team, including through preparation of a work plan and the provision of training and required equipment (e.g., fire rakes, fire swatters, nomex clothing, etc). (1.2) Sustainable forest management: contributing to reduction of emissions from deforestation and degradation and increase in sequestration of CO2. Sustainable forest management with local communities in targeted areas will be achieved through (1.2a) Rehabilitation of critical areas of high conservation values through identification, development and implementation of community-based Sub-projects, incorporating climate change mitigation and resiliency measures; (1.2b) Implementation of Sub-projects for sustainable harvesting and marketing of non-timber forest products (such as xate, cohune nut, bay leaf, and popta seeds) and for other community-based forestry opportunities, including, but not limited to, assessment and identification of opportunities for community-based forestry, stakeholder mapping and mobilization, identification of potential products, marketing and product development, training on product development, market analysis and development, and development of business plans; (1.2c) Support for identification and implementation of activities raising awareness on sustainable forest management; and (1.2d) Support for the development and implementation of sustainable forest management plans, including through assessing existing forestry standards (e.g., reduced impact logging tool, M&E tool, voluntary code of conduct) for monitoring and evaluation, existing tools and programs to reduce illegal logging, and for the establishment of an forest information system (FIS) including collection and management of information on change in forest cover, degradation, illegal activities, fire, sustainable forest management, REDD+, and a data sharing protocol with environmental impact assessments and provision of training on such FIS. Component 2: Promoting Effective Management of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs): Effective management is critical to mitigate threats to the KBAs. (2.1) Improving management of the KBAs: (2.1a) Support for the implementation of recommendations set forth in the PA Rationalization Exercise, including development of procedures, guidelines, criteria and corresponding regulations for the declaration, re-alignment and de-reservation of PAs and operationalization of Belize’s comprehensive PAs legislation to integrate those PAs which are currently managed under different legislative acts; (2.1b) Support for the development and effective implementation of PA management plans in the targeted Project Sites, including through identification of management needs, development of a geographic information system (GIS) database and application for data management and analysis, provision of natural resource management training and mentoring, and capacity building of Protected Areas Co-management Organizations; and 2 (2.1c) Support for updating the National Protected Areas System Plan (NPASP) to take into account considerations of climate change mitigation and resilience. (2.2) Monitoring and compliance of PAs: (2.2a) Support for reviewing the legal framework for the protection of biodiversity and forests with a view to identifying potential improvements to such legal framework, including an analysis of and proposed updates to Belize’s Forest Act and Wildlife Act; (2.2b) Support for implementation of monitoring and compliance in the Project Sites through demarcation of Project Site boundaries, establishment of a Compliance and Monitoring Unit, development and implementation of an operational plan for ensuring compliance with protected status of PAs, provision of training, equipment and transportation for the Compliance and Monitoring Unit; and (2.2c) Support for the development and establishment of a biodiversity monitoring system for KBAs and for increasing biodiversity monitoring capacity, including through support for implementation of the National Biodiversity Monitoring Program in the Project Sites, incorporation of biodiversity information into FIS for the Project Sites, development of biodiversity monitoring guidelines, identification of a biodiversity monitoring field crew, and provision of monitoring tools and training on biodiversity monitoring to stakeholders. Component 3: Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building for Enhanced Enforcement of Environmental Regulations This component will promote enhanced coordination and provide training among Government agencies charged with environmental management. This is critical for the long-term protection of areas through proper natural resources management, which includes climate change mitigation, and biodiversity conservation. (3.1) Increased coordination for balancing environmental management and development: (3.1a) Support for the establishment of a departmental committee for the promotion of a balance between environmental management and development needs, and (3.1b) Strengthening of compliance monitoring capacity of staff in the MFFSD’s Department of the Environment and other key agencies including provision of equipment and training in thematic areas such as compliance monitoring, use of new equipment, site inspection techniques, environmental audits, interpretation of lab analyses, and water quality monitoring. (3.2) Strengthening and improvement of environmental screening tools and processes. (3.2a) Support for the establishment of a standardized environmental impact assessment (EIA) program and protocols for enhanced environmental screening and scoping, including revising Belize’s existing EIA program, updating the EIA manual, and mainstreaming the EIA processes into relevant institutions and entities; (3.2b) Support to improve the capacity for decision-making in the EIA process, including through the development and implementation of an information management system for EIAs, the definition of roles and responsibilities of Belize’s National Environmental Assessment Committee (NEAC) and other key agencies in the EIA process, an assessment of the EIA process with a view to improving such process with a focus on stakeholder involvement, and the review of, and development of proposed amendments to, Belize’s EIA regulations to include other environmental tools and processes; and (3.2c) Training for staff in the MFFSD’s Department of the Environment and other key agencies on other environmental management tools, instruments and concepts to enhance the environmental screening and clearance process. Component 4: Project management, monitoring and assessment This component will support the Project Implementing Agency Group (PIAG) to undertake 3 (4.a) project management and implementation support including technical, administrative and fiduciary support and compliance with environmental and social safeguards, (4.b) monitoring and evaluation, data collection, stakeholder involvement and coordination. KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS Using the concept of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) developed by global practitioners seeking to identify and ultimately ensure that networks of globally important sites are safeguarded, a collaborative effort by the Government of Belize, Belize Tropical Forest Studies, Conservation International, and the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund resulted in the definition of the KBAs in Belize as detailed in the report “Establishing a Baseline to Monitor Species and Key Biodiversity Areas in Belize� (Meerman, 2007). The KBAs roughly fall into 2 large blocks and a number of isolated sites. The target Project Sites are presented in Table 1. Table 1: Selected Priority Sites for the Project Name Category KBA Area (ha) Freshwater Creek Forest Reserve Northern Lowlands 13,370 Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary Northern Lowlands 2,387 Vaca Forest Reserve Maya Mountains Massif 16,367 Chiquibul National Park Maya Mountains Massif 106,785 Maya Mountain North Forest Reserve Maya Mountains Massif 16,847 Columbia River Forest Reserve Maya Mountains Massif 59,973 The key biodiversity areas (KBAs) as determined by Meerman 2007 are presented in Figure 1. 4 Figure 1: THE KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS IN BELIZE USING IUCN RED LIST OF SPECIES Source: Meerman, 2007. PROJECT BENEFICIARIES The direct beneficiaries of the Project include the local population who use the KBAs for hunting, farming, logging, and extraction of non-timber forest products. The primary non-extractive use of the KBAs is for tourism services (tours, bird watching, hiking, caving etc.). These people would benefit from support for livelihood options that enhance their socio-economic existence and, at the same time, contribute to sustainable natural resource management of KBAs. The locations of sites and the adjacent communities are presented in Figure 2. 5 Figure 2: THE TARGET KBAs FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT Adjacent Communities:The term adjacent communities will be used for the purpose of this document. Based on a collective decision by the participants of the consultation exercises held in Belmopan and Toledo, the 6 term adjacent communities refer to: those communities who have immediate access to; are geographically proximate; and/or have traditionally used the protected areas for extraction or recreation purposes. A second group of users have been identified, these are considered community of influence or secondary users and refer to those communities or citizens of those communities who; have concessions; licenses to use; and/or occasionally use the protected areas for extraction or recreation purposes. Governmental Agencies:The Government departments that are responsible for protection and management of Belize’s natural resources would benefit through improvement of capacities for the management of natural resources. Non-Governmental Agencies:The NGOs that assist with the management of PAs and those that engage in the promotion of livelihood activities among communities that utilize PAs with the view to reduce pressures on KBAs should experience improvement in their management capacities and they will serve as conduits through which aspects of the Project would be implemented. Owners and managers of private lands:Those private owners or managers of lands adjacent or within KBAs who apply biodiversity-friendly management approaches could utilize the Project to advocate for legal and institutional arrangements that recognize private PAs and integrate them into the PAs system. Vulnerable Populations:The management and protection efforts will impact a diversified population. Efforts will be made under the project to reach and engage all those who are affected. However, in line with World Bank Operational Policy 4.10 indigenous men and women near prioritized KBAs will be targeted for consultation and to ensure that they are among the beneficiaries of the project and that management plans are not approved without consultation. Women are specifically singled out in light of Belize’s ratification of the Convention on the Elimination on all forms of Discrimination Against Women in May 1990, Conference of the Parties (COP) Decision 1X/24 on the approval and endorsement of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) Gender Plan of Action and COP Decision X/19, which amongst other matters invited Parties to consider gender as a core cross-cutting issue in the implementation of biodiversity-related activities. Anecdotal evidence suggests that within at least three of the six targeted protected areas, farmers are producing agricultural crops. Some farmers, as in the case of Vaca, are Belizean residents who have been given permission by the co-managers and are actively engaged in production of agricultural crops. Others are Belizeans or foreign-born persons living in Belize who are using the park unauthorized or Guatemalan nationals living on their side of the protected area. There are other users such as illegal loggers, hunters, poachers and extractors of other resources such as xate, leaf for thatch, seeds, and other non-timber forest products that may be a little more difficult to identify and quantify. While a few persons may venture into the protected areas to extract resources, it is important to note that most of the adjacent communities use the buffer areas of the reserve. In the event of the need to resettle any of these users, the Involuntary Resettlement Policy Framework will come into effect. 7 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES The following section specifies the activities that will potentially impact communities either negatively or positively. As a result, communities will need to be consulted in order to determine what mitigation measures should be adopted. The components and sub-components are listed highlighting the specific aspect that will require community input. Preliminary consultations indicate that activities in the KBA’s are generally cultivation of agricultural crops, extraction of timber and non-timber forest products and tourism-related recreational activities. Agricultural Activities:Farming activities are occurring within the Vaca Forest Reserve, Maya Mountain Forest Reserve, and Colombia River Forest Reserve. FCD has reported that there are significant agricultural activities in Chiquibul National Park primarily undertaken by Guatemalan residents who live adjacent to the protected area on the Guatemalan side of the PA(Annex A: Chiquibul Incursions). There have also been agricultural activities in and near Freshwater Creek Forest Reserve and this has led to some realignment of the boundary of the protected area, reducing its boundary to half its original size. Agricultural pressures continue to be applied to that protected area. Extraction Activities:The project will increase monitoring presence, in and around the target sites so the activities of illegal loggers, poachers, hunters and extractors of other resources from the protected areas will be decreased. These resource users may or may not come from communities that are adjacent to the targeted protected areas. The Forest Department will - contact the community leaders of the communities from which resource users come to promote discussions among community members about the project and provide the illegal users of the resources an opportunity to identify ways in which the project can help them to transition to activities that provide a sustainable alternative livelihood that is socially, legally, and culturally appropriate. Component 1: Supporting Forest Protection and Sustainable Forest Management Activities in Key Biodiversity Areas Sub-component Potential Impact Mitigation Measure (1.1) Forest protection: (1.1a) land tenure legislation Tax incentives to landowners to -Identify and adopt alternative reviewed reduce deforestation pressure land use (1.1b) promote and support Forest monitoring, social -build community capacity REDD+ program forestry, carbon accounting etc. (1.1c) Fire incidence rapid Fire incidence rapid response -training on monitoring and response team coordinated by the FD & forest fire management, field communications from the detection and fire suppression community level techniques (1.2) Sustainable forest management: (1.2a) Rehabilitation of critical Rehabilitation of agricultural, -Implement areas of community areas of high conservation broad-leaf and pine forests sustainable use, based on values through identification, approved Community development and Sustainable Use Plans through implementation of community- concession agreements. based sub-projects, - sub-projects are community incorporating climate change driven and designed mitigation and resiliency - better land use practices for measures protected areas such as the Maya Mountain North FR. 8 (1.2b) Sub-projects for Incentives for communities not - community management of sustainable harvesting and to engage in deforestation traditional resource extraction marketing of non-timber forest activities - sub-projects are community products (such as xate, cohune driven and designed nut, bay leaf, and popta seeds) and for other community-based forestry opportunities (1.2d) development and Management Plans for Maya Communities have input on implementation of sustainable Mountains North, Vaca, measures to re-establish forest forest management plans, Freshwater Creek and Colombia cover and engender social including through assessing Forest Reserve. support, based on approved existing forestry standards (e.g., Community Sustainable Use reduced impact logging tool, Plans. M&E tool, voluntary code of conduct) for monitoring and evaluation, existing tools and programs to reduce illegal logging, Other considerations The project implementers will In the case that indigenous ensure that traditional users of users of forest resources are resources whose livelihoods are affected, free, prior and affected will benefit from a informed consultation will be Livelihood Restoration Plan, required for Livelihood consisting of technical Restoration Framework assistance and funds to develop Operation Policy 4.12 a sustainable livelihood subproject under Component 1. Component 2: Promoting Effective Management of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs): Effective management is critical to mitigate threats to the KBAs. Sub-component Potential Impact Mitigation Measure (2.1) Improving management of the KBAs (2.1a) declaration, re-alignment New Protected Areas Legislation -recognize areas of community and de-reservation of PAs sustainable use, based on approved Community Sustainable Use Plans (2.2) Monitoring and compliance of PAs (2.2b) demarcation of Project -identification of land incursion -Farmers invited to participate Site boundaries discrepancies in the livelihoods restoration plan -Involuntary Resettlement Plan Other considerations Both 2.1 and 2.2 will impact Potential inconsistency In compliance with OP 4.10, communities who currently between the activities to be “free, prior and informed practice communal land use. financed by the project in the consultation� (see definition management plans and the below) will be required in order 9 In 2007 and 2010 the Belize provisions of the Maya Land to receive the Bank’s no Supreme Court ruled in favor of cases decided by the Belize objection for the management the Mayan villages that claimed Supreme Court which plans in indigenous areas, property rights over collective recognizes traditional Colombia River and lands in the Toledo district. The communal land use. ChiquibulReserves. Indigenous 2010 decision indicates that communities, especially those these decisions go beyond the Seven of the fourteen villages who practice communal land communities participating in surrounding the Colombia River use, will participate fully in the the litigation, as these rights are are claimants of the Maya Land design and development of the potentially found in all Mayan Rights Case: Golden Stream, management plans that will communities in Toledo. Crique Jute, Indian Creek, govern southern reserves. This Jalacte, San Miguel and San consultation process will be Vicente1. documented, summarized in the management plan and will include clear evidence of the consultations. CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE CONSULTATION PROTOCOL Obtaining broad community support Broad community support in this context means that allaffected communities have participated in a process of free, prior and informed consultation, has had opportunities to provide their inputs and comments and has indicated their broad community support for the project. TheIndigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) refers to the appropriate evidence of this broad community support specifically from indigenous peoples.The IPPF will be verified by the World Bank prior to proceeding with any activities that would directly impact them. Table 2: Adjacent Communities, Ethnicity and Application of Indigenous Peoples Consultation Protocol – Primary Users Community Population KBA District Dominant Protocol Ethnicity Applies? 1 Caledonia 1400 Freshwater Creek Corozal Mestizo NO 2 San Jose/San Pablo 2862 Freshwater Creek Orange Walk Mestizo NO 3 Progresso 1356 Freshwater Creek Corozal Mestizo NO 4 San Esteban 1661 Freshwater Creek Orange Walk Mestizo NO 5 Little Belize 2650 Freshwater Creek Orange Walk Mennonite NO 6 Chunox 1375 Freshwater Creek Corozal Mestizo NO 7 Honey Camp 37 Freshwater Creek Orange Walk Mennonite NO 8 Santa Martha 600 Freshwater Creek Orange Walk Mestizo NO 1 Essentially, the Maya are requesting that the Government respect their rights as indigenous landowners, and put in place systems which recognize their customary land tenure, including the demarcation of ancestral lands, and mechanisms for dialogue which will bring them into the decision-making process before the issuance of logging and petroleum concessions, and other agreements which could infringe or impact on their rights. The projects Safeguard Instruments have taken into consideration these concerns. 