HONDURAS RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT PROJECT SOCIAL ASSESSMENT AND PARTICIPATION PLAN OBJECTIVES 1. A social assessment was carried out as part of project preparation with the following objectives: (a) to evaluate existing patterns of resource ownership, management and use among different groups and institutions in the project area; (b) to identify stake-holders who should be involved in preparation and implementation and to obtain their inputs on project scope and design; (c) to identify potentially negative impacts of proposed activities on vulnerable groups in the population, including women and indigenous groups, and design measures to prevent or mitigate these impacts; and (d) to identify opportunities to build local capacity of NGOs, producer and traditional organizations and local government to plan and carry out project activities. A Participation Action Plan was prepared as one product of that social assessment. This annex summarizes the findings of the social assessment and the recommendations that have been included in the Participation Action Plan. This includes findings and recommendations on indigenous peoples and gender concerns and a matrix extracting costs of activities related to participation and incorporation of special interest groups from the overall cost tables. SOCIAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 2. The social assessment included: (a) analysis of the stake-holders in the land administration and natural resources sector; (b) a participatory rural appraisal of representative communities in the Natural Resources Management component area by a multi-disciplinary team; (c) analysis of an extensive secondary literature on social impacts of the land titling program; (d) meetings with NGOs working with upland farmers and forest producers throughout the country; (e) meetings with members of the national indigenous federation and with traditional leaders, including indigenous leaders, in the project area; and (f) a workshop with women's organizations to elicit their views on project design. An international gender specialist and two international indigenous/social specialists participated in preparation to oversee in-country work on these aspects of project design. Because there would not be significant potentially negative impacts on indigenous groups, no separate Indigenous Peoples Development Plan was prepared, but instead the activities related to indigenous peoples development have been described within the overall plan of participation. * V 2 a PROFILE OF PROJECT BENEFICIARIES AND LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS POPULATION IN THE UPLANDS AND THE PROJECT AREA 3. There are, according to the 1993 agricultural census, 237,863 farm families with less than 10 hectare covering 587,576 hectares of land and 227,642 farms of less than 5 hectares with 384,078 hectares in Honduras. Most of the farmers with less than 5 hectares are found in the marginal uplands. Families with less than 10 hectares farm 17.6% of all agricultural holdings in the country, and comprise 54.3% of the population. These small holders produce mainly white maize, beans, a creole variety sorghum (maicillo), and rice. Maize is produced by 75 % of small-scale farmers and beans by a third. Sorghum is produced by 52% of farmers in the south and is used primarily as cattle feed. There is little reliable data on the extent of cattle pasture, but it is extensive-- 1993 census figures are 1.5 million hectares under pasture while extrapolations from 1991 regional data estimate 2.6 million hectares under pasture. In comparison to other Central American countries, the cattle expansion phase began later and continued after political conflicts had checked expansion in neighboring countries. 4. Many of the upland farmers cultivate land classified as part of the public forest estate. As described in Annex B, Land Administration Component, farmers cultivating lands classified as public are eligible for title should the land be judged of agricultural vocation. All other lands are classified as forest vocation and can be cultivated through usufruct, but not titled. The main forested areas of the north and west are the agricultural frontier. Many of the upland farmers in this area migrated from poorer regions in the south and east or moved into the hilly areas after selling their plots to cattle ranchers. Since 1982, Honduras has had an active land titling program to give title to smallholders settled on agricultural lands within the public estate. Through this program, 77,000 titles have been given for about 660,000 hectares. In addition, some cooperatives were given titles, but by 1993 only 993 of these remained with 144,697 hectares, mostly in the valleys. Most of the former cooperative members are seeking individual titles from INA. The number of farm families still without title is estimated to be around 200,000 of which about one half would not qualify for title since their holding is less than 1 hectare or classified as urban areas. The first phase of the land administration pilot in 15 municipalities alone is predicted to identify 6,000 farms eligible for title. 5. The small-farmer population in the 14 public forest management field unit boundaries of the three Departments included in the project area--Yoro, Olancho and San Francisco Morazon--is 14,775 families. These are the majority of families in the project area. While land holding figures are not available for the upland areas of these Departments, more than 95% of the families in the rapid rural appraisal communities were small-holders with less than 2.5 has. and the majority had some land holdings in addition to their homesteads, however marginal. Most did not have title to their agricultural holdings. Apart from limited mid and larger sized farmers in the valleys and some uplands of the project Departments, therefore, the large majority of the upland farmers are small, subsistence farmers with marginal holdings, both in size and quality. The upland fund would provide support to landed farmers in agriculture and agro- 3 forestry and to landless residents in municipal or social forestry initiatives on ejido and public lands. INDIGENOUS PEOPLE 6. In Honduras, the indigenous population (including black Caribbean communities) is organized in eight separate indigenous groups, numbering about 293,000 inhabitants and comprising 12.8 percent of the total population (1988 Census). Membership to a specific group is determined by language affiliation. The eight groups and their location are the following: * Lenca in the La Paz; Intibuca; Lempira and Santa Barbara Departments, with 100,000 inhabitants * Xicaques or Tolupanes, with 28 tribes distributed in 6 municipalities of Yoro Department; and 19,300 people in Orica and Marales of Francisco Morazan Department. * Garifuna or "caribes negros" in Cortez; Atlantida; Col6n; Gracias a Dios and Islas de la Bahia, with a estimated population of 98,000 inhabitants, distributed in 38 communities * Miskitos, in Gracias a Dios Department with about 49,000 inhabitants, distributed in 107 communities * Pech or Paya, distributed in the Dulce, Nombre de Culmi and San Esteban municipalities in the Olancho Department; and Brus Laguna in the Gracias a Dios Department with 2,600 inhabitants * Tawahka or Sumus, with 900 inhabitants in 7 communities along the Rio Patuca River * Chorti, in Copan and Ocotepeque Departments with about 4,200 inhabitants. * Islefios or Black Population with a distinct language found in the Litoral Atlantico in the Ceiba, Tela, Puerto Cortez and the Islas de la Bahia with about 20,000 inhabitants 7. In the area of influence of the natural resources component there are 16,800 indigenous people, making up 21 percent of the total population of the area. In addition, the protected areas component would strengthen staffing in the Mosquitia Region to complement the proposed GEF project under preparation. The protected area in this region includes a significant portion of the 49,000 Miskitos and Tawahkas distributed in 107 communities. While there are no indigenous populations in the pilot areas of the land 4 administration component of Comayagua and Siguatepeque, Olancho--programmed for year 2 of the project--includes Tawahka, Pech, and Garifuna. INDIGENOUS ORGANIZATIONS 8. Indigenous organizations in general combine elements of their traditional culture with those of the non-indigenous society, including economic strategies, politico- administrative aspects and religious factors. The levels of organizations go from the community (village, township) to tribal and regional ethnic organizations. Particularly in recent times, the lower level organizations have formed federations at the ethnic level. Nevertheless, these organizations are still fairly weak and vulnerable to outside factors. The relative weakness affects the federations' capacity to carry out effective actions in favor of their members and this in turn makes them more susceptible to criticism. The Lenca people are represented by the Organizaci6n Indigena Lenca de Honduras (ONILH), formed by the Consejos Indigenas Locales (Indigenous Councils at the municipal level) and the Consejo Indigena Departmental (Indigenous Council at the departmental level). This organization is still in process of formation and has only 4,000 members, belonging to 36 communities. - The Tolupanes are represented by the Federaci6n de Tribus Xicaques de Yoro (FETRIXY), whose first-tier organizations are the Asambleas de Tribus (Tribes Assemblies), Congreso de Tribus (Tribal Congress), Consejo Directivo (Board of Directors) and Comite Ejecutivo (Executive Committee). * The Pech have organized at national level in the Federaci6n de Tribus Pech de Honduras (FETRIPH), following the Tolupanes model. * The Misquitos are represented by the Mosquitia-Asla Takanka - Unidad de la Mosquitia (MASTA). This in turn is formed by seven federations. In reality, the organization of the Misquitos is very loose. Alliances are not permanent, usually involving geographic or commercial interests under the leadership of a Zuqia or Tribal Chief. * The Chorti are not organized at the national level. This is one specific case of a population who have been heavily acculturated and largely become campesinos. * The Garifunas are represented by the Organizaci6n Fraternal Negra Hondurefia (OFRANEH), although its degree of representation is weak. * The Tawahka have organized the Federaci6n Indigena Tawahka of Honduras (FITH), but it is also in the process of consolidation. 