SUPPORT TO PARCELIZATION OF LANDS FOR INDIVIDUAL TITLING (SPLIT) P172399 Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) Republic of the Philippines DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM February 2020 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................................... ii List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................................................... iv I. Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Objectives .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 III. Stakeholder Mapping and Analysis .................................................................................................................... 2 IV. Stakeholder Engagement during Project Preparation ....................................................................................... 7 Initial Consultations Undertaken........................................................................................................................ 7 Plans for Further Consultations During Project Preparation .............................................................................. 9 V. Stakeholder Engagement Plan During Project Implementation....................................................................... 10 Periodic Consultation ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Principles and methods for engagement ......................................................................................................... 10 Indigenous Peoples .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Intermittent Interaction with Stakeholders at the Regional, Provincial and Municipal Levels ........................ 11 Interactions with Stakeholders at the CCLOA Community Levels .................................................................... 12 VI. Institutional Arrangements and Resources ..................................................................................................... 13 VII. Grievance Redress Mechanism ...................................................................................................................... 14 Grievance and Redress Mechanism (GRM) ...................................................................................................... 14 VI. Stakeholder Engagement Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................... 23 Annexes ................................................................................................................................................................ 24 Annex A. Minutes of Consultation with Stakeholders, Baguio City, Benguet Province ................................... 24 Annex B. National Stakeholders’ Consultation for Project SPLIT ..................................................................... 29 Annex C. 2nd National Stakeholders’ Consultation for Project SPLIT with NGOs/POs .................................... 34 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Key stakeholders of the SPLIT project ....................................................................................................... 3 Table 2. Meetings and consultations conducted during early project preparation ............................................... 8 Table 3. Stakeholder engagements during the rest of project preparation ........................................................... 9 Table 4. Stakeholder interactions at the regional, provincial and municipal levels ............................................. 11 Table 5. Stakeholder interactions at CCLOA community levels during project implementation ........................ 12 Table 6. Project SPLIT Complaints and Grievance Committee (CGC) Machinery and Composition ..................... 16 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Major Steps in the Grievance Handling Process .................................................................................... 19 ii iii LIST OF ACRONYMS AD Ancestral Domain A&D Alienable and Disposable ARB Agrarian Reform Beneficiary ARBO Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Organization ALI Agrarian Law Implementation BARC Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee BALA Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance BLTI Bureau of Land Tenure Improvement MISS Management Information Systems Service FOO Field Operations Office CADC Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim CADT Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title CALT Certificate of Ancestral Land Title CARP Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program CARPER Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms CARP-IA CARP – Implementing Agencies CENRO Community Environment and Natural Resources Office CCLOA Collective Certificate of Land Ownership Award CSOs Civil Society Organizations DA Department of Agriculture DAR Department of Agrarian Reform DARRO DAR Regional Office DARPO DAR Provincial Office DARMO DAR Municipal Office DBM Department of Budget and Management DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources DENR – LMB Land Management Bureau DENR – FMB Forest Management Bureau DENR – BMB Biodiversity Management Bureau DENR – NAMRIA National Mapping and Resource Information Authority DENR – EMB Environment and Management Bureau DOF Department of Finance ESA Environment and Social Assesment ESF Environment and Social Framework FPIC Free Prior and Informed Consent ICC – TB Investment Coordinating Committee – Technical Board ICC- CabCom Investment Coordinating Committee- Cabinet Committee IP Indigenous Peoples iv IPRA Indigenous Peoples Rights Act LAD Land Acquisition and Distribution LRA Land Registration Authority LBP Land Bank of the Philippines LGUs Local Government Units LC Land Classification MARPO Municipal Agrarian Reform Program Officer NEDA National Economic & Development Authority NCIP National Commission on Indigenous Peoples PARPO Provincial Agrarian Reform Program Officer ROD Register of Deeds SEP Social Engagement Plan SPLIT Project Support to Parcelization of Lands for Individual Titling v SUPPORT TO PARCELIZATION OF LANDS FOR INDIVIDUAL TITLING (SPLIT) PROJECT Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) Department of Agrarian Reform February 2020 I. BACKGROUND 1. The proposed "Support to Parcelization of Lands for Individual Titling or Project" (SPLIT) would involve the parcelization or subdivision of Collective Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CCLOAs or mother CLOAs) into individual land titles of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs). The project will be implemented with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as the lead agency and being proposed for funding by the World Bank. The project will help realize the completion of the Philippine’s land reform program. Since the start of the agrarian reform program in 1972 (i.e. Operation Land Transfer and then Comprehensive Agrarian Reform), the government has redistributed a total of about 4.8 million hectares to about 2.8 million farmer beneficiaries. However, only 53% of this are individual titles. The rest 47% or about 2.5 million hectares are collective CLOA titles which were issued to a group of beneficiaries. The collective CLOAs were mostly issued around the 1990s and resorted to as a strategy to fast track the acquisition of lands and its subsequent distribution of lands to farmers or Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries. 2. The issuance of CCLOAs was intended to be a temporary instrument until the formal subdivision of the parcel can be done. However, the subdivision of CCLOAs into individual ARB parcels had been very slow such that even now there are still about 1.4 million hectares of CCLOAs lands that have remained un-subdivided. For many years, the occupants of the parcels covered by CCLOAs have relied on temporary or informal boundaries of their landholdings. Without formal proof of individual ownerships, the famers feel insecure about their landholdings, preventing them from investing on more permanent land improvements and making them vulnerable to adverse claims and encroachments. Moreover, the lack of individual titles has prevented the farmers from realizing the full financial potentials of their landholdings. 3. The project, particularly the process of parcelization of CCLOAs, will impact not only on the current occupants of the land covered by the CCLOAs but also on other interested parties, including government agencies, individual landed estates, civil society groups, farmer groups, business partners and others. This Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP) is being prepared as an integral part of the Environmental and Social Impact Management measures of the project. The SEP is also required under the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Framework (ESF), particularly Environmental and Social Standard 10 on Stakeholder Engagement and Information Disclosure (ESS10). The SEP provides stakeholders with opportunities to contribute to the project design, express their views on the risks, impacts and mitigation measures of the parcelization process and keep track of the progress of, and engage in, the project implementation. 1 II. OBJECTIVES 4. The SEP is aimed to (i) set out how the communication with stakeholders will be handled throughout project preparation and implementation; (ii) describe the timing and methods of the engagement; (iii) describe the range and timing of information to be communicated to project affected parties and other interested parties as well as the type of information to be sought from them; (iv) describe measures to remove obstacles to participation and how the views of the differently affected groups will be captured. III. STAKEHOLDER MAPPING AND ANALYSIS 5. This section presents the identified stakeholders and their interests in the Project. A stakeholder is defined as any individual or group who is potentially affected, positively or negatively, by the Project, or who has an interest in the Project and its potential impacts. In order to define an engagement process for project preparation and implementation, the following types of stakeholders have been identified. As the Project progresses, the SEP will be regularly updated, including with new stakeholders as needed. (i) Project affected parties are individuals, groups, local communities, and other stakeholders that may be directly or indirectly, positively or negatively by the Project. These include: a) agrarian reform beneficiaries (communities and individual members) benefitting from subdivision of collective CLOAs; b) individual households who are not eligible for inclusion in the Project and may therefore be adversely affected. ii) Interested parties are stakeholders who may be interested in the project because of its location, its proximity to natural or other resources, or because of the sector or parties involved in the project. These may be local government officials, community leaders, and civil society organizations, particularly those who work in or with the affected communities. 6. Within the project affected parties, it is important to understand project impacts and whether they may disproportionately fall on disadvantaged or vulnerable individuals or groups, who often do not have a voice to express their concerns or understand the impacts of a project. This may involve single-parent households, tillers, elders, the poorest households, ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples. 7. The project will be implemented by the Department of Agrarian Reform. However, various other government agencies will be involved and will have key roles in the validation of CCLOA and its subsequent parcelization into individual titles. The validation of the CCLOA will involve various bureaus and units of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) which have mandates over land classification and management of public lands, and the NCIP which has mandate over Indigenous Peoples lands. The parcelization will also involve the Land Registration Authority (LRA). The table below (Table 1) maps out the various stakeholders of the SPLIT project. 2 Table 1. Key stakeholders of the SPLIT project Degree of Interest on Role/Potential Role in the Project Stakeholder Influence on the Project Implementation. the Project DAR High High Lead implementing agency Philippine Congress High High Policy support and potential Land Reclassification. DENR – Office of High High Key Partner: Provides direct supervision of the Under- Provincial and Community Environment and secretary for Natural Resources Officers (PENROs and Operations CENROs) involved in the validation/confirmation of inspection, verification and approval of surveys (IVAS) for CCLOAs DENR – Offices of High High Key Partner: The respective Undersecretaries the Under- provide direct supervision of each of the staff secretary, LMB, bureaus to be primarily involved in project FMB & BMB implementation. DENR - LMB High High Key Partner, inspection, verification and approval of submitted survey plan for CCLOAs DENR - NAMRIA Low Medium Provides the Land Classification Maps which will be the basis for validating whether CCLOAs are in A&D lands and whether there are overlaps DENR - FMB High High Key Partner in the management of lands which fall within Timberland Classification DENR - BMB High High Key Partner in the management of lands which fall within Protected Areas LRA/ High High Key Partner: cancellation of CCLOAs and Register of Deeds registration of individual CLOAs in the name of ARBs; creation of a special lane for CARP transactions at the ROD of high LAD provinces NCIP High Medium Key Partner: Provides management of lands within Ancestral Domain and provides Certificate of Preconditions for any titling within ancestral domain. NCIP also facilitates free, prior and informed consent by indigenous groups in CCLOAs. DA High High Key Partner: DA can provide support services to ARBs ARBs/ARBOs High High Main Beneficiary. Affected Parties. Some will be from indigenous groups. LGUs Medium Medium Interested party, productive farmers, tax collection PARCCOM High Medium PARCOM, the Presidential Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee, is an umbrella organization with representatives from key stakeholders, including agrarian reform beneficiaries and land owners. BARC High Medium Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) includes local stakeholders, including agrarian reform beneficiaries. Non-ARB mother High High Project Affected People. This includes non-ARB CLOA occupants occupants in the CCLOA lands. LBP High High Key Partner: Preparation and issuance of individual farmer beneficiary amortization schedule for covered CCLOAs. NGOs Medium Medium Potential partner in project implementation and support services CSOs Medium Medium Provide policy support and oversight. Some may have critical views of the project 3 Degree of Interest on Role/Potential Role in the Project Stakeholder Influence on the Project Implementation. the Project NEDA, DBM, High High Oversight Agencies DOF 8. Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) – Office of the Assistant Secretary for Staff Bureau. The DENR is the main agency tasks with management of the country’s natural resources, including lands. Lands are classified either as Alienable and Disposable (A&D) and Public Forests. A large part of lands in the Philippines are still classified as Public Lands (or Public Forests or Timberland) which are inalienable or still public domain. These lands are under the management of DENR. The management of public lands falls into two bureaus: Timberlands are managed by the Forest Management Bureau (FMB) while Protected Areas are falls under the management of Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB). Another bureau of DENR which will be involved in the individual titling process is the Land Management Bureau (LMB). These bureaus are under the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Staff Bureau. Hence the office will have a crucial coordinative role in the project. 9. DENR-Land Management Bureau (LMB). LMB is responsible for administering, surveying, managing, and disposing Alienable and Disposable lands and other government lands not placed under the jurisdiction of other government agencies. The reclassification of public domain lands into A&D used to be a function of DENR's Land Management Bureau until 1987 when the authority is transferred to the Philippine Congress. Now, the Land Management Bureau is still in charge of delineating surveying lands. 10. DENR-Forest Management Bureau (FMB). The FMB is responsible for conservation, management, development and proper use of the country's environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing lands, mineral resources, including those in reservations and watershed areas, and other lands in the public domain. The FMB also issues special land use permits and tenurial instruments to occupants of lands that are classified as forestlands. 11. DENR – Biodiversity Management Bureau (BMB). The BMB is responsible for conservation and sustainable management of the country’s biodiversity. It has three major programs, (i) protected areas and other ecosystems management and development; (ii) coastal and marine ecosystems management; and (iii) wildlife resource conservation program. 12. DENR-National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA). NAMRIA is the official keeper of Land Classification Map which would be the basis for the validation of the CCLOA with respect to the boundaries of Timberland and A&D lands. It can facilitate access to these maps. 13. The Philippine Congress - The congress provides policy support to the project and to the Agrarian Reform Program. Congress also has the authority to reclassify lands from public forest to A&D. This role may be crucial for some CCLOA which are found to overlap with the boundaries of Timberland. 14. Department of Agriculture (DA) - DA can provide agricultural support services to the ARBs in the CCLOAs during and after the subdivision into individual titles. The traditional support from DA would be training, technology and marketing linkages. It can also provide 4 farm-to-market roads, small irrigation and other value chain infrastructure support to ARB communities. 15. Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) and Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Organizations (ARBOs) - ARBs in the CCLOA will be the main beneficiaries of this project. However, they may have reasons or apprehensions against individual titling, individually or collectively as a group. Possible reason would include apprehension about taxes, amortization payments, loss of control by their cooperatives. Hence they would need to be consulted to improve the project design and approach. Some ARBs will be indigenous peoples, in both homogenous and mixed communities, and these may have particular interests and needs for consultations and project support. 16. Field visits and dialogues with the ARBs, includes meetings with the women in the community, the Indigenous Peoples, the local officials and other vulnerable members in the barangay. Consultations at the field level shall be done in separate group to ensure that each sector is heard. 17. Land Registration Authority (LRA) - The LRA is responsible for issuing decrees of registration and certificates of title and register documents, patents and other land transaction for the benefit of landowners, agrarian reform-beneficiaries and the registering public in general. It is tasked to issue all subsequent or transfer certificates of title. LRA keeps the title history or records of transaction involving titled or registered lands. It provides legal and technical assistance to the courts relative to land registration cases, and to other government agencies with respect to registration of administratively issued titles. LRA has been extending its services to the DAR in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). LRA will have a key role in the issuance of individual titles to ARBs. LRA has Registry of Deeds offices in major cities and towns all over the country. 18. National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) - NCIP is the government agency responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies, plans and programs to promote and protect the rights and well-being of the Indigenous Cultural Communities/Indigenous Peoples (ICCs/IPs) and the recognition of their ancestral domains as well as their rights. The NCIP provides assistance and serve as the medium through which assistance can be provided to the ICC/IPs. It may also formulate and implement policies, plans, programs and projects for the economic, social and cultural development of the ICCs/IPs. It has the authority to issue certificate of ancestral domain titles (CADTs) and certificate of ancestral land titles (CALTs). NCIP will have a key role in CCLOAs that have extant ICC/IP communities or in CCLOAs that overlaps with Ancestral Domain, if any. In either of these cases, the project is required to undertake the Free Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) as per the World Bank’s ESS7 on Indigenous Peoples and for CCLOAs inside Ancestral Domains FPIC under the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) is required. However, for CCLOAs issued before the enactment of RA 8371 or the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA), the “Section 56 : Existing Property Rights Regimes – Property rights within the ancestral domains existing and/or vested upon effectivity of the Act, shall be recognized and respected” applies. The NCIP will issue a Certificate of Precondition, after the FPIC process shall have been achieved in accordance with the IPRA Implementing Rules and Regulations. For CCLOAs outside the Ancestral Domain, NCIP can help facilitate consultations with ICC/IPs leading to the attainment FPIC in accordance with the World Bank’s ESS7. 5 19. Local Government Units (LGUs) - The local governments have high interest in the project because the CCLOA land occupants are their constituents. LGUs can facilitate consultations and meetings with ARBs and other affected parties in the communities. It also could provide help to resolve conflicts regarding boundaries, and provide crucial neutral witness during delineation of boundaries of individual landholdings inside the CCLOA. It could also provide local security to project personnel. 20. Non-ARB occupants of CCLOA lands - Since the CCLOAs were issued several years ago, there will very likely be occupants within the CCLOA lands that are neither the original ARBs nor a legal heir of the original ARB. These occupants will be very apprehensive about the project, particularly in the process of validation of the CCLOA beneficiaries (particularly to the so-called "inclusion" and "exclusion" process) for many legitimate reasons. These groups need to be consulted in a focus group discussion format and their grievances and apprehensions should be considered in the project design and approach. 21. Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). The LBP was created by Republic Act 3844 (the Agrarian Land Reform Code) to finance the acquisition and distribution of agricultural estates for division and resale to small landholders as well as the purchase of the landholding by the agricultural lessee. It becomes the main bank that financed the land acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657), LBP is part of the implementing agency of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and is involved in land evaluation, compensation to owners of private agricultural lands, and collection of amortizations from CARP farmer-beneficiaries. ARBs in CCLOAs are unable to actually pay amortization payments because their individual landholdings have not been formally delineated. LBP has allowed farmers to pay advanced amortizations from CCLOA holders but has reportedly stopped this practice. The LBP will be a key partner in this project, especially in providing information to the ARBs about the terms and amounts of amortization payments, given that the CCLOAs were issued long time ago. 22. NGOs and CSOs. Many of the Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) are advocates of the CARP and had been critics in its implementation. They would be interested to know that the CCLOAs will finally be subdivided into individual titles. The CSOs could provide valuable policy and advocacy support to the project. Some CSOs may be critical of the project. On the other hand, there are a number of non-government organizations (NGOs) that have been working with ARB communities for quiet sometime, often with financial support from international donors. Forthcoming stakeholders’ consultations will include representations from NGOs involved in agrarian reform and rural development like the Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC), Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in rural Areas (PhilDHRRA), Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (CARRD), Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) and the Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahan ng Magsasaka. NGOs and CSOs involved in environment protection, biodiversity, indigenous peoples and women groups (Philippine Biodiversity Conservation Foundation, Philippine Association for Intercultural Development (PAFID), and the National Federation of Peasant Women in the Philippines (AMIHAN), among others. These NGOs could provide valuable information about the status of the ARBs in the CCLOAs, their socioeconomic profile and other issues concerning the farmers, the IPs, vulnerable groups both in the macro and field level. Follow through consultations shall be made in the provinces and municipalities during the project implementation. 6 23. This group includes the Presidential Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) representatives of the agrarian reform beneficiaries and the land owners at the national and provincial levels and have been invited to several consultations. At the municipal level is the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC). IV. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT DURING PROJECT PREPARATION Initial Consultations Undertaken 24. During the conceptualization of the project, DAR consulted the different units and offices of the Department at the Central, Regional and Provincial Level engaged in the Land Acquisition and Distribution (LAD). A series of workshops and meetings were conducted to discuss the parcelization process, the cost involved, the magnitude of collective CLOAs that need to be subdivided into individual titles, identified the hindrances and lessons learned in the earlier collective CLOAs subdivision efforts of the DAR. The workshops and meetings were attended by officials of the Bureau of Land Tenure Improvement, Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance, Office of the Undersecretary and Assistant Secretary for Field Operations, MISS and the Regional Directors and PARPOs of High LAD Regions and Provinces. The results of these workshops and meetings were considered in the conceptualization of the project. 25. The project preparation team which the DAR has formed following the identification of the project, have already conducted several meetings and discussions with the key partner agencies, particularly the Office of the DENR Assistant Secretary for Staff Bureau, the DENR- Land Management Bureau and the DENR - Forest Management Bureau, the Land Registration Authority. The preparation team has also coordinated with oversight agencies e.g. NEDA and DBM to prepare for formal approval of the ICC Technical Committee and ICC-Cabinet Committee. DAR has also engaged and disclosed the project to the Provincial and Regional Development Councils in order to secure their endorsements. 26. On environmental safeguards, the DAR secured clearance from the Environment & Management Bureau/DENR in April 2019. The EMB responded that the Project SPLIT does not require Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) nor Certificate of Non Coverage (CNC) as the Project is not covered by the Philippine Environmental Impact Statement System (PEISS). 27. The World Bank dispatched a Project Identification Mission in October 2019, and a Preparation Mission in November that paved the way to further consult with other stakeholders like the Land Registration Authority and Land Management Bureau at the national level, and the Register of Deeds and Land Management System at the Provincial/Regional levels. 28. Meetings with NCIP and concerned DENR Bureaus were also held to orient them of the Project SPLIT and discuss its potential environmental and social impacts and risks. 7 29. Initial dialogues with a few ARBs and IP-ARBs were also done in Batangas, Iloilo and Benguet to solicit the ARBs view and thinking of the Project SPLIT, as to its acceptability and how they foresee the parcelization and individual titling to benefit them. 30. These preliminary meetings, dialogues and consultations provide scenarios that help in assessing the potential impacts and risks the parcelization and individual titling might cause in the lives of the affected parties, especially the agrarian reform beneficiaries, the indigenous peoples and their communities. 