E4664 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program P151754, P151760, P151777, P151780, P131655 GE codes: P152934, P152925, P152938, P152930 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK October 23, 2014 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 Table of Contents List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 5 II. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ESMF ...................................................................................................... 6 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM, COMPONENTS AND TYPOLOGY OF POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES ............................................................................................................................. 7 IV. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL IMPACTS ................................................... 22 A. Review of Environmental Issues ..................................................................................................................... 23 B. Mitigation Measures............................................................................................................................................ 24 V. LEGAL, POLICY FRAMEWORK AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS .................... 28 V. PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL IMPACTS ...................... 39 VI. PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ................................... 41 VII. GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM .................................................................................... 43 VIII. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS, RESPONSIBILITIES AND CAPACITY BUILDING.......................................................................................................................................................................... 44 Responsibilities .............................................................................................................................................................. 44 Disclosure......................................................................................................................................................................... 47 ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Annex A. SCREENING FORM FOR POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS ISSUES ................................................................................................................................. 48 Annex B. INCORPORATING ELEMENTS OF AN IPP INTO OVERALL PROJECT DESING ................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Annex C. RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK ...................................................................... 62 Annex D. VOLUNTARY LAND DONATION PROTOCOL ............................................................ 75 Annex E. PROCESS FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................................... 83 I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 84 II. Regional Context ............................................................................................................................................... 87 III. Institutional Context ......................................................................................................................................... 90 IV. Project Components and Access Restrictions ........................................................................................... 95 V. Administrative and Implementing Arrangements ................................................................................ 100 VI. Enabling a Participatory Process ............................................................................................................... 105 VII. Grievance Redress Mechanism .................................................................................................................. 117 VIII. Budget Considerations .................................................................................................................................. 121 Glossary ......................................................................................................................................................................... 123 References ..................................................................................................................................................................... 124 Appendix 1 Consultation Plan ........................................................................................................................... 126 Appendix 2 Grievance Resolution Template ................................................................................................ 131 Annex F. SAFEGUARDS STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS ......................................................... 132 I. Minutes of Regional Consultations ............................................................................................................. 132 II. Minutes of Consultations in Solomon Islands ......................................................................................... 134 III. Minutes of Consultations in Tuvalu ....................................................................................................... 139 IV. Presentation on PROP safeguards that was presented at all consultation meetings ................ 144 Page 2 of 152 List of Abbreviations ARAP Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plans BDM Bechê-de-mer CBO Community-based Organisation CBRM Community-based resource management CDP Community development program CFMP Community Fisheries Management Plan CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CMAC Coastal Management Advisory Council (Republic of the Marshall Islands) CTI Coral Triangle Initiative CROP Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific DRD Department of Resource Development (FSM) DWFN Distant Water Fishing Nations EAFM Ecosystems approach to fisheries management ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework FFA Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency FFC Forum Fisheries Committee FFV Foreign Fishing Vessel FPIC Free, prior and informed consultation FSM Federated States of Micronesia IA Implementing Agency (fisheries ministry/department in Member State) IDA International Development Association IPO Indigenous Peoples Organisation (representative body) IPP Indigenous Peoples Plan IUU Illegal, unregulated and unreported (fishing) LRP Livelihood restoration program LMMA Locally managed marine area MCS Monitoring, control and surveillance M&E Monitoring and evaluation MECDM Ministry Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology (Solomon Islands) MFMR Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (Solomon Islands) MRA or MIMRA Marine Resources Authority (Republic of the Marshall Islands) MNR Ministry of Natural Resources (Tuvalu) MPA Marine Protected Area MSWG Marine Sector Working Group (of CROP) NGO Non-government organisation NORMA National Oceanic Resource Management Authority (FSM) NRM Natural Resource Management OP Operational Policy (of the World Bank) PAP Project affected person/s PF Process Framework (for compliance with OP4.12) PSU Project Support Unit PNAO Parties to the Nauru Agreement Office PIFS Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat PIROP Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Policy PIROF-ISA Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Framework for Integrated Strategic Action PROP Pacific Islands REgional Oceanscape Program RMI Republic of the Marshall Islands RPF Resettlement Process Framework Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community SPREP Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme TFD Tuvalu Fisheries Department WCPO Western Central Pacific Ocean WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission VDS Vessel Day Scheme Page 4 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Pacific Islands Ocean Region covers some 11 percent of the world’s ocean area and is home to 22 small island countries and territories. The economies of Pacific Island countries (PICs)1 are fundamentally shaped by this geography as much as any other feature. PICs comprise around 9 million people living on hundreds of islands and sharing common transboundary ocean and fishery resources. These resources are threatened by numerous factors which include overfishing, coastal habitat degradation and pollution from a wide range of sources. Additionally, climate change is projected to result in sea level rise, increased sea surface temperatures (with impacts on fishery resources and habitats), potentially more intense and frequent storm events in the region, and increased acidity - which has important implications both for food security and for the coastal protection services provided by coral reefs. 2. In response to increasing demand for assistance from PICs, the World Bank completed a Fisheries Engagement Strategy for the region at the end of 2011. On this basis, in early 2012 a number of PICs, as well as the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), began discussions with the World Bank about the possibility of a coordinated regional project to provide International Development Association (IDA) financing as well as technical assistance to support continued sustainable development of the marine fisheries. After the extensive consultations between the World Bank and the PICs, common elements emerged for a coordinated package of IDA financing and technical assistance to the PICs for the fisheries and oceans sectors, i.e. a Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (PROP). The overall concept for the PROP was approved by the management of the World Bank in March 2013. 3. The program aims to improve environmental and resource quality in the Pacific Islands Region in order to increase the economic benefits generated by the sustainable management of the region’s oceanic and coastal fisheries, and the critical habitats that sustain them. 4. The Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (PROP) is a program of investment project financing – series of projects, each implemented in separate phases. More specifically, the PROP is a series of interdependent and overlapping projects to multiple borrowers, who are facing a common set of development issues and share common development goals. Each of the projects is self-standing and will finance a different group of eligible borrowers, and each is expected to last approximately six years. 5. The eleven PICs which are member countries of the World Bank are eligible to participate, as all share the transboundary fisheries and fish resources. The first five projects in the series - which corresponds to the PROP Phase 1 - are planned for the countries of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), the Solomon Island, Tuvalu and a regional IDA grant to the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA)2 . 6. A second phase is envisaged in 2015 for a second group of the remaining eligible countries, with a third and subsequent operations to follow. Taken together, the series of operations is expected to span 9 years, at the end of which it will have covered all eleven eligible PICs. 1 11 of PICs are members of the Bank: Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, Kiribati, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu 2 The FFA represents member countries participating in the PROP, including the countries participating in Phase I. Page 5 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 II. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ESMF 7. The PROP has a shared development objective and approach, meaning that each project in the series has the same design features, i.e. the same components and sub-components, but is applied to different countries (with some different specifics for each country). 8. In order to implement the shared objective and approach, each project in the series will finance activities that would be implemented nationally in each participating country, as well as some activities better implemented at the regional level. A regional framework, or menu of activities eligible for financing, has been developed (Table 1A), from which countries can choose as needed. The rationale of using this program-level Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) is that specific activities for all projects/phases of the PROP will not be identified during the project preparation. 9. The purpose of this ESMF is to guide project implementing agencies (IAs), (including the FFA as the regional implementing agency; see Table 4) on the environmental and social screening and subsequent assessment of country-specific project activities during project preparation and implementation to ensure that potential adverse environmental and social impacts that may be generated as a result of each project/phases are identified, and appropriate safeguard instruments are prepared prior to implementation to avoid, minimize, mitigate and, in such cases where there are residual impacts, offset adverse environmental and social impacts. See Table 4 for more details on key responsibilities for ESMF implementation. 10. The screening of the each activity for adverse environment and social impacts and the preparation of appropriate safeguard instruments for each plan will be guided by this ESMF. The Project Implementing agencies have the overall responsibility for ensuring that environmental and social issues are adequately addressed within the project cycle, as described in Table 4. Scope of this framework includes environmental and social screening to determine the project category, potential environmental and social issues and project-specific instrument. It also includes annexes for Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (OP4.10), Resettlement Policy Framework and Process Framework (OP4.12). The World Bank will assist and advise the IAs on the screening. 11. The ESMF will ensure that each project under the PROP will put in place a robust approach to consider environmental and social risks and impacts in line with World Bank safeguard policies, and to prepare appropriate good practice safeguard instruments for the actual reform pathways identified in the final activities plan. The World Bank safeguard policies are available at www.worldbank.org/safeguards. Page 6 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROGRAM, COMPONENTS AND TYPOLOGY OF POTENTIAL ACTIVITIES 12. The development objective of the PROP is to enable the participating PICs to capture greater economic benefits from sustainable management of the region’s oceanic and coastal fisheries, and the critical habitats that sustain them. As such, the PROP would directly contribute to the larger goal of countries to sustainably increase the economic benefits they capture from the region’s oceanic and coastal fisheries. Building on ongoing efforts and initiatives, this package of investments will aim to enhance the contribution of fisheries in particular to economic growth and sustainable development as described in the Pacific Plan (which was adopted by Pacific Islands Forum leaders in 2005 as the master strategy for Pacific islands regional integration and coordination). 13. The success of the PROP will be monitored through four key results (depending on the specific activities that countries choose to implement under the Program):  Sustainable Management of Oceanic Fisheries: The benefits received by PICs from access to the region’s tuna fisheries increase by at least 50 per cent (as measured by access revenues received), while harvesting remains within sustainable levels  Sustainable Management of Coastal Fisheries: Catch-per-unit of fishing effort attributable to increases in abundance of targeted species/ fisheries in participating communities increases by at least 10 per cent. Conservation of Critical Habitats that Support Oceanic and Coastal Fisheries: Development and application of models for sustainable financing, including payments for ecosystem services, of marine protected or marine managed areas that function at ecological scale, in at least 3 large areas of the Pacific.  Regional Coordination, Monitoring and Evaluation: A robust, standardized M&E system in place to monitor regionally agreed indicators of ecosystem health, economic benefits and to measure programme outputs and outcomes in participating countries, together with enhanced regional coordination of development partner efforts and regional technical support and capacity building. 14. Table 1A provides an indication of some of the specific investments envisaged under the program in each of the components and sub-components described below. These indicative investment areas from which participating countries would select according to country priorities and ability to leverage regional IDA will be developed more fully during the program design. Page 7 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 Table 1A: A Regional framework, or a menu of activities eligible for financing under Component 1: Sustainable Management of Oceanic Fisheries  Capacity building/institutional strengthening at both national and regional levels in VDS and similar rights-based cooperative management arrangements.  Increased monitoring, control and surveillance to enforce tuna access rights regimes  Increased local value added to tuna products Component 2: Sustainable Management of Coastal Fisheries  Management of export/ high-value fisheries  Rights for Stakeholder-Managed Fisheries  Linkages to Markets, and Local Entrepreneurship/ Skills Development Component 3: Habitat Conservation  Support to Marine Protected Areas and Marine Management Areas (e.g. through establishment of Pacific Marine Conservation Development Fund and a pilot Pacific Blue Carbon regional program) Component 4: Regional Coordination, Learning, and Monitoring and Evaluation 15. The activities financed at the national level in each participating country, as well as regional activities, are described and delineated in the Project Appraisal Document (PAD). Each participating country, as well as the FFA, will adopt this framework to guide the national activities they implement, when they negotiate the legal agreement under the current projects. The regional framework, or a generic menu of activities, from which countries can choose is described in the PAD and reflected in Table 1A above, to indicate what can be funded under the PROP in the future. Anything beyond this regional framework will require a separate assessment. Description of Program components: 16. The development objective of the PROP is to enable the participating Pacific Island Countries to capture greater economic benefits from sustainable management of the region’s oceanic and coastal fisheries, and the critical habitats that sustain them. As such, the PROP would directly contribute to the twin goals of reducing poverty and boosting shared prosperity in the region, by sustainably enhancing the benefits from one of the region’s greatest natural endowments. 17. In order to achieve the above objective, the Program will include the following components, sub-components and activities available for all participating countries. These will form a detailed menu of activities the Program could support in each country, which would be chosen based on the specific local context. Some activities will be implemented at the national level, while others will be implemented at the regional level to capture economies of scale. All activities in this menu would contribute to the shared regional objective of the PROP, even if implemented nationally. As such, the Program follows the subsidiarity principle, whereby a common approach is coordinated at the regional level, but implemented both regionally and nationally in order to show concrete results on the ground. The legal agreements with each Page 8 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 country therefore reflect the specific activities of PROP Phase I described in Annexes 3 through 7 of the Project Appraisal Document (PAD). 18. Component 1: Sustainable Management of Oceanic Fisheries 19. The objective of this component is to help participating Pacific Island Countries sustainably increase the net economic benefits provided to them by the region’s purse seine and long-line tuna fisheries. 20. Oceanic fisheries hold great economic potential for the Pacific, and particularly the three tuna fisheries: tropical purse seine, tropical long-line and southern long-line fisheries. To date these fisheries are relatively healthy compared to other tuna fisheries throughout the world, due largely to their relative isolation. However, they are now reaching their long-term sustainable limits, and future returns will have to come by earning more from current harvests, rather than increasing them. This is eminently possible, but, because the fish are moving across borders, will require continued collective action from countries to manage the resource. 21. The tropical purse seine fishery targeting skipjack tuna is a great example (this represents over half of the tuna catch in the Pacific). The PNA countries introduced in December 2007 a vessel day scheme (VDS) to manage access to the fishery. It works as follows: each year the PNA countries set the total catch limit needed to maintain healthy fish stock, and translate that catch limit into individual vessel fishing days, which are allocated to countries based on an agreed formula that takes account both of biomass in zone and fishing history, and then the countries sell the days, either directly to vessels, or to each other. The vessels days are valuable because they limit catch to sustainable levels of production and this scarcity has value that can be traded. Prior to the introduction of the VDS, PNA countries captured little of the value of the tuna caught in their waters. As a result of introducing the VDS and subsequently a minimum benchmark price, the price of a vessel day increased from US$1500 in 2010 to US$5000 in 2013, and total revenues to PNA countries increased from US$60 M in 2010 to US$240 M in 2013 (still less than 10% value of catch). This is only the value of access – and not potential additional benefits from local value added. Nor is this the end of the story – a number of experts believe that the price of vessel days can continue to climb, and this fishery could sustainably return over US$350 million per year to Pacific Island countries. 22. For the tropical tuna and southern albacore long-line fisheries, a similar system to the VDS could be introduced to enhance the management of access, significantly enhancing the value of this natural capital asset and the benefits that it can provide to Pacific Island countries. 23. Building on results to date in the PNA, such a process of enhancing the sustainable management of Pacific Island tuna fisheries and the benefits that they provide the region could be envisaged as follows: 24. Strengthen both the sustainable management and value of access to Pacific Island tuna fisheries, and the portion of this value captured by the region: o Improve compliance with the VDS for the purse seine fishery: Maintain robust limits on fishing (by ensuring compliance with vessel days and associated links to total Page 9 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 catch limits) – so total catch stays within recommended limits, allowing the fish stock to stay healthy. Tuna is the region’s natural capital asset, and the bigger the fish stock the more valuable access to it will be – particularly as much of the rest of the world is overexploiting its tuna. Conversely, selling vessel days outside of agreed levels in the VDS, or excessive capital stuffing within vessel day allocations (e.g. using bigger and more efficient vessels to increase catch per vessel day) not only depresses the price of other vessel days on the market but also threatens the long-term sustainability of the natural resource. o Expand the coverage of the purse seine fishery VDS and extend a similar system to the long-line fisheries, to include all tuna caught in Pacific Island countries’ national waters. As a result, a greater portion of the region’s resource would be utilized via this management regime. o Increase efficiency and flexibility of the purse seine fishery VDS and similar systems for the long-line fisheries. With a healthy fish stock and valuable asset, many additional opportunities emerge to increase the returns to countries by increasing the efficiency of access to fleets via systems such as the VDS, including: (a) pooling vessel days among countries to allow operators to enter multiple countries’ waters at once, (b) selling days through competitive tenders and auctions, and (c) extending the lifespan of access over multiple years, so operators and investors have more visibility and security. To address any concerns about the stability of revenue flows, adjustments to the VDS and similar systems can be made with better data sharing and more transparency, for example setting aside a reserve of vessel days for countries that need them, to be purchased at the benchmark price. 25. Ensure an equitable distribution within Pacific Island countries of the benefits of a more valuable natural capital asset: o A healthy natural asset and an efficient and robust access regime provide a stable environment for capital investments in value chain improvements and market specialization, increasing the opportunities Pacific Island countries will have to leverage access fees and agreements for local investment in value added and processing, e.g. through preferential sale to joint ventures. With a robust management system for fish supply like the VDS for purse seine tuna fishery, more and more local investments become possible, such as IFC’s recent investment to help expand processing capacity of SolTuna in the Solomon Islands. Of course not all Pacific Island countries are the same and some will have different comparative advantages, so investment in value addition may take different forms in different contexts, and may very likely contribute towards regional hubs for different services. In some cases trade-offs will need to be made at national level between collection of economic rents from access to the resource and investment in local value added activities. o Additionally, countries could explore options to create community VDS funds to target the benefits of returns from access directly to coastal communities. Page 10 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 26. To help Pacific Island countries realize these opportunities, the following activities could be supported by the PROP: 1.1. Strengthen both the sustainable management and value of access to Pacific Island tuna fisheries, and the portion of this value captured by the region 27. These activities would support strengthening the vessel day scheme (VDS) for the purse seine fishery and extending a similar management system to the long-line fisheries, in order to sustainably increase the benefits to participating countries from access to these fisheries. More specifically, this sub-component would finance the following activities:  National Activities in Participating Countries o Disbursements linked to indicators for implementation of strengthened management measures. This activity would disburse funds directly to implementing agencies of national governments to reimburse against pre- identified eligible expenditures for operating costs linked to indicators for strengthened management of the tuna fisheries. Such eligible expenditures will be tracked, and PROP safeguard instruments would also apply to these expenditures. Disbursements would be made annually to national government implementing agencies in each participating country to reimburse these eligible expenditures, based on independent third-party verification that the following indicators have been met (expenditures for each indicator are priced equally):  Improving compliance with the VDS for the purse seine tuna fishery: o The number of days fished in a country’s waters does not exceed its agreed annual allocation of fishing vessel days (PAE) o 100% of fishing vessel days are recorded annually according to agreed criteria o 100% of fishing vessel days are disclosed annually to the PNAO Fisheries Information Management System (FIMS) as part of a comprehensive verification system for the VDS  Expanding the coverage of the purse seine fishery VDS or similar zone- based limit systems for the long line fisheries, to include all tuna caught in the country’s national waters:  % of tuna catch within a country’s national waters that is encompassed within the VDS or a compatible system (specific target set for each country, gradually)  Increasing efficiency and flexibility of the purse-seine fishery VDS and similar systems for the long-line fisheries:  (Yes/no) more flexible measures are applied, (such as creating multi- zone and multi-year days, development of competitive VDS marketing arrangements, long-term contracts, creation of secondary markets, etc) that increase the value of a vessel day above the baseline (gradually phased in) Page 11 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 o Goods and services needed for achievement of the disbursement-linked indicators. This activity would provide support to participating countries for procurement of specific goods and services needed to meet the disbursement-linked indicators (DLIs) for strengthened management of the tuna fisheries, such as establishing fisheries monitoring centers and strengthening observer programs for example.  