5 9. Since 1992, all of the above indigenous organizations and peoples, except for the Chorti and Islefios, are members of a national level organization, the Coordinadora Nacional de Pueblos Aut6ctonos de Honduras (CONPAH). NON-INDIGENOUS POPULATION 10. In the area of influence of the Natural Resources Management component, non- indigenous groups represent 66,200 inhabitants, or 79 percent of the total population. The relevant forms of organization are based on productive activities and upon geographical coverage and include: (a) Productive Cooperatives at the first-tier level of organization, in general based at community level; (b) Patronatos; with local level community base organization and no juridical recognition; (c) Municipalities; at the municipal or lowest level of formal government organization; (d) Agro-forestry Federations as second-tier productive organizations; and (e) Confederations or third-tier organizations. Coffee is an important cash crop in the uplands and farmers' cooperatives are strongly linked to the Honduran Coffee Institute's program of research and extension. The first- and second-tier organizations in Honduras are beginning to mature as strong, independent entities, rather than serving as in the past as a relatively weak entity within stronger top-down federations. 11. There is also a number of NGOs which work in the project area with upland farmers and forestry organizations providing rural development assistance and capacity building, which are described in Annex D. Some of the more national NGOs have begun to work with first and second-tier organizations to develop their capacity to deliver development assistance. The unique feature of the more successful NGOs is the use of a farmer-to-farmer extension methodology, whereby interested farmers are trained in the basic principles of a new practice and encouraged to experiment in adapting the practice to their own farm and in transferring the knowledge of basic principles to other interested farmers. The system of information transfer which results is self-sustaining and usually leads to adoption of practices which are appropriate to the farmers' needs and resources. The large majority of farmers in the uplands are not linked to formal credit institutions and, even in the informal sector, the main source of capital is household savings. A few NGOs, such as FINCA-Honduras or World Relief, have established savings mobilization programs to organize farmers' groups for informal credit networks. There is a considerable potential for such mobilization, particularly with rural women. 12. For the Land Administration Modernization component the estimated population is 1,679,042 inhabitants spread over 46,640.9 km2 in the Departments of Comayagua, Cortes, Yoro and Olancho. KEY ISSUES FOR PARTICIPATION AND ACTION PLANS 13. The social assessment has identified a number of key issues which have been addressed in project design, as described below: 6 (a) Land and Forest Tenure. For indigenous populations, there are constraints to registration of indigenous land and forest rights under the folio real, due to the lack of legal identify of most of the first-tier indigenous community organizations that comprise ethnic federations and to the overlapping of traditional indigenous areas of influence and private land holdings established during the colonial and post-colonial period by hispanic families. Currently, under the Land Reform Law and the Agricultural Modernization Law, indigenous groups can elect either to receive individual or communal title to lands within traditional, indigenous territories. As in other countries of Latin America, Honduran indigenous groups are increasingly electing the communal title option to help preserve tenure to traditional territories. Communal title also has implications for forest tenure as indigenous populations are more likely to legitimate title to forest areas within their territories when their entire domain is titled communally. Otherwise such areas are considered national forests owned by the State. Recommended Action: There are several ways in which the Land Administration component would address indigenous tenure issues. The initial land adjudication in Comayagua does not affect indigenous populations, but the land and forest tenure issues would be explored by indigenous groups under the IDF grant currently being processed. It is expected that concrete recommendations would emerge from the IDF- funded activities which can be used to modify the pilot approach, as needed. As the adjudication process is extended to Olancho and Yoro, both with indigenous populations, the system would be modified to address these issues. Teams of INA promoters involved in the adjudication process would also receive special orientation and training. If requested, indigenous groups can also be provided legal assistance and training to establish the legal identify of first-tier organizations seeking separate forest rights or communal tenure at a more appropriate level. The associated GEF project would have more specific actions on the demarcation of protected areas and adjudication of indigenous rights to forest areas within protected areas and surrounding buffer zones. (b) Role of Traditional Organizations and Farmers' Groups. The role of indigenous traditional organizations and of productive organizations has not been effectively analyzed in SAG programs in the past, with the result that participation has often been focused on leaders of federations who do not represent the first-tier organizations adequately. Nor is there a transparent process for consultation of these organizations by the municipal authorities in local development initiatives. Recommended Action: This issue has been explored in project design and productive organizations have been consulted at various stages in the design of the natural resources and upland fund components by DICTA, 7 AFE-COHDEFOR, and UPEG. Training and orientation activities coordinated by the PCU are planned for the implementation of these two components on indigenous political organization and opportunities for broader participation and on consultation with farmers' groups interested in preparing proposals or seeking assistance from appropriate NGOs. NGOs are also eligible to include requests in their proposals for technical assistance funds to build capacity of first- and second-tier organizations to develop their own research and extension packages. In the development of management strategies for ejido forests under municipal jurisdiction, AFE-COHDEFOR extension staff and consultants would ensure the consultation process explores the potential role of a wide range of local organizations. To ensure wider participation in the Upland Fund, criteria and procedures have been designed to be transparent and relatively simple. These criteria would be evaluated at mid-term and adjusted based on this evaluation. (c) Forest Management and Use. Except for the pilot initiatives in smaller blocks of forest, such as those implemented with Canadian and Finnish assistance, there has not been a systematic process of determining the relative rights and interests of communities residing in and around forest areas or for allocating use rights for traditional or new products. Nor have these populations benefited from economic analysis of the relative returns from different management strategies, whether management of small blocks by cooperative groups or management on a more commercial scale to attract larger, private harvesting and processing enterprises and local employment. Recommended Action: The Natural Resources Management component defines a process for incorporating local populations in the design and implementation of forest master plans for the forestry and protected areas included in the project. This process would be refined, based on overall criteria agreed during preparation, through a work program under the general direction of the PCU and involving the extension wing of AFE- COHDEFOR and the parks department. The Upland Fund would finance proposals for support to municipalities and cooperative groups seeking to develop forest management and forest enterprise capacity, as well as provide technical assistance and training to upland residents seeking wider employment in forestry enterprises, both formal and informal. A system of consultation would be built into forest management plans to ensure updating of management plans through a participatory process involving relevant stake-holders. (d) Participation in Decision-Making and Implementation. The participatory rural appraisal identified a number of constraints to participation the design of government programs and their implementation, including the lack of knowledge of government activities 8 by more remote upland populations, the lack of formal property rights of upland inhabitants which excluded them from many programs, and the lack of institutional and financial capacity of municipal offices to design and implement long-term development programs. Recommended Action: The project would include a system of participatory monitoring and evaluation that includes the project beneficiaries and their local organizations in the periodic evaluation of the success of project activities and would include orientation and training of beneficiaries in the design of M&E indicators and tools that enable them to express their opinions about the progress of the project. In particular, the consultant firm (Fund Manager) eliciting and evaluating proposals for the Upland Fund would train beneficiaries or work with participating NGOs to train beneficiaries in these methods and channel conclusions to the Advisory Committee. Forest master plan s would also be monitored by local communities and municipal authorities. (e) Project Management Capacity to Implement Participation Plan. There is little social science or participatory planning and implementation expertise in UPEG or the various departments within AFE-COHDEFOR or DICTA that would ensure a comprehensive vision for implementing the Participation Plan or provide guidance to implementing staff of other disciplines. While INA has considerable experience with field adjudication of land tenure rights, there is no central office responsible for indigenous policy, apart from some attention to the issues by one of the legal specialists. Nor is there a clear responsibility for gender or indigenous issues within SAG for longer-term sustainability of activities. Recommended Action. SAG would contract a specialist in social and participation issues for the PCU who would oversee incorporation of these issues into the project components, implementation of the elements of the participation plan, and supervision of consultants contracted to undertake special studies or specific participation or consultation activities. This specialist would also work with UPEG/UPEG, advising the unit on how best to coordinate attention to these issues within SAG and suggesting staffing needs. AFE-COHDEFOR plans to strengthen the capacity of the Promotion and Extension Department and to work with the newly created Center for Training and Research on Environment and Sustainable Forestry Development in Lapaterique on training of indigenous organizations. The Division of Legal Services in INA plans to develop a strategy for addressing indigenous tenure issues in the land adjudication process, which would be discussed with indigenous organizations. (f) Gender