31. Further meetings and consultations are scheduled with the stakeholders like the NCIP, the ARBs, the Indigenous Peoples, LGUs and NGOs in the coming months prior to Project SPLIT implementation. Feedback from these stakeholders will be sought to inform the finalization of the SEP and related instruments to address potential environment and social impacts and risks of the Project. Table 2 below summarizes the meetings and consultations that have been conducted so far since the start of Project SPLIT conceptualization. Table 2. Meetings and consultations conducted during early project preparation Date Stakeholder Topics Discussed December 2018 DAR Regional Directors of high Project concept, experiences and hindrances in LAD Regions & Provinces parcelization of CCLOA January 2019 LRA Initial talks on how to secure titles in line with the inventory of CCLOAs; streamline process of registration January 2019 DENR Issued CCLOAs that overlap with timberland April 2019 DENR EMB Environmental Clearance Requirements October 2019 Land Registration Authority Land titling process October 2019 DENR Land Management Bureau CCLOAs that overlap with forest/timberlands October 7, 2019 Registry of Deeds Provincial Registration Process, Requirements, timelines Levels October 8, 2019 ARBs in Barangay San Isidro, Status and experience of ARBs and occupants in Rosario, Batangas the still un-subdivided mother. Reactions and concerns about the proposed individual titling. November 4, 2019 DENR Land Management Bureau CCLOAs in lands still classified as Public Forest November 8, 2019; DENR Forest Management CCLOAs in lands still classified as Public Bureau Forests and tenurial instruments and programs available for farmers occupying these lands November 8 & 16, DENR Assistant Secretary for Possible CCLOA overlaps with Lands still 2019 Staff Bureau classified as Public Forest, Overlaying of CCLOAs in LC Maps November 4, 2019 NCIP Possible CCLOA overlaps with Ancestral Domain claims November 6, 2019 ICC/IP ARBs in Bgy. Toyongan, Status of ARBs and non-ARBs in the land Calinog, Iloilo covered by the CCLOA. Location of CCLOA vis-a-vis Ancestral Domain. Interests in subdivision, current constraint faced. November 7, 2019 ARBs in Cabatuan, Iloilo Status of ARBs and non-ARB occupants in the land covered by the CCLOA November 7, 2019 NCIP Region VI or Western Overlap of CCLOA and Ancestral Domain in Visayas Region VI. Status of private lands inside Ancestral Domain. Role of NCIP November 7, 2019 NGO: Center for Agrarian NGO development works in ARB communities. Reform & Rural Development General interests and issues of ARBs in (CARRD) subdivision 8 January 24, 2020 ARBs in Atok, Benguet, CAR Lessons learned from DAR support services to CLOA holders in mountainous areas with indigenous communities 32. After the initial disclosure of the safeguard instruments in the DAR website on January 20, including the draft SEP, ESA, ESMF, IPPF, RPF and LMP, a regional consultation with stakeholders composed of representatives from the DENR-CAR, DA-CAR, LRA-ROD Benguet, DAR CAR & Provincial Offices, PARCCOM Chairpersons, BARC Chair and representative of farmers’ organization in the Cordillera Administrative Region was held in Baguio City, Benguet Province. Most of the participants are themselves Indigenous Peoples. It was followed by a consultation at the national level held at the DAR Central Office and was attended by representatives of the DENR and its bureaus, LMB, FMB & BMB, the Department of Agriculture, NCIP, Land Bank of the Philippines and the PARCCOM representing the ARB sector. 33. Key inputs and recommendations made during the consultations are (i) involvement of the PARCCOM in the monitoring and information dissemination; (ii) consider the provision of Road Right of Way prior to the parcelization to ensure that farm-to-market roads will be provided to the farmers even of those far from the current access; (iii) beneficiaries be provided with support services (e.g. training on appropriate technology, organic agriculture, IPM and SALT, etc.); (iv) securing FPIC following the ESS7 of the WB and not the FPIC as defined by NCIP since the SPLIT Project will only cover parcelization of CCLOA which were already distributed to the ARBs; (v) clarification on policies regarding 10 year holding period of the CCLOA, if the reckoning date is at issuance of the CCLOA or of the individual title, on the schedule of amortization and real property tax due of the ARBs. As there are ongoing talks with the Land Bank of the Philippines, the DILG and LGUs, the DAR’s position is on what is more beneficial for the ARBs. Minutes of the two (2) consultations are shown in Annex A. Plans for Further Consultations During Project Preparation 34. Further meetings and consultations are scheduled with stakeholders, such as the NCIP, the ARBs, Indigenous Peoples, LGUs and NGOs, prior to Project SPLIT implementation, including a public consultation with NGOs and CSOs in Manila on February 19. Table 3. Stakeholder engagements during the rest of project preparation Stage/Preparation Activity Stakeholder Engagement Event Timeline Firming up of the Project Design Various consultation meetings with January 2020 and Strategies government agencies, ARBs, CSO and NGOs working with ARBs Environmental and Social Consultation meetings with ARBs in December 2019 – January 2020 Assessment and Preparation of selected CCLOA sites; NGOs Environmental and Social operating and CSOs. The1st draft of Management Framework the ESA & ESMF were disclosed in the DAR website on Jan 20, 2020 Social Assessment and Consultation meetings of ARBs in December 15, 2019-January 15, Preparation of Resettlement selected CCLOA sites, NGOs and 2020 Policy Framework CSOs. The 1st draft of the RPF and Labor Management Plan were disclosed in the DAR website on Jan 31, 2020. Socio-cultural assessment and Consultation meetings of ICC/IPs December 15, 2019 - January 15, Preparation of Indigenous ARBs communities in selected sites, 2020 Peoples Framework NGOs and CSOs. The 1st draft of the 9 IPPF was disclosed at the DAR website on Jan 20, 2020 Project Appraisal Mission of Meetings with various government January 23 and -28, 2020; World Bank agencies, ARBs, NGOs and CSOs Feb. 19, 2020 Preparation of Project Workshops with all agencies February to March, 2020 Implementation Manual (PIM) involved in the project to discuss the draft PIM V. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PLAN DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Periodic Consultation 35. During project implementation, the project management will conduct consultations with stakeholders particularly the agrarian reform beneficiaries and other project-affected persons in the community in the the pulong-pulong (the participatory planning process for parcelization). In addition, consultations will be held with other stakeholders, such as government partners, PARCCOM, BARC, NGOs and CSOs, including during World Bank Implementation Support Missions. During these consultations, the progress of the project implementation will be presented to key partners, the press and interested CSOs at the national level and at selected regions, and province/provinces. Members of the press and representatives of CSOs will be invited during these consultation sessions. Principles and methods for engagement 36. To enhance the effectiveness of the engagement process, the SEP is based on the following principles:  the culture, fundamental human rights, values and traditions of stakeholders are respected in accordance with established legal precedent and accepted practice in the Philippines;  stakeholders are treated with sensitivity and respect in terms of their issues, views and suggestions;  interaction with stakeholders is meaningful, culturally appropriate (including language, as needed), and is timely, transparent and responsive;  vulnerable groups are included in the engagement to assess differential needs and perceptions of stakeholder groups (i.e. men, women, youth);  data from stakeholder engagement is incorporated into assessments site-specific environmental and social management and mitigation plans as needed;  access to information and disclosure will be ensured to ensure stakeholders are informed about the Project, its potential benefits, impacts and risks, affected peoples’ entitlements, GRM channels; and  informed consultation without coercion to ensure that communities and households have power of choice to participate, or not, in the Project. 10 37. Further to enhance effective engagement a suite of communication methods will be used to promote easy, transparent, direct, open and interactive communication with all stakeholders, and to elicit feedback in the project preparation and implementation phases. 38. Public disclosure will be done through any of the following means:  Newspapers, posters, radio, television;  Information centers and exhibitions or other visual displays;  Brochures, leaflets, posters, nontechnical summary documents and reports;  Official correspondence, meetings;  Website, social media 39. Stakeholder engagement will be done through any of the following means:  Regular meetings with relevant government agencies at central, regional and municipal levels;  Stakeholder workshops at national, regional, provincial levels  Public meetings or pulong-pulong at collective CLOA level;  Use of support organizations when needed (e.g. to support vulnerable communities / households; 40. Public information materials to enable wider access to project information as well as progress will be developed. This includes the types and forms of information dissemination, as well as timing which will be determined during project implementation based on assessments of communities’ access to such information and barriers. Stakeholders’ communication and consultation preferences, particularly those of target communities will also be carefully assessed to promote greater participation and social inclusion. Indigenous Peoples 41. Particular efforts will be made to ensure participation of, and engagement with, indigenous communities and households. The use of indigenous organizations or organizations (e.g. NGOs) that support them, may be needed to facilitate the engagement process. The regional NCIP offices may also need to be involved in CLOA level engagements with indigenous communities. The Project’s Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework includes further measures to engage with indigenous peoples, including the procedures for free, prior and inform consent as per the Bank’s ESS7. Intermittent Interaction with Stakeholders at the Regional, Provincial and Municipal Levels Table 4. Stakeholder interactions at the regional, provincial and municipal levels Stakeholder Nature of Interaction Frequency and Purpose DENR – Region Coordination meetings Semiannually. Update on progress and resolve pending issues PENRO Coordination meetings Monthly. Update on progress; resolve issues CENRO Coordination meetings Monthly. Update on progress and resolve pending issues LRA/Registry of Deeds Coordination meetings As necessary. Update on progress; resolve issues PLGU Coordination meetings As necessary. Update on progress; resolve issues MLGU Coordination meetings As necessary. Update on progress; resolve issues 11 NGOs/CSOs Coordination meetings As necessary. Update and seek help on support services State Universities & Colleges Coordination meetings As necessary. Update and seek help on support services Regional NCIP Coordination meetings As necessary. Discuss requirements and strategies and Workshop in obtaining free and prior inform consent with affected ICC/IP communities in the regions Congressional District Office Coordination meetings Once a year. Explore the possibility of sponsoring a bill converting CCLOA lands that overlap with Timberland into A&D lands. Interactions with Stakeholders at the CCLOA Community Levels 42. At the CCLOA level, the Project Team shall interact with the ARBs and the actual occupants of the CCLOA lands on a regular basis from validation to issuance of individual titles. These consultations can be done at least twice at the CCLOA level and more as needed especially in areas where there are issues on list of ARBs, actual occupants, inclusion/exclusion and boundary disputes. Table 5. Stakeholder interactions at CCLOA community levels during project implementation Project Activities Nature of Interaction Purpose Project Awareness Community consultations and To inform CCLOA members of the project’s awareness raising objectives and requirements, including their entitlements and ESF provisions of the ESMF, RPF and IPPF Validation of Community consultation, ground To identify possible overlap with Timberland, CCLOA vis-a-vis validation LC and CCLOA maps Protected Area or Ancestral Domain Land Classification in the presence of Status representatives of CENRO, LGU and Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) Validation of Consultation with actual To validate the list of ARBs versus current CCLOA ARB lists occupants of all land parcels actual occupants of the land parcels within the vis-a-vis Actual within the CCLOA in the CCLOA Occupants presence of LGU and BARC. Socioeconomic House to house visit by survey To undertake a socioeconomic profile of the Survey/Profile of enumerators during the conduct actual occupants. Actual Occupants baseline study. For CCLOA: MARPO to submit CARPER LAD Form 70-B of AO No. 2 Validation of Community consultation in the To update the community on the qualified Inclusion and presence of BARC & LGU recipients of individual titles Exclusion Lists officials To explain reasons for exclusion and the rights Separate one-on-one meetings and entitlements of the "excluded" occupants, shall be conducted with including those whose landholdings will be "excluded" occupants with reverted back to Timberland status, based on the BARC & LGU officials Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF). Delineation of Ground walkthrough of the To determine and validate parcel boundaries and Individual Parcel boundary points of individual resolve conflicts Boundaries (Land ARBs with BARC & LGU Survey) representative, and adjacent lot ARBs 12 Project Activities Nature of Interaction Purpose Preparation of A series of consultations shall To formulate the Resettlement Action Plan for Resettlement Action occur with all the "excluded" the affected based on the RPF and based on the Plan (RAP) based on occupants, including those socioeconomic profile of the occupants. the RPF (if needed) whose landholdings will be reverted back to Timberland status (e.g. the Project-Affected People or PAPs) Implementation of Periodic update and To fulfill the consultation requirements of the the RAP consultations with the PAPs RAP, to update on the progress of RAP based on the RAP implementation, resolve issues and concerns Preparation of A series of consultations shall To formulate the Indigenous Peoples Plan for Indigenous Peoples occur with indigenous peoples in indigenous peoples present in CCLOAs. Plan (IPP) in areas CCLOA to ascertain their with indigenous position and stand on the peoples parcelization of CCLOA issued to them within their Ancenstral Domain for subdivision as per the IPPF Implementation of Periodic update and To fulfill the consultation requirements of the the IPP consultations with indigenous IPP, to update on the progress of IPP peoples on the IPP implementation, resolve issues and concerns Issuance of Community gathering To distribute titles. Individual Titles to Qualified ARBs 43. In all levels of Project consultations, the project affected persons especially the vulnerable groups shall be included and heard. In addition to the bigger community consultation, a separate dialogue shall be made with the vulnerable groups, like women and IPs to encourage their participation and avoid possible intimidation from other sectors. VI. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS AND RESOURCES 44. At the Project preparation and pre-implementation stage, stakeholder engagement was initiated by the Project Management Service-Support Services Office, Foreign Assisted and Special Projects Office and the Field Operations Office. Upon commencement of Project Implementation, the SEP will be effected by the Project Safeguards Group. The group shall be composed of the Safeguards Specialist and DAR organic staff to be assigned as Safeguards Point Persons from the Central, Region and Provincial Offices. Budget for stakeholder engagement shall be taken from the Safeguards Cost provided under the Project Management component. 