Regional Activities: o Technical assistance to PNAO to support implementation of the recommendations of a regional review of the VDS & PNAO. This activity would provide targeted technical assistance to support PNAO in the implementation of the recommendations agreed by its members to take actions that will strengthen the VDS in the purse seine fishery and / or across related longline fisheries during the 2014 regional review of the policy framework of the VDS and the accompanying governance and organizational structure to of the PNAO to administer it. o Technical assistance to SPC to support the information base for the VDS and similar systems for the long-line fisheries. This activity would provide targeted support to SPC to strengthen the analytical and information base needed for the VDS and similar systems for the long-line fisheries, including setting reference points and control rules for fishing activities that link to resource sustainability. o Coordinated technical assistance to countries to strengthen the VDS for the purse seine fishery and expanding this system to the long-line fisheries. This activity would support technical assistance provided by FFA in coordination with the PNAO, to participating countries for implementation of the PROP. This activity would support a technical team to lead and coordinate a number of assessments, studies, trainings, mentoring etc. as requested by participating countries, in order to achieve the PROP’s objectives. Such assistance is expected to include, among others, conducting economic analyses and preparing briefing materials to increase the understanding among stakeholders of the benefits of a robust VDS, assisting in the development of any revisions or additions to legal frameworks that may be needed (e.g. to enforce the VDS), and a conducting a rolling regional review of the functions and services required to manage tuna fisheries and identify opportunities for regional, sub-regional and national level location and provision of fisheries management services (e.g. management, science, monitoring and surveillance and enforcement hubs, etc.). o Technical assistance to identify surveillance and enforcement tasks and needs for countries to collaborate to ensure compliance with the VDS, and a network of compliance experts to support countries’ in this effort. This activity would build upon the current regional fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) strategy and effort at FFA in order to support:(i) a regional identification of the key surveillance and enforcement tasks for ensuring compliance with the VDS, and the comparative advantage of various countries to conduct these tasks in collaboration, as part of sub-regional and regional efforts; and (ii) a regional unit and network of compliance experts that could provide on-demand support to participating countries for surveillance and enforcement of the VDS. Page 12 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 1.2 Ensure an equitable distribution within Pacific Island countries of the benefits of a more valuable natural capital asset 28. These activities would support Pacific Island countries to make informed decisions and investments to ensure an inclusive distribution of the benefits from increased tuna access revenues. This would include collaboration with IFC to leverage access values to a healthy resource, into local investments up the value chain where feasible, that can increase employment. Similarly, this would include piloting local VDS funds to channel access revenues directly to fishing communities.  Regional Activities o Regional technical advisory services for the establishment of hubs throughout the Western Pacific for services and value addition. This activity would support technical advisory services to identify the competitive advantage of participating countries to establish regional hubs for various services and value addition along the chain (e.g. fish quality assurance, processing, distribution and providing services), linked to reforms for strengthening the VDS. Additionally, this activity would include ongoing support to participating countries to develop the various opportunities identified, and to secure the necessary finance and private partners in order to implement them. o Pilot Community VDS funds. This activity would support FFA to provide technical assistance to conduct participatory scenario analyses to design pilot community VDS funds whose objectives would be secure a share of tuna access revenues for fishing communities in participating countries, by purchasing vessel days. This would include establishment and capitalization of pilot community VDS funds based on the results of the scenario analyses. Component 2: Sustainable Management of Coastal Fisheries 29. The objective of this component would be to support participating countries to sustainably increase the benefits they receive from defined coastal fisheries, focusing on those with the greatest potential, i.e. coastal fisheries such as bêche-de-mer (BDM) that (i) can generate export earnings for the country, and/or (ii) support livelihoods, food security and dietary health. 30. Coastal and lagoon fisheries throughout the region are critically important to many Pacific island States with few other sources of protein. It is estimated that fish provide 50 – 90 percent of animal protein intake in rural areas and 40 – 80 percent in urban areas. Most of the fish eaten by rural communities (particularly on the coral atolls and smaller islands) come from subsistence fisheries, with little or no cash cost to the consumer. Subsistence fisheries generally employ 10 to 20 times as many people as commercial fisheries. 31. A diverse range of coastal fishery opportunities exist in the region: in some cases exploitation pressure is low and the management goal is to encourage development of the fishery while protecting resource sustainability for the future. In others, especially where there is easy access to markets, over-fishing has already occurred and the fishery is performing sub-optimally. Page 13 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 In these cases there is a need to rebuild resources and effectively control the fisheries based on them to achieve optimal biological or economic yields. This is perhaps most true for the high- value BDM fishery. BDM is a product that is harvested in all Pacific Island countries, almost exclusively for export to Asian markets and Asian communities elsewhere. The BDM fishery is analogous in some ways to the purse seine tuna fishery, in that a handful of Pacific Island countries now control a large share of a global commodity for which demand exceeds supply. A 2013 study estimated the value of BDM exports from 5 Pacific Island countries (Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji and Tonga) to average US$17.4 million over the past 10 years, and that this value could have been at least doubled through improved management (Hambrey et al, 2013). An earlier study estimated average annual BDM exports from Australia and the Central Western Pacific islands during 2004–2008 at about US$52 million (Purcell et al., 2009). That study notes that ‘many of these fisheries are suffering unsustainable levels of exploitation, to the point of local extinctions of some species and consequently impacting the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of fishers’. 32. To support sustainable increased benefits from targeted coastal fisheries such as BDM, this component would largely be implemented nationally, with regional coordination activities to link products to markets. 2.1 Sustainable Management of Targeted Coastal Fisheries 33. These activities would be implemented nationally in each participating country by the relevant Government agency. The agency would provide dedicated technical assistance and small goods and operating costs to communities to strengthen management and value addition around targeted coastal fisheries, in many cases recruiting a partner such as a local non- government organization (NGO). Once the partner is recruited to provide this support, they would conduct the following activities: o Identify the coastal fisheries targeted for support, including collection of baseline information, i.e. initial biological and socio-economic assessments as needed to determine resource potential and likely costs and benefits of different scenarios for rebuilding or improved management. This program of extension support to improve management and returns from targeted coastal fisheries will identify those fisheries and sites for support following a period of awareness-raising and wide advertising to give interested communities a chance to come forward. Those sites with valuable coastal fisheries and strong local commitment will be selected based on the following criteria: - The fishery or fisheries to be managed are well-defined (i.e. within a distinct geographic boundary, for a particular species or group of species, or for a stock); - Each site must have the potential to accrue positive economic benefits to stakeholders through improved fisheries management; - Each site must not encompass more than 3 to 4 small to moderate-sized communities, which must be neighboring communities; - Each site must have strong local leadership, be socially cohesive, and ideally have a stakeholder group or association formed that could be recognized with authority to formulate management measures on behalf of stakeholders; and - Each site must provide formal confirmation that fishers in the targeted fishery are fully committed to participate in the management and project. Page 14 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 o Support the development or strengthening of stakeholder groups and associations to participate in the sustainable management, and in some cases rebuilding, of these fisheries, including: ensuring legal recognition and empowerment of the groups and their management/ use rights, providing extension and training to support organization and operation of the groups. o Assist these stakeholder groups to develop and implement improved management approaches appropriate to the circumstances and needs of the fishery, relying mainly on the development or strengthening of Community-Based Management (CBM) systems, or on co-management arrangements involving communities, government and other stakeholders. In others, particularly for high-value export products, CBM may not provide all the tools needed for effective management and there may need to be additional fishery monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) carried out at provincial or national level. The stakeholder groups would be supported assess the current situation and options for strengthening management of the resource and subsequently returns, in some cases developing rebuilding plans for the fish stocks, drawing upon good experiences throughout the region, such as the locally-managed marine area (LMMA) network. Ongoing training and support would be provided to stakeholder groups for development and implementation of management measures (such as identification and development of ecosystem-based management measures, monitoring of fish catch and effort, etc.), supporting restocking or artificial resource enhancement where feasible and justified, and providing any enforcement support needed to ensure compliance (especially at the point of export). o Link products from the fisheries managed by stakeholder groups to regional markets, including providing technical assistance and training for skills development, as well as small goods and works for local value addition. This support would likely focus on development and coordination of processing and packaging technologies, development of value-added products, market diversification including certification and eco-labeling, compliance with food safety and other technical requirements of target markets, sharing of trade and market information, capacity-building in small business and enterprise management, and cooperation in marketing arrangements and information-sharing across communities and countries. o Monitoring to assess changes in the status of the resource and the economic status of activities based on it, evaluate the performance of the management strategies adopted, and allow the adaptation and improvement of these strategies. 2.2 Linking Sustainable Coastal Fish Products to Regional Markets 34. These activities would be implemented regionally, via a sub-grant to the SPC: o In parallel with national efforts to restore BDM fisheries, mediate the formation of a regional or sub-regional BDM fishery grouping to advance the economic interests of participating PI countries. Regional technical assistance and convening would be provided to harmonize economic and other management arrangements, developing Page 15 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 minimum terms and conditions of resource access, establishing a regional register of responsible/ compliant BDM industry participants, maximizing the leverage available through collective bargaining and action, and promoting exchange of technical information in support of national-level management initiatives. The proposed arrangement would mainly be of interest to the main BDM-producing Pacific Island countries (those of Melanesia) but, as with PNA, countries with lower levels of production would also benefit from the bargaining power generated by the larger producers. The proposed BDM arrangement will almost certainly be built on an existing regional or sub-regional grouping of countries, and may ultimately be extended to cover other coastal fishery resources, particularly trochus, another high-value export product. o Ongoing technical support to countries with BDM and coastal fisheries management (e.g. a ‘BDM task force’), including support to assess potential biological, economic and fiscal management tools for BDM and other export-oriented coastal fishery products, which could be applied at the national level as part of an integrated suite of management arrangements that involve both CBM and MCS. This would also include periodically updated assessments of BDM production, price and market trends and other industry monitoring and intelligence; and development of fishery monitoring tools that can be deployed at national level to enable performance assessment of fishery management and development activities, and training of national staff from participating countries in their use. These tools may possibly be based in part on the fishery monitoring ‘dashboards’ already developed by the Bank for other countries/ regions. Component 3: Sustainable Financing of the Conservation of Critical Fishery Habitats 35. The objective of this component would be to help strengthen and develop models of sustainable financing for the conservation of critical habitats that underpin oceanic and coastal fisheries in the region, following the guiding principles of the Pacific Oceanscape Framework. Towards this objective, the component would include both regional and national activities that: (i) establish a Pacific Marine Conservation Development Fund to support the establishment of large scale oceanic marine protected areas (MPAs), including financing mechanisms for cost and benefit sharing; and (ii) establish a pilot Pacific Blue Carbon regional program, to support financing for the conservation of small to medium scale marine habitats. This component would be executed by the Oceanscape Unit within the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, with guidance from the Marine Sector Working Group. 3.1 Establish a Pacific Marine Conservation Development Fund to support the establishment of large scale oceanic MPAs, including mechanisms for cost and benefit sharing 36. The Pacific Oceanscape Framework aims to support integrated ocean management at all scales that results in the sustainable development, management and conservation of island, coastal and ocean services – notably through conservation of key natural habitats that support the oceanic and coastal fisheries targeted in components one and two. This component will contribute to the Framework and these fisheries by helping to establish a regional financing mechanism to help capture the benefits accruing to the international community from the Page 16 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 conservation of natural habitats with biodiversity of global significance, as well as support key local and regional fisheries. 37. This sub-component will support detailed analysis, technical assistance, and the establishment of financing mechanisms necessary to determine the costs and benefits of proposed protected areas to conserve natural habitats, and enable protected area host States to mitigate any conservation costs through trading of costs and benefits with adjacent coastal States and distant water fishing States, and the development of ecosystem service markets. More specifically, the PROP would support the development of a Pacific Marine Conservation Development Fund to provide Pacific island States with market-based options to avoid, minimize or mitigate any loss in revenue caused by the establishment of large scale marine protected areas, provided that such areas are designed and managed to deliver both ecological and sustainable net economic benefits to the countries. Market-based mechanisms for conservation provide one of the more realistic opportunities for financial sustainability. Other potential options that depend on attracting and administering large initial grants are at the mercy of fundraising/foundation conservation trends and have so far proven highly problematic. Many previous attempts to establish large scale marine protected areas have been challenged by concerns that closures will reduce critical fishing revenue. Given the importance of fishing revenue to national budgets, some Pacific island States may justifiably be concerned that they are taking a risk with high consequences – regardless of the low likelihood of adverse costs. 38. In some cases, marine protected area proposals have relied on the establishment of compensatory funds to mitigate the perceived or actual costs from closing areas to commercial fishing. However, such proposals can be difficult to implement successfully unless a business model can be developed that raises funds from an explicit service or a value that is created from the closure. In this case, a successful business model requires the creation of a service or value, and the existence or creation of a market, or a taxable funding source. For example, a protected area over a reef that provides a high value and accessible diving experience could be funded through a direct fee-for-service or tax on divers, or commercial dive-operators. Similarly, a protected area over an important habitat for juvenile fish could be funded through a tax or licensing fee on commercial fishing vessels which subsequently profit from increased catches. Activities to establish the fund would include: o Assessment of existing and potential new regional sites for large scale marine protected areas. An analysis of both the scope and distribution of the ecological and economic costs and benefits to the Pacific islands region from its large oceanic ecosystems, and identification of existing and potential new marine protected areas that could further build the Pacific Islands Oceanscape Framework. The analysis would consider short and long term impacts and focus on the shared interests of the Pacific Islands region (i.e development, food security, sustainability). The assessment would establish clear criteria for measuring costs and benefits of large scale marine protected areas (MPAs) and engage with regional leaders, regional fisheries management organizations, and global institutions to support and recognize these criteria. These criteria will then provide important reference points for the financing activities of the Pacific Marine Conservation Development Fund. Page 17 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 o Technical assistance for the establishment of a Pacific Marine Conservation Development Fund. This will include the technical assistance necessary to establish a Pacific Marine Conservation Development Fund, including design, establishment and administration of the fund, its governance, etc. A range of options and scenarios for the Fund to transfer benefits to those who bear the costs of conservation would be considered in addition to direct endowment payments for operating costs, including among others:  A Regional Conservation Trading Scheme: The purse seine fishery VDS (and its extension to the longline fishery) provide opportunities for participating Pacific Island countries to establish large scale marine protected areas and sell their allocation of fishing days to the Fund so as to avoid or mitigate impacts on fishing revenue. For example, Palau has announced its intention to establish a Marine Sanctuary and close its EEZ to all commercial fishing. By conserving a productive bigeye fishing ground, the country is providing a boost to a transboundary resource and a service to the region, that could be rewarded through the Fund. The Fund could purchase fishing days at a set price for subsequent auction or trade to other PNA members – thereby reducing the risk for States hosting marine protected areas. Other regional options for auctioning PAE will also be explored and developed.  Piloting an Ecosystem Services Market. Coastal States, commercial fishing vessels, processors and seafood retailers will likely experience significant benefits through productivity gains that flow on from the establishment of large scale marine protected areas. The Fund could potentially utilize the assessments described previously to identify and value these benefits, and support the development of an Ecosystem Services Market. This will provide financing options for host coastal States to mitigate potential losses caused by the establishment of large scale marine protected areas. Based on technical and institutional support for the development of conservation measures that recognize the regional value of ecosystem services from large scale marine protected areas, and share conservation costs across the WCPFC membership, the Fund could support and subsidize a transfer of benefits to the host state. For example, a host coastal State that contributes significant benefits to conservation goals through the establishment of a large scale marine protected area, could be granted preferential access to high seas fishing grounds for its flagged vessels, or discounts on institutional fees, or exemptions from specific conservation measures, etc.  Regional Assurance Funding. Given the importance of fishing revenue to some Pacific island national budgets, governments may be unable to commit to marine protected areas due to the potentially high level of risk during the transition period – regardless of the balance of costs and benefits in the long term. The Fund could potentially insure host coastal States against any loss in revenue in the short term. o Technical assistance, training and exchange of lessons learned to individual Pacific Island countries hosting large MPAs. This activity will provide technical assistance, legal and regulatory support, and fund institutional strengthening activities that enable host Page 18 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 States to establish and manage large scale marine protected areas and participate in the Pacific Marine Conservation Development Fund. This activity would also provide national governments with communication materials, technical assistance and iconic speakers to broaden government and stakeholder understanding of sustainability limitations, ecosystem services, and conservation benefits. The activity will first focus on Ministers and parliamentarians, church and community leaders, and media. It would then provide governments with the capacity and material to promote such messages with industry and distant water fishing Nation partners. Additionally, support would be provided for learning exchanges between Pacific Island countries and others with experience in establishing and managing large-scale protected areas, e.g. Brazil and its FunBio. 3.2 Establish a pilot Pacific Blue Carbon regional program for the conservation of small to medium scale marine habitats 39. In complement to support for rebuilding or strengthening coastal fisheries (see component two), this sub-component will provide technical assistance to help pilot a Pacific Blue Carbon regional program that would create conservation incentives for coastal communities to conserve the mangrove habitats that support so many fisheries. Such mangrove forests sequester significant amounts of carbon, which can potentially be bundled and sold for credits on various voluntary and other carbon markets – i.e. ‘blue carbon’. Blue carbon provides some opportunity for funding lost-cost small/medium scale marine protected areas in some circumstances, and may provide more efficient carbon sequestration potential than terrestrial habitats. The funding streams could be channeled directly to the communities, providing them with a valuable asset. 40. However, while there are exciting future blue carbon opportunities in the long term, there are currently a large number of uncertainties and gaps that must first be overcome before communities may see any benefit, including: a very small market base, uncertain and/or inconsistent rates of return, significant gaps in supporting scientific information, potentially high transaction costs, and a lack of supporting legal and policy frameworks in place. In combination, these conditions currently represent too much of a risk for private investments in blue carbon. In order to build blue carbon financing opportunities, the PROP will support the pilot trial of a Pacific Blue Carbon Regional Program that will address these obstacles and aim to create opportunities for communities to finance small and medium scale marine protected areas. 41. This sub-component will develop a methodology to explore opportunities to pair up with established, standards-based mechanisms like the terrestrial framework to pay for carbon stored as a result of avoided deforestation (REDD+), and develop opportunities in the voluntary carbon market, with a long term strategy to ultimately develop regulatory compliance markets. Following the design of the methodology, the activity will help identify pilot trial communities in participating countries for blue carbon, where clear tenure and stakeholder benefits are ensured in order to avoid implementation and enforcement issues that are associated with top- down regulation, uncertainty over tenure, and lack of engagement by stakeholders. Even if blue carbon projects become financially successful, conservation of habitats is not guaranteed unless community stakeholders see a significant, direct benefit. With pilots identified, significant Page 19 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 amounts of baseline scientific research on carbon sequestration capacities and habitat mapping will be conducted as a pre-requisite for any blue carbon projects to become viable. 42. This sub-component will include the technical assistance, scientific and survey expertise, and legal and regulatory support in order to enable participating countries to pilot trials to assess their blue carbon potential, limitations and opportunities and participate in blue carbon markets. This work will be carried out in collaboration with stakeholder communities, relevant governance agencies and regional technical expertise to identify and assess potential blue carbon sites for marine habitat conservation. Analysis would assess costs and benefits and potential blue carbon values, and work with communities to identify key stakeholders, decision making frameworks, fiscal arrangements and management requirements. Analysis would build on existing blue carbon projects where possible (i.e., Palau, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu). 