Considerations. The difference in access to land and agricultural and forestry production support services between men and women, has a 9 relevant impact on the economy of rural households and reduces rural development opportunities. Though women represent an important group among rural producers, they have received minimum benefits from the land titling program or from agriculture or forestry services. While more women are receiving land titles since the Agricultural Modernization Law recognized their land rights, many women in the project area reside in areas of forest vocation that cannot be titled. There is also little titling of couples, especially since common law marriages are not recognized as a basis for joint land titling in the absence of onerous documentation. Recommended Action: To address the overall lack of a gender orientation in the activities of the SAG agencies involved in the project, a program of gender training would be designed and implemented. This training program would be targeted to all professional and technical personnel of the public institutions responsible for the coordination and implementation of the components, to private development organizations and NGOs providing services in the rural areas, especially through the Upland Producers' Fund. Both PDOs and NGOs would need to receive training as a condition to be eligible to provide services, the cost of training would be their responsibility. The program would be under the PCU and would be implemented by the Pan-American Agricultural School -_ El Zamorano -- where a permanent information network would be set up for service training providers at national and Central American levels. Training would be aimed to address specific detected needs of each component. The criteria for selection of proposals for the Upland Fund would also include preference for technical assistance targeted explicitly to women farmers and forest managers. INA and CSJ have agreed to evaluate the restrictions on joint titling of common law couples and to present an action plan for increasing women's access to land. Project performance indicators have also been included to measure progress on the incorporation of gender concerns. IDF FOR STRENGTHENING OF INDIGENOUS INSTrrUTIONS 14. The IDF which has been identified for indigenous strengthening would provide resources for capacity-building in a number of areas related to natural resources management and land tenure. Indigenous groups seek training in local planning and design of development initiatives, technical and business management tools to evaluate their capacity to undertake forestry-based enterprises, tools for community forestry management, including sites in and around protected areas, and training in legal aspects of individual and communal land tenure systems to enable members to make more educated decisions about the type of land tenure which would most benefit themselves and their families. The outputs of the IDF would include building capacity of indigenous groups to make proposals to the Upland Fund and to participate more pro-actively in forest management and protected areas activities. - e * HONDURAS RURAL LAND MANAGEMENT PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMEENT PLAN INTRODUCTION 1. The proposed project is a pilot which would provide financing to: (a) modernize the system of rural land titling and rural land registration; (b) strengthen Government's forest administration agency, the Administraci6n Forestal del Estado-Corporaci6n Hondurefia de Desarrollo Forestal (AFE), while incorporating surrounding populations in forest and protected areas management and wise use; (c) establish a decentralized fund for support to upland producers for agricultural, livestock and forest technology generation and transfer; and (d) assist in prioritization of protected areas and protected area's investments, providing infrastructure and participatory management for some key parks and reserves, while promoting self-financing of the system. Among the project's central goals is to increase the participation of municipalities, communities, and small farmers, extending successful pilot experiences with locally financed and managed programs to Secretariat of Agriculture and Livestock (SAG) agencies. The project has been assigned to Environmental Assessment Category B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES 2. The overall objective of the project is to increase the productivity and environmental value of the forest and agricultural resource base. The project continues support of the natural resource management and land administration activities initiated in the AGSAC, and expands its support to include modemization of the land registry system, improve forest management, and technology generation and transfer to upland farmers through actions in priority areas. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3. The project would have two complementary components: 4. Land Administration - under this component the project would finance equipment for mapping, surveying, and management information systems, staff and operating costs; consultant services; technical assistance and training for: (a) pilot implementation of a modem land registry system at municipal level based on a folio real; (b) cadastral activities; (c) land adjudication and titling in priority natural resource management areas; and 2 (d) support for conflict resolution. 5. These four subcomponents aim to gradually transform the traditional, personal registry system to a parcel-based system, while supporting cadastral and titling activities in priority areas through the National Agrarian Institute (INA) and the national cadastre (DEC). The component would also support the delimitation and rationalization of land and forest rights on public and community lands within the project areas. Particular support would be given to the regularization of three type of farmers: small-scale farmers without title who settled on national lands before the passage of the AML in 1992; indigenous peoples; and groups of farmers interested in social forestry and conservation activities on public forest lands in their vicinity. A pilot land registry modernization program would be undertaken in 16 municipalities of the department of Comayagua to test the methodology and institutional working arrangements. 6. Natural Resource Management - under this component the project would finance staff and operating costs; consultant services; equipment for computers, mapping, and survey activities; vehicles; technical assistance and training, and infrastructure for: (a) Forest management. Integrated forest management planning and plan implementation in eleven public forest management units (unidades de gesti6n) in three administrative forest regions, totaling about 5,450 km;in, and institutional strengthening including: (i) forest land tenure - establishing a database/registry of public forest lands; delimiting and marking public forest boundaries; carrying out a census of occupants of public forest lands along with diagnostics and analyses of traditional rights and uses of public forest lands by occupants; initiating the process of formalizing traditional rights and uses of occupants of public forest lands; and entering into legal agreements (contratos de usufructo) with communities and groups over their participation in the responsibilities and benefits of forest management; (ii) public forest management - carrying out three regional, forest sector enviromnental assessments; developing or revising eleven forest management master plans; formalizing the master plans through a process of public consultation; inventorying 298,500 hectares of forest; developing detailed management plans for 146,500 hectares of pine production forest; formalizing the detailed management plans through a process of environmental assessment and consultation with affected groups; implementation of management in 146,500 hectares of pine production forest plans (silvicultural treatments - 116,500 hectares and timber auctions - 30,000 hectares); implementing a forest protection program in 545,000 hectares of forest; rehabilitating 45 km of forest roads and; 3 developing and implementing 6 Protected Area plans in locally important protected areas not covered by the Biodiversity component, (iii) forest regulation and control - decentralizing administrative, budgetary and monitoring functions for forest management to the regional levels; assisting to improve agility and coverage of the Department of Norms and Control as the entity responsible for technical and environmental standards and compliance. See Box 1; (iv) applied forestry research - strengthening of AFE's permanent sample plot program for monitoring distribution, growth, and regenerative capacity of the commercial forest; and (v) institutional strengthening of AFE-COHDEFOR - providing support to national and field level offices, upgrading of professional skills of staff, improving systems of forest information and monitoring, and technical assistance in developing new, more detailed operational standards and guidelines for forest technical and environmental aspects of forest management and regulations, through logistic support (vehicles, office and field equipment, rehabilitation of forest management unit offices, operational expenses), training (in key areas for forest management and administration), information systems (in order to systematize, organize, provide access to biophysical and forestry sector information necessary for planning and monitoring of forest resources) and, technical assistance (in support of implementation activities associated with forest land tenure, environmental assessment, institutional decentralization and administration, information systems, training, forest management, forestry research, promotion and extension, forest regulatory policy, community participation and public consultation, and legal advice). (b) Upland Producers Fund. To finance proposals from producer organizations, NGOs, and municipal governments including staff and operating costs, consultant services, research, technical assistance, and training for the generation and transfer of agriculture, livestock, and forest technologies appropriate to upland areas. The Fund would provide a grant window, independent of SAG, for channeling research and extension activities to upland farmers and forest producers which include: (i) agriculture and forestry extension - providing financing for extension, technical assistance and training to community groups (6,500 households) in sustainable production systems for hillside agriculture, livestock and natural forest management, and to 4 municipalities for management of ejido forests and of 22 municipal microwatersheds; (ii) agriculture and forestry research - providing financing for applied research in priority topic areas for sustainable hillside agriculture and natural forest management; (iii) training - of professionals and university