45. The stakeholder engagement activities shall be incorporated in all the components, especially in component 1- parcelization of CCLOA particularly in the validation and ‘pulong- pulong’. Hence, the SEP shall be captured in the project’s management system. Though the stakeholder engagement activities are look-out of the Safeguards group, Technical Staff and DAR Officials will be part of the group during meetings and consultations to ensure that queries, issues and concerns raised in the meeting will be addressed. The Safeguards Group together with the M & E shall develop a stakeholder database to ease documentation and monitoring of commitments, agreements and action taken. 13 46. On inter-agency arrangements, the Joint DAR-DENR-NCIP-LRA Administrative Order No. 1 series of 2012 (JAO 1) will primarily serve as the Project’s policy and operational framework between and among the concerned agencies involved in the Project, with the DAR taking the lead role and serving as the secretariat of the JAO. VII. GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM Grievance and Redress Mechanism (GRM) 47. The Project will establish a Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) designed to seek/generate feedback from and to project stakeholders and address/ respond to grievances, problems, issues or complaints related to project activities and project environmental and social performance. The Project will ensure through the GRM that all project stakeholders will be aware of their rights to access and/or will have access to the GRM at all project management levels, which will be provided in a transparent manner free of costs and without fear of reprisal or retribution on the part of aggrieved parties. In addition, the Project’s GRM will help ensure that the rights and interests of project stakeholders are protected from unforeseen lapses in said project performance and that all concerns arising therefrom in all project phases will be effectively addressed. To achieve these ends, the Project will regularly engage project stakeholders and provide them information on the processes and means of raising and addressing grievances through the GRM. 48. It should be noted that this GRM shall not include concerns directly involving agrarian law implementation otherwise referred to as ALI cases which will be resolved in accordance with the rules and procedures on Inclusion/Exclusion described in the ESA and RPF. Basic Principles 49. Consistent with applicable national laws and the WB-ESF, this GRM adopts following principles that will help guide project implementation and fulfill the Project’s commitment to provide opportunities for all stakeholders to meaningfully participate: 1. Transparency – To encourage comments and feedback (negative and positive) to improve the Project, stakeholders must be aware of complaints, grievances and problems reported, involved in their redress, and kept informed on the progress made in resolving grievances. 2. Participatory – All project stakeholders are encouraged to participate or contribute in bringing up complaints, grievances and comments to the attention of the Project management. 3. Inclusive and Sensitive – Project stakeholders are given the opportunity to raise concerns and the right to be accorded a response. The GRM will allow anyone, especially the poor, the disadvantaged groups, the women, etc. to raise grievance or complaints, be heard and be involved in its redress. 14 4. Simple and Accessible – The procedures to file complaints and seek redress are kept simple and easy to understand by the stakeholders. Complaints and queries may be sent through different accessible means. 5. Responsive and Accountable – The GRM could strengthen channels of communication and mechanisms to enable project implementers to be accountable to all stakeholders and work transparently to resolve problems, enhancing Project responsiveness and developing trust and broad support from the stakeholders. 6. Quick and Proportionate Action – Response to grievance and comments is ensured within an acceptable timeline. Corresponding action will be responsive and commensurate to a complaint or comment. The GRM demonstrates the Project’s commitment to strive more on providing solutions to address problems rather than penalize respondents to complaints from aggrieved parties. 7. Objective – The GRM entails objectivity in processing grievances so that it can render fair and unbiased actions or responses and will be perceived as such to encourage stakeholders to utilize it, thus enhancing the Project’s overall performance. In all instances, conflicts of interest or any perception of such will be carefully looked into and promptly avoided. 8. Confidentiality and Security – To remain accessible, open and trusted, the GRM shall ensure that the identities of complainants are kept confidential to encourage stakeholders to openly participate and file complaints or comments. 9. Due process – The Project upholds and respects the rights of parties who are subject to complaints to be present and be heard before the appropriate complaints/grievance committee that will hear, settle, mediate or conciliate complaints or grievance. GRM Policy Guidance 50. The following policy guidance shall be upheld in the implementation of the GRM process: 1. Every grievance shall be resolved fairly, promptly, effectively and expeditiously in a transparent manner that is culturally appropriate, free of any cost and accessible at all times, at the lowest level possible in the project management grievance machinery. Through alternative dispute resolution processes like mediation and conciliation, project-related conflicts, complaints and grievances shall be addressed following the applicable customs and traditions in resolving land disputes in specific localities. If resolution/settlement is not achieved within the set timeframe at the lowest level, grievances will be elevated to the next higher level following the hierarchy of GRM machinery. 2. The aggrieved parties shall be informed that they are assured freedom from coercion, discrimination, reprisal and biased action on their grievances. 3. A grievance may be submitted verbally or in writing made through any of the access points and channels described in the following sections. 4. In the designation of grievance officers, coordinators and technical advisory members shall consider their integrity, probity, sincerity, credibility, availability and willingness to perform their duties as such. 15 5. Complaints or grievances can be made anonymously and the identity complainants may be kept confidential unless they expressly provide consent to publicly identify them and/or to allow further verification and investigation of their grievance. 6. Aggrieved parties shall be informed of their option to appeal their grievance outside of the Project’s GRM process or in another separate mediation process within the Project management structure, which will be determined by the CPMO. 7. The scope of the Project-level GRM shall include and will be made available and accessible for project stakeholders and other interested parties, including direct-hire or contracted project workers, who may want to raise questions, comments, suggestions and/or complaints, or provide any feedback from all activities funded by the Project. 8. Contractors with project-contracted workers shall incorporate relevant provisions of this GRM and those in the LMP in their contracts with said contracted workers, and shall forthwith inform such workers of their rights and obligations thereunder and the measures put in place to protect them from reprisal for its use, at the time of their recruitment to the Project. 9. For grievances of indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples (ICCs/IPs), all complaints shall be discussed and negotiations must be carried out within the specific communities where the affected ICCs/IPs live. The appropriate GRM machinery/level together with the tribal council concerned should facilitate this process while upholding the customs and traditions of the tribe in resolving their land disputes should the conflicts be within the tribes and clans. As for conflicts involving both ICCs/IPs and non-ICCs/IPs, the Project must ensure that affected ICCs/IPs are properly represented. Where necessary, the Project will bring in NCIP staff to ensure that rights of ICCs/IPs are protected. If mediation/ conciliation/negotiations are stalled, or ICCs/IPs disagree with all possible options presented during these deliberations, the affected tribes can bring their grievance or complaints to the municipal-level GRM of the Project. Should this still fail the ICCs/IPs’ expectations, the ICCs/IPs can elevate their complaints to the provincial representative of the NCIP and the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Program Officer, with copies of the complaint furnished the Office of the Provincial Governor. Resolution of conflicts should be encouraged at the lowest level possible, through the facilitation of municipal and community tribal councils. Again, the proceedings of such meetings and interactions with affected ICC/IP households/ communities must be documented and distributed to relevant stakeholders. 10. All levels of the GRM machinery shall maintain a registry/database of grievances to be submitted regularly to the central GRM at CPMO which shall include the same in the Project’s periodic reports the World Bank. Project-level GRM Machinery and Composition 51. The Project will establish Complaints and Grievance Committees (CGCs) at the central, regional, provincial, municipal and barangay levels to serve as the Project’s GRM machinery. The installation and management of the CGCs shall be done at the initial stages of and throughout project implementation, especially prior to the start of parcelizaton activities. The structure and composition of the CGC machinery is proposed, as follows: Table 6. Project SPLIT Complaints and Grievance Committee (CGC) Machinery and Composition CGC Levels Composition Designated/responsible DAR personnel CPMO – Central Central Grievance Officer - National Project Director CGC 16 CGC Levels Composition Designated/responsible DAR personnel Central CGC Coordinator - Central ESSU Safeguards Specialist Central Technical Advisory Team - Component heads - Project compliance officer or equivalent RPMO – CGC Regional Grievance Officer - Regional Project Director Regional CGC Coordinator - Regional ESSU Safeguards Focal Person Regional Technical Advisory Team - Component heads - Project compliance officer or equivalent PPMO – CGC Provincial Grievance Officer - Provincial Project Director Provincial CGC Coordinator - Provincial ESSU Safeguards Focal Person Technical Advisory Team - Component heads - Project compliance officer or equivalent MPMO – CGC Municipal Grievance Officer - Provincial Project Director Municipal CGC Coordinator - Provincial ESSU Safeguards Focal Person Technical Advisory Team - Component heads - Project compliance officer or equivalent Barangay CGC or Barangay Grievance Officer BARC Chairman/Tribal Chieftain Tribal Council/ Members of ICCs/IPs Barangay CGC Coordinator Barangay Safeguards Coordinator conflict resolution (appointed from BARC) designated by the MARPO/DARPO from system among the BARC members or Tribal Council Barangay/Tribal CGC Advisory Select BARC members, Brgy. Team Captain/Tribal Council Members and a representative from the NCIP Functions of CGC Personnel The functions of responsible CGC members will be, as follows: 52. The heads of the CPMO, RPMO, PPMO, MPMO and BARC will serve as the Central, Regional, Provincial, Municipal and Barangay Grievance Officers, respectively. These officers shall manage the CGCs, provide directions on grievance resolution and be responsible in the approval of mitigation measures as prescribed by the technical advisory teams at their own respective levels. 53. The organic DAR personnel designated as Safeguards Specialist (CPMO), Safeguards Focal Persons (RPMO, PPMO & MPMO) and Barangay Safeguards Coordinator (appointed from among the BARC members) will serve as the CGC Coordinators at their respective levels. The CGC Coordinators will perform the following functions, as appropriate: 1. Document and maintain a registry of grievances 2. Screen/determine validity of grievance/concerns 17 3. Initiate resolution process through referral to the CGC 4. Refer issues to concerned project personnel for technical advice 5. Organize team for validation of concerns, as necessary 6. Assist in the resolution process through validation of concerns and technical assistance in crafting mitigation measures 7. Provide written response to concerned project personnel/units, contractors and complainants 8. Refer unresolved complaints to the next higher level of CGC, as appropriate 54. Members of CGC Technical Advisory Teams will provide assistance in the resolution process through validation of concerns and technical assistance in crafting mitigation measures, as needed. 55. Each Technical Advisory Team shall include an organic DAR lawyer or equivalent paralegal with knowledge on labor and work-related laws who shall provide advisory on grievances related to labor or workplace conditions. The CGCs at the central, provincial, regional and national level (which include Safeguards Specialist and Focal Persons designated as CGC Coordinators) shall maintain coordination and communication exchanges with the contractors who employ project-contracted workers to ensure that all labor-related grievances are expeditiously and fairly resolved and systematically documented. 56. All CGC personnel will undergo proper training on the GRM, relevant national laws, regulations and the WB ESF Standards. Project GRM Channels 57. The Project PMOs shall provide appropriate channels for submission of grievances before the start of project implementation, which may include the following: 1. Grievance Drop Box: This provides a means for anonymous complainants to raise concerns without revealing their identities. Labelling the grievance box to a more culturally-sensitive term will be encouraged. The box should be secured and locked before being placed in a secure but accessible area in the barangay/project sites or project offices and should be opened only by authorized CGC personnel on a regular basis (at least once a week) especially during community consultations in the presence of at least one CGC volunteer to ensure proper documentation. 2. A Project CGC email address will be established and disclosed publicly at each project level. 3. An official physical address for Grievance Desk with Contact Persons in every PMO level will be established and publicly disclosed prior to project implementation, where complainants may send complaints through letters via personal, postal or courier delivery. 