43. Activities would be implemented in an approach that strengthens and broadens national capacity in community consultations and community based approaches to natural resource management, and creates an understanding of ecosystem services and public goods aspects of critical habitats. In some cases, additional technical assistance may be needed for participating countries to strengthen and expand their policy, legislative and regulatory frameworks for habitat conservation, tenure, and participation in blue carbon markets. Component 4: Regional Coordination, Implementation Support and Program Management 44. The objective of this component is to provide regional coordination, implementation support and program management, to ensure a coherent approach to program implementation within the wider context of the Pacific Oceanscape Framework and wide dissemination of results and lessons learned; as well as regional and national implementation support and training as needed for the program to achieve its objectives. Towards this objective, this component would include the following activities:  Regional Activities o Program support unit located within FFA. This unit would work with participating countries as needed on project financial management and procurement. This unit will also support monitoring and evaluation, working closely with the participating countries to collect, compile, analyze and disseminate the results of the PROP as measured by the key results indicators. o Global outreach and knowledge sharing by FFA. This would provide funding for FFA to exchange lessons learned and share results on behalf of the countries with other highly migratory fisheries around the world. o Oceanscape unit located within the Pacific Island Forum Secretariat. This unit would be responsible for program monitoring and evaluation, and coordination with other country, regional and development partner initiatives in support of the Pacific Oceanscape Framework. This support would be provided in collaboration with the Government of Australia, and would include financing for a full-time staff person in the Secretariat’s Oceanscape Unit, as well as support for convening Page 20 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 meetings and learning exchanges around implementation. The PROP and other initiatives in support of the Pacific Oceanscape Framework would form a regional learning portfolio which could have a demonstration effect throughout the islands in regard to shared challenges and opportunities. This could also include support for a sub-committee of Finance Ministers from the region to monitor implementation progress of the PROP, and report annually to Forum leaders.  National Activities (Implemented by relevant Government agency in each participating country) o Program management, monitoring and evaluation in each participating country, including technical advisory support and support for fiduciary management and controls, and data collection, analysis and evaluation for progress according to the key results indicators. Opportunities to collaborate and coordinate with existing World Bank program management and technical support or that provided by bilateral donor agencies will be pursued to help ensure coherency and effectiveness of project implementation. 45. The countries that have expressed interest in participating in the Phase I of the program include FSM, RMI, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu, with regional activities implemented via Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) – all over a period of six years. Other countries will join in successive phases according to their national requirements and capacities. Page 21 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 IV. POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL IMPACTS 46. The overall impact of the program is expected to be highly positive and none of the eligible investments on the menu of options include activities that would generate significant risk or irreversible adverse environmental or social impacts. 47. The environmental and social impacts of each project will generally depend on the type of activities under each phase of the PROP. Each project would include investments for both ‘physical’ goods and services, as well as ‘soft’ activities such as technical assistance. Most of the physical investments would be made at the national level, while ‘soft’ activities would be implemented at both the national and regional level. 48. Examples of the type of the proposed activities (salient physical characteristics relevant to the safeguard analysis), which have the potential to incur adverse environmental or social impacts presented in Table 1B below. Table 1B: Potential investment activities envisaged during Phase I of PROP with potential adverse impact Component 1: Component 1, Subcomponent 1 specifically for Solomon Islands might include the construction of an operational center for surveillance of the fisheries, and two outlying enforcement centers for fisheries surveillance. The construction work may generate minor site-specific and time- bound adverse environmental impacts that can be readily mitigated through standard mitigation measures, if screened properly. Component 2: Component 2, Sub-component 2 may include support to restock beche-de-mer if it is deemed a viable method to sustainably restore stocks. If so, hatchery facilities based on native brood stock would be used. Support would include supplying fishers with juveniles to restock near shore habitats. This activity will not involve introduction of non-native species nor involve the purchase, distribution, use or disposal of bactericides during implementation. However, investments in the area of small enterprise development associated with bêche-de-mer valued added processing may include installation of small scale civil works (e.g., solar dryers) for drying. Component 3: Component 3 investments related to the TA for sustainable financing of MPAs, and potentially blue carbon. Activities under Component 3 Subcomponent 1 will support research to assess the unique physical and ecological aspects of the MPAs that would generate ecosystem services (like spawning or feeding grounds for tuna which migrate beyond EEZs of host nations) and that could be incorporated into a system of payment for environmental services. Subcomponent 2 will include TA in order to assess blue carbon potential and participate in blue carbon markets, and will help identify potential blue carbon sites. Small scale infrastructure works are not expected to be financed by the project. Page 22 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 49. The scale and likelihood of adverse impacts arising from these activities is limited, and the types of mitigation activities well-known and proven. As such, the program is found to be Category B interventions. 50. Each project will be screened by the IAs in the specific country in consultation with experts and affected peoples. For details, see Annex A. Screening Form for Potential Environmental and Social Safeguards Issues. The IAs will review each proposed activity in the country according to the following decision-support tree:  Does activity have potential to cause adverse impact (social or environmental) building on the type of impacts possible found during scoping and now relevant to precise place and context of proposed activity?  If no, the activities are cleared from a safeguard perspective.  If yes, are the impacts irreversible?  If yes, the activity is excluded.  If no, do any of the activities result in any impact listed under Table 5 (the ineligibility list)  If yes, the activity is excluded.  If no, can the impacts be reasonably avoided, minimized and mitigated with known measures?  If no, the activity is excluded or a compensation/offset plan is added to the appropriate safeguard instrument.  If yes, identify the appropriate safeguard instrument to be prepared to describe the impact, list the known mitigation measures, assign roles and responsibilities and estimate a budget for execution.  Prepare required instrument and seek/gain approval from World Bank. 51. The review process for identifying and assessing safeguard impacts of project activities and assessing impact mitigation measures, as described in this ESMF, aims to ensure that the World Bank‘s safeguard policies on environmental assessment (OP 4.01), natural habitats (OP 4.04), forests (OP 4.36), indigenous peoples (OP 4.10) and involuntary resettlement (OP 4.12) are followed. A. Review of Environmental Issues 52. Project IAs are required to include in the list of country-specific project activities a brief description of any activities that may involve environmental and social impacts, any known environmental sensitivities, and any sites with known or potential archeological, paleontological, historical, religious or unique natural values. This should be based on a scoping with knowledgeable expert and local stakeholders. 53. Activities that foresee significant and irreversible negative impacts on the environment that are not easily mitigated will not be approved. In the event of activities with potential minor and manageable environmental impacts, an environmental review should be undertaken (see Table 2 for more guidance; see also the World Bank‘s Environmental Assessment Policy and Sourcebook for guidance on determining level of impacts). The review examines the activities’ potential negative and positive environmental impacts and defines any measures needed to prevent, minimize or mitigate adverse impacts and improve environmental performance. Page 23 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 54. Proposed activities that potentially result in minor and manageable social and environmental impacts should include the following basic elements:  A description of the possible adverse effects that specific activities may occur (see table 3 for some basic guidance on potential environmental impacts);  A description of any planned measures to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts, and how and when they will be implemented;  A system for monitoring the environmental effects of the project;  A description of who will be responsible to implement/monitor mitigation measures; and  A cost estimate of the mitigation measures (the costs for environmental management will be included in the of activities plan proposal). 55. IAs will select safeguard instrument(s) appropriate for each potentially adverse activity, according to the responsibilities set in Table 4. B. Mitigation Measures 56. The main environmental impacts for eligible activities would be minor impacts from construction of small-scale infrastructure (see section “Potential Environmental and Social Impacts� above), potential increase in use of marine protected areas, and change in natural resource management/use. 57. The small-scale construction of infrastructure may have minor, short-term direct impacts on vegetation and local species-mainly due to soil excavation, dust, and noise. Increased use of project sites may produce a direct impact because of under-management of tourist sites and facilities, possible overuse of campsites or trails, increased waste, harvesting of live wood for campfires, purposeful disturbance of wildlife, accidental fires, disturbance of flora and fauna, trespassing into fragile areas, and non-maintenance of trails lading to slope erosion. 58. Since only activities with minor impacts will be eligible for financing under PROP, these are easily mitigated through the application of sensible site selection criteria, good construction practices and diligent management practices in the operational phase. This may include proper siting of infrastructure to avoid and minimize impacts, construction contract procedures for dealing with chance finds, control of dust generation and prevention, waste management and technology for toilet facilities like leaching fields, organic composting, and septic tanks (see Table 2). Further guidance on Health and Safety issues is provided for in the World Bank Group Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines (2007) (found at: www.ifc.org). Chance Find Procedure: 59. There is a possibility that project activities may result in damage to physical cultural property unless these are identified early in the process. A Chance Finds Procedure will be detailed in the environmental management plan (EMP). Activities that may occur in areas with possible physical cultural resources will specify procedures for identifying physical cultural property and for avoiding impacts on these, including:  Consultations with the appropriate authorities and local residents and communities to identify known or possible sites during the design of project activities; Page 24 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014  Siting of proposed activities to avoid identified sites (including identifying such areas in protected and natural resource management planning and zonation);  Chance finds procedures will include cessation of work until the significance of a “find� has been determined by the appropriate authorities and local inhabitants, and until fitting treatment of the site has been determined and carried out;  Construction contract procedures will include the same procedures for dealing with chance finds;  Buffer zones or other management arrangements to avoid damage to cultural resources such as ―sacred forests and graveyards. Local communities to which these areas belong should decide access procedures and should not be excluded from accessing these areas. 60. The ESMF stresses community participation since local knowledge is important in identifying, designing and planning the implementation of practical mitigation measures. It is especially important where the success depends on community support and action, both in implementing mitigation measures and in monitoring their success (see Annex E Process Framework for further guidance). Page 25 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 Table 2: Potential environmental and social impacts and standard mitigation measures Project activity Potential impacts Standard mitigation measures Monitoring and indicators - Consult local communities to determine - Incidental take of species is Construction of an Minor site-specific and time-bound appropriate siting of infrastructure to minimize recorded (indicator species operational center for adverse environmental impacts - on impacts on State or donated land. identified and monitored). surveillance of the already disturbed and small areas of - Ensure trails are ‘fit-for-purpose’, restricting width - Communities’ free, prior and fisheries, and two vegetation – mainly due to soil to the needs to foot patrols or tourists. In areas informed consultation is outlying enforcement excavation, dust and noise. These where trail bikes are used, the means of controlling recorded. centers for fisheries impacts can be readily mitigated through access will be instituted. - Debris does not litter the site surveillance (under standard mitigation measures, if screened - Obtain any permits required by national and local Component 1 in properly. regulations prior to construction. Solomon Islands) - Choose most appropriate timing for construction to avoid or minimize impacts. - Infrastructure will be designed in accordance with local traditions, local architecture, and good environmental practices. - Appropriate management/disposal of waste and debris. Increase in recreational - Impact on habitat and wildlife through - Support training and TA to develop skills for - Monitoring number of use of protected areas increased noise and disturbance, waste, effective tourism management. tourists. and/or restriction of accidental fires, harvesting of rare - Promulgate rules and guidelines for visitors. - Monitor habitat disturbance. access to local species or natural resources - Provide waste and toilet facilities. - Communities free, prior and communities - Lack of maintenance of trails leading - Alternative livelihoods program or blue carbon informed consultation is to erosion on slopes financing to offset restrictions to natural resources recorded. - Social impacts on local communities and protected areas (where necessary). including disruption of subsistence livelihood activities and increased food insecurity. Implementation of - Loss of access to key resources that - Partnership approach with communities to establish - Key socioeconomic natural resource support subsistence livelihood and co-management strategy/regime and regulatory indicators monitored every management plans (i.e. local economy, and livelihoods measures. three years protected areas; coastal impacted disproportionately. - Strengthen Community-Based Management (CBM) - Consultations are well fisheries) - Customary systems of natural resource systems and approaches. documented governance and land/coastal tenure of - Support, equipment and training provided to - Formal co-management Indigenous societies adversely participating communities for management, agreements Page 26 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 impacted. monitoring and surveillance activities. - Free, prior and informed - Infringement upon rights of Indigenous - Nominate community liaison officers or focal consultation is recorded Peoples. points as required - Full representation of various stakeholders in consultation with consideration for gender equity. - FPIC engagement with communities undertaken to determine best approach to avoid adverse impacts to customary rights. Improved market access - Stimulation of economic activities in - Partnership approach with communities to establish - Outcomes of MCS activities and increase in rural area. co-management strategy/regime. - Market value of commodity economic value of - Overharvesting due to increased value - Strengthen monitoring, control and surveillance - Number of fishers/traders in marine resources of resources and easier access to (MCS) activities. the value chain (especially export markets. - Strengthen CBM systems and LMMA approaches. - Number of jobs created commodities) - Increased formal employment opportunities. Expansion of protected - Stimulation of economic activities in - Partnership approach with communities to establish - Consultations are well area network and habitat rural area. co-management strategy/regime. documented restoration for blue - Loss of access to key resources that - Strengthen CBM systems and LMMA approaches. - Formal co-management carbon pilot support subsistence livelihoods and - Full representation of various stakeholders in agreements local economy and livelihoods consultation with consideration for gender equity. - Free, prior and informed impacted disproportionately. - Alternative livelihoods program. consultation is adequately - Social change and potential loss of - Design of transparent fiscal arrangements. recorded social cohesion as a result of new revenue source and economic development. - Loss of fixed physical asset or access to asset. IAS removal (by Native species accidently removed - Provide training on IAS and native species Monitor native indicator mechanical or chemical differentiation. species for ecosystem response means) - Isolate native species through demarcation Page 27 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 V. LEGAL, POLICY FRAMEWORK AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS A. World Bank Safeguard Policies 61. Relevant Bank policies include OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment; OP 4.04 Natural Habitats; OP 4.36 Forests; OP 4.10 Indigenous Peoples; and OP 4.12, Involuntary Resettlement (Table 3). Detailed information on Bank safeguard policies available at http://go.worldbank.org/4D2JSWFIW0 Table 3. World Bank Safeguard Policies triggered Safeguard Trigg Why Related Instrument Policies ered Environmental Yes The aim of the program is to help improve Current Environmental and Assessment environmental and resource quality in the Pacific Social Management OP/BP 4.01 Islands Region in order to increase the economic Framework (ESMF) has been benefits generated by the goods and services from prepared to guide investments healthy ocean ecosystems. As such, the overall that may generate any adverse impact of the program is expected to be highly environmental impact. positive and none of the eligible investments on the Screening form (Annex A) menu of options include activities that would will be used to screen for generate significant risk or irreversible adverse environmental and social impacts in the coastal or oceans fisheries targeted by impacts. the program. However, some investments under Components 1 and 2 may generate minor to moderate site specific and time bound adverse environmental impacts that can be readily mitigated through standard mitigation measures, when screened properly. Additionally, Component 3 (Sustainable Financing of the Conservation of Critical Fishery Habitats) might result in creation of the Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), in which case any potential access restrictions will be addressed through a detailed Process Framework (Annex E). The project also envisages TA for sustainable financing and potential of protected areas, which may lead to potential minor environmental impact downstream. The Interim Guidelines on the Application of Safeguard Policies to TA Activities in Bank-Financed Projects and TFs Administered by the Bank is applied. Mechanism for administering safeguards in TA activities will include integration of safeguard policy requirements into the Terms of Reference of studies. As such, the safeguard documentation prepared for the project applies equally to the TA component(s) and Terms of Page 28 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 References for the TA activities will be approved by the Bank to ensure the consultancy outputs comply with the Bank safeguard policies. At this stage in program design, the specific investments that may generate minor to moderate adverse impacts include: small scale infrastructure works to allow for inspection of fish catch at landing sites and restocking of beche-de-mer and establishment of the associated small scale drying facilities. Potential adverse impacts will be limited to waste management, construction noise, and health and safety of workers. Natural Yes Program activities will not involve significant loss Current ESMF contains Habitats OP/BP or degradation of natural habitats. Most of the measures to properly manage 4.04 program activities will be in the marine areas the risk of any unforeseen (coastal and ocean) of the Pacific Island which are adverse environmental impact known sites rich in biodiversity. All program on natural habitats, including activities are designed to enhance positive and critical natural habitats, as well sustainable returns to these important habitats. as measures to enhance the program's positive environmental outcomes. Forests OP/BP Yes As the project (sub-component 3.2) will include the Current ESMF includes a 4.36 technical assistance, scientific and survey expertise, Screening form (Annex A) and legal and regulatory support in order to enable ensure that the negative participating countries to pilot trials to assess their impacts on mangrove forests blue carbon potential, limitations and opportunities of any downstream activities and participate in blue carbon markets, and would under Component 3.2 are create conservation incentives for coastal addressed, and any positive communities to conserve the mangrove habitats, the impacts are enhanced. TOR policy is triggered. for the studies proposed under sub-component 3.2 will integrate policy requirements of OP 4.36. Pest No The project will not purchase, distribute, apply or Not applicable Management dispose of pesticides, including bactericides. OP 4.09 Physical No The project will not involve any major civil works. Not applicable Cultural It will support the construction of an operational Chance Finds Procedure are Resources center for surveillance of fisheries, and two outlying included in the ESMF. OP/BP 4.11 enforcement centers for fisheries surveillance (under Component 1) in Honiara, Solomon Islands. Additionally, small scale infrastructure works are foreseen to allow for inspection of fish catch at landing sites and restocking of beche-de-mer and establishment of the associated small scale drying facilities. Given the small scale works involved, the policy is not expected to be triggered. A chance finds procedure is included in the ESMF and EMP. Indigenous Yes Although OP4.10 does not apply in all participating Guidance provided in Annex B Page 29 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 Peoples OP/BP countries, this policy has been triggered as the of ESMF for the incorporation 4.10 project has a regional scope, and because specific of elements of an IPP into sites and activities were not identified at the project overall project design. preparation stage. It is possible that the project will affect Indigenous Peoples to some extent. Because the project beneficiaries are expected to be overwhelmingly indigenous peoples, the approach adopted will be to incorporate the elements of an IPP into overall project design. In PROP Phase I, the only country where the policy will be triggered is the Solomon Islands. Countries for the next phases are not defined yet. Annex B of the ESMF provides guidance on incorporating elements of an IPP into overall project design. Involuntary Yes Project activities may require small-scale coastal To address potential restriction Resettlement land acquisition. It is expected that market-based or of access to resources, a OP/BP 4.12 voluntary donation will be the common approach. Process Framework (PF) has Any voluntary land donations will meet the World been prepared in compliance Bank requirements through the application of the with requirements stated in OP Voluntary Land Donation Protocol appended to the 4.12 (See Annex E of the ESMF in Annex D. ESMF). Although it is considered unlikely, certain program activities may involve the involuntary acquisition of Voluntary Land Donation land and/or removal of assets. Accordingly, the Protocol (Annex D) policy will be triggered and a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF, presented in Annex C) has been prepared. Subsequently, Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plans will ensure that all affected persons are Resettlement Policy compensated for involuntary acquisition of land Framework (RPF, presented in and/or removal of assets at full replacement cost. Annex C) In case of downstream establishment of the MPAs, which could potentially restrict access to resources, IAs will select appropriate safeguard instrument(s) according to the responsibilities defined in the ESMF (and in particular the Annex on Process Framework). Safety of Dams No Neither this project nor the possible downstream Not applicable OP/BP 4.37 investments from project’s TA will involve building dams nor depend on an existing dam. Projects on No Following discussion with LEGEN and the RSA, it Not applicable International was agreed that there will be no impacts from this Waterways project or its possible downstream investments on OP/BP 7.50 international waterways as described under OP 7.50. Projects in No Any project activities in areas which may be Not applicable Disputed Areas disputed will be declared ineligible and not included OP/BP7.60 in the project. Page 30 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 B. Region-specific policy, legal and administrative framework and applicable rules and regulations. 62. International institutional context. The program is set within a complex array of international instruments, some legally binding, some voluntary, that have emerged over the last few decades in response to these declines and growing concerns about the need for more effective management of ocean resources. Key legally binding instruments are the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the 1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement 3 (UNFSA), and 1993 FAO Agreement to promote compliance with international conservation and management measures by fishing vessels on the high seas. Key voluntary instruments are the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and associated International Plans of Action to manage overcapacity; illegal, unreported, unregulated (IUU) fishing; as well as FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries; managing excess fishing capacity; ecosystem and precautionary approaches; integrated management; marine protected areas and fisheries; responsible trade – together with the 2012 FAO Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security, with the purpose of promoting secure tenure rights and equitable access to land, fisheries and forests as a means of eradicating hunger and poverty, supporting sustainable development and enhancing the environment. The project is fully consistent with the requirements and guidance provided by these instruments, with the major concern being their full and effective implementation (e.g. FAO SOFIA 2012). 