students in applied research and application and extension of appropriate natural resource management systems for uplands and natural forest; and (iv) technical assistance - in support of the institutional and technical aspects of the funds implementation (monitoring, supervision, and technical quality). (c) Biodiversity Conservation. To finance staff and operating costs, vehicles, infrastructure, research equipment, consultant services, workshops, and training materials for: (i) management and protection of protected areas - within selected forest blocks of national priority, including development of a Parks' Guard system; delimitation of protected areas; infrastructure development; management planning; and support to community activities in buffer zones (to be financed by GEF through the Upland Producers' Fund) which are compatible with biodiversity conservation objectives. (ii) studies - of the traditional land uses within the protected areas and the biodiversity values. (iii) development of mechanisms for self-financing - for the protected areas system, and consultation on these mechanisms with the National Committee on Biodiversity, the Natural Resources and Environment Secretariat (SERNA), SAG, NGOs, and the private sector. (iv) development of an improved biodiversity information base - as part of the geographic information system being developed for use by AFE as a tool of national resource management. PROJECT AREA 7. Natural resource management activities would be concentrated on important forested areas in the Departments of Yoro, Olancho, Francisco Morazan and a small portion of Atlantida (Olanchito, located administratively in the Yoro region), including the adjacent uplands and priority watersheds, and additional areas of key biodiversity as 5 included under the Biodiversity Conservation subcomponent (to be determined). Land administration modernization would be initiated in the Department of Comayagua, and later extended to Cortes, San Francisco Morazan, Olancho, and Yoro. TABLE 1. FORESTS IN PROJECT REGIONS FOREST FOREST AREA REGION HOLDRJDGE LIFE ZONES FOREST TYPE (BY TYPE) Francisco * Humid Sub-tropical Moist Forest * Pine * 332,500 ha Morazan * Sub-humid Sub-tropical Dry * Broadleaf * 67,300 ha Forest * Mixed Pine/Broadleaf * 80,600 ha * Humid Lower Montane Moist Forest Olancho * Sub-humid Tropical Dry Forest * Pine * 480,300 ha * Humid Sub-tropical Moist Forest - Broadleaf * 187,500 ha - Per-humid Lower Montane Wet * Mixed Pine/Broadleaf - 390,000 ha Forest * Humid Tropical Moist Forest Yoro * Humid Tropical Moist Forest * Pine * 129,300 ha * Sub-humid Tropical Dry Forest * Broadleaf * 167,800 ha * Humid Sub-tropical Moist Forest * Mixed Pine/Broadleaf . 49,500 ha * Per-humid Lower Montane Wet Forest 8. The project area is characterized by climates ranging from sub-humid sub-tropical (-1,000 mm rain yf ' ) to per-humid tropical (>>1,600mm yf 1) and mean annual temperatures ranging from 160 (montane zones) to 240 C (lowlands). The principal general soil groupings in the area include the udults, udalfs, and tropaquepts; the predominate parent materials are limestones and metamorphic rocks of diverse composition. In the specific project areas, all lands are classified (at 1:250,000) as Land Use Capability Class IV (very severe limitations for cultivation requiring careful selection of crop plants and application of soil conservation and management) and classes V (unsuited to cultivation, suitable for improved pasture) to VII (unsuited to cultivation, use restricted to range, wildlife or forest); though such classification should be taken as indicative only given both the scale and the classification's being primarily developed for temperate, mechanized agriculture. Pine forests predominate and the project units comprise areas which are among the major timber production zones in the country; there are some 1.5 million hectares of production forest with an estimated standing volume of (very loose estimate) 93.6 million m3 of timber. 9. In biodiversity terms, the value of the project area is reflected in its quantity of protected areas (17 area, both declared and proposed). While "quantities of protected areas" is obviously a rather poor proxy for defining biodiversity values, in fact there is surprisingly little information on the genetic and species resources of the area. Within the more than 5,000km2 of existing and proposed protected areas within the project area, the 6 most important from a national perspective are those in the Departments of Olancho and Yoro. 10. Based on recent work carried out by World Wildlife Fund and the World Bank (Dinerstein, et al. 1995. A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean), the project areas coincides with the following forest types and ecoregions of interest. TABLE 2. SOILS AND LAND USE IN PROJECT AREA Forest L Soil Utilization (/) n Forest (%) Intensi Pastur ve e Mgmt. Unit Over Normal Sub Pine Broadleaf Mixed Ag. (%) San Esteban 60 33 33 40 15 10 15 20 Agua Fria 40 . 40 20 60 10 20 10 Jocon 34 33 33 60 10 10 20 Yoro 20 60 20 30 10 40 20 Olanchito 60 20 20 15 15 20 25 25 Culni 25 50 25 10 60 5 15 10 Catacamas 30 50 20 5 50 5 20 20 Guaimaca 15 75 10 60 5 5 10 15 El Porvenir 30 60 10 30 10 40 20 Talanga 40 40 20 50 10 20 20 Morazan 45 45 10 45 ; 5 30 20 Source: AFE Department of Forest Management, based on maps of 1:250, 000. Map data represents a series of sources, data reflective ofperiod 1990-93. ' "Forest management units" are administrative delineations which include all lands, i.e. they are not strictly comprised of public lands or forest lands, rather their definition encompasses both urban and rural zones and all lands public, private, ejido and communal. /2 - "soil utilization" is a production-oriented concept, for purposes of environmental analysis its utility derives from its definition of "over utilization" and "normal utilization" as indicators of areas of degrading vs. potentially sustainable land uses and "sub utilization" as a crude indicator of natural areas which may or may not be under extensive uses (e.g., forest grazing, fuelwood collection, etc.). (a) Tropical Moist Broadleaf Forest, Central American montane forests - these forests are considered endangered, bioregionally outstanding, and of high priority for conservation at the regional-scale. Within the project area, these types of forests are found primarily within the protected areas system; some remnants might exist outside of the system in private lands. In 198?, all remaining areas of forest above 1,800 meters elevation were gazetted into the protected areas system; thus incorporating the remaining areas of 7 this type (tropical moist broadleaf montane forests) into the system. Table 3 details the main protected areas of interest in the project area. This forest type would correspond with the "Per-humid Lower Montane Wet Forest" and "Broadleaf Cloud Forest" in the table. TABLE 3. PROTECTED AREAS OF HIGHEST NATIONAL IMPORTANCE IN PROJECT AREA Forestry Project Forest Area Dominant Forest Type Protected Area Region Mgmt. Unit '1 (after Holdridge) Montania de Yoro, Yoro Yoro 180 Per-humid Lower Montane Wet Forest National Park (Broadleaf Cloud Forest & Mixed Pine/Broadleaf) Tawahka, Olancho Culmi 400 Humid Tropical Moist Forest Biological Reserve Rio Platano Olancho Culmi, 1,000 Humid Tropical Moist Forest Biosphere Reserve Catacamas Patuca, National Olancho Catacamnas 600 Humid Tropical Moist Forest P ark_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sierra de Agalta, Olancho Sn Esteban, 624 Per-humid Lower Montane Wet Forest National Park Culmi, (Broadleaf Cloud Forest & Mixed Catacamas Pine/Broadleafl Pico Bonito, Olancho, Olanchito 1,125 Humid Tropical Moist Forest & Humid Sub- National Park Atlantida l - tropical Moist Forest (Pine) Pico Pijol, National Yoro Morazan 155 Per-humid Lower Montane Wet Forest Park (of mod. (Broadleaf Cloud Forest & Mixed import.) Pine/Broadleaf) Xl - The figures given here represent the total areas of the individual protected areas. Most of these, however, lie within more than one forest management unit. Of the 4,084 km2 reported here, plus the more than 1,000 km2 of other protected areas not reported here (being of low priority), only about 20% or 1,000 km2 actually is within the project area. (b) Tropical Moist Broadleaf Forest, Central American Atlantic moist forests - these lowland forests are considered vulnerable, bioregionally outstanding, and of moderate priority for conservation at the regional- scale. Within the project area such forest types are found both within and outside of the protected areas system. The forest management units containing such forest types are Olanchito, Culmi and Catacamas. In the latter two, the remaining areas of these forest types are almost wholly contained within the protected areas system (Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve and Patuca National Park). In Olanchito, such forests exist both within and outside the protected areas system. They are found in the majority in public lands. 8 Conifer/Temperate Broadleaf Forests, Central American pine-Oak forests - these forests are considered vulnerable, bioregionally outstanding, and of moderate priority for conservation at the regional-scale. These forest types are found within almost all of the project's forest management units; though they represent only a small (usually less than 10%) percentage of the total forest cover-types. The extent to which these exist within and outside of the protected area system remains to be determined when more detailed work is carried out during the forest master planning exercises during project implementation. Box 1. TECHIMCAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL NORMS FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND HARVESTING IN CONIFERous FoRESTS :,This project has a Environmental Amssnssent'Category B-ranking, requiring an envirotinmental analysis, but not a full environnmental 2i Osinn Overall project design is concerned with Box 1. TECEMNCAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL NORMS FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANNiNG AND 1IARvESTiNG IN. CoNIFERouS FoRESTS CurentReglatons (ore:Nra Renia yeamnci6n p)ar ia l~Faboraci6nidePlanes deManei6 en Coniferas.AFE- Lesgal:Dasis:: LDeyemodernizaei6n Agioa~- Astculos73,74,75., 75. Levy Forestal -Articles l,2,3,6,9j0, 1l,12,24,649,69,S,4,9 914117-137;Decreto1113 AriclesZ,; Decreto 31-92: - Articl 75, Dereo5 Land .Use .... * No lnd, pblic o tpivaender forsinaylecovetdh tb other land tses., * fiazag ofIbrst lndsonfly eried wheegrzngcmipatibeivithmaintenance: of forest.coVer.:. * Al: commerial eloitation of forests must maintain titforest cover an, reerbl,the exitigntural spec iesmix * All pulcfrs ad o enn.dudramutpeuecna * In proucio foets(ulco prvae) thmxmum iallowable oaft.to be defined by .mean anial Wincremient (MAI) sustainedvyiel * All: conmmecial foresgt exliain tme nnntmeeuraforestinnaeen lan. * Non-ommerial exloitaions nivate andvifido