10 9 New Land * Freshwater Creek Orange Walk Mennonite NO 10 Carmelita 1475 Freshwater Creek Orange Walk Mestizo NO 11 Trial Farm 4267 Freshwater Creek Orange Walk Mestizo NO 12 Flowers Bank 143 Spanish Creek Belize Creole NO 13 Isabella Bank 121 Spanish Creek Belize Creole NO 14 Rancho Dolores 217 Spanish Creek Belize Creole NO 15 Saint Pauls Bank 153 Spanish Creek Belize Creole NO 16 Willows Bank 185 Spanish Creek Belize Creole NO 17 Lemonal 169 Spanish Creek Belize Creole NO 18 Bermudan Landing 183 Spanish Creek Belize Creole NO 19 Scotland Halfmoon 259 Spanish Creek Belize Creole NO 20 Double Head Cabbage 406 Spanish Creek Belize Creole NO 21 Cristo Rey 8447 Chiquibul Cayo Mestizo NO 22 El Progresso/7 miles 482 Chiquibul Cayo Mestizo NO 23 Barton Creek 193 Chiquibul Cayo Mennonite NO 24 San Antonio 1847 Chiquibul Cayo Maya YES 25 Benque Viejo 6147 Vaca Cayo Mestizo NO 26 Arenal 613 Vaca Cayo Mestizo NO 27 Succotz 2322 Vaca Cayo Mestizo NO 28 San Isidro 374 Maya Mountain Toledo Mestizo NO Nth 29 Bladen 466 Maya Mountain Toledo Mestizo NO Nth 30 San Pablo 1703 Maya Mountain Toledo Mestizo NO Nth 31 Bella Vista 3,508 Maya Mountain Toledo Mestizo NO Nth 32 Roseville Community *2 Maya Mountain Toledo Mennonite NO Nth 33 Trio 899 Maya Mountain Toledo Mestizo NO Nth 34 Santa Elena 200 Colombia River Toledo Maya YES 35 Santa Cruz 311 Colombia River Toledo Maya YES 36 San Antonio 1204 Colombia River Toledo Maya YES 37 Nalum Ca 66 Colombia River Toledo Maya YES 38 Crique Jute 223 Colombia River Toledo Maya YES 39 San Vicente 388 Colombia River Toledo Maya YES 40 Indian Creek 722 Colombia River Toledo Maya YES 41 Silver Creek 476 Colombia River Toledo Maya YES 42 San Pedro Colombia 1703 Colombia River Toledo Maya YES 43 San Jose 847 Colombia River Toledo Maya YES 44 Jalacte 769 Colombia River Toledo Maya YES 45 San Miguel 537 Colombia River Toledo Maya YES 46 Golden Stream 349 Colombia River Toledo Maya YES 47 Medina Bank 237 Colombia River Toledo Maya YES 2 *No censual data available since these communities did not exist at the time of the last population census. 11 48 Big Falls 845 Colombia River Toledo Maya YES Source: Identified Communities obtain via GIS Data, NSAP; Ethnic and Population Data obtained from Census 2010. Adjacent communities determined as a result of Community Consultations. Table 3: Secondary Users- Communities of Influence Community Population KBA District Dominant Protocol Ethnicity Applies? 1 Shipyard 3345 Freshwater Creek Orange Walk Mennonite NO 2 Orange Walk Town 13,709 Freshwater Creek Orange Walk Mestizo NO 3 Pueblo Viejo 547 Colombia River Toledo Maya YES 4 Maskall 803 Freshwater Creek Belize Creole NO 5 Bomba 71 Freshwater Creek Belize Creole NO 6 Crooked Tree 805 Spanish Creek Belize Creole NO 7 Maypen 50 Spanish Creek Belize Creole NO 8 Santa Familia 1597 Vaca Cayo Mestizo NO 9 Bullet Tree 2124 Vaca Cayo Mestizo NO 10 Calla creek 286 Vaca Cayo Mestizo NO Consultation Principles: Free, Prior, and Informed Consultation The World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.10 requires an engagement of such peoples in a process of free, prior, and informed consultation. Free, prior and informed consultation is defined as follows: Free: the engagement should be free of coercion, corruption, interference and external pressures. Community members should have the opportunity to participate regardless of gender, age or standing. Prior: the engagement should be during the design phase and prior to the execution of any implementation activities. Times of engagement should be mutually agreed in advance. Informed: information used in consultation should be timely, sufficient, and accessible and should cover the potential impacts of the project whether positive or adverse. Consultation: the consultation process is to be carried through in good faith, is meaningful and that it meets the conditions set out by the consultation principles, and established steps must be followed prior to initiation of consultation activities. There are activities such as legislative reform and training in sustainable forest management that could have system wide impact. The project will need to undertake consultations at the site level for the site specific activities and nationwide for activities that will have system wide impacts. Inclusion: The other critical aspect is that any such consultations must be carried out in a manner that is gender and culturally appropriate. Culturally appropriate is defined as ensuring that information is provided in the appropriate language, traditional decision-making processes are respected and seek to maximize community input into the process regardless of age or gender. 12 Institutional and Legal Framework The following section discusses the institutions who have formal responsibilities in terms of the development of communities adjacent to the KBA’s. The village councils generally apply to all rural communities while the Alcade System is specific to the indigenous Maya communities. Local Government- Village Councils Generally, the local governance system of all rural communities is through a Village Council. The Government of Belize passed the Village Councils Act (VCA) in 1999, Chapter 88 of the Laws of Belize, which was revised in 2003. As a result of this Act, Village Councils were given the legal authority to govern their own communities. The Act allows community members to establish a village council through democratic elections that serves for a period of three years as long as there is a minimum of 200 eligible voters. According to the Act, they are responsible for the general wellbeing of the community including the care and maintenance of public property and to make regulations to improve the quality of life for residents. The Village Council is comprised of seven members, six councilors who may hold positions of deputy councilors, secretary and treasurer. The head of the council is the Chairperson. Councils conduct public meetings at least quarterly. Traditional Local Government- Alcalde System Apart from the Village Council, most indigenous communities also elect an Alcalde Council. The Alcalde system is officially recognized as part of the local government structure of Belize. While the Alcalde system is not limited to the indigenous Maya community, it is currently mostly practiced among the Mopan and Ketchi Maya groups in the Toledo and Stann Creek Districts. This type of local governance is recognized under Chapter 77 of the Laws of Belize. The Alcade is assisted by four other members who act as the village police officers all of whom are elected every two years. The Alcades are provided with a small stipend by the Government. The primary focus of the Alcade Council is to act as an inferior court to oversee judicial matters within a determined judicial district (normally within the boundaries of the community). These issues include maintaining law and order, hearing and passing judgment on petty crimes and disputes. Aside from the judiciary duties of the Alcade Council, they also have the authority is to manage community lands, call for communal cleaning of the village (fajina), perform duties as school officers and even decide who can live in a village. In some instance, another authority figure is the Mayordomo who is responsible for the Catholic Church in the village. Both the Alcalde Council and Village Councils belong to regional or national governing bodies. All village councils belong to a District Association of Village Councils (DAVCO) corresponding to the administrative district where they are geographically located. The six district associations form the National Association of Village Councils (NAVCO). The Alcades belong to The Toledo Alcaldes Association (TAA) which was convened in 1992, to addresses issues of concern of its members. The TAA also campaigns for recognition of the traditional system of local government both governments locally and internationally. (Annex B: TAA Consultation Protocol) Rural Development Officers 13 The Department of Rural Development has the responsibility to oversee the direction and practices of the local government systems governance in villages and rural communities. Through its Rural Development Officers, assigned to each of the six districts, it ensures: - The provision of legislative and regulatory oversight to the local government sector - The provision of administrative and legal advice - The promotion and coordination of interaction between the public, private and NGO sectors - Providing support to programming and budgeting through financial and technical assistance - Monitoring and evaluating progress on activities within the sector. Non-governmental Organizations & Special Interests The Non-Government Organizations Act, Chapter 315 of the Laws of Belize, Revised Edition 2000defines an NGO, as a legal entity formed as a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Act whose aims, nature and objects, direct or indirect, are consistent with the principles enshrined in the preamble to the Belize Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all those international and regional human rights treaties and instruments to which Belize is a party, and are designed to contribute to sustainable human development in Belize. Many NGOs are active in all the geographic areas targeted by this project and many of them also implement projects similar to those proposed by this project. While the majority of NGO’s focus on both conservation and preservation of protected areas others also work in the areas of rural community development and social welfare. The list includes but is not limited to the Corozal Sustainable Future Initiative (CSFI), Rancho Dolores Environmental and Development Group, Friends for Conservation and Development, Maya Mountain, TIDE, Yax Che and Humana. COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONS The consultation process should include a review of the findings of the environmental and social impact assessment for a particular protected area (required by the project’s IPPF to be prepared during implementation), including the identification of potential impacts on land use, livelihoods, etc., to the affected communities. The GOB should ensure that stakeholders are fully aware of these impacts and that they support the mitigation measures and other activities that will be carried out in their particular community. This process should be documented and that the presentation carried out in a culturally appropriate manner and present evidence that meeting participants understood the impacts (detailed minutes and video footage, as well as other forms of documentation would be acceptable forms of “evidence�). The objectives of the consultations under the safeguard policies are: o Explain the impacts of the project to the affected people o Promote the participation of affected people in the planning and implementation of resettlement programs o Obtain their feedback on the results of census surveys o Obtain their feedback and suggestions on the proposed mitigation measures o Obtain suggestions on institutional arrangements for resettlement planning and implementation Any concerns that the participants express must be documented in detail as well as the GOB’s response to each concern, in order for the Bank to determine whether impacts will be reasonably mitigated. 14 Language:The process will be culturally appropriate using the predominant language of the community as well as the official language of the country. The languages to be used for Freshwater Creek, Vaca and Chiquibul are English and Spanish. For Spanish Creek only English is necessary. For Maya Mountain North- English and Spanish whilst for Colombia Ketchi, English and Mopan are the predominant languages. Vulnerable groups:Every effort will be made to be gender and inter-generationally inclusive according to the customs of the community. Apart from the indigenous persons, vulnerable groups will be invited to participate as well. These include those living below the poverty line, the landless, elderly, women and children as well as persons with disabilities, single parents and ethnic minorities. Communication: Access to residents of rural communities is best done through the village council while in urban settings, through television and radio media. Sending messages through school age children, village bus drivers and through other NGO’s working with those communities serve as an additional option in the Mopan and Kekchi communities of Toledo and Stann Creek. The Toledo Cacao Growers have buying centres in each village and extensive network of farm leaders and extension officers who can serve as couriers. Ak’Kutan Radio in Blue Creek, Toledo is received in all Maya communities in southern Belize and indigenous GuatemalanMaya villages bordering Belize. Printed and Visual Resources: The use of PowerPoint presentations in the village meeting sessions will not be practical in many of the village settings. If a prepared presentation is needed, use a flip chart format. Carry handouts to leave with meeting participants. Positive Impacts of Community Consultations - Community involvement will improve relationship between the Government and community leaders and advocacy groups. - As communities are consulted they contribute to the planning process, increase awareness of the rules and regulations, as well as threats to the protected areas, and increase participation in problem- solving and decision-making approaches. - Communities and government formalize steps to determine what grievance mechanisms will be adopted. Positive Impacts of Indigenous communities consultation - Create a platform for improved dialogue between government and indigenous populations. - Indigenous people communities will have input in the management plans of the Key Biodiversity Areas. - As indigenous peoples participate in the protection and sustainable use of the resources in the protected areas, they will increase the supply of resources in the long-term. Community participation in the preparation of the project The first level of community participation in preparation for the project was held with organizations and agencies that work with communities adjacent to the KBAs. The participants at the inception workshop conducted in November of 2012, identified the communities adjacent to the KBA and discussed the current use and potential impacts of the project on their livelihoods. (Annex D: Participant Inception Workshop). The second step involved site visits to the Toledo, Cayo and Orange Walk districts. The objectives of the field visits were to: 15  Understand the communities appreciation of protected areas and the key issue areas for the project  Understand the impact the protected areas have on community life and livelihood  Understand the communities interest in alternative livelihood opportunities  Receive a general appreciation of the area and the community life – with some appreciation for cultural practices, behaviours and attitudes as it relates to natural resources From these site visits, the planning team was able to determine use of the resources, the challenges NGO’s and communities face in their management of the KBA’s and the stakeholders network. The final stage of the community participation process was to invite community leaders from all identified adjacent communities to a national workshop. However, considering geographic location and language difference it was most convenient to have two consultations. The first was conducted in Belmopan on June 3rd, 2014 at the George Price Centre with a total of 44 participants. The KBA represented were Freshwater Creek, Spanish Creek, Vaca and Chiquibul. The Belmopan consultation was conducted in English, as all attendants indicated English as their preferred language. The second consultation was held in Forest Home Village, Nazareth Center in the Toledo District. In an effort to follow Mayan consultation protocol, the TAA and the MLA were invited and asked to consult with the Alcaldes of the communities. Both organizations were unavailable during the proposed date and a subsequent date was established to meet individually with these organizations to introduce the project and discuss the safeguard instruments. The safeguard instruments were sent via email to all organizations including invited NGO’s. Letters of invitation were hand delivered to all Alcaldes and Chairpersons via the Belize Enterprise for Sustainable Technology district coordinators. Calls were made to all community leaders to verify their attendance. Individual chairpersons and alcaldes with whom the consulting team was unable to contact via telephone were visited at their homes a day before the meeting to verify attendance. A total of 36 persons attended the consultation. Four languages were used during the workshop; translation was provided in Ketchi and Mopan by a translator working with Ya’axché. BEST’s consulting team presented in both Spanish and English. The third consultation was the Indigenous Leaders Consultation. The participants were primarily representatives of the Mayan Leaders Alliance (MLA) and executive members of the Toledo Alcalde Association (TAA). These are two important organizations since they both undertake advocacy activities on behalf of the Mayan communities; once they understand the benefit for the Mayan people, they will provide support to the project and assist with dissemination of information. As per, their approved consultation protocol, initial discussions should be held at this level before moving to the village level for consultations. The main result of this consultation was a clearer understanding of the newly endorsed consultation protocol presented by the TAA. The consultation also provided key leaders with an overview of the project and which communities will stand to benefit. All of the consultations, included presentations on the objective of the consultations, overview of the KBA Project, the selection of the KBAs, the Social Safeguard Instruments- Environmental Management Framework, and the Indigenous People’s Framework and the Livelihood Restoration Process Framework. Each participant was provided with printed copies of all documents. 16 THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PLANNING FRAMEWORK The World Bank supports the efforts of client countries to better address poverty and social exclusion among Indigenous Peoples. The Bank recognizes that the identities and cultures of Indigenous Peoples are inextricably linked to the lands on which they live and the natural resources on which they depend. These distinct circumstances expose Indigenous Peoples to different types of risks and levels of impacts from development projects, including loss of identity, culture, and customary livelihoods, as well as exposure to disease. Gender and intergenerational issues among Indigenous Peoples also are complex. As social groups with identities that are often distinct from dominant groups in their national societies, Indigenous Peoples are frequently among the most marginalized and vulnerable segments of the population. As a result, their economic, social, and legal status often limits their capacity to defend their interests in and rights to lands, territories, and other productive resources, and/or restricts their ability to participate in and benefit from development. At the same time, the Bank recognizes that Indigenous Peoples play a vital role in sustainable development and that their rights are increasingly being addressed under both domestic and international law (World Bank, 2013). 