63. The reported declining trends in many highly migratory fisheries can be attributed largely to the current weaknesses in institutional arrangements that govern access to these resources and the ways in which they are exploited. These weaknesses have led to poor fisheries performance – a classic tragedy of the commons played out in many parts of the world (Hardin 1968, but also explored in World Bank 2009 – the Sunken Billions4). Economic spillovers or externalities are particularly acute in shared highly migratory stocks where fleets compete in a race to fish, to capture rents from these valuable species. Competition occurs at multiple levels – within and between adjacent states, and between states’ EEZs and areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). 64. UNFSA is of particular relevance to this program. This instrument specifically addresses the conservation and management of straddling, highly migratory stocks. Consistent with the UNCLOS, the UNFSA obliges states inter alia to agree measures to ensure the optimal utilization of these stocks either through bilateral arrangements or through regional organizations. UNFSA provides that such measures take account of ‘special conditions’ of developing States (such as economic dependency) and that any management measures established for ABNJ in respect of these stocks do not undermine the effectiveness of 3 Relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. 4 It is important also to note the significance of effective fisheries management in the context of declining trends and the race to fish. FAO’s From Drain to Gain in Capture Fisheries Rents – A synthesis study (2010) notes that “negative to zero rents yielded by world capture fishery resources are reflected in the state of the resources themselves.� And that although 75 percent of the capture fishery resources are characterized as being fully exploited, overexploited, depleted or recovering from a biological perspective, this invariably implies these are all overexploited from an economic perspective i.e. from an “economic perspective, 75 percent of the global capture fishery resources are overexploited (World Bank and FAO, 2009)�. Page 31 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 management measures adopted by coastal States within their jurisdictions. In this regard, given the crucial importance of stakes held in these shared fisheries to the current and prospective economic wellbeing of several of our Bank clients, and the fact that these stakes risk being undermined unless effective fisheries management arrangements for both ABNJ and EEZ 5are established, UNFSA provides a powerful institutional rationale for World Bank engagement through this project (and through the overarching FAO led GEF ABNJ Program) in efforts to improve the management of these vitally important fisheries6. 65. Regional context. While the threats are significant and the trends are negative, the Pacific Ocean is still relatively healthy in comparison to other regions of the world, so PICs are well-positioned to be proactive in addressing these challenges. Like the Pacific Ocean, the systems within it are interconnected and interdependent, leading to regional responses to the constraints and opportunities that this natural asset provides. Encouragingly, PIC institutions are adapting to address these issues, in particular through supporting the development of a fixed number of clearer use rights for the tuna fisheries. Beginning in 2009, the eight Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA)7 countries established a fishing vessel day scheme (VDS) to govern access to the tuna in their waters, whereby a fixed number of transferable fishing days was established at the regional level and allocated to each country based on historical catch levels, and then sold by those countries to the fishing industry. This innovation has significantly enhanced efficiency and revenues to PICs, more than quadrupling the returns to the region in the last five years from US$60 million per year to US$240 million. There is room for further improvement in this system however, as some countries have exceeded the number of days allotted to them at the expense of the health of the resource, as well as engaged in bi-lateral agreements outside the VDS. With further strengthening the VDS offers an institutional platform for PICs to continue to increase the region’s share of the benefits generated by the tuna resources, however maintaining the status quo runs the risk of the system coming apart if individual countries work outside the collective arrangements and agreed limits on fishing pressure. 66. Additionally, at the regional level the PICs have adopted an ‘oceanscape’ approach, aiming to establish and effectively manage multi-use marine areas that reflect the archipelagic nature of the region. Collaborative multi-country conservation arrangements such as the Micronesia Challenge and the Coral Triangle Initiative, as well as national commitments such as Kiribati’s Phoenix Islands Protected Area, and large-scale shark sanctuaries established by Palau, Tokelau and (most recently) Marshall Islands provide good examples of such areas, and are potentially valuable platforms for investment in the protection and restoration of critical habitats. Such initiatives also provide powerful test cases for the use of innovative sustainable financing 5 Including territorial seas and archipelagic waters 6 Nothing in the Bank’s legal and policy architecture prevents it from providing financing for activities related to ABNJ as long as the implementation arrangements are made through an entity that has the mandate to implement activities in ABNJ [Section 3 of the IDA Articles and Article XI: Section 2(g) of the IBRD articles refer to the “territorial application� of the articles as being each signatory government on its own behalf (including its territories). IDA Articles also note that the beneficiaries of Bank financing can include a public international or regional organization, such as an RFMO]. 7 FSM, Kiribati, RMI, Nauru, Palau, PNG, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. More than half of the WCPO purse- seine tuna catch, and about a quarter of the world supply of canning-grade tuna, comes from the exclusive economic zones of these 8 PICs. Page 32 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 mechanisms linked to benefits from ecosystem services, many of which may flow beyond national boundaries. At the same time, smaller local initiatives such as those mediated by the Locally Managed Marine Areas network (LMMA) and other community-conservation NGOs have also delivered significant results in the region. 67. PICs have developed a number of regional policies and initiatives to address ocean- related issues within the framework of the Pacific Plan, which was adopted by PI Forum leaders in 2005 as the master strategy for PI regional integration and coordination. The Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Policy (PIROP) and the Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Framework for Integrated Strategic Action (PIROF-ISA) were approved by leaders in 2002 and 2005 respectively, and aim to ensure the sustainable use of the Pacific Ocean and its resources through: (a) improving our understanding of the oceans; (b) sustainably developing and managing the use of ocean resources; (c) maintaining the health of the ocean; (d) promoting the peaceful use of the ocean (e) improving ocean governance; and (f) creating partnerships and promoting cooperation. 68. The Pacific Oceanscape Framework (‘Oceanscape’) was subsequently developed and endorsed by the 2010 PI Forum, where leaders tasked CROP to implement the Framework in partnership with other relevant organizations. The Oceanscape aligns with the broader goal of the PIROP, and this in turn supports aspects of the Pacific Plan, which addresses the whole development spectrum. A number of CROP agencies, development partners and international conservation NGOs have been supporting countries in the implementation of the PIROP and, now, the Pacific Oceanscape Framework. 69. Among other initiatives, the Oceanscape includes the design, establishment and effective management of multi-use marine areas that reflect the archipelagic nature of the region. Collaborative multi-country conservation arrangements such as the Micronesia Challenge and the Coral Triangle Initiative, as well as national commitments such as Kiribati’s Phoenix Islands Protected Area, and large-scale shark sanctuaries established by Palau, Tokelau and (most recently) Marshall Islands provide good examples of such areas, and are potentially valuable platforms for investment in the protection and restoration of critical habitats. Such initiatives also provide powerful test cases for the use of innovative sustainable financing mechanisms linked to benefits from ecosystem services, many of which may flow beyond national boundaries. At the same time, smaller local initiatives such as those mediated by the Locally Managed Marine Areas network (LMMA) and other community-conservation NGOs have also delivered significant results in the region. Page 33 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 C. Regulatory Framework and Gap Analysis 70. Country specific social and environmental regulations and the relevant approval, permitting and licensing obligations to process and execute the program/project for each country of Phase I is summarized below. The fisheries legislation dates from 1998 to 2012 and generally provides a good basic framework is also discussed below. A regional treaty implements Article 73 for US vessels/crew. 71. Federated States of Micronesia: Marine Environment Regulations. Constitution 1975 expressly delegates to the national government natural resources beyond 12nm. Title 24 of the Code of the FSM is the (new subtitle) Marine Resources Act 2002 (Chapters 1-11 including new Chapter 6 on Enforcement and Chapter 2 establishing National Oceanic Marine Resources Authority NORMA). Amendment concerning management of species has been tabled in 2014. 72. The FSM government is mandated through the nation’s constitution to provide overarching laws and regulations associated with the nation’s marine environment and resources for the nation. The Economic Excusive Zone (EEZ) extends out to 200 nautical miles and is under national laws. Due to the traditional and customary traditions of the various ethnic groups that make up the FSM and their traditional coastal and marine ownership patterns, the regulation of marine resources within 12 nautical miles (22.22 Km) of the coast has traditionally been considered the legal province of the States. Therefore, the States are ultimately responsible for protection of their marine resources within the 12-mile limit. However, national legislation associated with resource management within this zone is mandatory at the state level. 73. Through Article IX of the FSM Constitution provides a long list of powers to the Congress, including regulation of the ownership, exploration, and exploitation of natural resources beyond 12 miles from island baselines. National legislation pertaining to the management and protection of marine environment include:  Federated States of Micronesia Code (FSCMC) Title 18 – Territory, Economic Zones and Ports of Entry establishes the 200 mile extended fishery zone of the National Government and the 12-mile exclusive fishery zone of the States, their islands, and atolls. Section 106 states that traditionally recognized fishing rights in submerged reef areas shall be preserved and protected.  FSMC Title 24 – Marine Resources creates the Micronesian Maritime Authority, now known as National Oceanic Resource Management Authority (NORMA), which regulates the management and exploitation of marine resources within the 200 mile (322 Km) Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), addresses foreign fishing agreements, and administers the fishing permit system. Provision is also made for the States to establish entities to regulate commercial use of marine resources within their jurisdictions.  FSCMC Title 23, – Resource Conservation addresses conservation of marine species and protection of endangered species of fish, shellfish and game. It prohibits fishing using destructive methods, including the use of explosives, poisons or chemicals. It also sets limits on the taking or killing of hawksbill sea turtles and regulates the taking of sponges. Penalties for violation of its provisions are inadequate, with a fine up to $100 and/or six months imprisonment. Chapter Two of this Title allows for taking of these species for subsistence food or traditional uses, provided such taking does not further endanger the species involved. Page 34 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014  Environmental Protection Act protects the environmental quality of air, land and water in Micronesia. The Secretary of Health, Education and Social Affairs (HESA) is given general authorization to control and prevent pollution. The Secretary administers a permit system for this purpose and is also authorized to enter into cooperative agreements with the States to implement environmental programs at the State level. The Act contains ample civil penalties for violations of its provisions.  Federated States of Micronesia: Land Acquisition. Principal FSM and State laws include: (i) FSM Constitution; (ii) Yap State Constitution; and (iii) Division of Land Resources procedures (including Land Registration Bill 2010). Land Acquisition Procedures (LAP) were developed by the Attorney General solely for the purpose of The Yap Renewable Energy Development Project. The LAP describes detailed procedures on land survey and resolution of disputes, acquisition of land by the State and transfer of land to the Yap State Public Service Corporation. The Yap State Standing Lease Committee (YSSLC) was responsible for the coordination and execution of land acquisition and compensation processes. 74. Federated States of Micronesia: Marine Management. National government legislation governs the management of State’s inshore coastal and marine resources as well as FSM’s Economic Excusive Zone (EEZ) which extends out to 200 nautical miles. Both Yap and Chuuk State governments are responsible for management of marine resources on behalf of the landowners within State Fishery Zones (up to 12nm) as defined in the Yap State Code and Chuuk State Code. Yap State’s Marine Resources Management Division (MRMD) is mandated to manage the States inshore marine resources in collaboration with other State government divisions and agencies and laws provide various levels of protection and management of coastal and marine resources including coconut crabs, turtles, giant clams, Trochus and complete ban on the use of fish poisons and explosives for fishing. 75. The Department of Marine Resources Development (DMRD) is governed by the Chuuk State Law 5-92. The Chuuk State Constitution recognizes all traditional rights and ownership over all reefs, tidelands, and other submerged lands subject to legislative regulation of their reasonable use. Tidelands traditionally are those lands from the dry land to the deep water at the edge of the reef, and must be shallow enough for Chuukese women to engage in traditional methods of fishing. The management and/or protection of coastal and marine resources include only a total ban on the use of explosives (dynamite fishing) and the sale of fish collected using this method. There are currently no other laws in the Act that place restrictions on species or methods of harvest. The FSM regulations that protect the harvest of turtles and their eggs, the collection of black pearl oyster (Pinctada margaritifera) and Trochus are not included in the Act. 76. Republic of the Marshall Islands: Marine Environment Regulations. Constitution 1982 and Marshall Islands Revised Code 2012. This is Public Law 2011-63 that included significant amendments to Title 51: Management of Marine Resources: Marine Resources Authority Act 1997 (Chapter 1) and the Fisheries Enforcement Act 1997 (Chapter 5). Amendments were also made to conservation measures in the Fisheries Act 1997 (Chapter 2) and Fisheries Access and Licensing Act 1997 (Chapter 4) but no changes to Local Fisheries (Chapter 3). Three fisheries Regulations are proposed in 2014 relating to the Competent Authority; Aquaculture and Deep Sea Mining. The Marine Zones (Declaration) Act 1984 specifies a 12 Page 35 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 nautical mile territorial sea and 200 nautical mile zone for RMI’s EEZ. Inshore fisheries are designated to be within 5 miles of the shoreline. The Marine Resources Act 1997 is the key legislative instrument controlling fishing by domestic and foreign vessels within the EEZ and was amended in 2011. The National Environmental Protection Act 1984 is the key legislative instrument for environmental conservation in the Marshall Islands. 77. Republic of the Marshall Islands: Marine Management. Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority (MIMRA) was established in 2007 with primary responsibility for the management and regulation of marine and fisheries resources, exploration, fishing licenses and conservation in RMI. MIMRA facilitate community-based resource management plans in outer islands through the Reimaanlok process and support from the Coastal Management Advisory Council (CMAC). Guiding documents on the Reimaanlok process have been developed and incorporate tools on community engagement for the management of community-based conservation areas (Reimaan National Planning Team 2008 and 2012). 78. Republic of the Marshall Islands: Land Acquisition Act (1986) is the key legal instrument for the acquisition of land for public purpose by the Minister. The LAA was revised in 2012 and includes provisions for investigation activities, notification periods, rights and compensation for landowners. 79. Tuvalu: Marine Environment Regulations. Constitution 1987 (UK Common law system) has a Marine Resources Act 2006 that has been amended in 2012 to meet international and regional responsibilities. There is a Maritime Zones Act 2012 (declarations of archipelagic baselines and EEZ) and two relevant regulations in 2000 (VMS) and 2009 (PNA closure of High Seas). Tuvalu has expressed a need to update legislation to further implement regional arrangements in the RFMO: Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) such as IUU and Port State measures. 80. Environmental protection is governed by the Conservation Areas Act 1999 and Environmental Protection Act 2008. Fisheries in Tuvalu are legislated by the Marine Resources Act 2006. The Maritime Zones Act 2012 outlines the territorial sea and other key maritime zones, including the EEZ at 200 nautical miles. Section 8 of the Marine Resources Act 2006 outlines the responsibilities of Fisheries Officers in Tuvalu regarding the development of fisheries management plans. Fisheries Officers are responsible for carrying out consultations and gaining approval on plans from the relevant Falekaupule 81. Tuvalu: Marine Management. Tuvalu’s coastal fisheries are under the Falekaupule which is a traditional institution comprising traditional leaders formed to handle traditional matters in Tuvalu. The Kaupule (Council) on each of the nine islands is the executing arm of the Falekaupule whom develop strategic plans that align to Kakeega II (the Tuvalu National Development Plan 2005-2015). The Fisheries Department of Tuvalu (TFD) aims to conduct resource and socio-economic assessments in selected islands, and provide ongoing support to each of the islands to develop and implement management plans that would be approved by the island councils. The community on each island has formed a fishers’ association, which operates under the umbrella of the national Tuvalu Fishermen’s Association, and has in most instances led the development of some form of management measures for approval by the Kaupule. The Page 36 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 presence of sub-communities from all of Tuvalu’s islands leads to reduced compliance of decisions made by the Funafuti Kaupule (Town Hall), which itself has limited capacity in fisheries management. 82. Land acquisition. The Native Lands Act is an act relating to Native land and registration of title thereto. It establishes the principle of indefeasibility of native title to land once it had been registered by the Commission. (s 4). Native lands shall not be alienated whether by sale, gift, and lease or otherwise, to a person who is not a native. (s 5) However, native lands may be alienated to the Crown by lease. (s 5(2)). Tuvalu Lands Code is a subordinate law to the Tuvalu Lands Act. It is largely a codification of customs and practices governing land rights and inheritance of customary land for each island of Tuvalu. The Crown Acquisition of Lands Act is a law to regulate the acquisition of land by the Crown for public purposes. The Act provides power of the Minister to acquire any lands require for any public purpose absolutely or for a term of years or the Minister may think proper. It prescribes the process in the event the Minister is to exercise such power. 83. Solomon Islands: Marine Environment Regulations. Constitution 1978 (UK Common law system) has the oldest Fisheries Act 1998 but a draft Fisheries Management Bill 2014. This bill will implement the National Plan of Action for IUU of October 2013. The most recent Regulations to implement regional conservation and management measures for the purse seine fishery: Fisheries (Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) Third Implementation Arrangement) Regulations 2010. There is national legislation that implements the Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of USA 1987. This is the Fisheries (USA) Treaty Act 1988 and implements Article 73 UNCLOS for USA vessels and crew. The Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology (MECDM) in the Solomon Islands is responsible for national coastal resource and biodiversity planning and key legislation on natural resource management including the Environmental Act 1998, Environmental Regulations 2008 and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) guidelines. The EIS guidelines (2013) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) guidelines for Onshore Fisheries Processing Facilities (forthcoming) set out the process for the preparation of an EIS and require that an EIS be made publicly available and ensure public participation Key legislation includes the Fisheries Act 1998 (to be superseded) and Fisheries Management Bill 2014 (draft). Under the Provincial Government Act 1997 and Fisheries Act 1998 (to be superseded by the Fisheries Management Bill 2014), the Provincial Government has decentralised responsibilities for coastal fisheries management and is able to make specific laws or ‘ordinances’ for fisheries that are locally relevant (e.g. Western Province Fisheries Ordinance 2011, Choiseul Province Fisheries and Marine Environment Ordinance 1997, among others). In addition, MECDM have responsibility for the Protected Areas Act 2010 which provides a legal framework for the ‘owner’ of an area to declare, register and manage this area as a protected area (if approved by the Director). This process requires thorough consultation with traditional leaders, customary owners, communities, non-government organisations (NGOs) and other agencies to inform the development of a suitable management plan for the proposed area. 84. Land and Marine Tenure and Legislation. Customary tenure and governance systems are recognised in various national legislative instruments including the Land and Titles Act 1996, Customary Lands Records Act 1996 and the Constitution of the Solomon Islands. Article 75 of Page 37 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 the Constitution provides that Parliament shall make provisions for the application of laws, including customary laws and customary rights over land and marine areas. The Land and Titles Act outlines provisions for the acquisition of land for public purpose including compensation process and costs. 85. Solomon Islands: Marine Management. The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) Corporate Plan 2014-2018 and the Fisheries Section in the Solomon Islands Medium Term Development Plan 2014-2018 are guiding policies for the development of the Fisheries sector in the Solomon Islands. Section 15 of the Fisheries Management Bill 2014 (forthcoming) will give Community Fisheries Management Plans (CFMP) legal recognition as a by-law upon adoption by the Provincial Assembly and must include written consent of customary rights holders. 86. Adherence to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). In order to be eligible for World Bank financing for fisheries enforcement, a country’s fisheries legislation must be compatible with international law, and particularly with Article 73 (paragraphs 2, 3 and 4) of the UNCLOS, whereby any foreign vessels and crews detained in the EEZ will be immediately released upon posting a reasonable bond, and the flag state of the vessel is immediately notified. 87. Legal analysis conducted of the national legal framework of FSM, RMI, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu and the extent to which the framework includes specific UNCLOS provisions, showed that all four PICs have embraced and adapted to the UNCLOS (and EEZ) regime. No inconsistencies, as such, were found in national legislation. All are parties and active participants in regional fisheries management organizations (RFMO) such as the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission for Highly Migratory Fish Stocks (WCPFC). All four are members of the FFA and relevant regional Conservation Agreements and Surveillance Treaties. Most have also adopted standard license conditions in national legislation with technical assistance from FFA. 88. None of the countries has legislation which expressly implements all conditions required in Article 73, paragraphs (2), (3) and (4). As such, PROP is designed to assist in the development of any revisions or additions to legal frameworks that may be needed, and a conducting a rolling regional review of the functions and services required to manage tuna fisheries and identify opportunities for regional, sub-regional and national level location and provision of fisheries management services (e.g. management, science, monitoring and surveillance and enforcement hubs, etc.). 89. As most States have Oceanic fishery units of limited staff with limited means to enforce their national laws, PROP will provide support to participating countries to strengthen and increase their collaboration for surveillance of fisheries and enforcement of the VDS, such as establishing monitoring centers and observers; and enhanced aerial and sea patrols. Page 38 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 V. PROCEDURES TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL IMPACTS 90. Screening of proposed activities for environment and social impacts will be done by the Project implementing agencies according to the template screening form presented in Annex A. The screening of the activities for adverse environment and social impacts and the preparation of appropriate safeguard instruments for each activity plan will be guided by this Environment and Social Management Framework (ESMF). The World Bank and implementing agencies, who implement the project activities in each identified country, have the overall responsibility for ensuring that environmental and social issues are adequately addressed within the project cycle, as described in Table 4. 91. Technical assistance will be provided by the project, and as such the Bank’s Interim Guidelines on the Application of Safeguard Policies to Technical Assistance (TA) Activities in Bank- Financed Projects and Trust Funds Administered by the Bank will apply. Accordingly, Terms of References for the TA activities will be approved by the Bank to ensure the consultancy outputs comply with the Bank safeguard policies. 92. The bank classifies the proposed project into one of four categories, depending on the type, location, sensitivity, and scale of the project and the nature and magnitude of its potential environmental impacts.  