lant are unregulIsted. * Noncommecialexpliain nnational foetlnsreq r for"t4 s mnaemn plan * All manageme int plnsust bie drawnu byprfbsi'onal frses * Al mangemet plns o inludeenvionmetalimpat an mitgaton fo:(AFEDI, ~see Box2). * Alimangement lans to nclude ores potcto pan (grazn, ie,ps aniddsae) * All anageent pans tolayou skidtrails road, log ingdekand define water source and atrypoecinzWMsea.. * ALt rtce areas: miclue '~elrdwtrhd"frptbewtrpout)utb akdo asiiaaeetPlans; no commecialexplitatons: 1 alw d 6i rtcted areas-.... _4 rfsinl oetr r thosie 'krestrdWith t::he~Coleg rof Foresters rfessiona standing Oft foreste s.bsspende vAere 'evdene o inomptene o corupionreslts nrqeto supnion fro AFE-COHDEFOR. * Allfbores mbanaemet plansto be apoe yAFE.COIIDEFOR pirto hi executionm * proa ofplans baeofemn tr:ii ofea ihst heln icue eal rev1eW6 ofre 6ceofpo.ece iaes in plan). *ndadernc to maaeetpanntcncl n niomna o basd on plieiW andsitevist. ~~seed.trectw 40ccpabe pto 60%'slopev mi ::rJnimum acceptale -: 1,20_ seelinsb (if lessmust carry out ercbment planting * nslpes 6% selecil cutngsly wit ovedead cable exrcion(in racice,no comriaqogigaov 0 soei appovd,exep for. small-scale, s ~electivctsby communoity gop) ---see project file documnents: 1) ESA Consultores, 1 1 de marzo de 1996, Conponente de Recursos Naturales, Anexo B, Evaluaci6n Ambiental; 2) UTN Proyecto RUTA IIL, octubre 1995, Diagn6stico Rural Participativo de Comunidades en Unidades de Gestion Seleccionadas; 3)LTrN Proyecto RUrA ElI, junio 1995, Evaluaczon de Tecnologzas o Modelos Agroforestales yForestales en Honduras; 4) Comiisi6n de Auditoria Tecnica.Operacional, noviembre 1994, Auditoria Tecnica-Operacional De La Corporaci6n Hondureha De Desarrollo ForestaL. 9 * Mixed stands to be harvested under selective cut systWm. * Selective cuts not to exceed 50% of cover with minimum 5 year reentry time into sand. * Resin harvesting only on tees with >30 cm dbh. * Roads: .maximum 12% slope (greater requires specific pemnitting) nmust allow free passage of water (all necessary drains, drain linings, culverts, bridges) kept clear during dry season to serve as firebreaks * Directional felling to avoid damage to seed trees and regeneration * Skidding: pre-planned layouts to minimize skid distance, soil disturbance and to avoid regeneration tree must be topped and linbed prior to skidding one end oftree must be lifted during skidding - Logging decks: siting to minimize soil and vegetation disturbance siting away from water sources, live watercourses, and ephemeral channels earthen loading ramps to be re-vegetated - Logging slash managed so as to.avoid creation-of fire hazards and spread of disease. * Controlled burns as required to reduce 'fuel loading. * Diseased and insect attacked stands-to be treated (silvicultural controls) * Wildlife: no.felling of nest or den trees (snap no htmting (capture or collection) No grang m foest reas whe regeneron is ss gtan 2 metes m hight 11. The environmental and social aspects of the project were undertaken by local consultants, an assessment of biodiversity conservation priorities (ongoing) and the status of protected areas, and a detailed review of the environmental criteria included in forest management plans. The natural resource management component seeks to foster community forestry on municipal and national forest lands, and various assessments would be made as a part of project design to determine the appropriate strategies and institutional arrangements for community forestry activities. A full social assessment has been completed and which included consultations with stakeholders and an evaluation of the potential impacts on indigenous peoples; a separate Indigenous Peoples Development Plan is not required for this project. A more complete treatment of social issues is provided in Annex H3, SocialAssessment. 12. The project is designed to support a program of institutional strengthening, natural resource management planning, and community-based/participatory natural resource management activities. Resultingly, preparation activities are restricted to identification of needs and opportunities and the detailing of processes and mechanisms for project implementation. Detailed information on specific interventions and activities in forest and upland areas is not, therefore, available for review at project appraisal. The Environmental Analysis (see Table 4) of the project, therefore, is based on: (a) the specific types of investment activities that would be financed under the project; and (b) identification of environmental risks associated with such activities. The Environmental Management Plan subsequently proposes the mechanisms, activities and financing necessary within the implementation process in order to comply with environmental requirements of GOH and IDA. 13. The main environmental risks associated with the project are: 10 (a) Land adjudication and forest land tenure: increased and/or induced pressures on common and open resources. (b) Natural resource management: (i) Forest road rehabilitation - increased erosion and sedimentation; improved access facilitating encroachment and illegal harvesting of forest products (incl. Wildlife). (ii) Silvicultural treatments & forest harvesting - loss of biodiversity; overharvesting; loss or degradation of wildlife habitat; water quality impacts (turbidity, sediment, BOD, DO, temperature); genetic erosion; alterations in catchment hydrology (increased peak flows, reduced base flows, decreased groundwater recharge); soil degradation (fertility loss, erosion, reduced productivity, etc.); increased forest access (hunting, colonization, social conflicts). (iii) Agricultural & forestry extension and technical assistance - land use conversion; increased soil loss and degradation (physical/chemical/ biological); non-point source pollution; overgrazing; increased pasture burning; forest conversion; water quality impacts. (iv) Biodiversity Conservation - shift of protected areas priorities and protection resources decreasing protection capability in other areas; increased or induced pressures on protected areas from enhanced "attractiveness" of near-protected area zones as a result of investments in community economic and quality of life investments. 14. It should be noted that the project would not finance any logging activities per se, it would finance activities which would lead up to commercial logging in some areas of pine forests and community logging (small-scale, manual) in some areas of pine and broadleaf (potentially including humid tropical moist forest). It would also finance silvicultural activities (primarily thinnings), which in some number of cases would be commercial thinnings. FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN (see Table 5) 15. Land Adjudication and Forest Land Tenure: The primary responses to the potential for increased and/or induced pressures on common and open resources are the project's support for activities which would clarify land occupancy and legal status in national forest lands, assist in providing tenure security over the resource, and enhance institutional presence and enforcement of national forest land boundaries. 11 16. The framework for provision of enhanced tenure security resides in the "Regularization of Forest-Occupants Rights"-initiative of GOH and the Agricultural Sector Modernization Law of 1992. Honduran law prohibits the titling of land that is defined as "Terreno De Vocaci6n Forestal" TVF) or Land of Forestry Vocation n2. Only such TVF which currently is titled as "Dominio Pleno" is recognized as non-public land; by some definitions Dominio Pleno derives only from the original Spanish Land Grants. All other titles (Dominio Util) or claims are not recognized as valid in terms of land ownership (though the occupant can sell the "mejoras" to the land and with it pass on their occupancy claim to another) and for purposes of receiving a government license for certain activities (e.g., forest harvesting). In forested areas these later constitute the vast majority of land claims. In theory, only those with land claims prior to the passage of the Agricultural Sector Modernization Law in 1992 are recognized as having valid claim to regularization. The exact meaning of"regularization" is currently part of IDA's policy dialogue with GOH. During project implementation an explicit regularization policy and its reglamento are expected to be defined. In practice, GOH has no policy (or intention) to resettle persons who settled in TVF after 1992. Rather the intention is that such persons would be incorporated into the overall rights of communities in TVF and be allowed to participate in livelihood activities as defined within GOH forest management plans. By definition, TVF covers some 75% to 80% of the country, and almost 100% of the project area. In what is currently considered TVF, the project would only promote private titling in what would be the minimal number cases where closer inspection found that the TVF classification was incorrect (current definition is on 1:100,000 and smaller scales). Priority activities are those related to clarifying forest occupant rights (census of occupants, diagnostics of occupant land uses and perceptions of rights, conflict resolution mechanisms), and assisting in the development of altemative tenure instruments for treatment of traditional rights of communities and individuals. 17. The Department of Cadastre (DEC) would be financed to carry out parcel-level cadastres in each of the project forest management units. This would be part of a larger process within which DEC would complete a rural cadastre of the entire Departments of Yoro, Olancho and Francisco Morazan. The project areas would be given the highest priority in terms of where the cadastre begins. The outputs from the parcel-level surveys would also better identify local stakeholders (and interests), among whom AFE would promote usufruct contracts for forest management and protection. It is assumed that such arrangements would assist in reducing pressures from migrants and agricultural conversion. This is borne out by recent studies (1996) by CIDA within their community- based broadleaf forest management project in Atlantida. Over a five year period forest conversion rates were reduced by more than 75% in areas where usufruct contracts were given. -2 TVF is defined based on criteria, which include: i) land with slopes greater than or equal to 30%; or ii) land below 30% slope with soils having a sandy-texture and/or a depth of less than 20 cm and/or more than 15% (by volume) stones with the presence of rocky outcrops, and/or soils subject to inundation by tidal fluxes, and/or with restricting layers in the subsoil or with impermeable parent material. 12 18. Complementing the work by DEC and AFE's granting of usufruct rights, the Upland Producer's Fund would finance the community-level processes for establishing legal identity and obtaining usufruct rights. In addition, more than 4% of total project costs wuill go directly to forest protection activities to be carried out under forest management plans. Box 2. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION FoRM (AFE-IDA) Under current regulations, each forest management plan must include a section on potential impacts and :mitigation measures, 'The information required inthe formnis presented below. Currently, in conjunction twiih SERNAt(underthiehIDA-in ed Environmental:Development:Project (IDA Cr. 2693-HO) and several other :donor-supported initiativesiongoigin the AFE-COHDEFOR, an envirorunental assessment ymanual for forest managemet is beingodeveloped1to replace the current form. The draft manual will be avaalaibin. ate1 996. Te. manual4is to addressthec weaknesses inAthe current focus of EA. ..ff f0 'S:--0-:.';-''-0l0f--. ..f ..d ..: ... ...1 0:f- .. ........ ..:-.- . 0 .00 Inomain required:~~ For the followi ngi ntems ad specific topics.an s_intefpotentiw .impacts,,rated-as::Not sWignificant", Small" iareto,r PeanentIrrevesble"= , isobeee ied inthe fieId bytheforetercompleting themanagementf plani' ThlEe': s ificmi.tiga measur esto beaken ntfhe maaemnt plan's execution I:are identifiedanddescribed.foreachitemand1to pic.The mitigatory measured must be integrated into the oveallpla anidbugt Topography And Soil Slop stabilt Stbili f a s Sabl of t nd uyb o n Sedimentation;la us.~:d bns-Ersin Vegetat~~~~~~0.ion. Parii ittiali#ii5i000220ii Remova;i Seies loss, Regeneration; Lqgin slash; Fire; Scru-fonnati Ope n t: r t: aringr:': :: y Widlfe: hratne or.,z-' protected,,'S spcis N''es''''ting' Sites and snags; ilea huting Feed: ing h; dingsite fiSE ' d d d i'd' ii 0'i 04E dRii 0i ' 'l:E.'D iF' 'iE iEiEE #RE#Eii#'SE ; EERE.... . .' ............EEERFEE i E.E.ii'l'D. y 'S0' 'i'.'. ;000YfildliE-~~~..-Tbe or;_-N s ..tiXFas .....; .lle: m ..ites:.. .. . ........ ..... . . .. ... - . . i . .:i E -S : : ::E-R . EE: E E i::E :> - :.--: i-:-:: . . . . . . . . 13 19. Natural Resource Management. The project proposes a series of responses (see Table 5) ranging from inputs during the forest management planning stages; investments in institutional capacity building; investments in training, technical assistance, extension, and applied research; monitoring and supervision inputs; and agreed financing criteria. These include: (a) Forest regional forestry sector environmental assessment. Under the IDA- financed HONDURAS - Environmental Development Project (Cr. 2693-HO) SERNA and AFE would contract sectoral environmental assessments in the three project regions. These would be carried out during the first six months of project implementation and have the objectives of strengthening subsequent forest management planning and implementation through providing analysis of potential cumulative effects of forest management activities between forest management units and establishing a broader, environmental planning framework to be respected in the subsequent individual forest management plans developed at the management unit-level. (b) Forest management planning. The project would support forest management planning at the institutional-level (AFE) for management of public forest lands, to municipalities for management of ejido forest lands, and to communities (including local groups, cooperatives, etc.) for management of public (under usufruct contracts) or communal forest lands. The management planning process and the resulting management plans provide, in the first instance, the focus for exercising environmental safeguards. On public forest lands, planning would be carried out in a three-step process: (i) forest master planning - to develop macro-plans for each forest management unit. The outputs from the process would include: a) delimitation of public forest lands; b) a rapid inventory of the existing forest resources; c) a census of forest occupants and participatory diagnostics of their land uses; d) a sub-division of the management unit into planning blocks based on zoning (protected areas, critical microwatersheds, multiple-use areas, production forest, etc.) and for pine production forest a further sub-division based on density, age, and volume; e) design of road network; f) environmental impact assessment; g) forest protection plan; and h) public consultations to finalize plan. (ii) forest management planning - to develop detailed management plans for each of the management sub-divisions. In the case of production forest this entails stand-level inventories, development of silvicultural treatment plans, and of long-term harvesting and regeneration plans. In the case of critical microwatersheds this involves promoting formal agreements between AFE and the concerned municipality for development and implementation of a management and protection plan (to be financed by the Upland Producer's Fund). In the case of protected areas, the Biodiversity Conservation sub- component would finance management planning in high, national priority 14 areas. In multiple-use areas, this involves promoting formal agreements between AFE and the concerned communities or groups for planning and management (community portion to be financed by the Upland Producer's Fund). Required elements from the regional and master planning environmental assessments would be incorporated into the forest management plan, and included in an environmental control and supervision plan section. (iii) annual operating plans - to develop an annual plan of work and budget for implementation of activities called for under the management plan. This includes activities such as a stand-level analysis to mark seed trees to be left; plan silvicultural treatments; and complete stand maps. Required elements from the forest management plan's environmental control and supervision plan would be incorporated into the annual operating plan and budget. On ejido and communal lands, and in the case of usufruct contracts on public lands, the Upland Producer's Fund would finance the services of a professional forester to assist the community in developing and executing a forest management plan. Management planning would follow the so-called "simplified forest planning model"; the model has been developed and tested during the last 5 years as a part of the FINNIDA-financed Programa Centro Americano Forestal. The model provides a more than adequate basis for planning forest operations on a small-scale (<10,000 ha). (c) Institutional capacity building. The project would provide significant levels of institutional support (>10% of total project cost) to the AFE to assist it to decentralize along forest management lines, establish an effective field presence, upgrade the skills of its forestry professionals, have access to the information necessary to prioritize interventions and make decisions, to integrate social and environmental concerns into management planning and implementation, and to carry out internal monitoring of performance and compliance. (d) training, technical assistance, and extension. The Upland Producer's Fund is designed to provide access to appropriate natural resource management approaches and technologies for municipalities, communities, and community groups. The operating of the Fund is also assumed to place external pressure on the AFE to carry out its role of involving communities in forest management and exercising technical and environmental oversight on public lands. The Fund also supports training of natural resource professionals who would provide services to municipalities and groups, a priority theme of which would be management of environmental risks in forestry and agricultural systems. An independent private sector firm or NGO would be contracted to administer, manage, promote, and supervise the Upland Producer's Fund. The fund manager would be responsible t.* 15 for the technical adequacy of the proposals funded and assuring the quality of their implementation. (d) Monitoring and supervision inputs: (i) Project Coordinating Unit (PCU), located in the Ministry of Natural Resources, would have overall responsibility for monitoring and supervision of the project. The main instruments which they would have to ensure project compliance with IDA and GOH environmental standards are: a. annual technical audits - which, inter alia, would provide an independent review the environmental aspects of project implementation; b. project mid-term review - as a pilot project which will require close supervision of implementation experience in order to allow appropriate adjustments to be made during project life, two mid-term reviews would be scheduled (and financed) within which the major focus would be on environmental aspects of forest management planning and execution; and c. annual implementation reports and work programs from the implementing institutions, indicators relevant to forest protection and management would be reported upon in the implementation reports. (ii) DEC would have responsibility for all elements related to the legal definition of lands and land boundaries, both in terms of delineation of public forest lands, as well as definition of traditional holdings within public forest lands and their legal disposition. (iii) AFE's Department of Norms and Control would be charged with ensuring the completion and quality of all environmental assessment work and that the AFE's forest management plans complied with technical and environmental standards !3 (see Box 3) and incorporated outputs from both the regional and management unit-level EAs. They would also supervise Regional offices' approvals of municipal and community-level management plans. Where commercial logging is to carried out, the department would have ultimate responsibility for approving release of the performance bonds deposited by the logging outfit to ensure compliance with environmental and technical norms. Throughout the process the Department would be charged with coordinating with SERNA and acquiring all approvals required by law, including assuring that required "Licencia Ambiental " are obtained for all activities which require one. -3 With the assistance of the IDA-financed Environmental Development Project, USAID's Forestry Development Project, the FiNNIDA project, and several other forestry sector donors, the AFE is still in the process of formalizing its operational technical and environmental norms for environment; a manual for environmental assessment in forest management planning is also under development. Prior to negotiation of the project, IDA would need to review the latest draft to identify any gaps or conflicts with IDA guidelines. 