4. A hotline number or call center at each project level will also be established and can be publicly accessed via voice calls or SMS. Possible Types of Grievances 58. The Project may expect the types of grievances that may be lodged before the CGCs to include the following which will serve as reference for CGC Coordinators in documenting and facilitating resolution of such concerns: 18 1. Non-contentious queries, comments, and suggestions. – This type is non-contentious and merely requests for information/updates, seeks clarification or a response and suggestions to enhance the project design, improve operations and facilitate administrative/logistical support to the project. 2. Compliance with project policies, processes and implementation. – This type of grievance results from the non-observance of project policies or non-performance of obligation of any of the parties involved in project activities, processes and documents. These may be primarily addressed at the barangay-level consultations, although there may be cases especially those involving direct-hired or contracted project workers when action from various PMO levels or in a separate process for project workers in the GRM will be required. 3. Other more serious grievances or complaints. – These may include grievances or offenses pertaining to misuse of funds, allegations of corruption, falsification of public documents, etc. Grievance Handling Procedures 59. The grievance process will be accessible to individual or group stakeholders and other interested/affected parties who may wish to file a grievance or ask clarifications regarding the Project through the use of standard complaint form to be developed and provided by the CGC Coordinators. The grievance process involves major steps as outlined below: Figure 1. Major Steps in the Grievance Handling Process Grievance Grievance Grievance Feedback Follow-Up Intake Verification Action 60. INTAKE – This step involves receipt/filling, recording of complaints and queries in the registry/database of grievances: Step 1: Filing of complaint, feedback or query 61. A Grievance Form (to be prepared prior to project implementation) will be accomplished by the concerned individual or group of individuals or by the CGC Coordinator if needed. Complainant may be project beneficiaries, project affected persons, or other concerned project stakeholders or interested parties, including direct-hires or contracted project workers. The Form shall be filed with CGC Coordinator of the relevant CGC level. 62. Grievances may also be directed at any CGC level by means of various uptakes such as via call, text messaging, e-mail, grievance drop box, and personal appearance. At the barangay level, drop box and personal appearance will be minimum uptakes. Complainants have the right to stay anonymous depending on particular situations, provided that contact information is made available by the complainant to the CGC Coordinator for verification and communication purposes. 19 Step 2: Recording of queries, feedbacks and complaints in the registry/database 63. Any grievance will be recorded by the CGC Coordinator in the Registry/Database of Grievances of the relevant CGC level where the grievance is received/filed. 64. VERIFICATION – This activity includes gathering of facts and clarifying information in order to have a clear picture of the circumstances surrounding the grievance or complaint. It involves the assessment of validity of grievance, conduct of fact-finding meetings/interviews, when necessary. The activities at the relevant CGC level, particularly the CGC Coordinator and the technical advisory team, may include the following: 1. Analysis/review of issues that need to be validated and the persons/parties involved 2. Determination of facts to be verified and how to gather them. Validation methods include site visits, review of documents, interviews and meetings with concerned individuals/groups 3. Secure all documents/means of verifications (MOVs) that will support the findings 4. Ensure that whole procedure is properly documented (such as minutes of meeting, recordings or photos), fair and transparent 5. Present findings/results of validation to the relevant Grievance Officer for their decision. Thus, the next steps in the GRM will be as follows: Step 3: Assessing validity of the query, feedback or complaint 65. The validity of the grievance will be assessed by the CGC Coordinator. If not relevant to the project, the CGC Coordinator will conduct the necessary intervention within five (5) working days such as providing an explanation or education session to the complainant. When the explanation is accepted the complainant will need to sign the Resolution Form (to be prepared prior to project implementation) as indication of acceptance of the explanation. 66. Since grievance may be directed at any level, the CGC Coordinator will also verify if the case is rightfully intended for their level. If assessed otherwise, the CGC Coordinator shall notify and endorse the grievance to the appropriate level for proper resolution. 67. If indeed the grievance is project-related, the CGC Coordinator will refer the case to the relevant CGC level which shall proceed to the next steps of the GRM process. 68. Further, if the grievance is labor-related, the CGC Coordinator will refer the matter to the member of Technical Advisory Team with knowledge on labor laws and the requirements of ESS2 who shall convene a separate GRM process for project workers that may include additional members with competence on labor matters, as needed and necessary. The labor GRM process shall follow in essence the steps described in this GRM but with specific focus on labor issues or concerns raised by aggrieved project workers. 69. Step 4: Organizing fact-finding meetings/interviews with the relevant parties, when needed or required, to further establish facts and circumstances of the case and discuss how to resolve the same. 20 70. If grievance is assessed as valid, project-related, and falls within the first type of grievance, within five (5) working days from the date the complaint was received, the CGC Coordinator shall respond at the point of intake or refer the matter to the appropriate project personnel or unit that can address the same and relay the response to the complainant or inquirer concerned. 71. If the grievance is of the second type, within ten (10) working days from the date the complaint was received, the relevant CGC will organize meetings/consultations/ interviews together with the relevant parties to further investigate and/or establish facts and circumstances of the case and discuss how to resolve the same. Based on these activities, the CGC shall come up with recommendations to resolve the case and present this to the aggrieved party and seek consent to implement such mitigation measure. All meetings should be recorded and copies of the minutes of meetings will be provided to the complainant. The grievance shall be resolved within 15-30 working days upon receipt of grievance. 72. If the grievance is of the third type, within ten (10) working days from the date the complaint was received, the relevant CGC will organize meetings/consultations/ interviews together with the relevant parties to further investigate and/or establish facts and circumstances of the case and discuss how to resolve the same. Based on these activities, the CGC shall come up with recommendations to resolve the case and present this to the aggrieved party and seek consent to implement such mitigation measure. All meetings shall be recorded and copies of the minutes of meetings will be provided to the complainant. The grievance shall be resolved within 30-60 working days upon receipt of grievance. 73. ACTION – This step reflects the steps towards the resolution of the case. Actions to a grievance include openly discussing the issues with relevant parties and arriving at agreements and decisions. 74. In general, the process is kept simple and all grievances will be dealt with at the lowest level possible – at the barangay or municipal level. This is because the ultimate users of the system are the stakeholders of the barangay participating in the Project. They should therefore be kept informed and involved in determining actions to be taken. At this step, the CGC and aggrieved party agree on a resolution, conduct of alternative resolution process, or elevation of grievance to higher CGC level, thus: Step 5: Agreeing on a resolution 75. If aggrieved party agrees with mitigation measure/resolution, the concerned CGC shall implement the agreed resolution. The Resolution Form shall be signed by the complainant and the relevant CGC with copies to be sent to the next CGC level copy furnished the Central CGC. For labor-related grievances, in addition to the copy of the Resolution Form to be furnished, the CGC shall provide guidance with recommendations to the relevant/involved contractor to improve working condition/labor management issues. 76. Confirmation that the case has been resolved from anonymous complainant(s) and those who wouldn’t be able to personally sign the resolution form due to security reasons will be communicated through their provided contact information and will be asked to confirm agreement on the resolution via text message or email. 21 77. FEEDBACK – This step involves replying to the grievance sender and informing the complainant or aggrieved party of the status of his/her complaint. If complainant is unknown, the status or the redress documents covering the complaint will be posted in the appropriate medium to be provided or utilized by the Project. Response to grievances under the first type must be presented during community consultations to provide clear and complete information to persons about their queries. 78. FOLLOW-UP – This step involves determination of the result/outcome of resolved grievances. Follow-up must also be done to all resolved grievances immediately after feedback is provided to the complainant to determine if the final resolution yielded positive result to the aggrieved party. This involves asking whether the complainant was satisfied or not satisfied with the resolution of the issue. The Central and Regional CGCs shall conduct selected audit to review if handling of grievances conforms with the Project’s GRM process. 79. APPEAL – Any person who does not agree with the decision on a complaint or grievance may file an appeal with the next higher level of the grievance redress machinery or to any appropriate project management office. The appeal shall be resolved by the receiving office within 30 working days. Escalation of Grievances to Higher CGC levels 80. In cases where any grievance is not resolved at certain CGC levels, the matter shall be elevated to the next higher CGC level. Thus: 81. Step 6: If no amicable resolution is reached, conduct another resolution procedure or escalate grievance resolution to a higher level, until case is resolved. 82. If no response is received or no action taken by the level to which the complainant filed the grievance within 15 working days after the registration of the complaint, the complainant may appeal/elevate the grievance to the higher CGC level for appropriate action. 83. For example, if no understanding or amicable solution is reached within five (5) days for the first type of grievances, 30 days for the second type, and 60 days for the third type, or if no response is received from the relevant CGC within fifteen (15) days after the registration of complaint, the complainant can file another complaint or appeal, as appropriate, to the next level of CGC and shall cite the reason for elevating the grievance. The concerned higher CGC will organize meetings within ten (10) working days to discuss how to resolve the matter and offer resolution to the complainant. This process is repeated in provincial, regional and central CGCs. 84. If the complainant finds such mitigation measures acceptable, the relevant CGC will implement the resolution. The Resolution Form shall be signed by complainant and the CGC with copies to be sent to the next CGC level copy furnished the Central CGC. Step 7: Case resolved or closed or is outside jurisdiction of the Project GRM 85. A case shall be registered as resolved if the Resolution Form or any other document of its equivalent has been secured from the complainant. If the complainant is still not satisfied with the decision of the Central CGC, in the absence of any response within the stipulated time, the case shall be deemed closed. The complainant, as a last resort, may opt to submit the 22 unresolved case to the courts, or in case of project workers, to proper administrative or existing arbitration procedures with the assistance of the CPMO. 86. The CPMO Desk Officers for complaints and grievances are (1) Atty. Christine Evangelista and Atty. Mary Mae Gadon of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance of DARCO who may be contacted through the following means: (email addresses: director.bala@dar.gov.ph & odbala2015@gmail.com; office address: 3rd Floor, Main Building, Dept. of Agrarian Reform, Elliptical Road, Diliman, QC; Telephone No. 8-453-2220. They shall oversee the proper handling of complaints and grievances and ensure that a summary of the entries of the CGC logs per region shall be part of the progress reports submitted to the World Bank. VI. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT MONITORING AND EVALUATION 87. Relevant Environment and Social Safeguards documents such as the Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP), Environment & Social Assessment (ESA), Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF) and the Environment & Social Commitment Plan (ESCP) shall also be disclosed by the DAR in its website and should be made available in the DARROs, DARPOs and DARMOs. Similarly, project orientation will be conducted in the different DAR field offices covered by the Project SPLIT to update the stakeholders on the approved process and requirements for project implementation. 88. Meetings with stakeholders shall be documented, highlighting agreements and ways forward which will be monitored throughout project implementation. 88. A third party monitor for the Project will be engaged at mid-term and end-of-project under the Project Management & Monitoring and Evaluation component. 