Category A downstream projects are those that have potential significant adverse environmental and social impacts that are (i) sensitive (i.e., a potential impact is considered sensitive if it may be irreversible - e.g., lead to loss of a major natural habitat, or raise issues covered by OP 4.04, Natural Habitats; OP 4.36, Forests; OP 4.10, Indigenous Peoples; OP 4.11, Physical Cultural Resources; or OP 4.12, Involuntary Resettlement; or in the case of OP 4.09, when a project includes the manufacture, use, or disposal of environmentally significant quantities of pest control products); (ii) diverse, or unprecedented; and/or, (iii) affecting an area broader than the sites or facilities subject to physical works.  Category B downstream projects are those projects that have potential adverse environment and social impacts that are less adverse, site-specific; and few if any of the impacts are irreversible.  Category C downstream projects are those projects that have minimal or no adverse environmental and social impacts. 93. Proposed safeguard instruments:  Limited Environment and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA). A limited ESIA is undertaken for Category B projects that will require additional project-specific data/information and further analysis to determine the full extent of environment and social impacts, which cannot be supplied by an Environment and Social Management Plan (ESMP) and/or an Environmental Code of Practice (ECOP). Exceptions: all Category A projects will apply a full ESIA, while Category C projects do not require any safeguard instrument beyond screening. Page 39 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014  Environmental and Social Management Plan (ESMP). For projects that do not require additional data and analysis, an ESMP may be prepared to address construction-related and site-specific environment and social issues.  Environmental Code of Practice (ECOP). For construction-related impacts, an ECOP should be sufficient to address environment and social issues.  Process Framework (PF). Prepared to address social safeguard issues relating to restriction of access to protected areas, habitats, parks and natural resources that people’s livelihoods may depend upon.  Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF). Prepared to address safeguard issues related to the potential loss of fixed assets including structures, crops, trees, etc. during implementation if required (to be appended to ESFM once developed).  Social Assessment (SA). Projects triggering OP 4.10 are required to undertake a social assessment and free, prior and informed consultations. The social assessment may be undertaken as a separate exercise or may be included as part of a broader ESIA and will inform safeguard instruments. Assessment results may be presented as a stand-alone social assessment document, or may be incorporated into the broader ESIA. Triggering of OP 4.10 will be guided by the “Guidance on Triggering Indigenous Peoples Policy in the PIC� according to the Pacific Island Countries Interim Environmental and Social Safeguard Procedures (2014). 94. IAs will prepare and submit screening documents and safeguards instruments. FFA, as a regional representative of project IAs, is responsible for the review and approval of safeguards documents. 95. During project implementation, the implementing agency will be responsible for ensuring the safeguards requirements are properly implemented. FFA will be responsible for supervision of safeguard requirements. Page 40 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 VI. PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE 96. Consultation to date. A Fisheries Engagement Strategy took place in 2011/12 with various stakeholders regarding the possibility of a coordinated regional project to provide financing and technical assistance to support continued sustainable development of the marine fisheries. Extensive consultations across PICs were undertaken to conceptualize and agree on the key components of PROP. Over the last two years, further consultations have taken place to better understand the context and dimensions of fisheries at the national and subnational level fisheries and inform project design. 97. Regional consultations in the RMI. During the preparatory mission to the RMI, a meeting was held on August 15, 2014 in Majuro with representatives from the fisheries agencies of FSM (NORMA), RMI (MIMRA), Solomon Islands (MFMR) and Tuvalu (TFD) to discuss the PROP design, financing and safeguard requirements. Apart from the representatives from the implementing agencies of each participating country, meeting included the representative from the FFA, the Parties to the Nauru Agreement Office (PNAO) and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). The mission reached agreement with NORMA, MIMRA, MFMR, TFD and FFA (implementing agencies) on the process of preparing and incorporating safeguard instruments in the implementation arrangements. Please see Annex E for consultation minutes. Draft of current ESMF was shared with each IAs few weeks before this regional meeting took place, which allowed the stakeholders to get familiar with the bank safeguard policies and the implementation requirements. After the consultations, countries worked with the FFA and agreed on the final version of this ESMF, which was formally submitted to the Bank on September 23, 2014 by the FFA on behalf of all IAs. 98. National Consultations. In addition to the regional consultation in RMI, national consultations were held in RMI, Tuvalu and Solomon Islands – to ensure stakeholder awareness and feedback in regard to the specific country context within the Component 2 (which is not applicable to FSM). Consultation minutes are attached in Annex E. 99. Information Disclosure. The IAs are responsible for managing information dissemination, overseeing public consultation and assuring compliance to the guidelines and protocols set out by safeguard instruments on consultation, such as the Process Framework. These agencies will ensure personnel are trained on relevant communication protocols and procedures regarding stakeholder engagement including Consultation Plans for subprojects. Dedicated channels for information dissemination will be established by IAs to ensure regular, ongoing communication with stakeholders throughout the project cycle. 100. All relevant information will be disclosed on the World Bank website (www.worldbank.org) and FFA website (www.ffa.int). 101. Ongoing Consultation. PROP will require the ongoing engagement of communities and other fisheries stakeholders at the national, provincial/state and local level. Consultation methods and activities will be defined prior to implementation by personnel responsible for community interface and the delivery of public consultation and information dissemination at the local level as identified in the Consultation Plan. Consultation activities will enable meaningful consultation Page 41 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 based upon the principles of free, prior, and informed consultation (FPIC), particularly in cases that require joint-decision making and community participation (e.g. resource restrictions or management) and where projects are pursuing a community-driven approach. 102. Engagement Methods. Information will be presented in a format accessible to the target audience through culturally appropriate methods. Consultation sessions will include special outreach efforts and be tailored to the need of vulnerable groups such as women, elderly and disabled persons so that the process is socially inclusive and a range of stakeholder views and perspectives are adequately represented. Consultation methods will be designed in consideration of the different sociocultural norms that inhibit the participation and input into decision-making from vulnerable groups and persons. Consultation will be well-documented to ensure the views of stakeholders are captured and incorporated into project design, and/or addressed where necessary. In addition, follow-up with communities on the outcome of consultation and participatory activities will be undertaken where it is due. Page 42 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 VII. GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM 103. A project-specific Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) is detailed in the Process Framework (Annex E Process Framework, Section VII). For the purpose of the ESMF, the GRM has been summarised below. 104. Local communities and other interested stakeholders may raise a grievance at any time to the IA in the specific country or the World Bank. A focal point for grievance management will be established prior to implementation, and be responsible for managing and tracking grievances via logbook and/or database for the purpose of the PROP. Training on the grievance redress mechanism (GRM) will be provided to relevant project teams and partners upon project induction. Specific details on grievance resolution arrangements may be included in the Implementation Plan developed for the project. (Further information on the GRM is supplied in the Annex E Process Framework). 105. As a first stage, relevant project personnel (i.e. project field teams, Community Liaison Officers etc.) will be required to accept formal verbal or written grievances and record these in written form in a grievance logbook and assigned. Once grievances are lodged the PROP Coordinator within the IA should respond in writing within 30 calendar days of receipt. Project IAs should ensure that they make available the project grievance redress mechanism accessible to affected local communities. 106. The Complainant will confirm whether they are satisfied with the response to their grievance and the matter can be closed out. Upon resolution, grievances should be filed, included in project monitoring reports, and a copy of the grievance should be provided to the FFA. If the claimant is not satisfied with the response, it will be escalated to the PSU to resolve. 107. Business plans triggering specific safeguard instruments must also include local conflict resolution and grievance redress mechanisms in the respective safeguard documents. These will be developed in participation with the affected communities in culturally appropriate ways and will ensure adequate representation from vulnerable or marginalized groups and sub-groups. Page 43 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 VIII. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS, RESPONSIBILITIES AND CAPACITY BUILDING 108. Program implementation will involve a single agency as the national focal point entity and one or two regional agencies involved in implementing regional activities and overall program coordination and monitoring. These include:  Fisheries Ministries, Departments, Authorities or Agencies. For Phase I they include: a. Solomon Islands Ministry of Fisheries & Marine Resources, b. Fisheries Department of Tuvalu’s Ministry of Natural Resources, c. Marshall Islands Marine Resources Authority (MIMRA) d. National Oceanic Resource Management Authority (NORMA) in Federated States of Micronesia  Regional organizations involved in fisheries: FFA in the Phase I; Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), The South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and others in later phases.  The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat in regard to coordination and monitoring of regionally executed activities. 109. There are 11 Pacific Island Countries eligible to join PROP. Each possesses differing levels of familiarity with Bank Safeguards Policies and Procedures; however the level of institutional capacity across the region as a whole is quite weak. During the preparatory missions to the region, representatives from each IAs were met and briefed on the bank safeguard requirements. Additionally, it is one of the PROP activities to build capacity in each EAs. A detailed assessment will be conducted for each country to ascertain the Borrower's institutional capacity for applying and complying with Bank safeguard policies. Bank will provide appropriate atraining of IAs staff and technical assistance to build institutional capacity and provide ongoing implementation support 110. Nevertheless, the World Bank will provide refresher training to each Project implementing agency in the first year of the implementation to build their capacity and provide implementation support during the actual determination of the range of activities to be included in the “menu� of each country’s support. 111. FFA, representing its member countries participating in the PROP, including the countries participating in Phase I, has experience with World Bank safeguards because of the link to IDA-financed operations. Responsibilities 112. The IAs have the overall responsibility for ensuring that environmental and social issues are adequately addressed within the project, as described in Table 4, with the support of the FFA. If the risks or complexity of particular safeguard issues outweigh the benefits of any proposed activities, these particular activities will be excluded from the project World Bank will assist and supervise. Page 44 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 Table 4: Key responsibilities for ESMF implementation Business Planning World Bank Project Implementing agencies (known for Phase I only; unknown for the whole program) Phase – applicable for national IAs, otherwise the role is assigned to FFA as specified below Scoping Confirm consultations are adequate - Disclose ESMF - Undertake informed consultation8 with stakeholders and interested parties in the area (technical and geographical) proposed to identify potential scope of adverse environmental and social impacts Screening Review screening process - Screen all proposed activities for adverse social and environmental impacts (guided by outcome of scoping exercise) - Eliminate all activities that are included in the negative list in Table 5. Preparation Review safeguard instruments - Applying ESMF principles and process, produce zero drafts of relevant safeguard instruments to include in each project or activity when appropriate Review consultation process - Disclose draft - Undertake informed consultation on drafts with stakeholders and affected peoples - Update instruments to reflect stakeholder input and include with final activities Preparation of the Guidance and clearance - IAs to prepare safeguard instruments in accordance with the ESMF requirements safeguard instruments - FFA to ensure quality control, assist and supervise Implementation Supervise the implementation - Update safeguard instruments (including budget) in consultation with affected people when process near-final technical specifications are agreed - Fully disclose all final safeguard instruments - Monitor and document the implementation of safeguard measures. When indigenous peoples are affected, include them in participatory monitoring and evaluation exercises Capacity building Project team to undertake detailed - FFA to provide capacity support capacity assessment. - Participate and work to strengthen capacity systems within the country Clear terms of reference for capacity building consultants to ensure their work/outputs meet World Bank safeguard requirements 8 Consultants were carried out before the appraisal of the project, via Fisheries Engagement Strategy 2011/12 and country visits (missions). Page 45 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 Table 5. Ineligible Activity List The following activities will be deemed ineligible – activities which: 1. Involves the significant conversion or degradation of critical natural habitats. 2. Will significantly damage non-replicable cultural property. 3. Requires:  Political campaign materials or donations in any form;  Weapons including (but not limited to), mines, guns and ammunition;  Involuntary land acquisition (and associated physical resettlement) under any conditions;  Any activity on land that is considered dangerous due to security hazards or the presence of unexploded mines or bombs;  Any activity on land or affecting land that has disputed ownership, tenure or user rights.  Any activity that will support drug crop production or processing of such crops. 4. In addition to the above general list, the following negative list is added from the IFC exclusion list:  Production or trade in any product or activity deemed illegal under host country laws or regulations or international conventions and agreements;  Trade in wildlife or wildlife products regulated under CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora);  Production or trade in radioactive materials;  Production or trade in or use of unbounded asbestos fibers;  Purchase of logging equipment for use in cutting forest;  Production or trade in pharmaceuticals subject to international phase outs or bans;  Production or trade in pesticides/herbicides subject to international phase outs or bans;  Fishing in the marine environment using electric shocks and explosive materials;  Production or activities involving harmful or exploitative forms of forced labor / harmful child labor.  Commercial logging operations for use in primary tropical moist forest;  Production or trade in products containing PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls);  Production or trade in ozone depleting substances subject to international phase out;  Production or trade in wood or other forestry products from unmanaged forests;  Production, trade, storage, or transport of significant volumes of hazardous chemicals, or commercial scale usage of hazardous chemicals;  Production or trade in any product or activity deemed illegal under host country laws or regulations or international conventions and agreements;  Production or trade in alcoholic beverages;  Gambling, casinos and equivalent enterprises;  Anti-democratic activities like e.g. Nazi propaganda Page 46 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 Disclosure 113. The ESMF is made available through the following web-sites:  World Bank website (www.worldbank.org)  Forum Fisheries Agency (regional representative of project IAs) - www.ffa.int  Relevant project IAs, upon their selection  In-country consultation with key stakeholders 114. During the preparation of country-specific activities, any safeguard instrument prepared as part of the activities will also need to be publicly disclosed, including in a language and format accessible to affected communities. 115. Disclosure will occur in two phases:  Disclosure of assessment documents (e.g. social assessment and environmental review) and draft safeguard documents (e.g. PF) during activities preparation and prior to their final review and approval. Disclosure during activities list preparation aims to seek feedback and input from local communities, and as appropriate other stakeholders, on the activities proposed and safeguard measures and documents.  Disclosure of final safeguard documents prior to activities finalization to inform local communities of implementation measures concerning safeguard issues. Page 47 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 ANNEXES Annex A. SCREENING FORM FOR POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS ISSUES This form is to be used by the implementing agency to screen for potential environmental and social safeguards issues of activities eligible for financing, determine World Bank policies triggered and the instrument to be prepared for the activities planned. Project Name Project Location Project Proponent Project Type/Sector Estimated Investment Start/Completion Date Questions Answer If Yes, Documents yes no WB policy required if Yes triggered Are the project activities’ impacts likely to OP 4.01 Environmental and have significant adverse environmental Environmental Social Impact impacts that are sensitive9, diverse or Assessment Assessment (ESIA) unprecedented? Please provide brief Category A description10 Do the impacts affect an area broader than the OP 4.01 ESIA sites or facilities subject to physical works and Environmental are the significant adverse environmental Assessment impacts irreversible? Please provide brief Category A description: Is the proposed project likely to have minimal OP 4.01 No action needed or no adverse environmental impacts?11 Environmental beyond screening Please provide brief justification: Assessment Category C 9 Sensitive (i.e., a potential impact is considered sensitive if it may be irreversible - e.g., lead to loss of a major natural habitat, or raise issues covered by OP 4.04, Natural Habitats; OP 4.36, Forests; OP 4.10, Indigenous Peoples; OP 4.11, Physical Cultural Resources; or OP 4.12, Involuntary Resettlement; or in the case of OP 4.09, when a project includes the manufacture, use, or disposal of environmentally significant quantities of pest control products); 10 Examples of projects where the impacts are likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are sensitive, diverse or unprecedented are large scale infrastructure such as construction of new roads, railways, power plants, major urban development, water treatment, waste water treatment plants and solid waste collection and disposal etc. 11 Examples of projects likely to have minimal or no adverse environmental impacts are supply of goods and services, technical assistance, simple repair of damaged structures etc. Page 48 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 Is the project neither a Category A nor OP 4.01 Limited ESIA or Category C as defined above?12 Please Environmental ESMP provide brief justification: Assessment Category B Are the project impacts likely to have OP 4.01 ESIA significant adverse social impacts that are Environmental sensitive, diverse or unprecedented?13 Please Assessment provide brief description: Category A Will the project adversely impact physical OP 4.11 Addressed in ESIA cultural resources?14 Please provide brief Physical (ESIA with PCR justification: Cultural Management Plan Resources and Chance Find Procedures in EMP) Will the project involve the conversion or OP 4.04 Addressed in ESIA degradation of non-critical natural habitats? Natural Please provide brief justification: Habitats Will the project involve the significant OP 4.04 Not eligible conversion or degradation of critical natural Natural habitats15? Habitats Does the project construct a new dam or rely OP 4.37 Dam Dam Safety Plan on the performance of an existing dam or a Safety dam under construction? Does the project procure pesticides (either OP4.09 Pest Addressed in ESIA directly through the project, or indirectly Management (Pest Management through on-lending, co-financing, or Plan) government counterpart funding), or may affect pest management in a way that harm could be done, even though the project is not envisaged to procure pesticides? Could project developments result in loss of OP 4.12 Abbreviated 12 Projects that do not fall either within OP 4.01 as a Category A or Category C can be considered as Category B. Examples of category B projects include small scale in-situ reconstruction of infrastructure projects such as road rehabilitation and rural water supply and sanitation, small schools, rural health clinics etc. 13 Projects requiring significant adverse social impacts, such as physical displacement, are ineligible. Generally, projects with significant resettlement-related impacts should be categorized as A. Application of judgment is necessary in assessing the potential significance of resettlement-related impacts, which vary in scope and scale from project to project. Projects that would require physical relocation of residents or businesses, as well as projects that would cause any individuals to lose more than 10 percent of their productive land area, often are categorized as A. Scale may also be a factor, even when the significance of impacts is relatively minor. Projects affecting whole communities or relatively large numbers of persons (for example, more than 1,000 in total) may warrant categorization as A, especially for projects in which implementation capacity is likely to be weak. Projects that would require relocation of Indigenous Peoples, that would restrict their access to traditional lands or resources, or that would seek to impose changes to Indigenous Peoples’ traditional institutions, are always likely to be categorized as A. 14 Examples of physical cultural resources are archaeological or historical sites, including historic urban areas, religious monuments, structures and/or cemeteries particularly sites recognized by the government. 15 Projects that significantly convert or degrade critical natural habitats such as legally protected, officially proposed for protection, identified by authoritative sources for their high conservation. Page 49 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 assets or access to assets, or loss of income Involuntary Resettlement Action sources and means of livelihood for local Resettlement Plan or Livelihoods people? Please provide brief explanation: Restoration Program in accordance with Process Framework Will the project impact upon the subsistence OP 4.12 Livelihoods regimes and livelihood dependency on natural Involuntary Restoration Program resources of local communities? (i.e. through Resettlement in accordance with the development of fisheries management Process Framework plans, mangrove conservation, etc.). Please provide a brief explanation: Will the project restrict access to, or use of, OP 4.12 Livelihoods land or natural resources, or involve Involuntary Restoration Program involuntary restriction of access to protected Resettlement in accordance with areas or parks and/or natural resources that Process Framework may lead to adverse livelihood impacts? Please provide brief explanation: Does the project involve involuntary land OP 4.12 Resettlement Action acquisition, and/or physical relocation and Involuntary Plan relocation of people due to involuntary land Resettlement acquisition? Please provide brief explanation: Will any physical works be sited on OP 4.12 Voluntary Land communal or collective land? Please provide a Involuntary Donation Protocol brief explanation: Resettlement (Annex D) or Abbreviated Resettlement Action Plan (if involuntary) Will any physical works be located on land OP 4.12 ARAP (according to that is used or occupied by persons? Please Involuntary eh Resettlement provide a brief explanation: Resettlement Policy Framework, Annex C) Will any physical works be sited on private OP 4.12 ESIA; ARAP; land? Will this be acquired through market- Involuntary Voluntary Land based lease or purchase, or voluntary Resettlement Donation Protocol donation? Please provide a brief explanation: (Annex D) Does the project involve the donation of land OP 4.12 Voluntary Land (in-kind) from project-affected persons for Involuntary Donation Protocol facilities or investments that will be of benefit Resettlement (Annex D) to the broader community? Please provide a brief explanation: Are there any Indigenous Peoples or ethnic OP 4.10 Guidance for the minority communities present in the project Indigenous incorporation of area that are likely to be affected by the People elements of an IPP proposed project negatively or positively? into overall project Please provide brief justification: design is provided in the ESMF. Will the project adversely impact, or have the OP 4.10 Guidance for the potential to adversely impact, upon customary Indigenous incorporation of Page 50 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 tenure systems and customary rights to access People elements of an IPP to areas and natural resources of Indigenous into overall project Peoples? Please provide a brief explanation: design is provided in the ESMF) Will the project have the potential to have OP4.36 Addressed in ESIA impacts on the health and quality of forests or Forestry the rights and welfare of people and their level of dependence upon or interaction with forests; or aims to bring about changes in the management, protection or utilization of natural forests or plantations? Please provide brief justification: Will the project have the potential to have Not eligible significant impacts or significant conversion OP4.36 or degradation of critical natural forests or Forestry other natural habitats? Is there any territorial dispute between two or Governments more countries in the project and its ancillary OP7.60 concerned agree aspects and related activities? Projects in Disputed Areas Will the project and its ancillary aspects and Notification related activities, including detailed design OP7.50 (or exceptions) and engineering studies, involve the use or Projects on potential pollution of, or be located in International international waterways16? Waterways Conclusion and Safeguards Instruments Required: The project is classified as a Category ________ project as per World Bank OP4.01, and the following safeguards instruments will be prepared: 1. _______________________________________________________________________ 2. _______________________________________________________________________ 3. _______________________________________________________________________ 4. _______________________________________________________________________ 5. _______________________________________________________________________ 16 International waterways include any river, canal, lake or similar body of water that forms a boundary between, or any river or surface water that flows through two or more states. Page 51 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 Annex B. INCORPORATING ELEMENTS OF AN IPP INTO OVERALL PROJECT DESING A. Introduction Indigenous Peoples (IPs) are the overwhelming majority of direct beneficiaries of the PROP. The Indigenous Peoples OP4.10 policy recognizes the distinct circumstances that expose Indigenous Peoples to different types of risks and impacts from development projects. As social groups with identities that are often distinct from dominant groups in their national societies, Indigenous Peoples are frequently among the most marginalized and vulnerable segments of the population.17 As a result, their economic, social, and legal status often limit their capacity to defend their rights to lands, territories, and other productive resources, and restricts their ability to participate in and benefit from development. Projects affecting Indigenous Peoples, whether adversely or positively, therefore need to be prepared with care and with the participation of affected communities. The requirements include social analysis to improve the understanding of the local context and affected communities; a process of free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities in order to fully identify their views and to obtain their broad community support to the project; and development of project-specific measures to avoid adverse impacts and enhance culturally appropriate benefits. B. Summary of Potential Issues and Impacts Relating to Indigenous Peoples Communities Each area and activity will be rapidly screened to determine whether Indigenous Peoples are present. A number of particular risks are relevant for the type of activities supported by the current project:  Customary and Indigenous Peoples’ rights. Particular rights of Indigenous Peoples are recognized in international agreements, and for World Bank-supported projects by the Bank‘s own policy. Such rights may also be recognized in national legislation. Project activities would always need to identify and recognize these rights to ensure that activities are not adversely affecting such rights. This is particularly the case for projects that support the development of management plans and other forms of land and natural resource use planning. Projects that support policy development may also affect Indigenous Peoples’ rights.  