16 (iv) AFE's Regional offices would be responsible to review the forest management units' (unidades de gesti6n) annual operating plans to ensure that they comply with forest management plans and technical and environmental standards. They would be responsible to review the municipal and community-level management plans and their implementation. The payment of professional foresters' services by the Upland Producer's Fund would be conditioned on the regional offices approvals. (v) SERNA would be responsible for the financing, supervision and approval of the regional forestry sector environmental assessment and the review and In addition, they would participate with the AFE in all decisions related to the prioritization of lands, activities and investments within the protected areas system. SERNA's role in the environmental review and approval of individual forest management plans would include coordinating with AFE's Department of Norms and Control and assuring that it complies with all legal requirements related to environmental assessments and approvals. (vi) Upland Producer's Fund Manager would be responsible for assuring that all financed proposals (both in the planning and the implementation stages) are in compliance with financing criteria. Financing criteria include those related to appropriate technical content and quality, as well as broader environmental concerns. They would also be responsible to coordinate with the PCU and AFE to assure that financing for key activities (e.g., establishment of legal identity and obtaining usufruct contracts, technical services for forest management, etc.) is available in a timely fashion in the locations required by the project. (e) Financing criteria. A series of financing criteria were agreed at project negotiations both for the project as a whole, as well as for subsequent financing of activities under the Upland Producer's Fund. Other than those agreements over specific project activities (summarized, above, in this annex detailed in the Project Implementation Document) and GOH's commitment to their implementation, the main agreements reached include: (i) Project wide: a. completion of sectoral forestry environmental assessments to identify sensitive areas and environmental assessments completed for all forest management plans prior to financing of management activities; b. annual technical audits and mid-term review; C. no financing of new roads, rehabilitation only of existing; 17 d. no financing of commercial logging or logging equipment in primary tropical moist forest; e. no financing of activities within forest management plans that would result in significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats, such habitats to be specifically identified through the sectoral forestry environmental assessments; f. all harvesting activities (commercial and community) to be within the context of approved forest management plans; management plans that include commercial logging to have prior environmental assessments; g. all forest management activities to comply with pre-established environmental and technical norms; and h. all forest management plans to include a formal process of public consultation with affected municipalities, communities, and groups. (b) Upland Producer's Fund: (i) no financing of proposals with activities which would increase the efficiency of natural resource exploitation or exploitation pressures except within the context of an adequate management plan; (ii) no financing of proposals that would result in the conversion of forested areas to other land uses; (iii) pre-financing inspection of all proposals; (iv) no financing of agrochemicals at farm-level; (v) financing of assistance to community-scale forest management only, no industrial forest management assistance; (vi) all extractive activities in forest areas within context of forest management plans and annual operating plans; (vii) all forest management plans and annual operating plans in state forest land reviewed and approved by AFE-COHDEFOR, and (viii) all proposals to include participatory diagnostic which, inter alia, would serve as a land use planning framework. 18 Box 3. AFE-COHDEFOR's TECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS IN CONIFEROUS FORESTS Thefollowing shojdd be read bearing in mind that the current trend to controlind manage logging is extremely positfve and as yet an incipient effort. While improvements are necessary, in the first instance, simply bring the forests under some type of management and redcing uncontrolled land conversions and "cut out and get out" logging practices will be the most significant long term coniribution. The observations below are intended to point out areas where improvements might be targeted over the medium-term A review of the current environmental and technical standards which form the basis for GOH's review and approval of forest management plans, and subsequent enforcement of compliance reached the following conclusions: Technical Adequacy In the agregate the current norms are reasonable in so far as they intend to address the site specific objectives of maintaining forest cover over the long temn, minimizing secondary disturbances, and assuring adequate regeneration. They are weak as regards minimizing off-site impacts, loggingin steep aras, -selective felling norms, and avoiding soil disturbances caused by logging operations during periods of high Ttsoil moisture. ,:Avoidance of off-siterimpacts,,spcifically asregds waterqualityt(sedimentation, stream temperature, and BOD), requires development of more specific standards in two areas in particular: s Roads :-road standar&dsregdg firee passage of water are reasonable, however there is no provision for longer term stabilization of $road cuts:and fills,.lmaintunancefof drainagestructures (the 'broad-based dip".utilized in the southern United:States would be an :: appropriate addition tovroad standards lo addtess this problem), road approachesto streams, stream crossings, and road closings and reclamation (whereothis wouldbec desirable1iandhow it shu be done). * i.Protection:0 water sources and streaums:- the statidards itendr t0 4fird thistype: ofprotection but ifail to provide any clear:guidelines. No udan 'Stirovided ion str setbi ksandhrvesting iin nea mzonesii):disposal of lgging slash; iii) activities in and around permanent and seasonalmwetlands; and in)siting of road skid paths and Ii idks relative to watersources and streams. e-tting oftsuch standards is una ritrary but is nonetheless necessary. StlandardsInust beisimple andAdirected at 000 maintainingnagturalshadinig of Eive stem courses,4 eping logging shlaouttof thhe: natr drage patterns, tnaintaining buffer z:::Zones arund springsSa tream courses sources, and ading logging acivitie in wetlan aeas. * ' AfSizead fhlocation ofharesti opeations-novmentiismadeon upper limitstes to harvestasind theproximnityof harvest areas from one year to thnext Ouidelincs4shouldbe developed to belapplied on th basis: of watersheds of third order streams or larger to :avoid dovercug and aggregate downstrean& efectson kquicows and sediment out of upla rodction forests. In 1reference tothe othepots E : - - ~ ~: et . p . -6-m 4 Ei - -E - - . Astologging in step areas,.the norNsurequire:selective:feling Mand a senof cable:ways.- Under current market, technicaltcapacity and resource oonditions such logging ispnota viable o at in practice,i oggingzof such areas is:artesanal and will tend to cause ::::the: developmentvof pemanent scarsfriom uncontrolld downslope skidding. There is nocasy solution to:this problem; but neither is :t:as yet a rortssue e-l- No inorms eexgst regardi-g avoidance of high-grading sites trou selectve loging: E * i -No norms exist as. to kping heavyequip cnt out ofthefore road building, or skidding duringperiods of highWsoil moisture to avoid destructio of soil tutr Inal ae thr as a nee to* -b a atnirsccfopr*t-ionlguidelns o ahevn dsred objetive.00 0 ( ;0 :i;0 ; ;t 0 :i ;f Environmental Norms ~ ~ ~ i 'ei dclrd: 6 Thle currenot norms arweak and require improvtenot acrosstr curryexistsliteinfornation :upon whch to bae improvements. Re solution ofthis problem is largerthasimplyaforstrysctor issue.S Attempts are made in the current norms to ,:spealk to conservation of hbbitat and nidlie, utW thfere is no1ontxt withiniwhich this might- b done. wAs aresult the norms are reduced to referritang to-:nestingand breeding sites (snags). itioa no attemptis made to look at aggregate impts offorest management 4 sactiviis Each tmanag plan imsdeveloped andv tas totally inepndeunit sBroaderdscapescale:norms related to itat, spes and aggregate impacts in gien ecoregions and river basins . should bathe(goaltwa which efbrtsk are directed. Working towardthisW-goal cuould, uin t mediu-rpvda bsis for mrespecific BA guidelines nithescale 6oftheindividual management Ca*pacit T:o Aplyand Enforce Te ~chicaland Evionena Norm Given. that very littlek expeience as yet :exists with forest managt(plftnipg application,: supervision, and enforcement) it must :logicallyfollow (andidoes) tat little capacity existstSstmake te msysteTmwok. Thc professional: forester is: identified as being responsible I for: aspects of managementincluding tie initial environmental jassessments. Unavoidably, there will be errors: fromr mistakes, ignoranceiandincompetence. This canmonl be managed through having modest goals and training coupled with on-the-job experience ,andadequatesupervision.. 19 20. Land Acquisition and Resettlement. The project would finance neither land acquisition nor activities which required resettlement. An assurance was obtained at negotiations to this effect. 21. Legal Framework. Based on the Ley General del Ambiente (Decree Nt-. 104-93), the Reglamento General de la Ley del Ambiente (Agreement NM. 109-93) and the Reglamento del Sistema Nacional de Evaluaci6n de Impacto Ambiental (Agreement NM. 109-93) Honduras has put into effect an legal framework for environmental protection that has been reviewed by and found acceptable to IDA. The implementing mechanisms for these laws and regulations are currently the focus of an ongoing IDA-financed project (Environmental Development Project, Cr. 2693-HO). A technical manual for the National Environmental Assessment System has been developed by SERNA and would provide the initial basis for the project's environmental assessment actions. This would later be complemented and/or superseded by the environmental assessment manual being developed by the AFE-COHDEFOR in cooperation with SERNA. TABLE 4. MATRIX OF POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND PROJECT RESPONSE, BY PROJECT COMPONENT ACTIVITY POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS i MANAGEMENT OR MITIGATION MEASURE COMPONENT 1. LAND ADMINISTRATION I. Implementation of Land Registry No negative impacts anticipated. (Folio Real) II. Land Adjudication. I. Social, rural and forest zones See Annex H3, Social Assessment for additional detail. - tenure conflicts, loss of access to key 1. Regularization & Conflict Resolution Activities: resources for subsistence, income, and A. parcel-level cadastre & census of forest occupants in all project units; quality of life. B. participatory diagnostic of traditional usage and rights in all project units; II. Environmental, rural and C. technical assistance in development & piloting of a wider range of usufruct forest zones - increased and/or instruments for communal