17 The Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) sets out: (a) The types of programs and subprojects likely to be proposed for financing under the project. (b) The potential positive and adverse effects of such programs or subprojects on Indigenous Peoples. (c) A plan for carrying out the social assessment for such programs or subprojects. (d) A framework for ensuring free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected IndigenousPeoples’ communities at each stage of project preparation and implementation (e) Institutional arrangements (including capacity building where necessary) for screening project-supported activities, evaluating their effects on Indigenous Peoples, preparing Indigenous Peoples Plans, and addressing any grievances. (f) Monitoring and reporting arrangements, including mechanisms and benchmarks appropriate to the project. (g) Disclosure arrangements for Indigenous Peoples Plan to be prepared under the Indigenous People Planning Framework. Consultations with Indigenous Communities The World Bank recognizes that the identities and cultures of Indigenous Peoples are inextricably linked to the lands on which they live and the natural resources on which they depend. These distinct circumstances expose Indigenous Peoples to different types of risks and levels of impacts from development projects, including loss of identity, culture, and customary livelihoods. In considering the objectives, approach and potential impacts of the project, the consultation protocol is being expanded to include and consider non-indigenous communities as well since the principles also apply to them. This protocol is to ensure that indigenous peoples and communities impacted by the project will have an opportunity to provide their views and feedback in a culturally appropriate manner during project implementation as well as to ensure access to appropriate project benefits. The indigenous peoples of Belize who could be impacted by both the project’s targeted interventions as well as system-wide ones are the Maya (Mopan, Yucatec and Kekchi).As indicated in Table 2 and Table 3above, other ethnic groups that reside in adjacent communities that could be impacted include the Creole, Mestizo, and Mennonites. The World Bank roughly defines indigenous peoples as a distinct, vulnerable, social and cultural group possessing the following characteristics in varying degrees: (a) Self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this identity by others; (b) Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories7 (c) Customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and (d) An indigenous language, often different from the official language of the country or region. As indicated in Table 1, a total of thirteen (13) adjacent communities are identified as indigenous. In the case of indigenous communities, there are two levels of broad community support required by this Framework. The first is the broad community support for the project activities that affect the Maya communities. In the impact assessment above, broad community support is thus required for the management plans that will affect the Maya communities in Colombia River and Vaca forest reserves. The second is the broad community support that is required for the Indigenous Peoples Plans during implementation. 18 In the Mayan communities the consultations should ensure that there is dialogue with the Mayan Leaders at various levels. These include several advocacy groups, cultural leaders and political/community leaders. Each of these should be taken into consideration when consulting with the Mayan people. The Maya Communities of southern Belize, the Toledo Alcaldes Association and the Maya Leaders Alliance adopted their Consultation Framework on June 13th, 2014(See Annex B: Indigenous Leaders Consultation). This document outlines the principles of consultation and the proper protocol to be followed by the Belizean government, its agencies, and other non-state or private entities. Steps and protocol for consulting indigenous Maya communities (As per TAA approved Consultation Framework and recommendations made during community consultations) STEP 1 – MAKING CONTACT Contact with the Toledo Alcaldes Association:The TAA must be notified and involved when major development is being proposed that will affect villages and Maya people’s well-being. The President of Toledo Alcalde Association must be contacted first. The President will then inform the Executive Committee of Association. The Association will then contact all other Alcaldes in all Mayan communities at an Alcaldes assembly. They noted here that if Executive members are individually contacted without the knowledge of the President, then they are in no position to honour an invitation or request. Contact at the village level: If the development is focused on a particular village then the Alcalde is the access point to the village. It is the Alcalde that convenes the village for a village meeting. Chairmen and Alcaldes keep each other informed. Chairmen cannot call village meetings. When chairmen need a village meeting, they notify the Alcalde who calls the meeting. Contact with women:At the wider indigenous community consultation held in Forest Home, Toledo, the village leaders and community stakeholders mentioned that to convene meetings with women, contact must be made with Alcade and Chairmen of the village. Contact can be made through the Toledo Maya Women Counciland through established women’s groups. Meetings to be conducted with women must be facilitated by a female. STEP 2 - INFORMATION SHARING All correspondence to the President of the Alcalde Association and to individual Alcaldes must be in writing. This initial communication should include: a full description of the action or project, including scope, timelines and duration; reports of environmental, social and cultural impacts; clear analysis of risk and benefits to the affected villages; a description of proponents of the action or project; and identification of the contact person who will liaise with the TAA. Environmental, Social, Cultural & Economic Impact Assessments (ESCEI) should be conducted in a transparent, detailed manner. It should be written in plain language and presented in the language(s) understood by the affected Maya people. The ESCEI should be conducted in consultation with the Maya people. STEP 3 – TIMING OF NOTICE Any notice of meetings and other events must be given at least 21 calendar days in advance, especially for major developments or initiatives. This is to allow the association or the Alcaldes time to plan, manage their 19 attendance and seek technical assistance where necessary. At the community level,some communities have designated time and dates for communities meetings which can range from weekly, biweekly, monthly or bimonthly, as a result, only issues that the chairman is duly informed are tabled at these meetings. STEP 4 – VENUE OF MEETINGS The meeting or consultation event must be held at the community center or where not available in a public place where attendance by community members is not inhibited by the location of the venue. The delivery of messages and information during consultation events must be in the local language (Q’eqchi or Mopan). The purpose of the meeting/workshop or event must be clearly stated in the letter to the Chairman of the Association or Alcalde of the village of interest. Supplemental materials should be included along with the correspondence. IPs have the right to choose their own technical support and relevant information must be promptly shared so that leaders have the proper time to understand all relevant information. If there is any reason to video or audio record meetings, this must be done in a culturally sensitive manner with prior consent from convening body. The Alcades must be informed with enough anticipation of the intent. The proponent shall bear the costs of the consultation process; fair compensation for damages that may result from the any of the impacts of the project; the technical and legal expenses incurred by the Maya people to ensure their effective participation.This includes but not limited to reimbursement of logistical expenses associated with travel, or provide a chartered bus especially to and from communities that do not have regular public transportation; and costs for use of venue if necessary. STEP 5 – DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES – “Se Komonil� Decisions on behalf of the community in indigenous communities are done collectively at Village Meetings called by the Alcalde. The Village Meeting is the fundamental decision making authority that is usually by consensus or majority decision. This process is called ‘se komonil’. When the Alcalde receives information or request he passes it on to the community members and they in turn tell the Alcalde what to do. The collective decision of the community is transmitted back to the external agency by the Alcalde. Decisions of the communities must be recorded in writing. Decisions can only be made if a quorum is present. Quorum at any meeting should be half of the villagers 16 years and older. Except in the case where the decision to alienate lands held by customary title, an affirmative vote of at least three quarters of the all villagers sixteen years of age is required. Application of the IPPF during Project Implementation Social Assessments Soon after project implementation begins, and before management plans are prepared, NPAS will prepare social assessments for each protected area that will affect the lives of the Mayan communities: Colombia River Forest Reserve and the Chiquibul Forest Reserve. The social assessment will carry out the following tasks and include the corresponding information: (a) Review the legal and institutional framework applicable to Indigenous Peoples and other potentially affected ethnic groups; 20 (b) Gather baseline information on the demographic, social, cultural, and political characteristics of the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities and other ethnic groups, the land and territories that they have traditionally owned or customarily used or occupied, and the natural resources on which they depend; including full description of the resources and the socioeconomic profiles of the adjacent communities of each of the six protected areas, potential market for the e various resources of Pas, and a detailed description of the number of people living within the adjacent zones to be covered in the project, number of indigenous communities (and number of members) living within the protected areas/adjacent zone covered by the project, how these people currently earn their livelihood and their type of land tenure, what the specific impacts of the project will be on them, profile of the users of the resources of each PA and their current state of the land tenure. (c) Carry out a detailed study of the existing customary land tenure systems of the indigenous communities living in the adjacent zones currently have, given that the recognition of the communal land titles of Maya peoples is, if not a prerequisite, at least fundamentally important to establishing the sustainability of the project’s investments in alternative livelihoods around protected areas. The findings of these studies will provide the elements needed to develop the Indigenous Peoples Plan for each Protected Area. (d) Identify the key project stakeholders and prepare a culturally appropriate process for consulting with the Mayan communities at each stage of project implementation; (e) Document, based on free, prior, and informed consultation, with the Mayan communities, and the potential adverse and positive effects of the project. Critical to the determination of potential adverse impacts is an analysis of the relative vulnerability of, and risks to, these communities given their distinct circumstances and close ties to land and natural resources, as well as their lack of access to opportunities relative to other social groups in the communities, regions, or national societies in which they live. (f) The identification and evaluation, based on free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Mayan communities, of measures necessary to avoid adverse effects to include in each Indigenous Peoples Plan, or if such measures are not feasible, the identification of measures to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for such effects, and to ensure that the Indigenous Peoples receive culturally appropriate benefits under the project. Indigenous Peoples Plans Based on the results of each of the specific social assessments, an Indigenous Peoples Plan may be prepared for each Protected Area affecting indigenous communities. Each plan will contain the following elements: (a) A summary of the social assessment prepared during implementation for each protected area, including the legal and institutional framework applicable to indigenous communitiesand other potentially affected ethnic groups, baseline information on the demographic, social, cultural, and political characteristics of the indigenous communities, the land and territories that they have traditionally owned or customarily used or occupied, and the natural resources on which they depend; (b) A summary of results of the free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected indigenous communities that was carried out during project preparation and that led to broad community support for the project. (c) An action plan of measures to ensure that the indigenous receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate, including, if necessary, measures to enhance the capacity of the project implementing agencies and that they have participated in the identification of these measures and have provided their BCS. (d) When potential adverse effects on the indigenous are identified, an appropriate action plan of measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or compensate for these adverse effects. 21 (e) The cost estimates and financing plan for the IPP. (f) Accessible procedures appropriate to the project to address grievances by the affected indigenous communities arising from project implementation. When designing the grievance procedures, the borrower takes into account the availability of judicial recourse and customary dispute settlement mechanisms among the Indigenous Peoples. (g) Mechanisms and benchmarks appropriate to the project for monitoring, evaluating, and reporting on the implementation of the IPP. The monitoring and evaluation mechanisms should include arrangements for the free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected indigenous communities. MONITORING AND REPORTING ARRANGEMENTS The purpose of establishing monitoring and reporting arrangements is to enhance community involvement and ownership of projects and fosters local-level commitment. Community-based monitoring can assist the project execution team to identify issues that can adversely impact the project and possible ways to mitigate them. It also builds capacity and awareness for the project implementation and achievements. A community monitoring and evaluation plan will be established to guide the PMU throughout the implementation of the sub-project cycle to completion and operation. It will be developed by the PMU in consultation with the selected communities on the actual activities outlined for a sub-project, its aims, objectives, outcomes, outputs, identified impacts, and mitigation and other management measures as applicable. The monitoring will provide feedback in order to determine if a sub-project is in compliance with the requirements for environmental protection set forth in the sub-project document and follows the process outlined in the safeguard documents. Since sub-projects have not been developed prior to Project implementation, development of the sub-project-specific EMPs will be used to determine what information to monitor during sub-project implementation. Final evaluation takes place after implementation of each sub-project to identify whether the expected positive impacts or results were achieved and/or the negative impacts prevented or mitigated. GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM According to the World Bank a Grievance Redress Mechanism is a process by which queries or clarifications about the project are responded to, addressed and resolved. The Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) should ensure that barriers to accessing the various tiers of redress are eliminated. The proposed GRM takes into consideration that grievances must be treated with utmost confidentiality. In the event that a third party is needed to settle disputes they must be affordable and available. It should also take into account the traditional judicial alternatives including community and traditional forms of dispute settlement. Furthermore, community-specific communication strategies must be adopted and clearly identify the different tiers that can be accessed by communities. TheGRM is being established in order for the project stakeholders (communities, NGOs. etc.) to be able to voice their concerns, complaints, or dissatisfaction with the project and seek redress. Complaints can be made concerning principles, rules, guidelines, and procedures to assess the environmental impacts or measures and 22 plans to reduce, mitigate and/or offset adverse impacts that may be included in the various plans and for the sub-projects. The GRM is to be presented by project staff to community members during the project inception workshop and community consultations and other communications activities for the project. The project staff will become familiar with the GRM and will be trained in conflict resolution to be able to participate in on resolution of minor problems that may arise during project implementation. Grievance redress will be approached both proactively and reactively: Proactive approach: a) Widespread disclosure of project background, potential environmental impacts and mitigation measures. b) Establishing a mediation committee (made up of community leaders associated with the specific sub- project and staff of the Project Management Unit (PMU)), to review any grievances that may result from the sub-projects. Reactive approach: a) Settle disputes amicably. b) If disputes arise, they will be documented by the PMU and brought to the attention of the Project Steering Committee (PSC). c) When a complaint is documented, the PMU will acknowledge its receipt in a correspondence that outlines the GRM and provide the contact information and timeframe for responding to the matter. d) Subsequent to documenting the complaint, the next step is to determine whether a complaint is eligible for the grievance mechanism, in addition to its seriousness and complexity. The PMU, in the process of identifying the complexity of the grievance should evaluate the situation and utilize the following approach:  Hold a meeting with the aggrieved party (ies) to clearly identify the complaint and circumstances surrounding it to present to the PSC for review;  Discuss proposed solutions;  Defer to a third party for independent recommendations. e) The PSC will then determine if the dispute can be settled directly or if it is necessary to call upon the mediation committee to review the grievance. f) If disputes cannot be solved at the local level, they will follow additional tiers of appeal as described below: Table 3: Grievance Redress Mechanism Tiers Responsible party Mechanism Timeframe toaddress grievance First tier Project Management Unit in Oral or written grievance 1 week consultation with Project Steering (free of cost) Committee to address dispute and/or determine line of action Second tier Local authorities in consultation Written grievance (free 2 week with local level mediation of cost) committee 23 Third tier Ombudsman Case submission (free of 3 weeks cost) Fourth tier Judicial system Contracting a lawyer Lengthy process and (high cost) or use of long delays (to be Solicitor General’s Office avoided by First through Third tier mechanisms) Assistance for Legal Aid Office in Belize City. Low cost option Lengthy process and aggrieved persons List of other pro bono lawyers in long (to be avoided by belonging to Belize will be provided for low- First through Third tier vulnerable groups income population who cannot mechanisms) for accessing legal afford legal counsel. recourse. Source: Adapted from Involuntary Resettlement Framework, 2014 24 DISCLOSURE ARRANGEMENTS FOR IPPs Table 4: Disclosure Arrangements All safeguard documents are public and available at the National Protected Areas System website: http://protectedareas.gov.bz/technical-documents/ Copies can be downloaded from the website. In addition, printed copies can be made available, upon request through NGOs, DAVCO offices, community groups or co-managers working near the six protected areas. Activity Method of Disclosure Format Indigenous People Planning Complete Document for Electronic copy available via email Framework discussion and and from local NGOs, summarized comments; NPAS website in appropriate language presented at consultations. Indigenous People Planning Complete Document; Official language, Print, booklet, Framework NPAS website local NGO offices, Government Departments Social Assessment Report Key points in appropriate Print, booklet, local NGO offices, language; NPAS website Government Departments Draft Indigenous Peoples Complete Document for Official language, electronic and Plan discussion and print available from local NGO comments; NPAS website offices, DAVCO Indigenous Peoples Plan Complete Document; Official language, electronic and NPAS website print available from local NGO offices, DAVCO Livelihood Restoration Complete Document, Official language, electronic and Framework Pamphlet; NPAS website print available from local NGO offices, DAVCO, Environmental Management Complete Document; Official language, electronic and Framework NPAS website print available from local NGO offices, DAVCO Involuntary Resettlement Complete Document; Official Language, electronic, Framework NPAS website available from Project Implementation Unit 25 Annex 1: Map of Chiquibul Forest and Adjacent Communities Source: Friends for Conservation & Development 26 Annex 2: Stakeholder Consultations 1.1 Inception Workshop Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable DevelopmentManagement and Protection of Key Biodiversity Areas Project Preparation Grant Inception Workshop List of Participants Belmopan Hotel November 23rd, 2012 Name of Participant Organization/Department Ricardo Thompson MNRA DeadraHaylock Consultant Janet Gibson WCS Nayari Diaz-Perez PACT Angela Usher PACT Arnoldo Melendez F.C.D Raphael Manzanero F.C.D Victoria Cawich F.D Yvette Alonzo GIZ- Selva Maya Martin Alegria DOE Reynold Cal Runaway Creek Nature Preserve LeonelRequena GEFSGP/ COMPACT Leonide Sosa DOE Wiezman Pat MFFSD Steven Reneau B.W.B/A.S.F Aldo Cansino DOE Jorge Franco DOE Anthony Mai DOE IsaisMajil Fisheries Department Tanya Santos FD Roan Mcnab WCS Amanda Acosta Belize Audubon Paul Walker wild tracks Cecy Castillo UB Jan Meerman Belize Tropical Foundation Studies Oswaldo Sabido Consultant Rasheda Garcia FD 27 Saul Cruz FD Name of Participant Organization/Department Celi Cho DOE Dwight Montero STACA Valdemar Andrade Ministry of Tourism & Culture Elma Kay ERI-UB Maarten Hofman Ya'axché Emily Aldana Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Jose Perez APAMO Arlene Maheia-Young NPAS Rebecca Foster PANTHERA Derric Chan Friends for Conservation and Development Ian Morrison Enviroplan/Consultant Marion Cayetano Development /Consultant Inception Workshop Notes The overall purpose of the Inception Workshop was to reach out the relevant stakeholders so they could get involved in the project preparation process. Among others, this would allow to ensure the complementarities with other relevant initiatives/projects.3 To this end, background materials were sent to the invitees including the draft agenda, a project overview report, and the primary report describing and documenting the key biodiversity areas in Belize4. The workshop was conducted by the consulting team. After introductions, presentations were made regarding the project objectives and beneficiaries. Subsequently the three components were outlined with the purpose of opening up discussions on the substantive themes. Then subgroups were established led by the consultants and participant volunteers. Component 1 and 2 were linked together as several themes run across them. Component 3 run on its own. A recorder documented input by participants, and the results follow. The following Agenda was followed. Agenda: 8:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Registration of workshop participants 9: 00 a.m. - 9: 15 a.m. Welcome and Introductions 9: 15 a.m. - 9: 25 a.m. Workshop objectives 9: 25 a.m. - 9:45 a.m. Overview of Project objectives, outcomes and outputs 9: 45 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. Project Preparation Grant Activities 10:00 a.m.