Loss of culture and social cohesion. Given Indigenous Peoples’ distinct cultures and identities and their frequent marginalization from the surrounding society, interventions may 17 OP 4.10 uses the term Indigenous Peoples to refer to a distinct, vulnerable, social and cultural group possessing the following characteristics in varying degrees: (i) self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this identify by others; (ii) collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources in these habitats and territories; (iii) customary cultural, social, economic, social or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and (iv) an indigenous language, often different from the official language of the country or region. Other terms used in different countries to refer to these groups include “indigenous ethnic minorities�, “aboriginals�, �hill tribes�, “minority nationalities�, “scheduled tribes� , and “tribal groups� (OP 4.10, para 4). Page 52 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 run the risk of imposing changes to or disruption of their culture and social organization, whether inadvertently or not. While indigenous communities may welcome and seek change, they can be vulnerable when such change is imposed from external forces and when such change is rushed.  Existing social arrangements can be disrupted due to formal employment opportunities and also when a large number of women trade traditional lifestyles for formal employment. There is a risk that indigenous women employed in cannery factories could be mistreated through inadequate pay and working conditions. The nature of the fishing industry exposes women to the risk of sexual exploitation and prostitution with its social and health consequences, including risk of exposure to HIV/AIDS. In addition to gender-based social implications, the ESMF should focus on the broader project-related impacts on vulnerable indigenous groups.  Moreover, since many indigenous communities’ culture and social organization are intertwined with their land and natural resource use practices, changes to these practices may result in unintended and unexpected changes in culture and social organization which may lead to social disruption and conflicts within and between communities and other stakeholders.  Dependency on external support. Interventions supporting alternative livelihoods and new institutional structures may lead to indigenous communities’ dependency on continued support. Indigenous Peoples, for instance, may experience difficulties engaging with the market economy through alternative livelihood activities that they may be unable to sustain, at least on an equitable basis, while foregoing traditional practices. They may also become dependent on new livelihoods that are not sustainable environmentally as well as socially, perhaps because they were developed without due consideration of their social and cultural context. New institutional structures may displace existing structures with both positive and negative impacts typically depending on the level of participation in and control over the process.  Inequitable participation. The costs (e.g. in time and resources) of participating in project activities such as protected area management activities, monitoring and enforcement, even in cases of co-management, may outweigh the benefits to local communities. Participation design may not include appropriate capacity building (when needed) or take into consideration local decision-making structures and processes with the risk of leading to alienation of local communities or even conflicts with and/or between local communities. Participation design may not include appropriate representation of Indigenous Peoples in decision-making bodies. C. Legal and Institutional Framework Relating to Indigenous Peoples Communities The project will be planned and implemented in a manner consistent with relevant laws and regulations of the project country and the principles and procedures of World Bank Operational Policy 4.10, Indigenous Peoples. As per the PICs Guidelines, OP 4.10 is typically not triggered in the island nations of Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Palau, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu, while it is commonly triggered in PNG, the Solomon Islands, and Timor Leste; OP 4.10 could apply to projects situated in Fiji, but careful assessment and planning regarding inter-ethnic relations is nonetheless advised. For the Solomon Islands – participant country in PROP Phase I - the policy is triggered, but as the overwhelming majority of project beneficiaries would be indigenous, a separate instrument is not required. Page 53 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 Factors relevant to the specifics of the World Bank’s Indigenous People’s Policy in Solomon Islands (April 2014 James Baines - World Bank Safeguards Review): In terms of ‘self-identification’, this is universal in that it applies to all indigenous cultural groups, which would not claim to be identical with “Solomon Island society� overall. There are regional spaces in which such a distinction between a small group and a generally recognised larger group exists - I-Kiribati settlers in Western and Choiseul Provinces, Marau Are’are people in Eastern Guadalcanal province; Reef and Tikopia settlers in Makira Province. In all these, the main divide is to do with indigenous-settler differences. In terms of distinct cultural groups having collective attachment to ancestral territory, this is the base situation for all indigenous groups in the Solomons, exercised at the level of clans, tribes or other kin groups within the various language-cultural territories in the country. In terms of customary institutions that are ‘separate from those of the dominant society’, perhaps the best way to understand the Solomon Islands situation is to see the entire nation state as a highly plural grouping, in which the indigenous and settler cultures each possess their own institutions, and the formal institutions of the state can also been seen as a separate cultural entity. In terms of indigenous languages, there are an estimated living languages (other than English and Pijin) in the Solomon Islands that are are non-official. The only explicitly named languages in the Constitution are English and Pijin. Parliamentary Standing orders established under Section of the Constitution (Part B section 3) stipulate the use of English and Pijin in Parliament. The IPP elements for sub-projects in the Solomon Islands (and any future country, where OP4.10 will be triggered) will be guided by the table 1 below. Table 1. Incorporating Elements of an IPP into Overall Project Design (Category A and B Projects) IPP Elements (OP 4.10, Annex Best Available Means for Incorporation B) 1. Summary of legal and To the extent that such information is relevant in the institutional framework, and project context, it may best be presented in an baseline data, as relating to Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, if one is to Indigenous Peoples in the be prepared, or a stand-alone social assessment. project context. 2. Summary of social This summary is, obviously, best presented within the assessment findings. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, if one is to be prepared, or a stand-alone social assessment. 3. Summary of consultations Frequently, some or all of the necessary consultations are with Indigenous Peoples conducted in tandem with the social assessment process. If communities. that is the case, consultation results can be presented within the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, if one is to be prepared, or a stand-alone social assessment. For consultations conducted independent of the social assessment process, or after the social assessment process is completed, the borrower prepares and submits to the Page 54 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 Bank a note summarizing consultation results, including assessment of Indigenous Peoples communities’ support for the project and its objectives. 4. Actions to ensure that Such actions are incorporated into an overall project Indigenous Peoples receive Environmental and Social Management Framework and/or culturally appropriate social Environmental and Social Management Plan. If Indigenous and/or economic benefits. Peoples also are to be affected by land acquisition or loss of access to natural resources, measures to address these impacts should also be incorporated into the Resettlement Policy Framework and/or Resettlement Action Plan that would be required under OP 4.12, Involuntary Resettlement. 5. Actions to address any Such actions are incorporated into an overall project adverse impacts on Indigenous Environmental and Social Management Framework and/or Peoples communities. Environmental and Social Management Plan. If Indigenous Peoples also are to be affected by land acquisition or relocation, mitigation measures must be incorporated into the Resettlement Policy Framework and/or Resettlement Action Plan that would be required under OP 4.12, Involuntary Resettlement. If Indigenous Peoples also are to be affected by loss of access to natural resources in relation to legally designated parks and protected areas, mitigation measures must be incorporated into the Process Framework that would be required under OP 4.12, Involuntary Resettlement. 6. Cost estimates and financing Where any actions relating to provision of benefits or plan for implementing actions mitigation of adverse impacts are necessary, costs are or activities. estimated and financial arrangements are specified in the Environmental and Social Management Plan and/or the Resettlement Action Plan, as relevant. 7. Appropriate grievance Appropriate grievance procedures may be incorporated procedures. into the Environmental and Social Management Plan and/or Resettlement Action Plan, as relevant. 8. Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring and evaluation arrangements regarding arrangements. Indigenous Peoples may be specified in either the Environmental and Social Management Plan or the Resettlement Action Plan, or both as relevant. World Bank OP 4.10 provides the basis for identifying Indigenous Peoples in the project area, for ensuring that Indigenous Peoples communities are adequately consulted in project planning and implementation, that Indigenous Peoples communities are provided equitable opportunities to benefit from the project, that project benefits are culturally appropriate, that any potential adverse impacts on Indigenous Peoples communities are avoided or otherwise mitigated, and that appropriate arrangements are in place for recognizing and considering project-related grievances raised by Indigenous Peoples. Under OP 4.10, the determination as to whether a group is to be defined as Indigenous Peoples is made by the World Bank, by reference to presence (in varying degrees) of four identifying characteristics: Page 55 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 a) Self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this identity by others; b) Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources therein; c) Customary cultural, economic, social, or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and d) An indigenous language, often different from the official language of the country or region. In PROP, the World Bank has determined that Indigenous Peoples communities are likely to be present within the project area. Accordingly, the IA agrees to undertake a consultative process to inform project design. Where the sole, or great majority of, project beneficiaries are Indigenous Peoples, the essential elements of the IPP may otherwise be integrated into the overall project design (e.g., no separate planning document is necessary). D. Implementation Arrangements Each country participating in the PROP, where OP4.10 is triggered (Solomon Islands in Phase I) bear official responsibility for ensuring that the essential elements of the IPP are integrated into the overall project design. Direct authority for incorporating the IPP elements into project planning and implementation is vested in IA, which will exercise its authority as necessary to coordinate actions with any other agencies or jurisdictions involved in planning or implementation. E. Arrangements for Consultations with Indigenous Peoples Communities Under OP 4.10, World Bank project support requires that the project borrower undertake a process of free, prior and informed consultation (FPIC) that results in a collective expression by Indigenous Peoples communities of broad community support for the project. The modality, methodology and extent of consultations may vary with project context. Where the number or dispersion of Indigenous Peoples necessitates consultation on a sample basis, an explicit consultation strategy is devised to ensure appropriate representation. Generally, the consultation process is:  Conducted in a manner allowing Indigenous Peoples communities to openly express their preferences or concerns without intimidation or trepidation;  Conducted in a timely manner, such that the preferences or concerns raised by Indigenous Peoples communities may be considered before project design decisions or implementation arrangements are finalized;  Conducted only after Indigenous Peoples communities have been provided, and have had sufficient opportunity to consider, relevant information about the project;  Conducted in a manner that is inclusive, with special consultation arrangements included where necessary to obtain the preferences or concerns of women, the elderly, Page 56 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 or others who customarily may not be expected or allowed to participate in community meetings. Free, Prior and Informed Consultation Indigenous Peoples are often vulnerable because of what they do not know and cannot anticipate in situations where projects or investments are being proposed, especially where change is being rushed. For this reason, the application of free, prior and informed consultation (FPIC) is critical. Table 1 provides the key principles for conducting free, prior and informed consultation and engagement with Indigenous communities. Table 1. Free, Prior and Informed Consultation Principles FREE Free from any hindrance or reasons why Indigenous Peoples may not take part in consultation. PRIOR Consultation starts as early as possible in the project planning and throughout the life of the project. Indigenous Peoples must also be given enough time to go through the traditional processes of decision-making and deliberation. INFORMED Indigenous Peoples must be given enough information and in such a way that allows them to understand fully the impacts being discussed with them and feed into the decision-making process where appropriate. CONSULTATION This must be a two-way process that allows Indigenous Peoples to participate meaningfully in decisions that affect them directly, including proposed management and mitigation measures and sharing of development benefits. Adequate and respectful consideration of the customary decision-making processes and complex governance systems that exist within Indigenous communities is a key element of FPI Consultation. Early in the process, it will be necessary to identify whether any Indigenous representative bodies or Indigenous Peoples Organisations (IPOs) exist, and whom may be utilised for information dissemination in the appropriate vernacular. Figure 1 (below) outlines the process for applying FPIC within the project preparation and implementation stages. It also indicates exits points for projects in scenarios whereby broad community support was not established. Page 57 of 152 Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (P131655) – Environmental and Social Management Framework |DRAFT, Sep 2014 Figure 1. Flowchart for Establishing FPIC with Indigenous Peoples Page 58 of 152 A summary (including date, location, approximate number and status of persons in attendance, and summary of issues discussed and any agreements reached) is prepared and recorded for each consultation meeting. Consultations may be undertaken as part of the social assessment process or as a separate set of activities. F. Arrangements for Social Assessment Social assessment is a necessary step for incorporating elements of an IPP into overall project design. The scope, level of detail, and methodological aspects of social assessment are commensurate to the nature and extent of project-related impacts and risks. The social assessment focuses on issues relating to Indigenous Peoples that are identified in the project screening process, or specified in terms of reference. The social assessment may be prepared as a stand-alone document or incorporated into a broader environmental and social impact assessment process. As relevant, the social assessment process includes the following elements: a) Description of project and potential issues or impacts relating to Indigenous Peoples communities; b) Review of the borrower’s legal and institutional framework as applicable to Indigenous Peoples appropriate to the project context; c) Identification of relevant Indigenous Peoples communities and other key stakeholders to be consulted in the social assessment process; d) Baseline information on the demographic, social, cultural, economic and political characteristics of relevant Indigenous Peoples communities; e) Elaboration of a culturally appropriate process for free, prior and informed consultations with Indigenous Peoples communities during incorporating elements of IPP into overall project design; f) Based on consultation with Indigenous Peoples communities, assessment of the potential adverse impacts and benefits likely to be associated with the project; and g) Summary of preferences and concerns of Indigenous Peoples communities relating to project objectives, access and cultural appropriateness of project benefits, mitigation of any adverse impacts, and project implementation arrangements. G. Collective Expression of Broad Community Support Based on results of consultations and the social assessment process, the IA will determine whether there is broad community support for the project among relevant Indigenous Peoples communities. This determination generally is based upon collective and often informal expression of supportive views regarding project purposes, plans, and implementation arrangements. This determination does not require unanimity; broad community support may exist even when there is internal disagreement within the community or when there is limited opposition to project purposes or proposed arrangements. Incorporating elements of an IPP into overall project design explains the basis upon which the determination has been made. 59 H. Outline for Indigenous Peoples Plan Incorporating elements of an IPP into overall project designis done in a flexible and pragmatic manner, based on the project context. The scope and level of detail required is commensurate with the nature and extent of project-related impacts and risks. Depending on social context, incorporating elements of an IPP may focus solely on issues relating to one specific group, or elements of the IPP may be incorporated into a broader, integrated multi- ethnic or community-based plan. As relevant, incorporating elements of an IPP includes the following elements: a) Project description and summary description of issues relating to Indigenous Peoples; b) A brief summary of relevant issues and findings of the social assessment process; c) A summary of results from the process of free, prior and informed consultations with relevant Indigenous Peoples communities, and review of determination of broad community support; d) Actions to ensure equitable access to culturally appropriate benefits for Indigenous Peoples communities; e) Actions to avoid, minimize or otherwise mitigate any adverse impacts affecting Indigenous Peoples communities; f) Cost estimates, budget and financial responsibilities for implementation of the project with the leements of an IPP g) Accessible and culturally appropriate means to address grievances raised by Indigenous Peoples (individually or collectively); h) Monitoring arrangements; and i) Arrangements for information disclosure. K. Disclosure Arrangements The IA agrees to disclose relevant information regarding project design and implementation arrangements to Indigenous Peoples communities and to the broader public. Specifically, results of the social assessment process are made available in a manner, location and language accessible to Indigenous Peoples communities.. L. Monitoring Arrangements If the IPP contains any specific actions to benefit Indigenous Peoples communities, or measures to mitigate any adverse impacts upon them, a monitoring process is defined in the IPP to assess the effectiveness of actions or mitigation measures, and to provide a means for ongoing consultation with those communities throughout the implementation period. The scope and frequency of monitoring activities is commensurate with the complexities and risks of the project. Monitoring information may be collected by communities themselves or by an 60 agent not directly affiliated with the IA. Monitoring information is submitted to the IA, which makes monitoring information available to the World Bank project team. M. Grievance Procedure In PROP, arrangements will be established to ensure that Indigenous Peoples communities may bring complaints to project management attention, and that the project responds to complaints in a timely and considered manner. Within Indigenous Peoples communities, complaints can be raised by individuals, groups, or by the community as a whole. Alternatively, the established grievance redress mechanism (GRM) in the PF/ESMF may be referred too. Specific arrangements for raising and addressing grievances are defined and described in the IPP. For PROP, it has been agreed that the grievance procedures:  Will be accessible (e.g., location, language, and socially inclusive) to all community members;  Will use local customary arrangements for conflict resolution in an initial stage of review, as appropriate in the project context;  Will have a second stage of review at the project management level, with a grievance committee chaired by the director of the IA;  Will have defined and disclosed performance standards for replying to grievances received at both initial and project management-level review stages. Individuals or communities with complaints that have not been resolved to their satisfaction may also seek legal recourse consistent with laws and procedures of the country. 61 Annex C. RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK A. Project Development Objectives and Project Description 1. Regional and Sector Context The Pacific Islands Ocean Region covers some 11 percent of the world’s ocean area and is home to 22 small island countries and territories. The economies of Pacific Island countries (PICs), 11 of whom are members of the Bank18, are fundamentally shaped by this geography as much as any other feature. Essentially some 9 million people live on hundreds of islands covering roughly 40 million square kilometers of the earth’s surface, compared to approximately 40 million people living in the much smaller area (2.75 million sq. km.) of the Caribbean. Because of their small size and remoteness, these countries are at risk of volatility and subject to external economic and natural shocks: the Pacific Islands Ocean Region contains one of the highest concentrations of fragile states anywhere in the world. Throughout the region 20 percent of most people in PICs live in poverty or hardship, meaning they are unable to meet their needs. Additionally, across PICs the top 20 percent of the population consumes 6 to 12 times as much as the bottom 20 percent. PICs are also marked by their diversity: the development challenges facing larger Melanesian countries such as PNG, with 6 million people and extensive natural resources, are very different from those of the most remote Micronesian and Polynesian countries, which in some cases have total populations of less than 20,000 people and very few natural resources other than fisheries. Despite their diversity, PIC economies throughout the region are in many cases driven by the transboundary ocean and fishery resources that they share. The countries are connected by ocean currents and the living and non-living cargo they carry, which ranges from tiny plankton to charismatic megafauna, not to mention waste and pollutants. The archipelagic nature of most PICs, and their strong reliance on coastal ecosystems for food, weather protection, resilience against shocks, and other services means that they fundamentally depend on healthy ocean environments and resources. In particular, as the threat from climate changes grows throughout the region, including sea level rise and potentially more intense and frequent storm events, maintaining or in some cases restoring healthy ocean environments and resources will be fundamental to building resilience to climatic shocks and longer term changes in region. Sector Importance. The resources, services and biological diversity of the Pacific Ocean are essential to the economies and development of PICs, as well as being of significant value to the international community. For some Bank member PICs, especially the fishery-dependent small-island states (Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands and Tuvalu) ocean resources such as fish stocks comprise the primary natural resource on which future economic growth will be based. These shared resources include, among others: (i) oceanic fisheries (largely tuna) that provide the majority of public revenues for a number of PICs; (ii) coastal fisheries that directly sustain rural livelihoods and contribute heavily to food security and national exports in many cases; and (iii) global (and local) public goods in the form of natural habitats and biodiversity of international significance (as well as sustaining the coastal and oceanic fisheries). 