23 ANNEXES Annex A. Minutes of Consultation with Stakeholders, Baguio City, Benguet Province Consultation on the Support to Parcelization of Lands for Individual Titling (SPLIT) Project Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) Instruments January 23, 2020, 2:00 - 5:00 P.M. Holiday Inn Hotel, Baguio City I. List of Attendees 1. Ms. Maria Theresa Quiñones World Bank 2. Ms. Maya Villaluz World Bank 3. Mr. Svend Jensby World Bank 4. Mr. Efren Perlas PARCCOM, Abra 5. Mr. Eugene Cales PARCCOM, Benguet 6. Mr. Modesto, Bahul, Sr. PARCCOM, Ifugao 7. Mr. Fransco Alunday PARCCOM, Kalinga 8. Ms. Glory Libang PARCCOM, Mt. Province 9. Mr. John Bugaling PARCCOM ARB Representative 10. Mr. Dick Evasco BARC Chair, Atok , Benguet 11. Mr. Christopher Degay DENR 12. Engr. Antero Mappang, Jr. DENR 13. Ms. Ma. Gina Lopez DENR 14. Atty. Guerrero Felipe ROD, Benguet 15. Atty. Eugene P. Follante DAR, CAR Regional Director 16. Ms. Jane Torribio DAR, CAR CARPO 17. Ms. Angela Pang-ot DAR, CAR, SARPO 18. Mr. Raymund Salio-an DAR, Mt. Province, SARPO 19. Ms. Adela Damaso DAR, OIC PARPO II, Mt. Province 20. Mr. Reynaldo Mamongyao DARPO, Kalinga 21. Mr. Edano Canao OIC PARPO II, DARPO Kalinga 22. Mr. Deogracias Almora PAPRO II, DARPO Ifugao 23. Mr. Peter Bantasan PCAO, DARPO Benguet 24. Ms. Artemio Dumaoang OIC PARPO II, DARPO Apayao 25. Ms. Maritess Ocampo DAR, ARPO II, Abra 26. Atty. Penelope De Dusen OIC PARPO II, DARPO Abra 27. Ms. Maritess Fajardo DAR, CAR-ARPT 28. Mr. Artemio Martin DAR, CAR, Engr. II 29. Mr. Molines Ewis DAR CAR, Engr. II 30. Mr. Jefferson Lasaten DAR, CAR, SARPO 31. Mr. Edgardo Basas DAR 32. Mr. Eric Ramos DAR 33. Mr. Nelson Montalan DAR 34. Usec. Bernie F. Cruz FASPO and Project Implementation Officer 35. Asec. Ubaldo Sadiarin, Jr. FASPO 36. Asec. Ma. Celerina G. Afable Support Services Office 24 37. Dir. Homer Tobias Regional Director - I, Special Asst. for SPLIT Project 38. Dir. Marjorie Ayson BALA 39. Dir. Joey Sumatra BLTI 40. Dir. James Arsenio Ponce PARC Secretariat 41. Atty. Christine Evangelista BALA 42. Ms. Rosario Regalado Project Management Service 43. Ms. Arlene Pascua Project Management Service 44. Ms. Jonna Mae Torre UFASPO 45. Ms. Inna Almodal UFASPO 46. Mr. Fred Abad UFASPO 47. Mr. Kier Racimo UFASPO II. Proceedings The consultation meeting started at 2:30 in the afternoon with Asec. Ubaldo Sadiarin, Jr. delivered his welcome message to the participants. CARPO Jane Torribio of DAR-CAR acknowledged the presence of the different partner line agencies and stakeholders while Ms. Rosario Regalado of Project Management Service presented a brief background of the Support to Parcelization of Lands for Individual Titling (SPLIT) Project and it was followed by the presentation of Atty. Christine Evangelista on the environmental and social framework instruments. After the presentation, an open forum followed where questions and clarifications on the Project SPLIT were made and comments to the safeguards approach and instruments were raised. III. Open Forum Question/Clarification/Suggestions Response 1. Atty. Guerrero Felipe (Registry of Deeds/ROD, Benguet): a. Suggested that in the approved - RD Homer Tobias (DAR, Region 1): survey plans, the road right- of-way Appreciated the suggestion and noted that (RROW) should be included. RROW should indeed be considered. b. What if one of the owners of - RD Homer Tobias (DAR, Region 1): collective CLOA (CCLOA) died, Issues on heirs is addressed in the the subdivision of CLOA would be Department Administrative Order (DAO) delayed? No. 2 (series of 2019). c. Suggested that the name of the - RD Homer Tobias (DAR, Region 1): It is previous owner should not be clearly stated in DAO No. 2 (series of removed from the original CCLOA 2019) that the names of the heirs of the even if it was already transferred to original owners/ARBs are the ones the heirs, to clearly show that it indicated in the CCLOAs. was not yet paid by the original owner. d. Overlap of CCLOA with - Director Joey Sumatra (DAR, Bureau of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Land Tenure Improvement/BLTI): The Title (CADT), in ancestral SPLIT Project will undertake an inventory domains. to identify if there are CCLOAs issued in 25 ancestral domain areas, and whether these were issued before or after the enactment of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA). e. Is there a need to get free and prior informed consent (FPIC) under the - Mr. Svend Jensby (World Bank/WB): SPLIT Project since CCLOAs are ESS7 requires that the IPs should be issued already? There is no need consulted and informed of the Project, its since the SPLIT Project’s benefits, risks and impact, and that they intervention is not an infrastructure provide FPIC on the Project. However, the or business investment – these are definition of FPIC in the Indigenous the activities where FPIC is Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF) required under the Indigenous should refer to the FPIC definition Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA). following ESS7 and not the IPRA definition. Requirements under the IPRA will be confirmed with NCIP. 2. Dir. James Ponce (Presidential - Asec. Celerina Afable (DAR, Support Agrarian Reform Council Secretariat) Services Office/SSO): Some of the wanted to be clarified on the regular/locally-funded and foreign-assisted Department of Agriculture’s (DA’s) projects of DAR provide technical programs to be tapped such as sloping assistance on SALT, IPM and organic agriculture technology (SALT), agriculture. As the Project is a land titling integrated pest management (IPM), and activity, individual CLOA holders will be organic agriculture; and if these are the linked to these technical assistance same programs that DAR also provide including those under the programs and to the ARBs. projects of the DA and DENR. 3. Ms. Adela Damaso (DAR, PARPO-Mt. - RD Homer Tobias (DAR, Region 1): Province) asked if during the conduct DAR will provide the list of ARBs in areas of survey, it was found out that classified as forest (including timberland) portions of the CCLOA is classified as to DENR for them to process the timberland, but the actual/current usage appropriate stewardship contract or is an agricultural land, how should we tenurial instrument. He cited the example classify the land? Which would prevail of Palawan which is classified as - the land classification or the current timberland but is now a rice land with land use? irrigation facilities. Such case will be covered by the Joint Administrative Order (JAO) being formulated by DAR and DENR. - Director Joey Sumatra (DAR, BLTI): A Presidential Directive provides information about the appropriate tenurial instruments. - Director Marjorie Ayson (DAR, Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance/BALA): Emphasized that prior to survey, projections would be undertaken by DENR 26 to identify the land classification. In view of this, it is not possible that the survey will be stopped in the middle of the activity because of incorrect land classification. It is important that DAR strictly adhere to and follow the parcelization process. - Staff of Bureau of Land Tenure Improvement (DAR, BLTI): It is an opportune time that under the Project, the DENR will undertake the verification of the land classification. The projection will not only address the DAR’s CCLOAs but also DENR’s and LRA’s concerns. 4. Engr. Christopher Degay (DENR) - Director Marjorie Ayson (DAR, BALA): shared that during the time of former The land classification during that time President Joseph Estrada, all the could have been based only on table distributed CCLOAs were classified as validation. Under the SPLIT Project, this timberland and should be reverted back would be done properly through actual/on- to DENR. the-ground validation. 5. Mr. Efren Perlas (Provincial Agrarian - Director Joey Sumatra (DAR, BLTI): The Reform Committee or PARCCOM, PARCCOM should be involved in the Abra) suggested that the PARCCOM project as well as the Barangay Agrarian should be notified during the “pulong- Reform Council (BARC). Their roles are pulong. very critical during the validation process because they know the area and the ARBs. The BARC is also very much involved in the implementation of the Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM). - Director Marjorie Ayson (DAR, BALA): Agreed that the PARCCOM should look at “technical displacement” to protect the original ARBs. The PARCCOM can also help in the dissemination of notices to ARBs. 6. CARPO Jane Torribio (DAR-CAR) - Mr. Svend Jensby (WB): Explained that asked if the “pulong-pulong” would what is required in the IPRA should be suffice as compliance to the FPIC followed and this needs to be confirmed process. with the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) and legal experts. As regards the World Bank, the safeguards instruments should be followed, and the ESS7’s FPIC definition and requirements should be integrated into the participatory process for subdivision of 27 CCLOAs. It was also noted that regional differences should be considered, including the decision making processes of IPs in a particular area. - Mr. Edano Canao (DAR, Kalinga PARPO): Indicated that there is no need to seek FPIC as there is no conflict of interest between the NCIP/IP and the DAR as CCLOAs are issued already. - Atty. Guerrero Felipe (ROD, Benguet): Shared that in Benguet there are no conflict between CCLOA and CADT as the CCLOAs were issued long before the IPRA enactment. - Director Marjorie Ayson (DAR, BALA): Shared the experience in Nueva Vizcaya where the Bungkalot tribe prefer the CLOA over the CADTs since with CLOA they were provided with support services, while with CADT access to support services is hardly provided by the NCIP. 7. Ms. Maya Villaluz (WB): Asked if - Atty. Guerrero Felipe (ROD, Benguet): there are CCLOAs/CADTs issued in Explained that in the Cordillera protected areas? Administrative Region, there are CADTs within timberlands and protected areas. In closing, Ms. Maria Theresa Quiñones of the World Bank thanked and appreciated the participation of the stakeholders. She added that they gathered new learnings from the consultation that would be useful in finalizing the safeguards instruments. She encouraged the participants to visit the DAR website, study the safeguards documents and share additional feedback with DAR. 28 Annex B. National Stakeholders’ Consultation for Project SPLIT National Consultation on the Support to Parcelization of Lands for Individual Titling (SPLIT) Project Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) Instruments January 28, 2020, 10:00 - 12:00 N.N. HRD Training Center, DAR Compound, Elliptical Road, Diliman, Quezon City I. List of Attendees 1. Ms. Maria Theresa Quiñones World Bank 2. Ms. Maya Villaluz World Bank 3. Mr. Svend Jensby World Bank 4. Mr. John Bugaling PARC 5. Mr. Jaime Tadeo PARC 6. Mr. Alexander Jacob DENR 7. Mr. Stanley Lota DENR 8. Ms. Kristine Mercado DA 9. Ms. Frances Antonette Brillo DA 10. Mr. Warlito Cabuna DA 11. Ms. Shelly Calata NCIP 12. Mr. Abdullah Lakarin NCIP 13. Mr. Guerrero Patino DENR-BMB 14. Mr. Norlito Sarmiento DENR-FMB 15. Mr. Henry Pacis DENR-LMB 16. Mr. Warlito Quirimit DENR-LMB 17. Mr. Alex Lorayes Land Bank of the Philippines 18. Usec. Bernie F. Cruz FASPO and Project Implementation Officer 19. Asec. Ubaldo Sadiarin, Jr. FASPO 20. Usec. Emily Padilla Support Services Office 21. Asec. Ma. Celerina G. Afable Support Services Office 22. Ms. Lucienne Pulgar Project Management Service 23. Ms. Clemencia Padrinao Project Management Service 24. Ms. Rosario Regalado Project Management Service 25. Ms. Arlene Pascua Project Management Service 26. Ms. Desirie Chua Project Management Service 27. Ms. Jonna Mae Torre UFASPO 28. Ms. Inna Almodal UFASPO 29. Mr. Fred Abad UFASPO 30. Mr. Willar Panti UFASPO 31. Mr. Jose Mari Hernando AFASPO 32. Mr. Philip Alvarez AFASPO 33. Atty. Elmer Distor Asec. FOO 34. Atty. Lucius Jun-Jun Malsi Undersecretary, FMAO 35. Dir. Susana Leones BARBD 36. Dir. Nestor Bayoneto MISS 37. Ms. Marcy Ballesteros FOO 38. Ms. Dalangin Parel DAR - CALABARZON 39. Mr. Ramon Dayrit DAR - CALABARZON 29 40. Mr. Rey Bicera DAR - MIMAROPA 41. Ms. Jane Torribio DAR - CAR II. Proceedings The consultation meeting started at 10:30 in the morning, Undersecretary Bernie F. Cruz delivered the welcome message to the participants. He said that the activity is part of the responsibility of the Department to provide update on and disclose the SPLIT Project and its environmental and social safeguards to the stakeholders. The discussion will focus on the environmental and social framework instruments to gather comments and inputs from all the stakeholders and to address all the issues and concerns before the project starts. PARPO Marcy Ballesteros acknowledged the presence of the different line agencies and stakeholders. Assistant Secretary Ma. Celerina G. Afable presented a brief background of the Support to Parcelization of Lands for Individual Titling (SPLIT) Project and it was followed by the presentation of Ms. Rosario Regalado on the Environmental and Social Framework Instruments. After the presentation, the floor was opened for comments and questions. III. Open Forum Question/Clarification/Suggestions Response 1. Mr. Alex Lorayes (Landbank of the - Noted Philippines/LBP): Shared that the Project should look at the situation on the ground, if it is suited for agriculture and it is the current land use, the production side should be taken into consideration be it within or outside of timberland. But if the nature of the land is like 18 degrees slope and forestland then there may be a need to change the tenurial instrument. Provision for resettlement and housing should also be considered. 2. Mr. Henry Pacis (DENR-Land - Usec. Bernie Cruz (DAR-FAPSO): Said Management Bureau/LMB): Shared that primarily the project was done to that there is no land classification solve the issues on land classification and before. Some lands were erroneously to help the ARBs. classified the lands in the old patent. It is even more difficult to correct when it is transferred and approved in the LRA. We have to look at the condition of the area, if the slope of the land is above 18 degrees, technically it is classified as forest land and we need to change the classification of the land. 30 3. Mr. Lorayes (LBP): Inquired whether - Usec. Bernie Cruz (DAR-FASPO): There we are looking at areas that are are initiatives between DAR-DENR which generally classified as agricultural? were incorporated in the safeguards instruments. For areas that are located in He suggested to have DAR-DENR forest land, the ARBs will not be displaced agreement that areas within timberland and they will be provided with the correct utilized for agricultural purposes tenurial instrument. Also, we have to should be released, so that full support ensure that there is no overlapping so that will be extended to ARBs. Provision of the proper tenurial instrument will be housing could also be done. provided. 4. Mr. Guerrero Patino (DENR- - Noted. Biodiversity Management Bureau/BMB): Mentioned that it is a welcome development to settle the boundaries especially in the protected areas to correct the mistakes in the past. He shared that Republic Act (RA) 7586 or National Integrated Protected Area System (NIPAS) Act was amended by RA 1103-A (E-NIPAS Act). He added that the BMB initiatives to set boundaries/delineate protected areas, undertake socio economic survey of tenurial migrants and identification of occupants are among the activities that may compliment the DAR’s and DENR’s efforts. 5. Mr. Norlito Sarmiento (DENR-Forest - Noted. Management Bureau/FMB): Said that on the part of FMB there is an ongoing classification of protection and production forest in cooperation with NAMRIA. He agreed that there will be no displacement as CCLOAs that overlaps with timberlands will only require a change in tenurial status. 