- 10: 15 a.m. BREAK 10:15 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. Activity 1: break out groups (3) to provide feedback on project components, outputs and outcome 11: 00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Presentations of results of Activity 1 3 As additional workshops are anticipated, it is important to document the results of the Inception Workshop 4 Meerman, J. 2007. Establishing a Baseline to Monitor Species and Key Biodiversity Areas in Belize. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund. Unpublished report. 15 pp. 28 12: 00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m. LUNCH 1:00 p.m. - 2:00 p.m. Activity 2 2:00 p.m. - 2: 50 p.m. Wrap-up discussion 2: 50 p.m.- 3:00 p.m. Closing remarks Subgroup Topic 1: Component 1: Supporting Forest Protection and Sustainable Forest Management Activities in Key Biodiversity Areas. Component 2: Promoting Effective Management of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) The members of the Subgroup considered it useful to discuss the topic in three sub-topics in order to share their perceptions and expectations. Sub Topic: Status and On-going Activities in the KBAs A. Forest Protection Major issues:  Incursions for extraction especially xate but also wildlife  Illegal activities from Belizeans in Forest Reserves - agriculture; rosewood and nargusta illegal logging; instructed and supervised in the field by Chinese companies [Rather than singling out nationalities maybe we could use the legal term alien?] Among other reasons, Belize, Guatemala, and many others countries are members countries of international organizations. They avoid singling out countries unless the evidence has been established.  Medina Bank / Deep River facing same issue  Chiquibul - similar issues with transboundary activities; illegal panning for gold; looting of Mayan sites; poaching - macaws and other species  Vaca Forest Reserve - local and Guatemalan illegal logging [alien enterprises?]  Belizeans public knows Chiquibul is under siege; FCD has brought the figures;  Now there is new evidence of erosion of genetic pool of timber species  Looking at collaborative effort with CONAP and others  National Security Issue is rolled into this for all PA into Western Border  Chiquibul, El Pilar, Vaca, Deep River situation a little different from North  we cannot stop the situation completely which is why we are looking for ways to containing it  Currently , police and military cooperation with PA managers need special forces Challenges and what is needed-  There is limited man power even with collaboration from other agencies such as police and BDF  Need more conservation posts for Chiquibul area - two outstanding Valentin and one for Columbia need specialized equipment and training apart from man power; these posts important in curbing illegal agriculture  Place an authority on the ground  People change their way of operating illegally  Conflict between co-managers on the ground. Immunities because enforcement and education being  done by same so this project can help to work out a new system in which regulatory agency is strengthened but we can also look at formation of NGO or entity just tasked with enforcement  Forest Governance issues go wider than just enforcement and need to analyze this especially greater transparency 29  Lack of resources at regulatory agency but also regulations need to be amended to have higher penalties; need more education of laws...people are not aware....only 10% of 1% of population interviewed do not know who is responsible for enforcement  Need to empower regulatory agency and take a good look at how co-managers function; need strategies for stewardship/ownership  FD needs to understand that situation has become so complicated; very unlikely that they will ever have the resources...we can look at a GoB/NGO model as in Honduras; one day we might even move to Community Governance e.g. Local Village Councils; need more decentralization  If Project can do economic valuation? - communicate value of PAs maybe to encourage politicians to budget more for PA protection and management; just need to educate public on revenue, jobs etc. that PAs bring and sensitize people on this...don't need to do fancy economic valuation  Strategic for GoB to enter into Landscape Management Program/Strategies at Vaca to promote stewardship - need pilots  Need long term streams to sustain Management of the system/ business models  Working with judges and police to make sure prosecution is effective and higher fines; working with communities...some NGOs deal more with engagement of communities and others more with enforcement; signing contracts with communities so they become stewards  SMART and MIST to track if enforcement is effective - software for testing Things that project can do:  Strengthening of FD is a necessary action but this is not sufficient - needs to take a leadership and coordination role; needs to have a community relationship that commands respect; need a decentralized system; FD needs to coordinate partnerships with NGOs etc. to be effective; extension with training, equipment and support from the PACT; need to legally bestow power on NGOs to do enforcement; need legislative reform; clarification of role of FD because they have a key role in enforcement  Good communication and outreach to public, prosecutors etc. regarding the law but also value of PAs  legislative reform to ensure transparency and modify fines etc  research on all forest species and sustainable extraction levels  Target areas : Columbia and Bladen; Maya Mtn North Forest Reserve and TIDE Private Lands B. Sustainable Forest Management Things that the project can do:  Licensing for logging/ extraction of forest products needs to be looked at including monitoring  number of short term licenses were minimal and process of applying was harder so cut down from 200 to 50 and in forest reserves only long term licenses; fear that we are causing more illegal activity; checkpoints work  Need to also look at system for hunting permits etc., hunting seasons....200,000 animals being hunted annually for consumption; 7% of meat consumption is from game meat; need to take a look at the law and how these are enforced; we tend to prosecute small guys in villages rather than the big guys...enforcement across the board....transparency  Need research - need research on game animals not just charismatic species  Need to remove discretionary power from Ministers e.g. Living Aquatic Resources Act  Need to look at non timber forest products and how these can sustain communities C. Promoting Effective Management of KBAs Things that project can do:  Management Effectiveness Training but also Biodiversity Monitoring (Biodiversity Monitoring and National Strategy for Long term Forest Monitoring need to be implemented - biodiversity monitoring is big 30 gap) and need for direct measurement of how effective we have been in stabilizing or reducing illegal activities e.g. national patrol information system  Need to look at limits of acceptable change  Need to look at biodiversity integrity For Sustainability:  Need linkage with Private Sector needed; need to look at incentives so people are encouraged to do things the right way  Need business development support for communities; alternative livelihoods; community approach is key...NGOs need to be working themselves out of a job by creating community stewardship....sustainability needs to be for PA not NGO  Need to look at alternative uses - using it to protected it e.g. via tourism or even oil extraction with proper abatement measures  Need consolidation - use resources wisely and avoid duplication of resources; this is key as part of sustainability  Need institutionalized systems - for training, monitoring and research, licenses  Need good land management - implementation of Sustainable Land Use Policy and need a plan; more sustainable agriculture so need Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development to work closely with Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture Subgroup Topic 2: Component 3. Institutional Strengthening & Capacity Building for Enhanced Enforcement of Environmental Regulations The members of the Subgroup considered it useful to discuss the topic focalizing on specific expected outputs and associated options or suggestions.  A functional Departmental Steering Committee on conservation to oversee the process established o Two models were suggested  TOR for NEAC expanded to include additional responsibilities to meet the above expected outcome.  A committee parallel to the NEAC be established but with the legislated inclusion of only governmental department s but with the power to call on stakeholders (NGOs, CBOs) depending on the issue  Staff in the key agencies of the Government of Belize, charged with safeguarding Belize’s natural resources, are trained and equipped with the necessary assessment and compliance monitoring tools (e.g., Forest Department, Department of Environment, Geology and Petroleum, Lands and Survey, Fisheries Department, Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute, Belize Agricultural Health Authority, etc.). o Methodology for “rapid environmental assessment� developed to make training easier for trainers and trainees  Partnerships with the private sector for monitoring of natural resource use improved o Ongoing training extended to the private sector players to ensure that the process is understood and assistance effective  Collaboration with civil society in natural resource management strengthened. o Funding current available from PACT and NPAS project for local NGO’s, that do not meet criteria, to build capacity (do not need to be addressed through this project)  Forest licensing mechanisms that foster the use of forests in a sustainable manner improved o This output is better served under Components 1 or 2 for harmonization  Co-management agreements for PAs modernized and enhanced. 31 o Co-management recently signed but ongoing review needed for modernization but not an immediate priority  Applications designed to automate workflows and registries (including KBAs, PAs, and forest licensing, among others) and (e.g., for tracking of reports and provision of timely feedback about agency response) developed and in use. o Training for people based on the function of the agency  Specialized training provided to agency staff on the use of ICT communication tools developed o Alternative training methods for CBO to ensure valuable contribution to database taking into consideration resource and skills availability. o Coordinate with ongoing initiatives – sustainable forest management (SFM), National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), etc.  EIA preparers’ certification program for enhanced environmental compliance established under the DOE o Qualitative and quantitative criteria established for address structure, grammar, referencing, guidelines for presentation and unification of impacts, mitigation and monitoring across reports o Methodologies for the determination of impacts o Review and modification of existing certification programmes locally and regional as a starting point o Update of EIA preparers guidelines  Clear TORs for the NEAC strengthened o Elaborate on roles and functions o Preparation of an operations manual  The NEAC’s autonomy and transparency of procedures increased by regular updates and publication of the Committee’s decisions (on publicly accessible websites) o Debriefing on ECP at the community level o Communities involved in monitoring o Public press release of NEAC decisions  The discretionary power of the Minister is removed from the EPA and the EIA Regulations o This output was addressed in the 2007 EIA amendment regulations with the inclusion of a tribunal but not the same for forestry and fisheries Other Issues:  Review of EIA to determine if Socio-economic aspects are being properly addressed in EIA or should be removed to be addressed elsewhere  Develop comprehensive environmental quality monitoring procedure and compilation of EIA report data to develop data base  The 2005 NPASP reviewed and updated with relevant climate change issues o Better to address this in component 2 o Ongoing initiatives (Ann Gordon Climate Change Office and CCCCC) Observations from the Inception Stakeholder Workshop Structure of the Workshop was geared at offering an opportunity for the participants to offer their views and submit interventions that would guide the development of the PPG and on to the final ProDoc. Observations:  The interventions offered by participants were mostly given during the breakout sessions. 32  Participants appeared knowledgeable and willing to offer their technical knowledge and experiences gained from their individual course of professional work either as public service technicians or managers of protected areas  The attitude was fairly positive but it was evident from one-on-one comments the project appeared ambitious and there existed an uncertainty as to whether its implementation timeframe would allow for goals to be achieved. Particularly, the project outcome of removal of Ministerial discretion drew many sighs, smiles indicating a belief that the goal was a bit reaching considering Belize’s polit ical environment.  The plenary session was not robust as there were no interventions outside what was already offered in the breakout sessions. It can be surmised that while the attitudes were positive there existed a bit apprehensiveness on the part of the few protected areas managers and environmental/conservation technicians that attended as they seemed to want to wait to see what would come out of the consultancy exercise yielding a final project document. The structure of the workshop and its activities did not offer much opportunity to test behaviours or attitudes. It was mostly left to be derived from an observation basis. Contributions from the Stakeholder Representatives that Discussed Component 3 at the Inception Workshop held on November 23rd, 2012 Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs Comments/Suggestions 3.1 Enhanced 3.1.1 A functional Two models suggested coordination Departmental i.TOR for NEAC expanded to include additional among Steering Committee responsibilities to meet the outcome of 3.1. Government on conservation ii.A committee parallel to the NEAC be established agencies charged established but with the legislated inclusion of only with conservation governmental departments but with the power to call on stakeholders (NGOs, CBOs) depending on the issue 3.2.Strengthened 3.2.1 Staff in key Methodology for “rapid environmental assessment� capacity for agencies trained and developed to make training easier for trainers and compliance equiped with better trainees monitoring and assessment and enforcement of key compliance agencies monitoring tools and responsible for capacities environment 33 Expected Outcomes Expected Outputs Comments/Suggestions 3.2.2 Partnerships Ongoing training extended to the private sector with the private players to ensure that the process is understood and sector for monitoring assistance effective of natural resource use improved 3.2.3 Collaboration Funding currently available from PACT and NPAS with civil society in project for local NGO’s, that do not meet criteria, to natural resource build capacity (do not need to be addressed through management the Project) strengthened 3.2.4 Forest licensing This output is better served under Components 1 or 2 mechanisms that for harmonization foster the use of forests in a sustainable manner 3.2.5 Co-management Co-management recently signed but ongoing review agreements for PAs needed for modernization, yet not as an immediate modernized and priority enhanced 3.3 Enhanced 3.3.1 . EIA  Qualitative and quantitative criteria established to effectiveness of the certification program address structure, grammar, referencing, guidelines Environmental for enhanced for presentation and unification of impacts, Impact Assessment environmental mitigation and monitoring across reports (EIA) System compliance established  Methodologies for the determination of impacts  Review and modification of existing certification programmes locally and regionally as a starting point  Update of EIA preparers’ guidelines 3.4 Climate Change 3.4.1 The 2005  Better to address this under Component 2 mitigation and NPASP to capture  Need to consider ongoing initiatives such as the Ann resilience relevant climate Gordon Climate Change Office and CCCCC considerations change issues mainstreamed into reviewed and updated the National Protected Areas System Plan (NPASP) The new frontier is resulting in a shift of the traditional norms and practices in the quest to earning a livelihood for a basic standard of living or to meet commercial demands. With the reduction in the easy access to some raw materials, the methods for extraction are becoming more abrasive, with less regards for the environment and in 34 some instances highly exploitative, registering low on the sustainability gauge. Therefore, new approaches that requires shift in the paradigm for those that have the responsibility for natural resource safeguard for present and future generation to have long term benefits. Following the stakeholders workshop the team of consultants carries out a one week site visit in the north, west and south of the country. The objective of the exercise was to obtain a better understanding of the environmental issues, the implication of the environmental act, environmental protection regulations and the extent of their engagement with the Department of the Environment, Forest Department, Fisheries Department, Geology and Petroleum Department, Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute (CZMAI), Belize Agriculture Health Authority (BAHA). The information will be used increase the understanding of the roles of the regulatory agencies in an effort to make it easier to implement environmental protection measures during project implementation and operation. Sites for visit were selected based on location and land tenure, management and community status to gather as much knowledge on a variety of issues. Areas in the north and west included the largest private and public land holdings, while area in the south captured smaller private and public land holdings in as areas where two indigenous groups exist, lower employment opportunities and co-management agreements with the government of Belize. The table below summarizes the comments and concerns from some of the stakeholders participated during in the information sharing sessions. Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations Fri. November 23, Belmopan Department of the CEO is fully aware of the 2012 Environment project activities and benefits and indicated Martin Alegria (Chief that the preference Environmental would be to concentrate Officer) on converting all files to electronic data. No emphasis of scientific data compilation for Toledo decision making, at this Sundaywood Village Mateo Tosh, Alcalde point. Environmental awareness is through Mon. Nov 26, 2012 - CriqueSarco Village Juan Ch’oc, Chairman engagement with SATIIM. No direct engagement with the DOE Mon. Nov, 26, 2012 - TIDE’s Office Toledo Institute for Development and the Environmental Environment (TIDE) - awareness is through 35 Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations Salim Chan, Marine engagement of SATIIM. Manager No direct engagement James Lord, with the DOE Development Director (Port Honduras Marine Reserve, Environment protection Paynes Creek is through their National Park, TIDE environmental Private Protected conservation initiatives. Lands along Rio Director indicated that Grande River) need did not arise to directly engage the DOE in terms of the Tues. Nov 27, 2012 YCT’s Office Ya’axché Environmental Conservation Trust Protection Act (EPA) and (YCT), Bladen Nature pollution regulations Reserve and Golden Stream Corridor Have not engaged the Preserve - Christina DOE directly in the pass Garcia, Executive for guidance on Director; Lee environmental McLoughlin, protection. EP is done Protected Areas intuitively through Manager; Gail Stott, conservation advocacy Botanist; Tom and alternative Pienkowski, Head livelihoods programmes. Development Officer Currently have a court case pending with the GOB/DOE Tues. Nov 27, 2012 SATIIM’s Office Sarstoon and Temash Institute for Indigenous Management (SATIIM), Sarstoon- Temash National Park (STNP) – Gregory Similar to Ya’axché Ch’oc, Executive Director Wed. Nov 28, 2012 Cayo District Friends for National issues related to Conservation and incursion, encroachment Development, and poaching. Extraction Chiquibul National of NTFP. Remoteness and Park - Rafael limited resources Manzanero, increase difficulties and Executive Director present more challenging 36 Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations to protect and preserve. Promoting and encouraging alternative livelihoods through Thurs. Nov 29, 2012 Orange Walk District farming. Engaging San Filipe boarding Guatemalan communities by Thurs. Nov 29, 2012 La Milpa Field Station Mr. Peralta extending invitation to (Principal, San Filipe share best practices and R.C. Primary School) low impact techniques by small farmers in Belize. Programme for Belize, La Milpa Field No need for direct Station - engagement with the BladimirRogrigues, DOE. Environmental Manager awareness in the primary Thurs. Nov 29, 2012 Gallon Jug school is done through cooperation with PFB with trips to PFB managed access area and representatives of PFB visiting the school at least one per year. Gallon Jug - Alistair According to the rep the Macpherson, General outreach can be Manager increased to once per term or TT/Y. Outreach and site visits are mainly for STD IV and V classes Fri. Nov. 30, 2012 Belmopan Carries out Department of the environmental friendly Environment, Aldo and sustainable practices Cansino, Project to control pollution in Officer the biosphere in its operation. Include logging and milling of timber, agriculture (coffee, sugar cane and cocao) and pasture and eco-tourism destination through tourist accommodations. Did not explore other spinoff consequences in detail, because of the activities, such as fuel storage, waste management, emissions control. Did 37 Date Visited Location Organization/Person Comments/Observations not engage the DOE or vise-versa. Provided information on data transfer from manual to digital combining files with GIS maps. Discussion on information dissemination was not directly budgeted but nevertheless has a strategy that focused on radio, school presentations, and public events such as expo’s. GIS analysis was limited since database was being populated. Cooperation with NGO for eyes on the ground promoted as much as possible. Limited consolidation of existing EA’s for development of time series data. Extent of progress needs further evaluation. No cross sector access to database but the National Spatial Data Information (NDSI) should help to address this issue. There are a number of related projects in progress (Ozone depleting substances control, Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) and Strategic Approach to International Chemical Management (SAICM)). Recommendations 38 It was clear and evident from the stakeholders’ two forms of projects will be required. The first is ty pe is institutional development that wills benefits mostly regulatory and licencing agencies. The second field of projects are geared towards alternatives livelihoods to reduce pressures on KBA’s. Activities to consider for financing under the first segment includes:  ]Institution Capacity and Development Evaluation involving managerial, technical and financial assessments for managers, technical officers and technicians based on the outcome from diagnosing needs to determine the existing capacity, where training need to be concentrated or the need for increase in human resources to effectively manage projects. Certification for EIA preparers that will have an aim of increasing the quality of the EA reports  ICT training for increase efficiency in monitoring and evaluation of impacts. This will help with a higher level of intervention for corrective measures to be taking at an early stage after conclusion of the evaluation.  Consolidation of EA report to build scientific database on information collected across the country to build time series data necessary to predict trends due to development plans. The efforts will help to develop cumulative impacts that will make it easier for the regulatory agencies to verify information through the EA process and other sources. The initiative can also be combined with development trends such as projected population growth and land use (agriculture, tourism, residential, commercial industrial) that can be used to guide higher decision making helping to meet Horizon 2030 objectives. These initiatives will require the development of institutional memorandums of understanding that would help to foster the relationships. The other segment is the implementation of community based development projects yet to be fully finalized. These may include those projects that provide alternatives that would prevent project with high impacts on the natural biodiversity of the KBA’s identified. Possible projects may include:  Alternative livelihoods - such as agro-forestry/ecological farming  Reforestation of abandon milpa  Forest management through controlled burning  Small scale pasture and aquaculture initiatives  Local craft development with residual timber and NTFP 39 1.2 Field Visits Notes MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION OF KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS (KBA) PROJECT FOR MINISTRY OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (MFFSD) WITH COORDINATING BODY BEING NATIONAL PROTECTED AREAS SECRETARIAT (NPAS) FIELD VISITS TOLEDO DISTRICT CRIQUE SARCO AND SUNDAY WOOD VILLAGES NOVEMBER 26TH, 2012 In attendance: Eduardo Quiroga Natural Resources Management Consultant/Team Leader Jeff Waldon Carbon Accounting Consultant Ian Morrison Environmental Management Consultant Marion Cayetano Social Development Consultant Juan Ch’oc CriqueSarco Village Chairman Mateo Tosh Sundaywood Village Alcalde Absent: DaedraHaylock Communications Consultant Objectives: The trip was organized in order to complete the following objectives:  Understand the communities appreciation of protected areas and the key issue areas for the project  Understand the impact the protected areas have on community life and livelihood  Understand the communities interest in alternative livelihood opportunities  Receive a general appreciation of the area and the community life – with some appreciation for cultural practices, behaviors and attitudes as it relates to natural resources From the Meeting with the Village Chairman Mr. Juan Ch’oc and Village Alcalde Mr. Mateo Tosh, the following were evident:  The community does have an appreciation of the SarstoonTemash National Park (STNP) as important for biodiversity protection.  The residents in the community benefit tangibly when the animals wander outside of the protected areas boundaries and allow for hunting.  The protected areas manager does not provide livelihood opportunities for residents at this time. However, the community believes that it should.  There is currently no telecommunications signal from SMART Cell in the area and DigiCell service does not work in the area at this time. This limits the community ability to participate in any project intervention that utilizes this technology in the course of the work whether it is geared at communications, protection issues for the protected area or otherwise  The community believes that the protected area (STNP) should benefit the community’s livelihood but at this time it does not  It appears to them that foreign nationals have more access to the resources and protected areas than Belizeans 40  There is heavy illegal logging and hunting by foreign nationals  The availability of alternative livelihoods opportunities could assist greatly with managing encroachments on the protected areas  Some legal reform can assist alleviating or managing the pressures faced by the protected areas  Wood carving is an ideal alternative livelihood project in CriqueSarco but needs market development and management.  Any livelihood opportunity identified has to be long term and present real possibilities for maintaining family life  Environmental awareness is carried out via engagement with SATIIM FIELD VISITS PUNTA GORDA, TOLEDO DISTRICT TIDE, SATIIM, YA’AXCHE NOVEMBER, 27TH, 2012 In attendance: Eduardo Quiroga Natural Resources Management Consultant/Team Leader Jeff Waldon Carbon Accounting Consultant Ian Morrison Environmental Management Consultant Marion Cayetano Social Development Consultant Salim Chan Marine Manager – TIDE James Lord Development Director – TIDE Christina Garcia Executive Director – Ya’axché Lee McLoughlin Protected Areas Manager – Ya’axché Gail Stott Botanist – Ya’axché Tom Pienkowski Head Development Officer – Ya’axché Gregory Ch’oc Executive Director - SATIIM Absent: DaedraHaylock Communications Consultant Objectives: The trip was organized in order to complete the following objectives:  General understanding of the area under the protection of the organizations  Scope of Work of the organizations in relation to its protected area and buffer communities  Understand the impacts the buffer communities have on the protected area and vice versa  Understand the organizations’ involvement with the communities either via education projects and/or livelihood opportunities as well as establishing partnership for the protection of the area Toledo Institute for Development & the Environment (TIDE) is responsible for the management of the Port Honduras Marine Reserve, Paynes Creek National Park and TIDE Private Protected Lands along the Rio Grande River Ya’axché Conservation Trust (Ya’axché) is responsible for the management of the Bladen Nature Reserve and Golden Stream Corridor Preserve. 41 Sarstoon and Temash Institute for Indigenous Management (SATIIM) is responsible for the management of Sarstoon- Temash National Park (STNP) From the meeting with TIDE, the below is evident:  The forest faces fragmentation pressures  It is believed the forests should provide more alternative livelihood opportunities for residents of the buffer communities  TIDE manages its forests using the Reef to Ridge concept.  The organization does not want to be seen as a land grabber but instead would like to build capacity of the communities to manage lands at the landscape level  The forest faces logging and hunting pressures. Not many families are involved but they are persistent. The persistence is believed to be owing to the fines not being significant to serve as a deterrent.  Environmental protection and education is via the environmental conservation initiatives.  Need has not arisen to directly engage Department of Environment (DOE) in terms of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA)  The organization is evaluating blue carbon and carbon financing  TIDE sponsors tourism initiative for livelihoods options From the meeting with Ya’axché, the below is evident:  The organization faces similar issues as does TIDE in relation to its protected areas  The organization is operating agro-forestry activities as part of landscape management. The activities are cacao based. Only meeting 10% of demand. Personnel needed to expand operation. Interested in nursery expansion and establishing a demonstration farm  Golden Stream Village is growing 10% per year so the potential pressure presented by the community is intensifying.  The organization is working on honey production  The organization has completed above ground biomass survey for reserves to evaluate REDD potential. Interested in a REDD project  The organization would like to expand this project  Pressures on their lands have eased but maybe owing to the absence of management on Boden Creek Lands.  The organization in the past has little need to engage DOE in relation to environmental protection. Environmental protection is done intuitively through conservation advocacy and alternative livelihood programs.  The organization currently has a court case pending against the DOE From the meeting with SATIIM, the below is evident:  Equally there exists lots of pressures on the STNP  The organization has been working with communities to develop sustainable forestry programs but faces lots of barriers to such implementation  The organization recognizes the opportunities for value added on the sustainable forestry activities or logging activities but the land tenure issues limit the activities of the organization and its ability to help communities  There is a need for better data management that could benefit all protected areas 42 FIELD VISITS CAYO DISTRICT SAN JOSE SUCCOTZ – FRIENDS OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT (FCD) VACA FOREST RESERVE SITE VISIT NOVEMBER 28TH, 2012 In attendance: Eduardo Quiroga Natural Resources Management Consultant/Team Leader Jeff Waldon Carbon Accounting Consultant Ian Morrison Environmental Management Consultant Marion Cayetano Social Development Consultant DaedraHaylock Communications Consultant Rafael Manzanero Executive Director – FCD Objectives: The trip was organized in order to complete the following objectives:  General understanding of the area under the protection of the organizations  Scope of Work of the organizations in relation to its protected area and buffer communities  Understand the impacts the buffer communities have on the protected area and vice versa  Understand the organizations’ involvement with the communities either via education projects and/or livelihood opportunities as well as establishing partnership for the protection of the area Friends of Conservation and Development (FCD) is responsible for the management of Chiquibul National Park (CNP) From the visit with FCD, the below is evident:  The evidence is strong that the Maya Mountain block is under siege.  The area is facing a high prevalence of illegal logging (Mahogany and Cedar) and illegal hunting, poaching from foreign nationals  Farming and fire are also major threats to the protected areas that make up the Maya Mountain block. Chiquibul National Park and Forest Reserve faces much if its challenges and encroachments from foreign nationals, while the Vaca Forest Reserve which is closer to local communities faces illegal hunting and logging on a subsistence level. As well, the reclaiming of lands for farming purposes is a challenge faced from both national and foreign nationals in the Maya Mountain block  Gold panning is a threat as well and there currently is operated one legal operation of gold mining. The concern with this legal mining is the level of monitoring and oversight by the relevant Government department agency(ies).  Agroforestry with Xate has a major crop has potential and would need further assessment  There is need for the identification of sustainable use of the forest options to be identified and implemented. FCD as an organization is trying to examine how it can be the proponent of such programs. Considering that the organization manages public lands, the Forestry Department (FD) would be the gatekeeper to approve any such operations within the protected lands. In the Vaca area on lands already excised from the Vaca Forest Reserve, FCD is playing a role in projects like farming and bee-keeping. 43  Enforcement is a major challenge and needs more support from the BDF, Forest Department and Police. The gap presented by the lack of two outpost monitoring stations to complete the network of monitoring stations is a challenge that needs urgent attention.  National issues related to incursion, encroachment and poaching is rampant and the remoteness of the issue further aggravates the matter and its difficulty to monitor and manage.  There is a need for more resources for patrols and monitoring activities  There is need to engage border communities to extend lessons on best practices and low impact techniques for small farmers. FIELD VISITS ORANGE WALK DISTRICT SAN FELIPE, RIO BRAVO CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT AREA (LA MILPA) AND GALLON JUG NOVEMBER 29TH, 2012 In attendance: Eduardo Quiroga Natural Resources Management Consultant/Team Leader Jeff Waldon Carbon Accounting Consultant Ian Morrison Environmental Management Consultant Marion Cayetano Social Development Consultant Peralta Principal – St. Michael’s RC School Bladimir Rodrigues Manager – La MilpaEcolodge and Research Center Allistair McPherson General Manager – Gallon Jug Absent: DaedraHaylock Communications Consultant Objectives: The trip was organized in order to complete the following objectives:  General understanding of the area under the protection of the organization and private landowner and investor  Scope of Work of the organization and landowner in relation to its protected area and buffer communities  Understand the impacts the buffer communities have on the protected area and vice versa  Understand the organization and private landowner’s involvement with the communities either via education projects and/or livelihood opportunities as well as establishing partnership for the protection of the area Programme for Belize is responsible for the management of the private protected area Rio Bravo Conservation & Management Area (RBCMA) which is 3% of the country’s land mass Gallon Jug is a private operation owned and operated by the Bowen & Bowen Group of Companies and currently manages several investment projects on the lands, including ecotourism, coffee cultivation and production, sustainable forestry extraction, along with other activities. 44 From the meeting with Mr. Peralta and PfB, the below is evident:  No need for direct engagement with DOE  Environmental awareness in the primary school is done through the cooperation with Programme for Belize  Trips are facilitated to the protected area of the RBCMA at least once per year. It is believed the outreach could be increased. The site visits and education awareness is primarily centered on the Standard IV and V students  The Organization has a detailed management plan  Conducts ecotourism activities on this area of the RBCMA  Site management includes a compositing toilet and solar energy generation for the La Milpa and Hill Bank sites  Ecotourism program includes environmental education and research with international universities.  Archaeology research conducted on the property via arrangements with a US based university  All of the employees on the protected area site are drawn from the surrounding communities on either areas of the protected area.  