and individual tenure; induced pressures on common and/or D. technical assistance in development & implementation of conflict resolution open resources. mechanisms; E. inclusion of a trained social promoter in each cadastral team to assist with legal aspects and resolve conflicts; F. promotion of adjudication at community-level with local authorities, other relevant local actors, DEC, INA, AFE; G. direct support to communities for: 1. legal assistance in tenure adjudication, 2. establishing legal identity and obtaining usufruct rights; 3. formalized participation and public consultation processes with municipalities and affected local populations in state forest management planning and implementation; I. Forest Management Planning and Implementation Process: A. formalized participation and public consultation processes; B. sectoral forestry environmental assessments to identify sensitive areas, outputs integrated into regional forest management planning and implementation norms; C. increased institutional presence and effectiveness in project areas; D. forest protection programs in each forest management unit; E. incorporation of local communities into forest management activities and sharing of economic benefits; F. project monitoring - annual technical audits; mid-term review. COMPONENT 2. NATURAL RESOuRCE MANAGEMENT Subcomponent 2.1 For est Management Forest land tenure: I. Social - tenure conflicts, See Component 1. Land Administration, Land Adjudication (above) A. delimitation of state forest lands; reduced access to resources, reduced B. regularization of the land rights income/quality of life; of forest occupants. II. Environmental - increased or induced pressures on common and/or open resources. 2. forest management: 1. Forest road rehabilitation - 1. Road rehabilitation: i) rehabilitation of forest roads; A. increased erosion and A. no new roads, rehabilitation only of existing; TABLE 4. MATRLX OF POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND PROJECT RESPONSE, BY PROJECT COMPONENT ACTIVITY POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS MANAGEMENT OR MITIGATION MEASURE ii) silvicultural treatments & forest sedimentation B. completion of road rehabilitation & maintenance plans (including harvesting. B. improved access organization and financing) which include drainage structure and sediment control facilitating encroachment, designs; C. illegal harvesting of forest C. road rehabilitation plan included in environmental assessment of forest products (incl. wildlife) management plan; 2. Silvicultural treatments & forest D. financing of vegetative stabilization and road drainage systems; harvesting - E. increased institutional presence and effectiveness in project areas; D. loss of biodiversity, F. forest protection programs in each forest management unit. E. overharvesting II. Forest harvesting: F. loss or degradation of A. no harvesting in humid tropical forest; all harvesting plans leading to timber wildlife habitat, auctions will be in Pinus spp. forests only (see Upland Producers Fund, below); G. water quality impacts B. no harvesting in protected areas (incl. "declared" watersheds, see Upland (turbidity, sediment, BOD, DO, Producers Fund, below); temperature), C. gap analysis of Protected Area System, biodiversity monitoring, strengthening H. genetic erosion, of protected areas system and other activities under "Biodiversity Conservation" I. alterations in catchment component (see Annex E, Biodiversity Conservation Component); hydrology (increased peak D. sectoral forestry environmental assessments, outputs integrated into regional flows, reduced base flows, forest management planning and implementation norms; decreased groundwater E. all harvesting activities within context of forest management plans; recharge, F. environmental assessments of individual forest management plans; technical J. soil degradation (fertility assistance to improve environmental and technical norms. loss, erosion, reduced G. application of pre-established environmental technical norms (see Box 3 productivity, etc.); above, Environmental and Technical Standards) and EA recommendations in K. increased forest access - harvesting plan and implementation; hunting, colonization; H. performance bond retrieval conditioned on compliance with environmental L. social conflicts. norms; 1. monitoring of harvesting plans and implementation (by AFE-COHDEFOR and through annual technical audits, and mid-term review); J. re: social conflicts, see "1. Forest Land Tenure (above). 3. Regulation and control of forest No negative impacts anticipated. Activities would contribute to monitoring of compliance with technical and environmental harvesting norms. 4. Forestry research. No negative impacts anticipated. Activities would contribute to improved understanding of productivity and natural regeneration in production pine forests. Subcomponent 2.2 Upland Producers Fund 1. Agricultural & forestry extension 1. Intensification of Agricultural I. Intensification of Agricultural Production: and technical assistance Production: A. focus on existing crop lands only of hillside-farming households and A. land use conversion; inclusion of conservation measures introduction systems; B. increased soil loss and B. proposals require participatory diagnostic which, inter alia, will serve degradation as a land use planning framework; (physical/chemical/ biological); C. pre-financing inspection; C. non-point source D. financing of training and extension in soil & moisture conservation and TABLE 4. MATRIX OF POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND PROJECT RESPONSE, BY PROJECT COMPONENT ACTIVITY POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMpAcrs MANAGEMENT OR MITIGATION MEASURE pollution fertility management practices; II. Increased Usage of E. project monitoring (annual technical audits, and mid-term review). Agrochemicals: II. Increased Usage of Agrochemicals: A. human health; A. no financing of agrochemicals at farm-level (only in tree nurseries); B. surface and groundwater B. promotion of proven IPM practices through extension program; contamination; C. nursery-worker training to include appropriate handling, storage and disposal C. increased resistance of of agrochemicals. pests/disease III. Management of Natural Forest (incl. humid tropical forest): III. Management of natural forest A. community-scale only, no industrial forest management; (incl. humid tropical forest): see B. financing of technical assistance, extension, and training for community "Forest Management, Forest groups and municipalities for completion and implementation of forest Harvesting" (above) management plans; Agroforestry & reforestation C. all extractive activities in forest areas within context of forest management A. degradation of plan and annual operating plan; germplasm; D. all management plans and annual operating plans in state forest land B. introduction of aggressive reviewed and approved by AFE-COHDEFOR, based on technical and species enviromnental norms; V. Microwatershed management E. provision of tenure instruments (contratos de usufructo) in state forest land as - social conflicts (resource use). incentive to appropriate management; VI. Intensification of livestock F. tenure instruments conditioned on compliance with environmental and production: technical norms. A. overgrazing; IV. AGROFORESTRY & REFORESTATION: B. increased soil loss and A. training and technical assistance in nursery production; degradation; B. introduction of improved nursery practices and culting programs; C. reduced groundwater C. introductions only of tested species. recharge; v Microwatershed Management: D. increased pasture A. see "Forest Land Tenure " burning; B. financing of technical assistance for participatory planning in microwatershed E. forest conversion; management.; F. water quality impacts. C. signing of management agreements with municipal government giving role and responsibilities for protection with local groups that rely on microwatersheds for potable water supply. VI. Intensification of Livestock Production: A. small-scale only (household-level); B. existing pasture lands only; C. proposals require participatory diagnostic which, inter alia, will serve as a land use planning framework; D. pre-financing inspection; E. promotion and extension of production systems that include improved pasture I fertility management F. pasture management. practices to reduce or control burning. i TABLE 4. MATRIX OF POTENTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS AND PROJECT RESPONSE, BY PROJECT COMPONENT ACTIVITY POTENTIAL NEGATIVE ImPACTS MANAGEMENT OR MITIGATION MEASURE II. Agricultural & forestry research No negative impacts anticipated. Activities would contribute to improved understanding and,management of forests and upland production systems. III. Training (agriculture & forestry No negative impacts anticipated. Activities would contribute to improved technical capacity for forestry and hilislope research and extension) production system's research and appropAate management of natural resources. Subcomponent 2.3 Biodiversity Conservation I. Redefinition of Protected Areas I. Shift of protected areas I. Legal status of all Protected Areas would remain unchanged; financial-viability System priorities decreasing protection and budgetary resources of entire system to improve under project; project to increase capability in other areas; AFE's overall institutional presence and protection capacity in national lands; where II. Increased pressures on relevant Upland Fund would finance extension and technical assistance for improved protected areas a result of investments community natural resource management; project target's highest value areas in community economic and quality of II. Buffer zone investment criteria would prohibit increasing access, "pull" factor life investments. investments (e.g., schools); financing only of small-scale, group investments consistent with biodiversity conservation and protected area's management.. 2. Protected area management: III. Infrastructure development: III. Infrastructure development: i) infrastructure development; A. road construction - loss of i) environmental impact assessments will be carried out on a park-by-park basis for ii) enforcement of protected area biodiversity, see "Forest Road the design and siting of infrastructure developments; boundaries. Rehabilitation" B. building construction - loss of biodiversity, ii) project will finance all mitigatory measures specified in EA; C. inappropriate siting, induced pressures on key iii) financing conditioned on institutional presence in place to ensure protection. resources. IV. Enforcement of protected IV. Enforcement of protected area boundaries - see "Land Adjudication" and "Forest area boundaries - see "Land Land Tenure". Adjudication" and "Forest Land Tenure". 3. Buffer zone management See "Forest Land Tenure", and See "Forest Land Tenure", and "Upland Producer's fund. "Upland Producer's fund.