6. Usec. Lucius Jun-Jun Malsi (DAR- Though not addressed directly in the meeting, Financial Management and WB’s ESS5 on Land Acquisition, Administration/FMA): Shared that the Restrictions on Land Use and Involuntary SPLIT Project is not a development Resettlement applies to SPLIT Project and 31 project in a sense that it only involves requires that affected persons are supported the provision of individual title/CLOA to maintain their levels of livelihoods and to the rightful owner. With regard to that lost assets, i.e. crops, structures are the case of informal settlers, the DAR compensated at replacement costs. This is has to be careful to avoid Commission also spelled out in the Project’s Resettlement on Audit (COA) disallowances which Policy Framework. is experienced now by the Railway Project and other projects. As the government is not morally or legally obligated to pay compensation but maybe disturbances payment, it is not required to provide payment as in paying new lands. - Mr. Svend Jensby (WB): Said that DAR On the issue of Indigenous Peoples should follow the local law which is the (IPs), he asked what law are we going IPRA Law in terms of what forms of title to follow in terms of types of titling, is offered to IPs; the Bank is not requiring the local or international law? changes to national law. However, he noted that the ESS7 would apply to the SPLIT Project and would require a consultative process obtaining consent from IPs on titling activities, but that the Bank would not impose a particular type of titling for IPs outside of the SPLIT Project. It was also supported by Mr. Lorayes of Landbank. 7. Mr. Lorayes (LBP): Inquired on the - Asst. Secretary Elmer Distor (DAR-Field reckoning period to comply with the 10 Operations Office/FOO): Replied that as years holding period. He said that DAR ownership is not clearly defined in should clearly define this. If it will be CCLOA, it would be difficult for the from the issuance of the CCLOA or farmers to pay both amortization and registration date of the individual taxes. It could be that amortization should CLOA. This should be clearly defined start at the issuance of individual CLOA in the Administrative Order being while the holding period effectivity starts prepared by the DAR. at the issuance of the CCLOA. It is a “policy issue” and should consider which He also shared that under Private is more beneficial for the ARBs. Agricultural Land (PAL), there are 798,000 hectares without Land - Usec. Bernie Cruz (DAR-FASPO): Distribution and Information Schedule Assured that the Project involves (LDIS), and involving about 411,000 interagency coordination. So the DAR is ARBs which have a collectible amount closely coordinating with DENR and of PhP44.33 billion. LRA. Mr. Lorayes also expressed his reservations for the 3-year implementation period of the Project. 32 8. Mr. John Bugaling (PARCCOM): - Noted. Suggested that the DAR do a “Cimatu, in Boracay” for this Project, i.e., involving convergence. He added that the PARCCOM can be tapped in the monitoring and provide quick response as needed. 9. Mr. Guerrero Patino (DENR-BMB): - Ms. Rosario Regalado (DAR-PMS): Said Inquired about the composition of the that the team will be project-hired as safeguards team. project management offices will be organized. - Usec. Bernie Cruz (DAR-FASPO): Added that there will be Steering Committees that will be created that will involve representatives from the different concerned agencies. 10. Usec. Emily Padilla (DAR - Support - Asec. Elmer Distor (DAR-FOO): The Services Office): She was concerned validation process is still ongoing. on the number of ARBs that would benefit from the parcelization project - Usec. Bernie Cruz (DAR-FASPO): Said and who should be given support that about 1.1 million ARBs will benefit services. from SPLIT Project. 11. Ms. Maya Villaluz (WB): Asked for - Usec. Bernie Cruz (DAR-FASPO): Said clarification on the status of the ARBs that the best safeguard measure for the first to make sure that each of the part of the project, is for the World Bank stakeholders/people that would be to support the DAR’s project like the involved in the project would be IPAC which will be repackaged by the protected. Also, to make sure that Department next year. proper support services would be given to the ARBs. To have balance between social and the environment. In closing, Ms. Maria Theresa Quiñones of World Bank thanked the DAR and the rest of the attendees for the inputs provided during the consultation. She encouraged the participants to visit the DAR website, study the safeguards documents and share additional feedback with DAR. Asec. Elmer Distor ended the consultation sharing that to correct the errors of the past there is a need to expedite the process, check the reckoning date of the CCLOA, whichever is favorable with the ARBs, include safeguards in the implementation and look forward to another project. 33 Annex C. 2nd National Stakeholders’ Consultation for Project SPLIT with NGOs/POs Consultation on the Support to Parcelization of Lands for Individual Titling (SPLIT) Project Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) Instruments February 19, 2020, 10:00 - 1:00 P.M. OSEC Boardroom, DAR, Quezon City IV. List of Attendees 48. Fr. Francis Lucas Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and 49. Mr. Nataniel Don Marquez Rural Development (ANGOC) 50. Mr. Thaddeus Martinez Haribon Foundation 51. Ms Mary Claire Demaisip KAISAHAN Tungo sa Kaunlaran ng Kanayunan 52. Ms Christine N. Ariban at Repormang Pansakahan 53. Mr. Eugenio T. Eugenio Foundation for the Philippine Environment (FPE) 54. Mr. Nanding Anati Magsasaka Partylist 55. Ms Ayi T. Alimodal Magsasaka Partylist 56. Ms Carla Santos Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) 57. Ms Joe-Anna Marie Abelinde Center for Agrarian Reform & Rural Development 58. Ms. Melania B. Conta (CARRD) 59. Mr. Jose P. Amora CARRD 60. Mr. Lagtum Pasag Buhid Mangyan 61. Mr. Mandy Y. Sumbad Sadik Habanan Bukid –Mindoro (SHB) 62. Mr. Datya Igna SHB 63. Mr. Matigan Soligan SHB 64. Mr. Ireneo R. Cerilla Pambansang Kilusan ng mga Samahang Magsasaka 65. Mr. Raul Socrates Banzuela (PAKISAMA) 66. Mr. David Llorito World Bank 67. Ms. Maya Villaluz World Bank 68. Usec. Bernie F. Cruz FASPO and Project Implementation Officer 69. Usec Emily Padilla Support Service Office 70. Asec. Ubaldo Sadiarin, Jr. FASPO 71. Asec. Ma. Celerina G. Afable Support Services Office/PMS 72. Dir. Homer Tobias Regional Director - I, Special Asst. for SPLIT Project 73. Dir. Marjorie Ayson BALA 74. Atty. Christine Evangelista BALA 75. Mr. Adriel Quezada BALA 76. Dir. Ma. Susana E. Leones BARBD 77. ADir. Ma.Elena Cabanes BARBD 78. Ms Lucienne S. Pulgar Project Management Service 79. Ms Clemencia Padrinao Project Management Service 80. Ms Josie Arevalo Project Management Service 81. Ms. Rosario Regalado Project Management Service 82. Ms.Jennifer Bartolome Project Management Service 83. Mr. Ron Tolentino Project Management Service 84. Ms Desirie Chua Project Management Service 85. Ms. Jonna Mae Torre UFASPO 86. Mr. Jules Espiras UFASPO 34 87. Mr. Fred Abad UFASPO 88. Mr. Kier Racimo UFASPO 89. Mr. Roberto E. Giue PAMRS 90. Ms Pinky Roque PAMRS 91. Mr. Jeffrey Quianzon BLTI 92. Mr. Jade Intela GSD 93. Ms Dianne D. Salto Office ASec FASPO 94. Mr. Derrick Delos Reyes Office ASec FASPO 95. Mr. Eduardo R. Regio Office of UFOO V. Proceedings The consultation meeting started at 10:20 AM and was chaired by Asec Ma. Celerina G. Afable of SSO and Project Management Service. She requested each of the participants to introduced themselves and their organization. Undersecretary Bernie Cruz of FASPO welcomed and thanked everyone for attending the meeting. He shared that the consultation was called for to inform the body on what the SPLIT Project is and to present the environmental and social framework instruments of the Project which is among the requirements of the World Bank. He added that through the stakeholders’ consultation, the Department seeks inputs, comments and suggestions on the safeguards instruments from the NGO partners on agrarian reform, indigenous peoples, environment and rural development. Asec Afable presented the background of the Support to Parcelization of Lands for Individual Titling (SPLIT) Project, its rationale, objectives, coverage and components (Annex A). It was followed by the presentation of Atty. Christine Evangelista of BALA on the environmental and social framework instruments (Annex B). After the presentation, an open forum followed where questions and clarifications on the Project SPLIT were made and comments to the safeguards approach and instruments were raised. VI. Highlights of Open Forum Question/Clarification/Suggestions Response 1. Mr. Lagtum Pasag Buhid Mangyan, Oriental Mindoro Based on how we understand the Usec. Bernie Cruz, DAR FASPO: concept of the project, there’s a possibility that the IPs inhabiting the Noted the observation and suggestion of Mr. area, where the collective CLOA Pasag. (CCLOA) exist, would be greatly affected as the IPs would have to be relocated should the project come into Fr. Francis Lucas, ANGOC: full implementation. As there are CCLOA existing in Mindoro that may Reiterated that one of the concerns raised by include “sacred area” like ancestral Mr. Pasag is the unsettled issues on the domain, burial site of IPs, and some overlapping CADT with CLOA in Mindoro. watershed. Usec. Cruz, FASPO: When the IPs were displaced due to the actual parcelization of the CCLOA, they Informed the group that based on RA 6657 might go to the mountains and do their and in RA 9700, DAR is tasked to undergo 35 Question/Clarification/Suggestions Response agricultural activities there, do parcelization of CCLOA. And with the “kaingin”, and might cut some forest coming of the SPLIT Project, wherein DAR, trees. Sometimes, it’s the government together with other institutions involved in policies that push us to go to the providing instrument for land ownership mountains and do things that are (e.g., LRA, DENR, NCIP), will pursue this detrimental to the environment. subdivision of CCLOA. DAR is in continuous consultation, and part of the Our CADT, which was awarded in 2012 SPLIT Project is the hiring and assignment of were not recognized. We hope that with personnel in DENR and LRA, who provide this project, the DAR together with dedicated work on land titling. Usec. Cruz DENR, and LRA, as lead agencies also shared to the group that the purpose of involved in land titling, will recognize the project is to have a clear delineation of and look into the overlapping of our the of beneficiaries’ tenurial instrument. CADT with CLOAs and settle the issue once and for all. It was explained that there is a JAO No 1 s. 2012 among DENR, DAR, NCIP and LRA Suggested that: to address the jurisdictional and operational issues between and among the agencies.1 a. DENR, DAR, and NCIP should discuss among themselves about the imminent effects of this project to the IP communities and mutually agree on what’s the appropriate thing to do. b. FPIC be observed in projects. c. For DAR and NCIP to discuss among themselves, especially in the identification of beneficiaries. There were cases that the identified beneficiaries were not the original occupants of the actual land, but from other adjacent municipalities. 2. Claire Demaisip, Policy Advocacy Campaign & Legal Affairs Director Homer Tobias, DAR- Region 1: Coordinator, KAISAHAN Agreed with the observation, as there were some cases where the IPs, though they know Inquired if the IP-beneficiaries in areas that the area is an ancestral domain, they with CCLOAs in ancestral domain insist that their lands be covered and be given lands, under the SPLIT Project, be given a CLOA, that’s why they were awarded with the option not to undergo parcelization CCLOA. The SPLIT Project provide options and for their land to remain in CCLOA if they still want to remain under a CCLOA status until such time they are ready for or not. RD Tobias added that there are certain parcelization. conditions on how they will remain under a CCLOA so that their ongoing agricultural activities and practices remain and respected. 36 Question/Clarification/Suggestions Response She also said that the DAR should also recognize the idea that for some beneficiaries, like the IP communities, having a CCLOA is beneficial to them in managing their consolidated agri production which is collective in nature. 3. Joe Anna Marie Casidsid-Abelinde, RAV Manager, CARRD Director Marjorie Ayson (Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance or BALA): Shared that in 2017, CARRD and the Asian Institute of Management, Responded that based on the Administrative conducted a study on CCLOA Order on parcelization, there is a portion parecelization, in Panay Island, there that is “Pulong-Pulong” which is part of particularly in Capiz. the DAR’s program on ARB Validation. The DAR accept the reality that from the time the She mentioned that the initial slides in CCLOAs were awarded to these the presentations looked very similar to beneficiaries, with that span of time, and to their study and clarified what DAR validate the status of this CCLOA today, mean by ‘operational bottlenecks in there really is a possibility that the actual CCLOA parcelization.’ occupants are not there anymore. She elaborated that based on their study, She informed that in the first “pulong- the most difficult part in the stages of pulong”, the group will be joined by the CCLOA parcelization lies on the first MARO and a Legal Officer wherein they stage where we validate whether the will validate whether the names appearing at original occupants of the awarded land, the back of the CCLOA title are still there if they are still the one occupying the and occupying the said land. said land. Validation on the original occupants of the CCLOA is very After the ARB validation, the next step is to difficult, and that happens during the look into who are presently stage one. occupying/cultivating the land. Whoever is currently occupying / cultivating the said She asked DAR on how to address the land is not guaranteed that they will be the operation bottlenecks, especially at the one to be awarded with individual CLOA. grassroots level. They need to pass or undergo farmer beneficiary screening. We all know for a fact She shared that CARRD have an that these current occupants of the land could ongoing partnership with DAR-Iloilo be those who bought the rights to the land and DAR-Capiz regarding the strategy from the original CCLOA holder. on the parcelization of CCLOA. The intervention provided to the farmers is The field officials would have to look into the on capacitating them within their actual cultivators if they qualify under landholdings so they can be empowered Section 22 of RA 6657, check on the total to be in-charge with the affairs of their aggregate land holding of the actual lands with the help of para-legals. She cultivator, if its more than three (3) hectares said that the CARRD can share with of the award ceiling, he/she will be DAR their strategy paper to help secure disqualified.2 the property rights of the farmers who want to parcelized their lands. 37 Question/Clarification/Suggestions Response She appreciated the gesture of Ms. Abelinde in sharing their strategy paper. She added that the DAR, particularly in the regional offices like CAR, Region 1, and Region 2, implements Agrarian Justice on Wheels, wherein both DARAB and Legal Sector go out of their way and conduct hearings to address the plight of the farmers. Director Homer Tobias, DAR - Region 1: Also welcomed the sharing of the CARRD ‘s strategy paper. 