In the Southern area, sustainable forestry is conducted as well a carbon sequestration project was carried out  Strong forest fire management program and training for employees  The organization pursued a REDD using VCS  Practice of using wild animals has pets have declined due to environmental education in the schools From the meeting with Gallon Jug, the below is evident:  Conducts environmentally friendly and sustainable practices to control pollution of the biosphere in its operation  Including logging, milling of timber and agriculture (coffee, sugar cane and cacao)  Cattle pasturing is as well conducted as well as is ecotourism activities  Spinoff effects and consequences of operations were not explored in detailed, i.e. due to fuel storage, waste management and emissions control  No engagement on either sides with the Department of Environment  The property has experienced some illegal logging but for the most past the surrounding communities present little conflict  The Gallon Jug would like to support community development for Sylvester village.  The property is pursuing a REDD project using VCS and CCBA Standards 45 1.3 KBAs target areas selection process The target areas within the KBAs for the Project were selected through a stakeholder engagement process. Two workshops were conducted on February 8th, 2013 and February 22nd, 2013. The first was to select possible sites and the second to validate the selection. List of participants at working session February 8th, 2013 - ICT Centre, Belmopan Name of Participant Organization/Department Wilber Sabido Forest Department Hannah St. Luce- Martinez Forest Department AnselDubon National Protected Areas Secretariat Ian Morrison Consultant Tanya Santos Forest Department Judene Tingling Forest Department Saul Cruz Forest Department Fernando Tzib Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture Rasheda Garcia Forest Department Arlene Maheia-Young National Protected Areas Secretariat List of participants at validation session February 22nd, 2013 - Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development’s Conference Room Name of Participant Organization/Department Marion Cayetano Consultant Saul Cruz Forest Department Fernando Tzib Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture Carren Williams Lands Information Centre, Ministry of Natural Resources and Agriculture Arlene Maheia-Young National Protected Areas Secretariat AnselDubon National Protected Areas Secretariat Jose Perez Association of Protected Areas Management Organizations Anthony Mai Department of Environment 46 A set of criteria was developed to rank all the 32 terrestrial protected areas within the KBAs as identified in the KBAs assessment report from 2007. The set of selection criteria was developed by the National Protected Areas Secretariat in consultation with the Forest Department and the World Bank. The criteria were grouped into 6 categories: threats, carbon, management capacity, risk factors, socio-economic, and economic values as detailed below: 1. Threats  Deforestation  Fragmentation of natural habitat  Anthropogenic fire incidence  Incidence of illegal activities (hunting, logging)  Risk of natural activities (fire, hurricanes) 2. Carbon  Carbon sequestration potential  High possibility of regeneration 3. Management Capacity  Lack of management capacity  Lack of human resources for enforcement, conservation and monitoring 4. Risk Factors  Resistance of communities to participate in Project  Geopolitical factors 5. Socio-economic  Poverty levels  Local community dependence on resources in the PA (uses: subsistence, income generation activities) 6. Economic Values  Watershed catchment/protection  Coastal/river bank protection 7. All criteria received equal weight. After the criteria were enumerated, a working session was held to rank all of the protected areas within the KBAs (list of participants is available in the Project files). Following this session, results from the ranking exercise were compiled by the NPAS and Forest Department into a spreadsheet with the criteria and scoring for each PA. Subsequently, the top scores were analyzed and the top ranking PAs were identified (See Table 1). Results we ranked with (highest possible score 45) and without risk factors (highest possible score 39) because the risk factors were agreed to be contentious. Table 5: Ranking Results for Selection of Target Sites Results before removing risk factors Results after removing risk factors Name of PA Score Name of PA Score Maya Mountain FR 42 Maya Mountain FR 36 Honey Camp NP 39 Columbia River FR 34 Freshwater Creek FR 39 Freshwater Creek FR 34 47 Columbia River FR 39 Honey Camp NP 34 Spanish Creek WS 37 Vaca FR 33 Vaca FR 37 AguasTurbias NP 32 AguasTurbias NP 36 Spanish Creek WS 32 8. After the ranking exercise was conducted, the top seven PAs were vetted as potential candidate sites. Five PAs were chosen from Table 3 and one additional PA - Chiquibul National Park – was included based on information from the PA rationalization exercise. 9. Fifteen criteria (Table 2) were used to guide prioritization of the terrestrial protected areas system within the PA rationalization exercise, allocated to four categories. These criteria were developed with input from Forest Department personnel and through feedback from protected area managers asked to ‘field test’ the assessment, to ensure it provided a valid output. Each of these criteria was rated out of a total possible score of 4, with scores then totaled and averaged per protected area. Prioritization scores ranged from 3.33 out of 4.00 for Columbia River Forest Reserve, considered the highest priority overall within the system, to the lowest score - 1.27 out of 4.00 for Melinda National Park. Table 6: Terrestrial Prioritization Criteria 1.0 Environmental Values 1.1 Watershed Catchment and Protection 1.2 Wetland Flood Sink Function 1.3 Coastal / River Bank Protection 1.4 Steep Slope Erosion Control 2.0 Biodiversity Status 2.1 Global Recognition for Biodiversity Values 2.2 Value for Under Represented Ecosystems or Ecosystems of Limited Extent 3.0 Socio-Economic Value 3.1 Value for Commercial Extractive Use (timber / non-timber forest products) 3.2 Value for Non-Renewable Resource Extraction - minerals 3.3 Value for Non-Renewable Resource Extraction – petroleum 3.4 Importance for Water Security 3.5 Value for Hydro-electricity Generation 3.6 Traditional Resource Use Dependence 3.7 Tourism / Recreational / Cultural Values 4.0 Key Resilience Features 4.1 Forest Connectivity 4.2 Altitudinal / Lateral Connectivity 10. The highest rated overall, greater than 3.00, were Columbia River Forest Reserve and Chiquibul National Park. Below are examples of major rating criteria. 11. Watershed Catchment and Protection, Protected Areas rated as VERY HIGH 48 Chiquibul National Park Columbia River Forest Reserve Maya Mountain Forest Reserve Vaca Forest Reserve 12. Based on Species of Global and National Concern, Protected Areas (Meerman, 2007) Columbia River Forest Reserve Chiquibul National Park 13. Ecosystems<10,000 acres Tropical evergreen seasonal needle-leaved lowland forest, well drained  Vaca Forest Reserve 14. Ecosystems<1,000 and <-5,000 acres nationally Deciduous broad-leaved lowland riparian shrubland in hills  Chiquibul National Park  Columbia River Forest Reserve  Vaca Forest Reserve 15. Ecosystems <1,000 and<-5,000 acres nationally Tropical evergreen broad-leaved lowland forest, moderately drained, on calcareous soils  Columbia River Forest Reserve 16. Ecosystems <1,000 and <-5,000 acres nationally Tropical evergreen lower-montane broad-leaved forest  Chiquibul National Park 17. Ecosystems <1,000 and <-5,000 acres nationally Tropical evergreen broad-leaved lower montane forest with palms  Chiquibul National Park 18. Forest Connectivity, Protected Areas rated as VERY HIGH  Columbia River Forest Reserve  Maya Mountain Forest Reserve  Vaca Forest Reserve  Chiquibul National Park  Freshwater Creek Forest Reserve  Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary 19. In addition, APAMO also suggested 4 protected areas in greatest need of strengthening: Freshwater Creek Forest Reserve, Vaca Forest Reserve, Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary, and Columbia River Forest Reserve. 20. Subsequently, a validation session was convened to present and discuss the selection process for the 6 proposed target areas (list of participants is available in the Project files). 21. Based on the analyses and validation/ranking exercises, the final consensus list of PAs to be included in the Project were: a. Northern Lowlands KBA  Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary  Freshwater Creek Forest Reserve b. Maya Mountains Massif KBA  Chiquibul National Park 49  Columbia River Forest Reserve  Vaca Forest Reserve  Maya Mountain Forest Reserve 50 1.4 Participants List for Validation Workshop Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable DevelopmentManagement and Protection of Key Biodiversity Areas Project Preparation Grant Validation Workshop List of Participants May 14th, 2013 – George Price Centre for Peace and Development Name of Participant Organization/Department 1 Ashley Camhi Consultant 2 Arlene Maheia-Young NPAS 3 Guadalupe Rosado NPAS 4 Marion Cayetano Consultant 5 Ian Morrison Consultant 6 Christina Garcia Ya'axché 7 Roberta Pennil Ya'axché 8 Leonides Sosa DOE 9 Lee Mcloughlin Ya'axché 10 Wilber Sabido FD 11 Arreini Palacio Belize Audubon 12 Nayari Diaz-Perez PACT 13 Anthony Mai DOE 14 Celi Cho DOE 15 Martin Alegria DOE 16 Victoria Cawich FD 17 Edgar Eck DOE 18 Fernando Tzib Department of Agriculture 19 Monique Shipstern 20 Heron Moreno Shipstern 21 Lynelle Williams TNC 22 Lester Delgado Shipstern 23 Rafael Manzanero FCD 24 Boris Arevalo FCD 25 Carren Williams Lands Information Centre, MNRA 26 Weiszman Pat MFFSD 27 Tanya Santos Forest Department 28 AnselDubon NPAS 29 Natalie Rosado PACT Rancho Dolores Environment and Development 30 Raymond Reneau Group 31 Colin Mathis NCCO 51 Name of Participant Organization/Department 32 Oswaldo Sabido Consultant 33 Jose Perez APAMO 34 Elma Kay ERI 35 Colin Gillett CZMAI The aim of the validation workshop was twofold: To present an overview of project objectives, components and proposed activities and results framework To present the Social Assessment including socioeconomic benefits and sustainable livelihoods framework The workshop participants also engaged in group exercises to identify community based activities within and around the target sites. Figure 3: Social Development consultant presenting social assessment 52 Figure 4: Participants at the validation workshop 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 1.4 Belmopan Consultation Workshop June 3rd, 2014 George Price Center for Peace and Development Belmopan, Cayo List of Participants No. Participant Organization/Village 1 Lester Delgado CSSF 2 Victor Cawich San Pablo Village Council 3 Marlon Garcia San Pablo Village Council 4 Elmer Flores San Esteban Village Council 5 Pascal Walter CSFI 6 Clinton Rhaburn Flowers Bank village 7 Rodney Banner LemonalVillage 8 Arnaldo Melendez Friends for Conservation &Development (FCD) 9 Davis Valdez Progresso Village 10 Esther Aiemesseger CSFI Sartaneja 11 Colleen Joseph Rancho Dolores Village 12 Heron Moreno CSFI- Shipstern 13 Ruth Staine-Dawson National Association of Village Council (NAVCO) 14 E. Alexander S. V. Council, C.M. 15 Dirk Sutherland Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary 16 Pedro Wiens Little Belize Village 17 Patricio Acuna Santa Martha Village, Orange Walk 18 Joel Diaz CSFI 19 Sean Nicolas Bermudian Landing Village 20 TreciaCasasola St. Pauls Bank Village Council 21 Clifton N. St. Pauls Bank Chairperson 22 Weisman Patt MFFSD-SCU 23 Rosalind Joseph Village Council 24 Gloria Banner Lemonal Village 25 Darlene Padron Sustainable Development Unit 26 Aldo Cansino Department of the Environment 27 Raphael Manzanero FCD 28 Derrick Chan FCD 29 Natalie Rosado Protected Areas Conservation Trust 30 Violet Broaster S.C.W.S. 31 Jacob Redcoop Little Belize Village 32 Arlene Maheia-Young NPAS 33 Aretha Mortis NPAS 34 Jose Perez APAMO 35 Natalie Bucknor BEST 65 36 Dwight Neal BEST 37 Lemuel Velasquez BEST 38 Tanya Santos FD 39 Emily Aldana PPU MFED 40 Carlos Monterosso 7 Miles (El Progresso) Village 41 Lin Smith Rancho Dolores Village/Chair 42 AnselDubon NPAS 43 Melanie Smith BEST An overview of the agenda and workshop objectives was provided by the consulting team. The first presentation by was conducted by the Program Director of the National Protected Areas Secretariat who outlined the KBA project, its objects, and its components. The various safeguards to be discussed were introduced. Question: How will the project affect those who use the protect areas? An explanation was provided that the Livelihood Restoration Process Framework has mitigation measures to address this. The Process Framework presentation presented the communities that were selectedand the selection process. The first interactive discussion revolved around the question of what activities are currently carried out by their communities in the protect areas? The responses were provided by the community representatives according to each of the KBAs. In the north, the activities ranged from agriculture to fishing. The Mennonite representatives clarified that they do not extract logs from Freshwater creek but do buy lumber from those that have concessions to extract timber from the KBA. The NGO working in that KBA (Corozal Sustainable Future Initiative) also mentioned that despite current believe that the KBA is in a degraded condition, reconnaissance and stocktaking that has been done recently show that the site is better off than previously anticipated. Since the NGO has been working the area, there has been greater compliance by the communities to protect it. However, New Land, a new community being established on the margins of the reserve is undergoing widespread clearing. The communities of the Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary indicated that a number of communities use the protected area for fishing, birding and extraction of logwood posts. They are concerned that NGO’s come into the area and restrict them from their livelihood activities which they have been practicing since the days of their ancestors. It is a relatively small KBA and the number of persons living in and around it makes it difficult to monitor and comply. However, of recent demarcation and signage has been improving. Chiquibul National Park is being co-managed by Friends for Conservation and Development (FCD). FCD also works with farmers in the Vaca Forest Reserve. There were a wide range of issues and challenges facing these two KBA’s. The Vaca is more used by communities since it is most accessible. The Chiquibul however face another set of threats most of which are imposed by the Guatemalan communities across the Belizean border. It is very difficult to monitor due the geographic layout and expanse of the National Park and the fact the it bordered by the ElijioPanti National Park, the Vaca Forest Reserve, Chiquibul Forest Reserve, the Mountain Pine Ridge and the Caracol Archeological Site. Persons who use the 66 Vacafor extraction of timber resources (concessionaires) come as far away as Santa Familia, Bullet Tree and Calla Creek in the western part of the Cayo District. The Vaca,Challillo and Mollejon Dams are also threats to both of these reserves. The presentation continued with an overview of what activities will be carried out? Who will it affect? Mitigation Measures. Community leaders were asked to relate their experience using the protected areas, when management projects are carried out, how did it affect their livelihood and what measures were put in place to ensure that they had alternative livelihood. The participants shared that projects seldom ask for their input and they are often not consulted from the beginning. In the case of the Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary, the rangers would meet them within the reserve and they would be accompanied out. If they were consulted from the beginning they would know what the rules and rationale for them, and they would comply as they too want to preserve the wildlife and habitat. Also, if they were consulted they would be able to share information about nesting sites, seasons for extraction of animals and plants and they too could serve as community forest rangers. Those from the Vaca Forest Reserve shared that they were given eviction notice by the Forest Department but with assistance from FCD they conducted a series of negotiations and special consideration was given to them to continue cultivating within the reserve. The formalized their group as a farming cooperative and received extension services and project funding to grow their crops using eco-friendly pesticides and eco-farming techniques. They now have a stable market and high quality produce. The presentation continued by outlining the positive and negative impacts of the project. Thereafter, those who would be eligible to obtain benefits from the project were discussed. The participants were pleased to see that a wide range of persons and groups were being considered. The discussion then moved on to the measures to assist affected persons, an extended discussion regarding persons who are conducting illegal activities in the KBA should not be eligible since a project should not give benefits to people who break the law. A question was asked about whether or not Guatemalans would be eligible. While the Social Assessment exercise will determine how communities use the site and what type of access will be allowed and/or restricted, it was explained that under the World Bank guidelines they would still be considered eligible users. It is important not to discriminate users based on their nationality. However, it was stated that the involvement of Government agencies such as the Immigration Department needs to be consulted on this matter. The Grievance redress mechanism was presented next. It was agreed that these are steps that must be taken. A question was posed as to how to address a grievance if it is against the Project Management Unit. The response was that the second tier allows for that to occur and that the person/group or community could request their local representatives to address the issue. 67 Finally, the involuntary resettlement policy was briefly discussed as the project did not expect that anyone would have to be resettled unless the activities were not in compliance with the designation of the protected area. After the break, the presentation moved on to the The Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF). The first question posed was regarding the name of the document. Why IPPF not Community Planning Framework? The name suggested that it will focus only on indigenous people when in fact all ethnic groups must be consulted and given the same courtesy. BEST shared how they came about with their safeguard document and how they holistically addressed community consultations but emphasized indigenous community planning in line with World Bank guidelines. The presenter mentioned that the names of the document can be changed and that the documents will be adapted to address the issues raised as a result of the consultation. Furthermore, the social assessments will determine a final list of communities and exactly how they impact the KBA. As the presentation progressed to discuss the adjacent communities a discussion emerged on what criteria was used to select the communities, discussion on what an adjacent community is. It was important to establish this so that community representatives could confirm that those who appear on the list were actual adjacent communities. The definition was refined and accepted to mean those who are proximate, are traditional users and have access to the KBA’s. Furthermore, it was suggested to divide the groups into primary users and secondary users with the latter being those who are not geographically proximate but use the resource occasionally or own land or concessions within the KBA. The Legal and Institutional framework was presented followed by the consultation Principles. A definition of Free, Prior and Informed consultation was provided. Inclusion as a guiding principle was also mentioned. The objectives and benefits of community consultations closed of the presentation. In the afternoon session, the Environmental Management Framework was presented. The presentation included forest department legislation, safeguard measures, potential subprojects and mechanism for implementation and responsible agencies. The role of the community in monitoring and evaluation of all aspects of the project was discussed. Questions emerged regarding how the subprojects will be selected? It was explained that PACT will provide the financing but a Steering Committee will review the proposals. The proposals will be formulated by the communities and the type of project to be implemented will be decided by the community or group of persons. The day concluded with a summary of the concerns and overview of the project objectives. The participants were reminded that the documents will be online by June 10th 2014 at the websites of the NPAS and World Bank and will be available electronically from the NGO’s working with their community. Any comments and suggestions will be appreciated. 