18 Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, Kiribati, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. 62 The region’s oceanic fisheries supply much of the world’s tuna, with global demand steadily increasing. The wider Western Central Pacific Ocean area produced a record high of 2.6 million tons of tuna in 2012, representing over half of all of the world’s tuna catch and yielding revenues at first sale on the order of over US$6.5 billion. Roughly half of this tuna catch was taken from PIC waters, or some 30 percent of the world’s tuna catch. The total first sale value of the tuna caught in PIC waters was estimated to be some US$3.9 billion in 2012, of which PICs received only 6 percent as a result of access fees paid by largely foreign fleets. Even at this minimal level of return from what is one of the more profitable fisheries in the world, revenues from sale of access constitute the largest single source of public revenues for a number of PICs. In addition to revenues from access fees, very little value addition takes place within the region. In many countries the diseconomies of isolation reduce the profitability or competitiveness of the fishing industry, and thus its capacity to pay for access to resources. The coastal fisheries throughout Pacific Islands Ocean Region play a very different but equally crucial role in PIC economies. Although they do not generate significant amounts of national revenue, they are crucial supporters of local livelihoods, food security and dietary health in all PICs. Fish and seafood are a primary source of animal protein in Pacific Island diets, and in some countries per capita consumption exceeds 100 kg per year (compared to a global average of 16 kg per year). PIC coastal fisheries are for the most part relatively small and localized and support only a few viable (though extremely valuable) export fisheries (for example bêche-de-mer, trochus, and other specialized products), as well as coral reef fisheries for local consumption that are highly susceptible to over-exploitation. In addition to oceanic and coastal fisheries, the natural habitats of the Pacific Ocean provide a range of global (and local) public goods. Globally, a number of relatively pristine natural habitats (e.g. coral reef ecosystems, mangroves, wetlands, etc.) are home to some of the world’s most significant marine biodiversity. In 2012 the Conference of the Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity named 26 large areas throughout the Western South Pacific as having met the criteria for ecologically or biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) worldwide, including the Phoenix Islands in Kiribati, the Kadavu and the Southern Lau Region in Fiji, and the Tonga Archipelago. Locally, natural coastal habitats protect villages and communities from storms and flooding, which are only expected to increase with climate change. In the aggregate, the goods and services provided by Pacific Ocean’s oceanic and coastal fish stocks and the natural habitats that underpin them, represent a tremendous endowment of shared natural capital throughout the region. Enhancing this natural capital provides a wide range of opportunities to advance the World Bank’s twin goals of reducing poverty and boosting shared prosperity in the Pacific Islands region. For example, better-managed oceanic fisheries will increase the value of access to this resource that many PICs can sell to foreign fleets in order to generate revenues for public services needed for poverty reduction or to translate into foreign direct investment up the value chain to create job opportunities, while more productive coastal fisheries can support rural livelihoods and food security for many in the bottom 40 percent of income distribution, and both depend on healthy natural habitats. 63 2. Project Development Objective. The objective of the Pacific Islands Oceanscape Regional Program (PROP) is to enable the participating Pacific Island Countries to capture greater economic benefits from sustainable management of the region’s oceanic and coastal fisheries, and the critical habitats that sustain them. As such, the PROP would directly contribute to the larger goal of countries to sustainably increase the economic benefits they capture from the region’s oceanic and coastal fisheries. Building on ongoing efforts and initiatives, this package of investments will aim to help enhance the contribution of fisheries in particular to economic growth and sustainable development as described in the Pacific Plan, by supporting the implementation of a number of aspects of the PIROP, according to the PIROF-ISA and the Pacific Oceanscape Framework. 3. Project Description. The Project will be comprised of the following components: Component 1: Sustainable Management of Oceanic Fisheries. (US$25.4 million IDA; US$1.3 million GEF in parallel). This component aims to help participating Pacific Island Countries sustainably increase the net economic benefits provided to them by the region’s purse seine and long-line tuna fisheries. Towards this objective, this component includes both regional and national activities to: (i) strengthen both the sustainable management and value of access to Pacific Island tuna fisheries, and the portion of this value captured by the region; and (ii) ensure an equitable distribution within Pacific Island countries of the benefits of a more valuable natural capital asset. Component 2: Sustainable Management of Coastal Fisheries (US$2.6 million IDA). This component aims to support participating countries to sustainably increase the benefits they receive from defined coastal fisheries, focusing on those with the greatest potential, i.e. coastal fisheries such as bêche-de-mer (BDM) that (i) can generate export earnings for the country, and/or (ii) support livelihoods, food security and dietary health. Towards this objective, this component includes both regional and national activities to: (i) sustainably manage targeted coastal fisheries in participating countries; and (ii) link sustainable coastal fish products to regional markets. Component 3: Sustainable Financing of the Conservation of Critical Fishery Habitats (US$1.0 million IDA). This component aims to help strengthen and develop models of sustainable financing for the conservation of critical habitats that underpin oceanic and coastal fisheries in the region, following the guiding principles of the Pacific Oceanscape Framework. Towards this objective, this component includes regional activities to: (i) establish a Pacific Marine Conservation Development Fund to support the establishment of large scale oceanic MPAs, including mechanisms for cost and benefit sharing; and (ii) establish a pilot Pacific Blue Carbon regional program for the conservation of small to medium scale marine habitats. Component 4: Regional Coordination, Implementation Support, Training and Monitoring and Evaluation (US$0.2 million GEF, US$2.1 million IDA). This component aims to provide regional coordination, implementation support and program management, to ensure a coherent approach to program implementation within the wider context of the Pacific Oceanscape Framework and wide dissemination of results and lessons learned; as well as regional and national implementation support and training as needed for the program to achieve its objectives. Towards this objective, this component includes both regional and national activities to: (i) support a program management unit within FFA for implementation support to participating countries; (ii) share knowledge and outreach globally; (iii) support 64 the Oceanscape Unit within the Pacific Island Forum Secretariat; and (iv) support program management, monitoring and evaluation in each participating country. B. Justification for Preparing a Resettlement Policy Framework for the Project The key objective in relation to the Resettlement Policy is to avoid involuntary land acquisition and subsequent resettlement. Notwithstanding this, PROP activities may include small-scale coastal land acquisition for the development of fishing-related facilities. Activities involving compulsory land acquisition will not be eligible for PROP funding therefore land acquisition under the PROP will only occur on a voluntarily basis and the World Bank’s Voluntary Land Donation Protocol will apply. However, in the event that fixed assets (crops, structures etc.) are present on the land, these need to be accounted for prior to land agreements being signed or construction commencing. Fixed assets or access to such assets may be lost as a result of the land purchase or donation and there is potential for adverse socioeconomic impacts to occur if this is not properly managed. As such, this resettlement policy framework (RPF) exists to protect people’s rights and ensure project activities are approached with full consideration of existing assets, and in areas where fixed assets are likely to be impacted, that appropriate valuation of assets is undertaken and persons affected by economic displacement are duly compensated. The aim of this RPF is to restore livelihoods resulting from the loss of fixed assets or access to such assets to pre-displacement levels wherever possible. The FFA has developed this Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) in accordance with principles, objectives, procedures and rules set out in the World Bank Operational Policy OP/BP 4.12 – Involuntary Resettlement. Since the nature and precise location/s of potential developments has not been confirmed, this RPF establishes the principles, objectives, procedures and rules to be used in the preparation of abbreviated resettlement action plans (ARAP). ARAPs. If any of the components of the Project result in involuntary resettlement impacts that are minor (i.e. affected people are not physically displaced and less than 10% of their productive assets are lost) or fewer than 200 people are displaced, the IA will prepare one or more abbreviated resettlement plans (ARAP) once the specific location of facilities and infrastructure is known and prior to the commencement of any works or activities being implemented. C. Objectives, Definitions and Key Principles Objectives In World Bank-assisted projects, borrowers are expected to take all necessary measures to avoid, minimize, mitigate and compensate for adverse social impacts, including, but not limited to, those impacts associated with involuntary resettlement. Every viable alternative project design and location should be explored to avoid, where feasible, or minimize involuntary resettlement. If involuntary resettlement cannot be avoided altogether, sufficient resources should be made available to conceive and implement resettlement activities as sustainable development programs, in close consultation with displaced persons. 65 Displaced Persons should be assisted in their efforts to improve, or at least restore, their livelihoods and living standards to pre-displacement levels or levels prevailing prior to project implementation. This is accomplished primarily through: a) compensation at full replacement cost for losses of assets (for example, unharvested crops, structures etc); b) provision of other forms of assistance for livelihoods restoration; and c) physical relocation of assets, as necessary in accordance with OP 4.12. Key Definitions For the purpose of this RPF, “involuntary resettlement� refers to economic displacement as a result of project activities set out in Section B. In this context, “displaced persons� refers to persons who are affected by the involuntary acquisition of land resulting in: - loss of assets; - loss of access to assets; or - loss of means of livelihood as a direct result of loss of assets or access to assets. "Full Replacement cost" is defined, under OP 4.12, as a method of valuation of assets that helps determine the amount sufficient to replace lost assets and cover transaction costs. Depreciation of structures and assets to be replaced is NOT taken into account to determine the compensation amount necessary to meet Full Replacement Cost. Full Replacement Cost for: (a) Agricultural produce or established gardens: it is the pre-project or pre- displacement, whichever is higher, market value of food produce of equal productive potential or use located on the voluntarily acquired land, plus the cost of preparing alternative areas to harvest levels similar to those of the voluntarily acquired land, plus the cost of any registration and transfer taxes. (b) Houses and structures or assets: it is the market cost of the materials to build a replacement structure or asset with an area and quality similar to or better than those of the existing asset/s, or to relocate the existing asset/s, plus the cost of transporting building materials to the construction site, plus the cost of any labor and contractors' fees, plus the cost of any registration and transfer taxes. In determining full replacement cost, depreciation of the asset and the value of salvage materials are not taken into account, nor is the value of benefits to be derived from the project deducted from the valuation of an affected asset. Where the law of project implementing agency does not meet the standard of compensation at Full Replacement Cost, compensation under domestic law is supplemented by the additional measures set out in this RPF. Key principles OP/BP 4.12 establishes the key principles to be followed in resettlement planning and implementation. Of particular relevance for this RPF are the following: 66 a) Wherever possible, project design and ARAPs should be conceived as sustainable development programs, so that Displaced Persons may benefit from the benefits, services and facilities created for, or by, project activities. b) Involuntary Resettlement should be avoided where feasible, or minimized, exploring all viable alternative project designs. c) All Displaced Persons are provided prompt and effective compensation at full replacement cost for losses of assets (example: crops, trees, etc) attributable directly to the project. d) Displaced Persons without a recognizable legal claim or right to the land they are occupying are provided with compensation for loss of assets and resettlement assistance (example: skills training, employment, etc). e) Displaced Persons should be provided prompt and effective compensation at full replacement cost (including without depreciation or deduction for tax arrears, licensing or registration fees, or for any other purpose). f) When cultivated land is acquired, the borrower should support the reestablishment of crops through the transitional period if that is the preference of the Displaced Person. g) If new resettlement sites are to be prepared, replacement facilities and services are provided of a quality at least equivalent to those prior to displacement, or to minimum community standards, whichever is higher. Measures also are taken to ensure that resettlement sites do not diminish the quality or availability of facilities or services to surrounding host communities. h) If a commercial enterprise (e.g., shop or vendor, service provider, industrial facility) is required to close temporarily, the owner or operator is compensated for temporary loss of profits. If a commercial enterprise is required to relocate, the owner or operator is compensated at replacement cost for loss of assets and structures (including fixtures or improvements that cannot be relocated), is provided transitional assistance sufficient to meet costs of moving equipment and inventory, and compensated for loss of profits until business operations can be restored. i) The involuntary resettlement transition period should be minimized. Compensation for crops, structures and other assets should be paid prior to involuntary resettlement. Transitional support should be provided prior to the time displaced persons will incur transitional expenses. j) Displaced Persons should be informed and consulted through culturally appropriate methods/languages during the process of ARAP preparation, so that their preferences and concerns regarding involuntary resettlement and other resettlement arrangements are solicited and considered. k) Both the draft and final ARAPs are publicly disclosed in a manner and place accessible to Displaced Persons. l) The previous level of community services and access to resources should be maintained or improved after involuntary resettlement takes place. 67 m) The ARAP should include an estimated budget for all costs associated with involuntary resettlement, including contingency arrangements. n) Monitoring and evaluation arrangements should be established for the borrower to adequately assess the effectiveness of ARAP implementation. o) Methods by which displaced persons can pursue grievances will be established as necessary, and information regarding these grievance procedures will be provided to displaced persons. D. Legal and Regulatory Framework The legal and regulatory framework for land and involuntary resettlement related to OP4.12 in Phase 1 countries is outlined below. Republic of the Marshall Islands: Legislative Context. The Land Acquisition Act (1986) is the key legal instrument for the acquisition of land for public purpose by the Minister. The LAA was revised in 2012 and includes provisions for investigation activities, notification periods, rights and compensation for landowners. Tuvalu: Legislative Context. The Native Lands Act is an act relating to Native land and registration of title thereto. It establishes the principle of indefeasibility of native title to land once it had been registered by the Commission. (s 4). Native lands shall not be alienated whether by sale, gift, and lease or otherwise, to a person who is not a native. (s 5) However, native lands may be alienated to the Crown by lease. (s 5(2)). Tuvalu Lands Code is a subordinate law to the Tuvalu Lands Act. It is largely a codification of customs and practices governing land rights and inheritance of customary land for each island of Tuvalu. The Crown Acquisition of Lands Act is a law to regulate the acquisition of land by the Crown for public purposes. The Act provides power of the Minister to acquire any lands require for any public purpose absolutely or for a term of years or the Minister may think proper. It prescribes the process in the event the Minister is to exercise such power. Solomon Islands: Legislative Context. Customary tenure and governance systems are recognised in various national legislative instruments including the Land and Titles Act 1996, Customary Lands Records Act 1996 and the Constitution of the Solomon Islands. Article 75 of the Constitution provides that Parliament shall make provisions for the application of laws, including customary laws and customary rights over land and marine areas. The Land and Titles Act outlines provisions for the acquisition of land for public purpose including compensation process and costs. Federated States of Micronesia: Legislative Context. Principal FSM and State laws include: (i) FSM Constitution; (ii) Yap State Constitution; and (iii) Division of Land Resources procedures (including Land Registration Bill 2010). Land Acquisition Procedures (LAP) were developed by the Attorney General solely for the purpose of The Yap Renewable Energy Development Project. The 68 LAP describes detailed procedures on land survey and resolution of disputes, acquisition of land by the State and transfer of land to the Yap State Public Service Corporation. The Yap State Standing Lease Committee (YSSLC) was responsible for the coordination and execution of land acquisition and compensation processes. Yap - Most of the lands in Yap are privately owned. Approximately ninety-eight percent of land in Yap State is privately owned, with the majority of State owned land located in the capital of Colonia in the municipalities of Rull and Weloy. There is no established Act or Law for Yap State to acquire or determine fair market value of private land in Yap. However due to the need to acquire land for public infrastructure, the Attorney General has developed a Land Acquisition Procedure for acquiring land under the ADB-funded Yap Renewable Energy Project. Pending the approval of the Land Registration Bill, the said land acquisition procedure may guide future land acquisitions for public purpose in Yap State. The Land Registration Bill or Bill No. 7-130, aims to provide for the survey and registration of lands in the State of Yap, and for other purposes. This bill was introduced to the Yap State Parliament in 2010. Non-citizens cannot own land in Yap but they can lease land for a maximum of 99 years, including options to renew. Leasing of lands or making landowners partners or shareholders of projects, therefore, is viewed as the most appropriate arrangement for utilization of land. Upon request, the Yap State Government may act as an intermediary in finding suitable land arrangements. The Yap State Mortgage Law provides the necessary legal framework for land mortgages. Chuuk - The majority of land in Chuuk is privately or commonly family- owned lands thus the State Government has limited land to locate public infrastructure. This has resulted to continuous challenge of acquiring land for public infrastructure such as power, water and airport. Executive Order (EO) No. 04-2007 of Chuuk State Government adopted the Asian Development Bank valuation zoning system. The EO also provided a zone map and base valuation, with modifications, and promulgating its implementation for acquisition or leasing of private land for public purpose in Chuuk State. The Chuuk State Constitution provides for acquisition of land on its infrastructure requirement based on fair market value. The said EO aims to address concerns on determining the said fair market value, with clear land title and preventing real or apparent conflicts of interest in acquiring lands for the State. This EO was updated after a valuation study supported by a previous ADB technical assistance project (ADB Private Sector Development Program Loan No. 1874) in April 2006 and 1998. From the valuation study, 30 valuation maps were produced. To avoid complicated transactions and perceived unfairness and confusion among and between landowners and the government involved, the valuation came up with simpler adjustments to the zone and base values, using an annual rent of per square meter of 10% of the base value, considered fair market value. Socio-cultural Context Yap - In Yap, almost all land and aquatic areas are owned or managed by individual estates and usage is subject to traditional control. A key agency associated with the development of community based conservation areas is the Yap Community Action Program, or YapCAP. This agency mission is to operate or support programs aimed at environmental and cultural preservation and other sustainable economic and social development programs in the pursuit 69 of self-reliance for all Yap citizens. The agency’s environmental goals include:  Implement the Yap Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan to ensure the preservation of Yap’s unique environment.  Work with communities to identify and develop environmental projects, and then link communities with the appropriate government agencies to aid implementation.  Seek funding for environmental projects identified by community groups and other environmental agencies, and administer and regulate the funds. Chuuk - In Chuuk State the majority of the land and aquatic areas are privately owned and acquired through inheritance, gift or, recently, by purchase. In all States, land cannot be sold to non-citizens of the FSM. Due to the presence of a large number of WWII historic shipwrecks and other munitions the Chuuk Lagoon State District Monument Act has been adopted which provides for these items to be designated as a State district monument and therefore preserved. The removal of any equipment associated with these items is illegal. These land and marine ownership patterns greatly influence the strategies and actions required to manage the resources of the states in a sustainable manner. Cultural Heritage Preservation Yap - Historic preservation provision exists in the Yap State Code as well as in the State Constitution. A Historic Preservation Office is established pursuant to the “Preservation of Culture� Code Sections. Under this legislation, no person may wilfully remove historic property from Yap or disturb, damage or destroy such property without the express written permission of Governor, a local member of the Council of Traditional Chiefs, and a Historic Preservation Office. Chuuk- The Draft Chuuk Historic Preservation Act. This Bill recognises the importance of physical cultural and historic heritage as well as the intangible heritage in tradition, arts, crafts and songs. The Bill proposes for the establishment of a Historic Protection Office (HPO) within the Department of Commerce and Industry whose principal objectives shall be to protect and conserve places of historic and cultural interest including intangible heritage. Legislation exists (as above) which declares the approximately 80 submerged wrecks in the Chuuk Lagoon to be a war memorial and historic site. Removal of artefacts from the wrecks is prohibited and divers must have permits and be accomplished by licensed guides. 70 9. For this project, the IA agrees to carry out the project in accordance with this RPF and OP/BP 4.12 and, so, the IA agrees to waive any national legal, regulatory provisions in contradiction to the requirements established in this RPF, and to take actions necessary to ensure full and effective implementation of ARAPs prepared in accordance with the RPF. E. Preparing and Approving ARAPs 10. Responsibility for preparation, implementation and monitoring of ARAPs (including responsibility for meeting all associated costs with their implementation), in accordance with this RPF, rests with the IA. As necessary, the FFA and IA will exercise its authority to coordinate actions with any other agencies involved to ensure timely and effective ARAP implementation. 11. Preparation of the ARAP begins as soon as it is determined that involuntary resettlement is essential to complete any of the project activities and shall be finalized prior to the commencement of any works to carry out said project activities. The IA (with support from other agencies as required) will carry out, or cause to be carried out, a census survey to identify and enumerate Displaced Persons and to identify and inventory land and other assets to be required. The census survey must cover 100 percent of the Displaced Persons. The census survey also establishes whether any displaced persons are significantly affected by loss of productive land, whether any commercial enterprises are affected, or loss of assets. 12. If involuntary resettlement impacts are minor (i.e. affected people are not physically displaced and less than 10% of their productive assets are lost) or fewer than 200 people are displaced, the IA prepares one or more abbreviated resettlement plans (ARAP). 