4. Rene Cerilla, Policy Advocacy Leader Director Ayson, BALA: PAKISAMA As a rejoinder to her previous response from Asked if the declared CCLOA found the query of Ms. Abelinde, she said that there out to be overlapping within an is a Monitoring Form under AO 2, the ancestral domain, who do we award the “Whereabouts of the farmer”, and under the title? “Remarks” portion, it should include information on how the rights on the lands How does the flow of support services were transferred from the original occupants be within these parcelarized /subdivided to the current occupants. CCLOA? In response to the question raised by Mr. Who will pay for the fees needed for Cerilla re who do we award the title when the titling? there’s an overlapping of CCLOA with CADT, Dir. Ayson responded that based on And how about those CCLOA where the the AO 2, there are various categories per beneficiaries have arrears in the situation: payment of amortization, will it be parcelarized? And if it was really proven a. Regular CCLOA (no issue with CADT, that there were arrears and the original no overlapping) – this is the ideal beneficiaries are missing…can the land situation. CCLOA within the domain of be awarded to other beneficiaries? Like DAR to distribute, and within the domain consider awarding it to our young farmers who are having a problem of DAR to cover. If there’s an actual looking for lands to till / cultivate. occupant in the land, all we have to go through is the qualification or disqualification based on Section 22 of RA 6657. b. CCLOA within timberland /forest land per projection but based on the actual use it is a developed agricultural land. There are appropriate provisions which we include in the safeguard instrument. There is an ongoing work on this matter with DENR. 38 Question/Clarification/Suggestions Response c. CCLOA that overlaps with a CADT – we have guidelines on this. Director Tobias, DAR- Region 1: In addition, on the explanation given by Dir. Ayson, Dir. Tobias further that when there’s an overlap of CCLOA with a CADT, what the DAR normally do as indicated in the law, is to assess and determine what title was issued first? Is it the CCLOA or the CADT? If we were to check, we have issued several CCLOA prior to the promulgation of the IPRA Law in 1997. So based on our process, it should be the CCLOA. Usec. Emily O. Padilla, DAR- Support Services Office (SSO): On the issuance of CADT, it is very clear on the IPRA Law, that the vested rights within the CADT / CADC issued will be respected. We really have to determine, IPRA Law was passed in 1997, and CARP is 1988, and 1972 is PD 27, we really have to respect the titles issued prior to IPRA Law. Secondly, we need to check what was overlapped, is it Ancestral Domain or Ancestral Title. It’s very clear that ancestral domain cannot be parcelarized nor be covered as CCLOA. But if it’s a CADT, it can be parcelarized and be divided to the individual IPs. That’s why, during the validation process, we need to qualify if it’s a Domain or a CADT. Director Tobias, DAR- Region 1: On the query whether who will pay the fees for the titling, Dir. Tobias responded that from the time that the CARP was implemented, it still the DAR who pay for the cost of the titling. 5. Jose Amora, Para-Legal and Manager of ARB organization - KASAPI. CARRD-assisted 39 Question/Clarification/Suggestions Response Mr. Amora shared to the group support services their organization was able to access from the ARCCESS project of DAR like the dump truck and credit assistance under the APCP. He also shared his observation that a farmer from their community was disqualified from availing an APCP credit assistance because he sold his right to a piece of land that is covered under CCLOA. However, despite this, the said farmer was also wishing that he be granted a 3-has. of land and file an exclusion case against other farmer beneficiaries. There was an order of finality by the Regional Office. The said case is now at the Supreme Court. With this, he suggested that the government should have a “sharp tool” to penalize the violator. The field officials at the grassroot level, the MAROs and the PAROs, will only rely on the procedure. The name of the said violator remains in the CCLOA, so when the redocumentation process and parcelization process proceed, that violator will still receive his individual CLOA. The money that we will loan from the WB will only be put into waste if we will not penalize this kind of violator. Let us protect other beneficiaries. 6. Eugene Eugenio, NLO Coordinator Dir. Tobias, DAR- Region 1: Foundation for Phil. Environment Informed that Undersecretary Pangulayan of Commented that he is looking for the Legal Affairs Office of DAR heads the participation of NCIP in the project meeting on the said Joint Administrative because there will be a conflict with the Order (JAO) No. 1 between DAR, DENR, IPRA Law. NCIP to be on board in the LRA, and NCIP. The meeting is convincing project. NCIP to go back to the group to perfect the JAO as it serves a platform for the NCIP to On the JAO No. 1, between DAR, lay issues and concerns on IPs/ancestral DENR, LRA, and NCIP, I think there domain matters. was an information that NCIP is 40 Question/Clarification/Suggestions Response withdrawing its intention to be involved in the discussion of the JAO. 7. Mr. Matigon Suligan Dir. Tobias, DAR- Region 1: Sadik Habanan Buhid - Mindoro Stated that though he does not have clear Problem with our CCLOA, whom do we background of the issue/case cited by Mr. consult to address our concerns on the Suligan, he assured that with the SPLIT overlapping claims. Some of the farmers Project, said concerns will be included when occupying the land were not original the Project conducts its validation. The occupants of that land, they’re from various types of situations at the ground level other municipality. We hope that with will be reviewed and evaluated and will the SPLIT Project, our problem will eventually be resolved as to who is the have its resolution. qualified beneficiary for that piece of land. 8. Mr. Raul Socrates Banzuela, Executive Dir. Tobias, DAR, Region 1: Director, PAKISAMA We are mandated under RA 9700 that we Shared that he is both happy and sad, parcelize the CCLOA. happy as he met old friends and partners in DAR, but sad as he asked Usec. Cruz, DAR FASPO: the following questions: Based on the project’s development a) Do we really need this project? objective of –improve land tenure security b) How important is the issuance of and strengthen property rights of ARBs. It individual title? will address issues on IPs and forest land c) Was there ever a research conducted overlaps. that says that unless it is titled Since most of the farmers/ARBs are old, the individually, the lands will not be children who have the capacity to improve productive, their cooperatives will the lands will be encourage to do so not progress? especially if they have the title. What is needed is individual survey, He added that the problem if the CCLOA is parceliary survey for the ARBs to know in the name of the cooperative, if the farmer where their exact location if for member left the coop, the land is left as well. individual planning. He cited the Pecuaria experience, with more than 400 He also cited Hacienda Luisita, since the members, in about 800 hectares with no farmers do not have the title with them individual title. Hence the farmers were earlier, there were selling of lands, but when not able to sell their land. When the 20% the titles were distributed individually, the became successful they are helping the farmers are more secured. 80%. He agreed that the DAR should ensure that He further said that individual titling is the lands should be made productive and not a pre-requisite for the lands to be provided with support services. That the productive. It will only facilitate best safeguard is the support services provided to the farmers. 41 Question/Clarification/Suggestions Response rampant selling of lands, of the farm, of rights. Usec Bernie Cruz added that the DAR is not alone in the implementation of the SPLIT Hence, individual titling should be done Project, partners like DENR, LRA and with corresponding measures and NCIP. conditions like, (i) complete support services will be provided to the ARBs, (ii) ARB must be member of cooperative, (iii) that they can only sell their farm to the cooperatives/organizations. He also suggested that, the DAR may include representatives from the group as part of the Steering Committee when the Project is implemented. 9. Rene Cerilla, PAKISAMA Usec. Cruz, FASPO: Cited several situations where the It is really in the law that we need to poverty felt by farmer would prompt parcelized and distribute the CCLOA into them to sell their lands: individual title and it’s a marching order from the President. a. The need to feed their families b. The need to send their children to Also, for the Land Bank of the Philippines to school collect the land amortization for the private agricultural lands. c. When the lands they are occupying are surrounded with “converted agri There are government programs that are lands” implemented to address such issues.3 The farmers are vulnerable to sell their lands, with the issues on rice tariffication, low prices of copra/coconut, among others. The farmers are pushed to sell their right over their land (CCLOA), and more so if it’s already individually titled. 10. Fr. Francis Lucas, ANGOC Usec. Cruz, FASPO: Commented that when the land is titled, Noted the comments and suggestions. it is more vulnerable for selling. Raised two issues: (i) land grabbing, and (ii) not so young farmers If no support on the agriculture, from the government, with or without title, farmers will sell their land. 42 Question/Clarification/Suggestions Response He asked: a. Clean CCLOA – are the farmers have option not to parcelize their lands? b. On conflict re overlapping - who really decides? JAO was issued to guide in the decision making, but until now issues remain unresolved, now, the NCIP withdraw their participation in the JAO. On inter- departmental issues, who decides? He suggested the following points: a. Strengthening the policies/law on land conversion from agriculture to other uses. b. Electronic transparency platform for other stakeholders to have access to information 11. Mr. Nathaniel Don Marquez, Executive Usec. Cruz, FASPO: Director, ANGOC Reiterated that the DAR is mandated to Agreed that titled land will increase parcelize the CCLOA and distribute tenurial security, but it is not the only individual title. He added that the marching security measure, so the project should order from the President is to complete the include safeguard components such as distribution of lands, including all the support services, legal environment balances for land distribution before his against land conversion, conflict administration ends. resolution especially during identification of the beneficiaries, gender equity. Rosario R. Regalado, DAR –PMS He asked the plan of the government on Requested permission to share… that the the balance of the land for distribution. SPLIT Project, prepared the environmental and social safeguards that would address He also asked the basis for choosing concerns on conflict resolution, on Regions 1, 8 and 9 for the field testing. indigenous peoples, on resettlements, on overlaps in protected areas and forest lands. On safeguard measures, how can These environmental and social safeguards interested parties participate and how instruments are posted at the DAR website, this can be implemented in the ground that comments and inputs on these level? documents are welcome to help the 43 Question/Clarification/Suggestions Response Department implement the SPLIT Project well. 12. Mr. Thaddeus Martinez, Usec Cruz, DAR FASPO: HARIBON Foundation, Inc. The SPLIT Project is focused on the Shared that in the preparation of the IRR parcelization of CCLOA distributed by for RA 10654 or the Fisheries Code, DAR. In close coordination with DENR, for DA-BFAR in coordination with DAR, land declared as forest lands DENR may shall establish as fisherfolk settlement provide appropriate tenurial instrument to the area. He inquired if this was considered actual occupants of the land, and assured that under the SPLIT Project? under the Project no one will be displaced. Director Ayson, BALA: Regarding the establishment of settlements, that can be possible for new lands. The CCLOA we are talking here involved pre- identified ARBs. We cannot separate a portion of that especially in those areas that are coastal. This project has already pre- identified ARBs and it can never be used as settlement area. 13. Mr Mandy Sumbad, Vice Chairman, Usec Cruz, FASPO: Sadik Habanan Buhid- Mindoro The requests/suggestions are considered in Requested that the Project truly do the SPLIT Project. validation in the field, that their sacred land will not be covered by CCLOA and, that the government respect their rights, that they be consulted on projects in their area and seek their permission and approval. 1 Safeguards have been incorporated into the project documents to address all potential environmental and social risks that may be associated with the Project, including the points raised by Mr. Pasag, as well as those that have surfaced during the past consultations undertaken by the DAR with other project stakeholders. The documents are already disclosed publicly in the DAR website and will be updated as necessary to inform the public and project beneficiaries. 2 The peculiar situations on the ground will be further assessed on a per CCLOA basis as emphasized in the Project’s environmental and social safeguards documents to protect the rights and interests of all stakeholders particularly the ARBs, the actual occupants and/or cultivators and avoid risks of displacements. The safeguards measures of the Project will be periodically assessed and reviewed even during implementation, and feedback from stakeholder consultations will be considered in enhancing these measures. 3 In the Project’s ESMF, safeguards measures to address such risks include facilitating the farmers’ access to these existing government programs to fight poverty. An existing measure under RA 6657 also provides that the sale of agricultural lands, including CARP-awarded lands, requires clearance from DAR. Ms Maya Villaluz thank the stakeholders for their active participation in the meeting. She expressed that the DAR was able to organized several consultations for the enhancement of the safeguard instruments. She added that the Environment and Social Framework is a new framework being adopted by the WB which become adoptable in October 2018. In the 44 Philippines, the SPLIT Project is the first project that will have to follow all the relevant standards. Hence, the DAR, invited the NGOs/CSOs to seek their comments/inputs for the enhancement of the ESF instruments. The ESF instrument can be downloaded in the DAR website. In closing, Assistant Secretary Ubaldo Sadiarin Jr. thanked the meeting for their active participation and valuable inputs and suggestions on the SPLIT Project. That though topics on taxes to be paid by the farmer and payment of amortization were not touched, he is confident that the matters can be thoroughly discussed in other venue. The meeting ended at 1:15 PM. 45