68 1.5 Toledo Consultation Workshop June 6th, 2014 Nazareth Retreat Center Forest Home Village, Toledo District List of Participants No. Name Position Organization/Community 1 Rodolfo Morales Chairperson Trio Village, Toledo District 2 Maximilano Makin Chairperson San Pablo Village, Toledo District 3 Juan Rax Alcalde San Pablo Village, Toledo District 4 Pablo Choc Chairperson Indian Creek Village, Toledo District 5 Linus Choc Chairperson Silver Creek Village, Toledo District 6 Domingo Teul Vice-Chairperson Silver Creek Village, Toledo District 7 Alfredo Teul Treasurer Silver Creek Village, Toledo District 8 Pedro Cal Chairperson San Vicente Village, Toledo District 9 Sebastian Cab Alcalde San Vicente Village, Toledo District 10 Rafael Tzub Alcalde San Jose Village, Toledo District 11 Diego Oh Chairperson Na LuumCaj Village, Toledo District 12 Rudolfo Oh Alcalde Na LuumCaj Village, Toledo District 13 Abelino Zuniga Vice-Chairperson Medina Bank Village, Toledo District 14 Orlando Chan Alcalde Bladen Village, Toledo District 15 Zulma Portillo Community Member Bella Vista Village, Toledo District 16 Elmer Requena Terrestrial Biologist Toledo Institute for Development and Environment (TIDE), Hopeville Area, Toledo District 17 Mark Miller Executive Director Plenty Belize, Jose Maria Nunez Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District 18 Christina Garcia Executive Director Ya’axché Conservation Trust, 2 Alejandro Vernon Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District 19 Roberta Pennell Development Officer Ya’axché Conservation Trust, 2 Alejandro Vernon Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District 20 Zee McLoughlen PA Manager Ya’axché Conservation Trust, 2 Alejandro Vernon Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District 21 BartholomewTeul Programme Manager Ya’axché Conservation Trust, 2 Alejandro Vernon Street, Punta 69 Gorda Town, Toledo District No. Name Position Organization/Community 22 Pantaleon Escobar Project Coordinator Humana People to People 23 Mario Chavarria Executive Director Toledo Development Corporation, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District 24 Thomas Tillett Project Coordinator Toledo Cacao Growers Association, George Price Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District 25 Tomas Caal Chairman, Pro-tem Friends of Lu Ha, Punta Gorda Committee Town, Toledo District 26 Christoper Nesbitt Director Maya Mountain Research Farm, San Pedro Columbia Village, Toledo District 27 Celini Logan Farm Coordinator Maya Mountain Research Farm, San Pedro Columbia Village, Toledo District 28 Yanira Pop Forest Officer Forest Department 29 Raul Chun Forest Officer Forest Department 30. Aretha Mortis Office Administrator National Protected Areas Secretariat, Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development 31. Guadalupe Rosado Communications Officer National Protected Areas Secretariat, Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development 32. Arlene Maheia-Young Program Director National Protected Areas Secretariat, Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development 32. AnselDubon Program Officer National Protected Areas Secretariat, Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development The consultation in the Toledo District included both non-indigenous communities representing the Maya Mountain North and indigenous communities representing Columbia Forest Reserve (CRFR). The consultation was conducted in four languages: English, Kekchi, Mopan and Spanish. 70 Figure 5: Mayan Translator conveying message in Kekchi for the community representatives The Toledo Cacao Growers Association took the opportunity to give an overview of their organization as Cacao is considered a viable option for alternative livelihoods. The purpose of presentation was also to give community participants the idea of how community agro-forestry helps in maintaining biodiversity while promoting sustainable livelihoods. The presentation highlighted that there is a huge local and international (export) market for Belizean cacao. -Buyers want 1 million pound of dried cacao but TCGA is only supplying 250,000 pounds. In 2013 an outbreak of disease caused a reduction in production by half. 25 % of locally produced cacoa goes to local markets and the rest goes to international markets. Price has increased from 8 cents a pound to 2.65 cents for dried cacao beans. Exports are based on seasonal contracts 85% and the contracts are negotiated on world market price. TCGA is getting prices above world market. The TCGA representative stated that cacoa is a family friendly crop since children and adults participate and benefit. The current focus is on product quality and expansion. The organization intends to improve yield through technology. It has drying facilities in several villages; expanding drying facilities in villages (to facilitate drying from farmers in other villages). Some of the villages adjacent to the KBA are already involved in cacao growing and other expressed interest. An overview of the KBA project was conducted by the Program Director. A concern from San Vicente was that it has expanded after the designation of the protected area and stated that they need land for agriculture and wanted to know if they will be able to have activities within the protected areas, not only cacao but also crops like corn, etc. 71 It was explained that through the project, there may be opportunities such as those that exist in Vaca Forest Reserve for small farmers; however this would have to be done after the development of a community sustainable forest management plan for the area. -Mr. Requena from TIDE stated that such a project should have come about from 1990s. “It is great initiative where government, NGOS and community people are coming together to plan and better use the PAs�. There is broad support the plans for the project but there is need for engagement with communities currently using the resources. The project has identified the challenges but there is need for prior communication. Figure 6: Representative from TIDE expressing his support for the project Nah LumKa- some community members are lease owners near the Columbia River forest reserve. Question: Will the project open the lines for the protected areas-meaning clearly demarcate the boundary? It was explained that the project activities include clear demarcation of the boundaries of the protected areas. Trio Village- these are important facts for them because they also are very close to the Maya mountain forest reserve and use the area for fishing, agriculture crops such as pineapple and extraction of house posts. A presentation was conducted on the Livelihood restoration framework by the Consultant. -The new definition was discussed and all were in agreement that the definition adequately reflects what an adjacent community is. 72 As part of the presentation an extended discussion was conducted on which communities have direct access to the protected areas? Columbia River Forest Reserve: Nah LumKa-very close to Columbia River Forest Reserve Santa Elena/Santa Cruz communities manage the Rio Blanco National Park which is very close to CRFR and they have a vested interest in it. Pueblo Viejo-does not have immediate access but should be considered as people use the FR occasionally. San Antonio-portion of Columbia River FR de-reserved. The representative mentioned that Crique Jute should be included since they also use the reserve. Concern-Indian Creek farmers are within the protect areas boundary due to the boundary curving. Community involvement is essential since they know exactly which areas they are using. It is essential to involve when the social assessment and community mapping is done and to conduct activity to demarcate the protected area. Figure 7: Alcalde of Indian Creek voicing his concern regarding demarcation of protected areas boundary Golden Stream is only 15 minutes away from the protected area. Big Falls village, Hicatee and Silver Creek are also users. The project needs to take closer look at communities that may be using the areas. It was explained that social assessments will be conducted to determine level of use and final listing. 73 San Pedro Columbia-30 persons using the area as primary source of water. San Miguel-next to CRFR and Jalacte should be included. Maya Mountain Forest Reserve: Trio, Bella Vista, San Pablo, San Isidro, Bladen (Toledo) and a new Mennonite called Roseville (behind Redbank) all use the MMN. There is also a private land owner in the area-12,000 acres- Stoufer estate. Concern-how will the project address issue of de-reservation? Concern - the problem of political interference-Maya mountain forest reserve under high threat from de-reservation. Response-through the system wide impacts- ensuring the implementation of the NPAS bill and development of regulations for processes such as de-reservation as outlined in the National protected areas system plan. Impact for 2.1a-this will impact success of the project as de- reservation will negatively affect communities using the areas. As part of the presentation, a discussion regarding livelihood required blocks of communities to discuss: From your experience using the protected areas and when projects relating to protected areas management has been implemented: How has your livelihoods been affected? What measures were put into place to ensure that you have alternative and sustainable livelihoods? Group work collected. Presentation continued to discuss livelihood options and sub-projects. Question: What does small scale pastures have to do with protect areas management? Small scale- sheep and deer and gibnut can be used along with agroforestry systems; rather than hunting deer- small scale pasture can support diversification of income. Include lands and agriculture departments in the project that may be promoting other initiatives that are not in compliance with the project. - Establish Guidelines for silvipastoral systems. Villager of San Pedro Columbia stated that agro-ecology can include conversion of land to forested land with medicinal plants. Really liked that the project is addressing conversion of abandoned milpa to forested areas The villager further stated that concerns are not static concerns; they are vital due to growth in population where PAs will be under increased threats due to land for agriculture; address bad agricultural practices-from citrus, milpa etc. They are open to supporting the project. San Pedro 74 Columbia –reiterates that they fully support the project. Good initiatives for sub project-community need to decide what is needed. Recommendation –to Plan follow up community consultation on the safeguards. Only alcalde/chairpersons are invited at national level but at the local level the communities need to be consulted directly. Consider needs of the communities to have livelihood opportunities in the project area. The communities know what they need. The project needs to look at communities at a larger scale- access roads, local development perspective and whole picture of the community. Management system for communal land needs to be clearly outlined. Presentation of Community Consultation process framework: Preparation of documents and need to get document in format and level that they can understand and comprehend (technical). Language and complexity-documents should be summarized and translate (there are no recognized written forms of the Maya languages). Transportation-bus should be chartered to mobilize communities or leaders so that they do not have to limit their participation time to be on schedule with the village transportation where it exists. Discussion: What is the culturally appropriate way to consult communities adjacent to MMFR and CRFR? Trio village chairperson- Congratulate and applauds the approach Ya’axché takes in working with their communities-near MMFR. They come and meet the people in the community. Ya’axché representatives mentioned that they do not have an official consultation protocol- they only have reports on the consultations. It is done as due diligence with trio and Bella vista to see if community forest concession can be established in Maya Mountain North. Each time they asked what people would like to know and they followed up and kept in constant contact with villagers. Best way to send information: Reach out to the chairperson and Alcalde – at least 21 calendar days in advance-before the meet with the end of the month-set time. Some community conduct communal cleaning (fajina) done every three months and conduct meeting after. Indian creek and San Jose villages meet end of every month; this is combined with collection of water fees. After or during-they give information on the community; this is a good way of keeping people informed. 75 Bladen village -meet once a month on the last Sunday of every month due to community working on farms etc. Most Chairpersons and Alcalde have cell phones; San Vicente and Jalacte have Guatemalan cell service. It was mentioned that information can be sent through organizations such as Humana gets information to communities because they have structures in communities. Radio-discussion shows to discuss and explain to broader communities. Working through the NGO community has been a plus. BEST has community coordinators. TCGA-has a network for farmers through drying centres– extension officers, farmer leaders. Weekly meeting with members -producing cacao. At the village level, first contact should be the two leaders-Alcalde and chairpersons. Meet with elected leaders 2-3 weeks prior to consultations. Question: What is the most effective way to reach out to the women? PulcheriaTeul-gives very useful information. In Bladen-go through the chairperson-Ms. Pauuis female and she contacts the females. In communities where male chairpersons-women and men are invited together. In San Vicente-mostly men having meeting. If women’s meeting the facilitator must be a female. Female school principals can be used. Indian creek-more women starting to come out of the shyness in attending meetings. Medina Bank has a female Alcalde. Women groups-let them know the project will benefit women also. Certain issues may be considered –male or female relations. Livelihood activities for male or female can be discussed separately. Focus on activities for families Discussion on Grievance mechanism Local level committee –not only for grievance but also for the general implementation of the project. Might need to be looked at along with rural development due to sustainability after the project. Question: who is the final authority in villages? Community, alcalde or chairman? The Alcade but in consultation with the Chairman. In 2015 –new alcaldes will be selected (2 years) ; 3 years for village councils (1 more year-2015). It is important for projects to exist beyond the political structures of the villages. Most of the time there is loss of information due to change in leadership; session with interest groups and broader community; important point-some persons may have agenda-but the community would be able to buffer against individual positions or interest. 76 Communities to see how the project fit into the community-community development plans and project fit into overall plan-where community wants to go. Often times, plans are developed but not implemented. It is important to have local representatives at decision-making level. Decentralized management of projects; involve communities in decision-making throughout the process and meaningfully. Recommendation is to have NAVCO on TAC or to have local level committees to provide advice on the sub-projects. Presentation continued on how local committees will be established; and its functions including addressing grievance. It was reiterated that issues must be addressed at the local level-first. The day concluded with a summary of the concerns and overview of the project objectives. The participants were reminded that the documents will be online by June 10th 2014 at the websites of the NPAS and World Bank and will be available electronically from the NGO’s working wit h their community. Any comments and suggestions will be appreciated. 77 1.6 Indigenous Leaders Consultation June 27th, 2014 Toledo Institute for Development and Environment’s (TIDE) Conference Room Hopeville Area, Toledo District List of Participants No. Name Position Organization/Community 1. Pablo Mis Programme Coordinator Maya Leaders Alliance; Toledo Alcalde Association 2. Martin Chen Chairperson Maya Leaders Alliance 3. Candido Cho Leader Maya Leaders Alliance 4. Adriano Mas Member Maya Leaders Alliance 5. Alfonso Cal Second Alcalde Golden Stream Village, Toledo District President Toledo Alcalde Association 6. Ignacio Sho First Alcalde San Marcos Village, Toledo District Deputy Leader Toledo Alcalde Association 7. Vicente Sackul First Alcalde Laguna Village, Toledo District Member, Executive Board Toledo Alcalde Association 8. Louis Pop First Alcalde Golden Stream Village, Toledo District 9. Jose Che First Alcalde San Pedro Columbia Village, Toledo District 10. Bartholomew Teul Programme Manager Ya’axché Conservation Trust, 2 Alejandro Vernon Street, Punta Gorda Town, Toledo District 11. Ronald Neal Intern Maya Leaders Alliance 12. Timoteo Mesh Intern Maya Leaders Alliance and Toledo Alcalde Association 13. Natalie Bucknor Consultant BEST 14. Melanie Smith Consultant BEST 15. Dwight Neal Consultant BEST The meeting was attended by a total of 12 participants including leaders from the Maya Leader Alliance and the Toledo Alcalde Association. The meeting was conducted in English and Maya and a translator was present to translate from English to Ketchi and vice versa. The project description, objective, components and selected KBA’s were presented from the Environmental Management Framework. The presentation continued with the Livelihood Restoration Framework. A question was asked by TAA, what the involvement does the Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development have in project? The response was that the 78 Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development will be implementing the project and is currently preparing for the project to begin. The question was asked regarding why they are doing a consultation on the documents? It was explained that World Bank funding require that projects have applicable safeguards in place before the project begins. The TAA representative then stated that the Ministry is basically obligated by the World Bank to develop the framework but this is not normally how they [the Ministry] do their work. The adopted definition of adjacent community was discussed. There were no concerns or comments. The presentation continued with the potential impact of the project and the mitigation measures. The first concern regarding activity 1.1a was presented by Pablo Mis of the Maya Leader Alliance. The legislation on land tenure will be revised but there are various difficulties with that aspect since there is no documentation of land distribution and land use is not properly document, so it would be difficult to use that as a basis for how the land tenure legislation revision. When asked by the consulting team how is the land distributed and used in communal lands, since at this point the system is not clear. For example, it is difficult to determine how someone becomes a communal land user? Why would a user lose their benefits? What are the rights and responsibilities of the users? Is there documentation anywhere on that? The respondents indicated that that reflects the position of the Prime Minister. He has expressed the same things. It is clear that the document is saying one thing and the government’s position is something else. The genuine position of the Maya communities is to have established boundaries of the Maya community. Currently a lot of communities now keep their boundaries clean. Even so, the Maya never gave up their rights to the Protected Areas. The MLA representative also informed the team that the TAA had drafted the Alcaldes Jurisdiction Bill 2011, a document which articulates the requirement for land use and it also responds to the other questions. However, no response has been received from local government since 2011 when it was submitted. A question was posed by the consulting team to the participants about how communities who currently use the protected areas will be affected by the project especially since not all communities use the PA communally? The response was that the Alcaldes Jurisdiction Bill articulates the governance and process of how the system works but that has not been embraced by the government. These were the same issue brought up in the REDD+ process, they stumbled on it. It is not so much how communities will be affected but more that threats can be mitigated when government and Maya communities are able to sitand work something out. The Government does not recognize communal land use. The Government does not talk about Maya land rights. Therefore, the Maya people believe that government is not accountable, so, this and any other framework is not binding. The way to mitigate threats to the communities is to recognize communal land use. When the discussion moved to 1.2 another concern was lodged. How would the project ensure that the sub-projects or funding actually benefit the community? Mr. Caal, the President of the TAA, shared that he has a lot of experience with projects that are implemented spending millions of dollars and the 79 community did not benefit. (a few were discussed). He further stated that they identify key development areas but these do not benefit. The presentation skipped to the measures to assist affected persons component to show the project will ensure input from the onset. It was also mentioned by the facilitator that the project is yet in the planning stage and it is at this stage that the foundation must be set to ensure that communities benefit and that they have input on how the project will be implemented. Returning to the project components- it was highlighted in the section on other restrictions that in the “case that indigenous users of forest resources are affected, free, prior and informed consultation leading to broad community support will be required for Livelihood Restoration Framework Operation Policy 4.12�. The main concern was that the term free, prior and informed consultation should read, consultation and CONSENT. The participants stated that in their experience the government consistently uses consultation to mean that it was presented and marks it off on their checklist. Consent is more binding; it means that there is more serious commitment. Consultation does not give a solid establishment. In the case of Canada’s indigenous peoples, they are based on consent. Consent mean agreement, consultation merely indicates that you were informed and your concerns were noted. The current court case of SATIIM vs. US Energy shows how consultation and consent are two different things. Component 2.1 was presented. The participants mentioned 2.1a-declaration, re-alignment and de- reservation of PAs is very good, since communities want to keep the area under protection. The Alcalde of Santa Cruz asked if any of the projects will help communities to demarcate their boundaries. The response was that it was not known, since the projects have to be community-driven, so once it falls under any of the components then it will be eligible. The presentation was skipped to possible sub- projects to give an overview of what type of sub-projects would be implemented. On the same topic, the consulting team was reminded by the participants that the Maya communities are still using organic customary practices and their practices already have some built in environmental safeguards. The first presentation concluded with a review of eligibility, the grievance redress mechanism andmention that if necessary the involuntary resettlement plan will come into effect. A presentation on the community consultation framework followed. At the onset of the presentation, it was explained that the document has two components: Section 1 discusses how adjacent communities in general will be consulted and section 2: discusses how indigenous communities in particular will be consulted. It was also explained that in the Belmopan consultation the concern that the document focuses only on Indigenous Peoples when in fact there were other ethnicities participating in the project led to the restructuring of the document. The Legal and Institutional framework was mentioned. The only inputwas that even though there are two types of local leaders both leaders try to find equity and equal rights. 80 The presentation moved on to the adjacent communities identified by the various consultation. The only concern was that Big Falls should be a primary user not a secondary user, therefore, should be moved from Table 3 to Table 2. The presentation then moved onthe indigenous people’s consultation process,the TAA presented the consulting team with a copy of their approved consultation protocol which outlines the process and protocols for getting participation from the indigenous Maya of the south. The consultants assured the TAA that the document will be updated to ensure that they align as much as possible with both Government policies and the TAA’s consultation protocol. The presentation continued with the planning process, the disclosure mechanism and a quick reminder that there is a grievance mechanism in place. The floor was open for additional comments. The main concern centered around two main issues: consultation and commitment. The first issue was that their experience working with Government has not been positive. It is not clear how binding Governments decisions will be in this project. There was no indication of what will happen if GOB does not adhere to its agreements with the communities. Another question was asked about how the REDD+ will support the project. The consultants shared that this project has various components that will support the REDD+. It is unclear if the REDD+ will happen and similarly they went through the same exercise with the communities as the KBA project is now doing. A concern was brought up regarding equal representation. It was noted from the literature that there is a steering committee made up of CEO’s and technical people. Where is the community representation on that committee? The consulting team mentioned that a representative group such as APAMO has been considered to sit on the PSC. However, the participants stated that they [APAMO] represents the environmental community. There should be representatives of communities as well as ‘indigenous communities’. This will ensure that Mayan concerns are highlighted at that level. When government and technical persons do not agree with Maya Leaders then there is discouragement on the part of leaders. The document states that there will be a mediation committee at the community level? How inclusive will that be? What representation will they have on the Steering Committee level? For example, the REDD SC is a body of key stakeholders to advise project management unit not just CEO’s. The final and very extensive discussion revolved around the issue of consultation. The participants felt that even with the consultations that have been done, the indigenous communities have not been adequately represented. Communities need to understand the project. They need to discuss how they will contribute to making it work and how projects will affect/benefit them. One Alcalde asked if there will be individual consultations in communities and he would like to see consultation done at community level. The consultants were reminded that even though documents were sent to the MLA and TAA not all Alcalde were able to access it electronically and some had only seen the document prior to the meeting. 81 As a result, the documents have not been digested. One suggestion was to have a focus group working session be conducted with leaders and community members of the adjacent communities. Another suggestion proposed that the meeting be with all Executive members of the MLA & TAA since not all were able to come because of it being a work day and because of flooding of some rivers. This meeting should include representatives of adjacent communities. An all-day session should be held. Saturday is better day for meetings. Letter will be sent to head of TAA & MLA. Letter will be sent to head of TAA & MLA. The continuous consultation is important so that everyone is aware. At the community level, there are community meetings. Once the leaders consult with their people andback to the project then freeproper and consultation would not be another checklistinstead it will be dialogue. Mr. Caal mentioned that projects can be successful if they ensure wide and equal representation. Some of their members don’t fully understand what the KBA project is about sothat when they leave the assemblythey go backtheir community with the correct information. He did not feel that with the discussion throughout the morning was extensive enough to provide them with the information to go back to their community. Next session should be a full working day so as to receive feedback on documents for adjustments. It was suggested that the next consultation could be done as early as July 26th 2014, in Golden Stream or San Pablo. It was further suggested that this meeting be done with the Ministry so that there is dialogue between government and the Maya communities. This is especially important so that when the project begins there has been already certain level of commitment between both. Principles of the Toledo Alcades Association Consultation Framework The consultation framework applies to policy initiatives, legislative proposal, administrative measure, development, economic project, or any other action that may affect the lands, territories or well-being of the Maya people. - Process must be culturally appropriate, timely, meaningful, in good faith and meet international normative standards, particularly the requirement of free, prior and informed consent. - Consultation must begin at the planning stage and continue throughout the life cycle of the proposed action or activity. - Customary rules must be respected, including deliberative communication methods, it includes, but not limited to seeking permission to enter village lands for the purpose of resource use or extraction, or to gain access to cultural sites. Preliminary information must be provided at the earliest time possible. - Maya people reserve the right not to accept any of the initiatives or other action that contravenes their consultation framework. - The TAA/MLA Consultation framework makes it abundantly clear the making contact and exchanging information with the Indigenous Leaders does not mean consent. After receipt of request to consult, the TAA shall inform the proponent if the request is accepted and, together with the proponent, develop a mutually acceptable consultation schedule. 82 - At the Toledo Alcaldes Association, the General Assembly is the fundamental authority for decision making. The executive body carries the decision of the assembly. The individual Alcaldes register their vote on an issue based on the directive of the village meeting on a specific issue. - Where relocation or settlement becomes necessary as part of a mitigate measure the ESCEI must include a clear Settlement Action Plan and Livelihood Restoration Plan of the affected village. Figure 8: Participants who attended consultation 1.7 Summary of Concerns from all consultations & Response # Stakeholder concern Response/action 1 In the Belmopan consultation held on June It was suggested that ‘adjacent communities’ should mean 3, 2014 there was a concern about how the communities that are geographically proximate and/or have communities were selected/or would be traditionally used the PA, and/or have direct access to the selected as beneficiaries? This was an PA. As a result, it was agreed to use the definition and to also important question since it would differentiate communities in a listing of primary and determine whether or not the list of secondary users. adjacent communities adequately reflected the communities who use the PA. It was also reported that soon after project implementation and before management plans are prepared, detailed social assessments will be conducted for each protected area. The 83 Social assessments will result in a final list of communities selected as beneficiaries. Furthermore, specific tasks to be undertaken in the social assessment are included but not limited to those listed on page 23 of the IPPF. 2 The land tenure legislation component was At the workshop, Forest Department personnel clarified that questioned since it can be assumed that it the project implicitly states that the part of the legislation to means the current land tenure process will be reviewed is the taxation system or specific clauses in the be reviewed. (landowners tax incentives) legislation which act as disincentives for persons who maintain forest cover and the current system of taxing landowners’ high rates if they leave the land ‘undeveloped’. Project Component 1.1a states: one key factor driving deforestation in Belize is the existing land tenure legislation, which requires that titled lands be cleared by owners to be considered ‘developed’. This creates incentives for landowners to clear the land in an effort to meet the requirements of ‘development’ without which landowners are charged a higher land tax. 3 Participants discussed the practice of During the workshop, it was communicated that the project projects coming into communities to is still in the design phase and that the consultation process enforce laws without their knowledge of the will be throughout the project cycle and based on the new laws and without their consent. They consultation protocol outlined for the project and the also shared experiences regarding projects communications strategy. being implemented where the agencies predetermine what will be done and who It was also identified that the sub-projects will be community will participate. These project works with driven to address needs identified at the local level. communities on a ‘trial and error’ system making it difficult for communities to be The MFFSD has agreed to establish local level committees open to other projects. (identified in the grievance mechanism) that will serve as working groups with membership from the adjacent The Alcades Association was concerned that communities for each protected area which may be affected there is a precedence of projects destined by project interventions. It will also include, but not be for development areas but in reality the limited to, representatives from the District Association of funds does not reach the communities. A Village Councils (DAVCO). The Local level committees to be concern was brought up regarding equal established for the two southern sites, Colombia River Forest representation. It was noted from the Reserve and Maya Mountain Forest Reserve will include literature that there is a steering committee representatives from the Indigenous communities to be made up of CEO’s and technical people. identified by the TAA and/or MLA. Where is the community representation on that committee? The consulting team The local level committees will serve as a formal group to mentioned that a representative group such advise not only on the project issues, but issues related to as APAMO has been considered to sit on the land tenure and project issues and to foster dialogue. This is PSC. However, the participants stated that similar to what has been established for the REDD+ project. they [APAMO] represent the environmental community. There should be Additionally, and to further engage the local level representatives of communities as well as communities, the Technical Advisory Committee will meet ‘indigenous communities’. This will ensure with the local level communities to address specific issues that Mayan concerns are highlighted at that that may arise. level. When government and technical persons do not agree with Maya Leaders 84 then there is discouragement on the part of leaders. 4 A recurrent topic was that of livelihoods Through the presentations it was clarified what mitigation disruption. measures will be taken into consideration and what type of projects would be eligible under the alternative livelihood and forest community management sub-projects. Furthermore, the Livelihood Restoration Framework, which will be implemented through the project, was prepared to mitigate impacts on livelihoods. As a result, affected parties will be eligible for support from the livelihood subprojects. 5 The Indigenous Leaders were not in The Government of Belize, due its ongoing litigation with the agreement with the principle of Maya Land Rights case is not in a position to require consent consultation. They felt that it should read from Indigenous groups or communities as part of the 5 consultation and CONSENT as this is seen overall consultation framework. However, the Government is as more binding for both parties. The committed to meaningful consultation and the inclusion of example between SATIIM vs. US Energy all relevant comments and recommendations from below is outlined. communities. The plan is to do this at all levels for the overall project and the sub-projects we intend to implement. 6 The title of the Safeguard document Suggestions were made to rename the document to reflect Indigenous People Planning Framework was that it is a community consultation process. The example of questioned at the Belmopan consultation BEST’s culturally appropriate community consultation since it implied that it will focus only on document was expressed and it was agreed to adopt the indigenous peoples when in fact the project name. was serving most of the ethnic groups in Belize. 7 The TAA/MLA explained that at the The Ministry, through the RPP process has communicated to community level, there are community the MLA and TAA that projects like REDD+ and KBA will have meetings. Once the leaders consult with added benefits such as improved dialogue and collaborative their people and back to the project then planning, social and environmental safeguards, improved free proper and consultation would not be land use, forest and land governance reforms which are another checklist instead it will be dialogue. needed. However, for us to realize benefits we need to make investments in time, effort and financial resources during project implementation. Therefore, specific community level consultation will be pursued during implementation before project activities/components are carried out. 8 A recommendation was made for a full At the start of project implementation the Ministry will seek working day so as to receive feedback on to engage a Community Liaison for non-indigenous documents for adjustments. It was communities and an Indigenous Peoples’ Liaison, with suggested that the next consultation could financial support from the project to work with the th be done as early as July 26 2014, in Golden communities and IP groups such as MLA and TAA to ensure 5 The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples requires States to consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them (article 19). States must have consent as the Objective of consultation before any of the following actions are taken: • The adoption of legislation or administrative policies that affect indigenous peoples (article 19) • The undertaking of projects that affect indigenous peoples’ rights to land, territory and resources, including mining and other utilization or exploitation of resources (article 32) 85 Stream or San Pablo. It was further effective participation and representation during project suggested that this meeting be done with implementation. the Ministry so that there is dialogue between government and the Maya As indicated in the workshops with the communities, the communities. This is especially important so safeguard instruments are not static documents and they will that when the project begins there has been be revised as necessary. already certain level of commitment between both. Furthermore, as stated above in response to comment # 7, at the start of project implementation, the Project Unit will work with communities, NGOs and TAA/MLA to organize specific community meetings to discuss the overall project and update the communities on the social and environmental safeguard documents. The Ministry of Forestry, Fisheries and Sustainable Development remains committed to maintaining and strengthening the dialogue and finding solutions to forest loss and degradation that is in the best interest of both indigenous peoples and the national government. However, achieving this will no doubt require further dialogue and maintaining a commitment to sustainable development for all citizens. Therefore, the Ministry will ensure that the structures and methodology employed in the project will include broad participation and employ the most culturally appropriate system to obtain community and stakeholders support. 86