13. If an ARAP is necessary, it will be prepared in accordance with the policy principles and planning and implementation arrangements set forth in this RPF. The ARAP is based on accurate baseline census and socioeconomic survey information, and establishes appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., compensation at full replacement cost for loss assets, transitional assistance for relocation, transitional assistance for livelihood restoration, transitional assistance for commercial enterprises) for all relevant categories of adverse impacts. Depending on the categories of impacts, the ARAP specifically addresses the following: a) description of the project activity causing involuntary resettlement and explanation of efforts to avoid or minimize involuntary resettlement associated with the project (alternative project designs or locations considered); b) range and scope of potential adverse resettlement impacts; c) socioeconomic survey and baseline census survey information; d) review of relevant laws and regulations relating to land acquisition and involuntary resettlement (see section above on legal and regulatory framework for more details); e) description of asset valuation procedures and specific compensation rates (or alternative measures) for all categories of affected assets; f) other assistance measures, if any, necessary to provide opportunities for livelihood restoration for Displaced Persons; g) assistance to affected commercial enterprises; h) eligibility criteria for compensation and all other forms of assistance; i) relocation arrangements, if necessary, including transitional support; j) resettlement site selection, site preparation, and measures to mitigate impacts on host communities, if necessary; 71 k) restoration or replacement of community infrastructure and other services; l) land donation arrangements and documentation requirements, if relevant; m) organizational arrangements for implementation; n) consultation and disclosure requirements and arrangements; o) resettlement implementation schedule; p) costs and budget; q) monitoring arrangements; r) grievance procedures; s) summary entitlements matrix. F. Eligibility Criteria “Displaced persons�, under OP 4.12, for the purpose of this framework refers to persons who are affected by the involuntary acquisition of land resulting in: - loss of assets; - loss of access to assets; or - loss of means of livelihood as a direct result of loss of assets or access to assets. Compensation eligibility and compensation valuation will be conducted by each IAs according to the OP 4.10 (http://go.worldbank.org/GM0OEIY580). Annex E: Process Framework, Section VI, subsection “Identifying Project Affected Persons� identifies project affected persons (PAPs) as those who depend on access to resources to maintain their stand of living and who may or may not have formal legal rights or claims to the resources in question19. See Annex E for more details. G. Land Donation Arrangements and Documentation See Voluntary Land Donation Protocol (Annex D). H. Communal Land Acquisition – Guiding Principles If communal land is required for the Project, the resettlement planning process establishes the following: a) Alternatives to land acquisition are considered. Especially where replacement land is scare or non-existent, or where customary land tenure is deemed inalienable, negotiated agreements for long-term lease, even for infrastructure siting, should be considered. b) Where communal land must be acquired, collective compensation may be appropriate. Under such conditions, compensation is used solely for appropriate community purposes, or is distributed equitably among community members. The RAP describes arrangements for usage of collective compensation. c) Individual users and occupants of acquired communal land are identified in the census prepared for the RAP and the RAP describes mitigation measures or negotiated agreements providing for restoration of their livelihoods or living standards. 19 See Paragraph 15 of OP4.12 (Annex 1). 72 d) Where replacement land does not exist, it will be impossible to establish a technical valuation for replacement cost. The RAP describes alternative means used for valuation. This may include negotiated agreement with affected communities. e) Where negotiated agreements for land valuation, for long-term lease, or for provision of remedial assistance to users or occupants of acquired communal land, are to be established, the resettlement plan describes the methods by which affected communities are involved in the negotiations, and methods by which terms of negotiated agreements are fully disclosed to them, in a manner accessible to the affected community. f) If relevant, the RAP describes any changes that may occur regarding land use and tenurial arrangements for remaining communal land in project-affected areas. g) The RAP describes a process by which conflicting claims to ownership or use rights will be addressed. I. Implementation Process 24. A time-bound implementation schedule of all activities relating to involuntary resettlement shall be included in the RAP/ARAP. Payment of compensation should be completed at least one month prior to involuntary resettlement. If there is a delay of one year or more between land or asset valuation and payment of compensation, compensation rates will be adjusted for inflation purposes. J. Budget and Costs 25. The IA bears responsibility for meeting all costs associated with involuntary resettlement. Any RAPs/ARAPs prepared in accordance with this RPF require a budget with estimated costs for all aspects of their implementation. All Displaced Persons are entitled to compensation or other appropriate assistance and mitigation measures, regardless of whether these persons have been identified at the time of resettlement planning, and regardless of whether sufficient mitigation funds have been allocated. For this reason, and to meet any other unanticipated costs that may arise, the RAP/ARAP budget shall include contingency funds, i.e. at least 10 percent of estimated total costs. 26. Compensation must be paid promptly and in full to the Displaced Person . No deductions from compensation will occur for any reason. The RAP/ARAP should describe the fiscal procedures by which compensation funds will flow from FFA and IA to the displaced persons. K. Consultation and Disclosure Arrangements Disclosure and consultation on the ARAP. The ARAP must describe measures taken to consult with displaced persons regarding proposed land acquisition, transitional assistance, relocation arrangements, and other arrangements, and summarizes results of those consultations. The IA also discloses the ARAP- both the draft and final versions – to the displaced persons and the general public in the project area, in a language and location accessible to them. Disclosure of the draft ARAP should occur at least one month prior to Bank review. Disclosure of the final ARAP occurs following Bank acceptance. 73 L. Monitoring Arrangements Monitoring arrangements will be established in the RAP/ARAP to assess the effectiveness RAP/ARAP implementation in a timely manner. Monitoring includes review of progress in land acquisition, payment of compensation, provision of transitional assistance, and functioning of project grievance procedures. The RAP/ARAP should establish the frequency of monitoring activities. Monitoring should be conducted by an individual, firm, or community organization not directly affiliated with the IA. Any issues or problems associated with RAP/ARAP implementation that are observed in the monitoring process will be reported to the IA and the World Bank project team. Prior to project completion, the monitoring process will assess whether livelihoods and living standards of displaced persons have been improved, or at least restored. If these objectives have not been achieved, the IA identifies, plans and implements supplemental measures necessary to achieve satisfactory outcomes. M. Grievance Procedures 30. A consultative RAP/ARAP process and effective RAP/ARAP implementation will reduce the likelihood of project-related complaints. However, to ensure that displaced persons have avenues for raising complaints relating to land acquisition, compensation payment, relocation, impacts on livelihoods, construction-related damages, or other aspects of project implementation, a multi-step grievance procedure will be established in the RAP/ARAP. Necessary elements of the grievance procedure include:  An initial stage, within the local village or town level, in which any person aggrieved by any aspect of the land acquisition or involuntary resettlement process can lodge an oral or written grievance to the IA. This complaint shall be appropriately documented and registered by the IA. If the complaint cannot be resolved within 30 days of receipt, it advances to the second step of the process.  Stage 2, if the aggrieved person is not satisfied with the outcome of initial stage consideration, or if local level review is unable to reach a proposed solution, the aggrieved person can refer the issue to the PROP Coordinator or a grievance committee established by FFA and IA. The grievance committee, chaired by the IA, also includes representatives not directly affiliated with the IA, reviews issues raised in the initial complaint and any actions for resolution suggested at the lower level and makes recommendations for resolution within 30 days.  Stage 3, if the aggrieved person is still dissatisfied following review by the grievance committee, the case may be referred to legal proceedings in accordance with national laws and procedures. 31. The IA keeps a record of all complaints referred to the grievance committee, including a description of issues raised and the outcome of the review process. 74 Annex D. VOLUNTARY LAND DONATION PROTOCOL This Voluntary Land Donation Protocol (VLDP) has been prepared by the World Bank for the purpose of due diligence. This annex includes a Land Commitment Letter to be used by the implementing agency in cases where land is being donated. For cases where communities and/or individual landholders have offered to donate their land for the project because it is of benefit to the broader community, the World Bank’s Voluntary Land Donation Protocol (VLDP) should be followed. The project team is to exercise their best judgment where voluntary land is offered, and conduct due diligence to avoid adverse impacts and reputational risks. Donations are usually based on the premise that the project benefit will offset or outweigh the loss of the land donated. Voluntary donation of land by beneficiary households is acceptable where: (i) It has been verified the donation did not result from any form of coercion or manipulation and is offered in good faith; (ii) The donation does not severely affect the living standards of the community and/or individual landholder responsible for the donation (i.e. impacts are marginal based on percentage of loss and minimum size of remaining assets); (iii) Alternatives and the viability of other locations or sites have been considered; (iv) The donation does not result in the displacement of households or cause loss of income/livelihood; (v) The landholder/s making the donation will directly benefit from the project; (vi) Consultation has been conducted in an open and transparent manner and to a degree that the landholder/s can make an informed choice; (vii) The land is free from disputes regarding ownership; (viii) Land transactions are supported through the transfer of titles; and (ix) Full and proper documentation of all consultations, meetings, grievances and actions taken to address grievances has been reviewed and made available. To ensure that any land provided for the siting of subprojects is contributed voluntarily, in accordance with the requirements of the ESMF, two representatives of the land owners (family or clan) are asked to sign a Land Commitment Letter (see below). This certifies that the land is voluntarily donated for the purposes of the subproject and for the benefit of the community. The signature of the Letter is witnessed (as attested by their signature) by a suitable project representative (e.g. Project Manager). 1.1 PROTOCOL ON VOLUNTARY LAND DONATION FOR THE PICS Contents of the VLD Protocol  Introduction  Land in PICs  The Basis for using a VLD Approach  Limiting Potential Harm from VLD 75  Process for VLD - Determine and document the appropriateness of VLD in the context of Project. - DD on owners and users of land donated. - Consultation and disclosure. - Establish informed consent of the person donating the land. - Document the legal transfer of land donated. - Grievance Redress Procedure and Mechanism. 1.1.1 Introduction 1. World Bank-assisted projects frequently require temporary or permanent use of land for siting of infrastructure or facilities. Where land is required, preference should be given to acquiring it on a voluntary basis (the “willing buyer, willing seller� approach). However, where this is not feasible, World Bank OP 4.12, Involuntary Resettlement, establishes the conditions and procedures that must be followed when acquisition of land on an involuntary basis results in the social and economic impacts identified in the policy. 2. In the PICs, access to land is sometimes achieved through a process of voluntary land donation (VLD). Such a process has been adopted in order to address – in a practical manner – some of the complex features of land ownership, use and administration in the PICs. Nevertheless, many of the risks associated with involuntary resettlement have the potential to affect the voluntary land donation process. Care needs to be taken in ensuring that the process is transparent, based on knowledge and consent and is accurately documented. This Protocol, which should be followed in all cases of voluntary land donation, aims to address these issues, and assist project teams in minimizing the potential risks. 1.1.2 Land in Pacific Island Countries 3. The land situation in many of the PICs is complex. A number of factors contribute to this:  Many PICs do not have comprehensive formal procedures for land acquisition and, even where formal procedures exist, legal and institutional processes can be complex and time consuming;  Different systems of land use and property rights may exist on the same land;  Complex patterns of customary collective ownership may exist, which are inconsistent with private ownership, use rights, or de-facto possession;  These different, and sometimes conflicting, land systems can make it difficult to establish with certainty who has a right to own and use a specific parcel of land;  Such difficulties can make it difficult to reach a clear determination of the extent to which the informed consent of those who actually are affected by a transfer of land has been achieved; and  Local representation and negotiation processes can increase the risk of informal political or social pressure. 4. For the reasons identified above, any proposals for land acquisition or use in connection with a project – whether “willing buyer, willing seller,� involuntary acquisition or voluntary donation – needs to be carefully assessed. 76 1.1.3 Section 1: The Basis for Using A VLD Approach This section provides guidance to help determine:  Whether VLD is a suitable approach for a specific Bank-financed project.  Whether the proposed donation is voluntary or not. Please note that the social assessment should contain the relevant information to assist teams making these determinations. 5. In some circumstances, it is proposed that land required by the project be donated by individuals or the community on a voluntary basis. At the outset, two questions need to be answered: 1. Is land donation appropriate in the circumstances of this project? Land donation is, generally, only suitable for community driven projects where the community (and each member owning or using the land) wishes to provide small amounts of land to support initiatives that will benefit the community. This is an important point to bear in mind in assessing whether voluntary donation is appropriate. The donation of land for medium to large scale infrastructure, particularly in cases where a government agency or entity that has a statutory obligation to provide the infrastructure and/or services for which the land is required, is not appropriate. Voluntary donation should be used only to support small scale community infrastructure where impacts are minor. Have other sites been considered? How are alternatives screened out? 2. Is this donation voluntary? In practice, determining whether a land transaction is voluntary or involuntary can be difficult. A useful starting point is OP 4.12, which defines “involuntary� as “actions that may be taken without the displaced person’s informed consent or power of choice.� Accordingly, in assessing whether a potential donation is voluntary, it is necessary to focus on whether the owner(s) or user(s) of the land understand:  The exact demarcation of land boundary for the project’s use;  What the land is going to be used for, by whom and for how long;  That they will be deprived of the ownership or right to use the land, and what this really means;  That they have a right to refuse to donate the land;  Whether there are proposals which would allow other land to be used;  What they will need to do to donate the land, and what costs are involved;  The intergenerational effect of the donation on their family, what they can do if they (or their family or heirs) want the land back. The issues above assume that it is straightforward to identify the owners or users of the land, and that there are no competing (or potential) competing claims to that land. Clearly this is not always the case. In many circumstances either: (a) the proposed use of the land means that voluntary donations are not appropriate; or (b) having examined all the relevant facts, it is difficult to determine – with a reasonable degree of certainty – that the donation is being made by the right parties and is truly voluntary. In these circumstances, OP 4.12 should be triggered and a RPF or RAP prepared, following the template set out in these PIC Procedures. In cases where there is any doubt as to whether the donation is truly voluntary, OP 4.12 should be triggered. 77 1.1.4 Section 2: Limiting Potential Harm This section provides good practice guidance to limit any potential harm associated with a proposed VLD. Examples of such good practice include, for example, the requirement that the donation of land will not cause any household relocation. Over the years, a number of practices have developed in the Bank which seek to limit any potential harm associated with a proposed voluntary donation. These include that: (a) the proportion of land donated by any individual cannot exceed 10 percent of the potential donor’s land holding; and (b) the donation of land will not cause any household relocation. As discussed previously, voluntary donation should be used only to support small scale community infrastructure, where the impacts are minor. It is important to consider whether there are alternatives to land donation which would adequately support the project, such as the granting of rights of way or use for a specific period of time. It is good practice to ensure that the documentation establishes a deadline to initiate project use of donated land. Any donated land that is not used for its agreed purpose by the agreed deadline is returned to the donor. However, where the land has already been legally transferred, this will frequently require further administrative processes, fees and taxes to return the land. A further complication is that, in some cases of VLD, the donor of the land may request compensation or other benefits to be paid as a condition of the land transfer not in connection to the transfer of the land itself, but in relation to structures or other fixed assets on the land. This can lead to conflict with other individuals also donating land, and has the potential to undermine the VLD process. A donor may also agree to transfer only part of the land required. Such requests need to be carefully evaluated at the outset and, if agreed, documented appropriately. Due diligence and consultation, discussed in more detail below, is important. It is often not possible to implement the VLD unless adequate information is gathered regarding owners, users, legal requirements and community practices, and is available at the outset. Such information is important to ensure that the voluntary land donation is sustainable, and occurs without causing conflict in the community. In some circumstances, disputes can arise between the owner of the land, who wishes to donate, and the user(s), who do not; such issues need to be resolved in a transparent and equitable manner. 1.1.5 Section 3: Process for Voluntary Donation This section provides detailed guidance on the process for VLD, namely on how to:  Determine and document the appropriateness of VLD in the project context;  Verify the requirements of the donation and the formalization of the donation;  Carry out due diligence on the owners and users of land donated;  Ensure appropriate consultation and disclosure;  Establish informed consent of the person donating the land;  Document the legal transfer of land donated; and  Establish grievance redress mechanism. Please note that the information required to answer the questions above may be found in the project’s Social Assessment. This section outlines the process that should be followed once the threshold considerations set out in Section 1 have been considered, and it has been determined that it is appropriate for the land to be provided to the project by voluntary donation. 78 It is necessary to follow a clear process for the donation, and to prepare and maintain documents that demonstrate such process. Each step set out below should be addressed in the context of the specific project, and fully documented. 1. Determine and document that VLD is appropriate in the circumstances of the project. The team should record the reasons why it thinks that the donation of land is appropriate for the project. In certain cases, only some of the land the project requires will be donated or alternatives to land donation exist. The project team should identify (in as much detail as possible):  What the land will be used for;  How much land the project will require on both a permanent and temporary basis;  How much of the land will be donated;  What alternatives to donation exist (e.g., right of use, right of way);  The terms of the donation;  The identities of the parties who intend to donate;  The beneficiary of the donation; and  Any details that are relevant to why donation may be appropriate. 2. Verify the requirements to transfer, and formalise the transfer of, the land It is important to understand the process that should be followed to transfer the land, and appropriate ways to formalize the transfer so as to achieve certainty for both the transferee of the land and the project. In many countries this will require consideration of the legal and administrative requirements but also, particularly in the case of customary land, local and community processes. In some cases these will constitute two different but parallel (and overlapping) systems and a process will have to be established to ensure that the requirements of each system are satisfied. An important consideration will be how transparent the process and the decision making process actually is, and what can be done to enhance the process. 3. Conduct due diligence on who owns and uses the land Given the specific issues surrounding land ownership and use in the PICs, it is important that the project team carries out careful due diligence to understand the type of land rights that exist in the project area, and to identify any particular issues relating to land ownership and use. Thereafter, a more specific due diligence must be conducted on each parcel of land proposed for donation to identify:  The owner or owners of the land;  The users of the land, or any parties that occupy the land (either physically or through ownership of an asset or conduct of livelihood or business activities on the land);  Any competing claims of ownership or use;  Structures and assets on the land;  Any encumbrances on the land. It is important to: (a) identify the right that is being transferred (an ownership right, a use right, a right of way, etc.); and (ii) check whether the transferee actually has the right s/he claims to have. In many circumstances where careful due diligence has not been carried out, significant conflict has arisen at a later stage when another party claims that they have the same or a competing right. In some circumstances – but not all – the transferee will have documentary evidence of such right. Where no such evidence exists, the due diligence can establish rights by speaking with local community officials and neighbours. 4. Disclosure and Consultation The decision to donate must be taken on the basis of a full understanding of the project and the consequences of agreeing to donate the land. Accordingly, the parties that will be affected by the donation (the owners and users of the land) must be provided with accurate and accessible information regarding what the land will be used for, for how long, and the impact 79 the donation will have on them and their families. It is important that prior written notification indicating the location and amount of land that is sought be provided and that its intended use for the project is disclosed. Where the intention is to deprive the parties affected by the donation of the land permanently, or for a significant length of time, this must be made clear. It should be noted that in many communities the concept of alienation of land is uncommon and difficult to understand, and care needs to be taken to ensure that the implications of this are fully understood. It is also important to decide who else should be consulted about the proposed donation; for example, spouses and older children. There should be a clear agreement as to which party will pay the costs associated with the donated land. This could include measurement costs, documentation and notarial fees, transfer taxes, registration fees. It should also include the costs of re-measuring/re-titling the transferee’s remaining land and any new documentation relating to it. 5. Establishing Informed Consent It is crucial that the project team is confident that the decision to donate was taken in circumstances of informed consent or power of choice. As discussed earlier, this means being confident that the owner(s) or user(s) of the land understand:  What the land is going to be used for, by whom and for how long;  That they will be deprived of the ownership or right to use the land, and what this really means;  That they have a right to refuse to donate the land;  Whether there are alternatives to using this land;  What they will need to do to donate the land (e.g., execute documents, get spousal consents, pay taxes);  The effect of the donation on their family, and what they can do if they (or their family or heirs) want the land back. The right to refuse must be a legitimate right, unconditional, and the potential transferee must be capable of exercising it in the local community and political context. For this reason, it is important to be sure that the decision to donate is undertaken without coercion, manipulation, or any form of pressure on the part of public or traditional authorities. For collective or communal land, donation must be based upon the informed consent of all individuals using or occupying the land. 6. Documentation It is necessary to distinguish between: (a) the agreement to donate the land; and (b) the document that carries out and evidences the legal transfer of the land. While it is important to have evidence of an intention and agreement to donate the land, it is equally important to ensure, where required and appropriate, that the land is legally transferred. While the process relating to the legal transfer of the land is frequently complicated and time consuming, it must be addressed. [In specific circumstances, for example where the land is being transferred to the community, it may not be necessary to legally transfer the land. However, experience indicates that lack of formal transfer can create significant uncertainty in the future, which impacts on the sustainability of the infrastructure and services, and can have a negative effect on community relations.] The project team should:  Identify the appropriate documentation, including the agreement to make the transfer and any legal documentation that may be required;  Ensure that the agreement: - Refers to the consultation has taken place; - Sets out the terms of the transfer; 80 - Confirms that the decision to transfer was freely made, and was not subject to coercion, manipulation, or any form of pressure; - Attaches an accurate map of the land being transferred (boundaries, coordinates); - Sets out who will bear the costs of the transfer (e.g., notarial fees, taxes, title issues) and documenting the residual land rights;  Ensure that all necessary parties sign the documents, including obtaining consent from spouses and children over a certain age;  Ensure that the transfer and title is registered or recorded; and  Ensure that the land remaining after the donated land is excised is properly titled, registered or recorded. It is also important to maintain a record of the process that has been followed. Such documents could include the following:  The notification indicating the location and amount of land that is sought and its intended use for the project, with a record of when and where this was made public;  Records of the consultations that were held and what was discussed;  A copy of the due diligence that was conducted;  Copies of each of the formal statements of donation, establishing informed consent as described above, and signed by each owner or user involved;  Copies of all documents, registrations or records evidencing the legal transfer of the land;  A map, showing each parcel of land. The project implementing agency should maintain a record with documentation for each parcel of land donated. Such documentation must be available for World Bank review, and for review in relation to any grievances that may arise. 7. Grievance Arrangements The project specifies means by which donors (and, potentially, persons whose use or occupancy was not recognized in the transfer of land) may raise grievances, and measures to ensure consideration of, and timely response to, grievances raised. The grievance process includes participation of reviewers not directly affiliated with the project implementing agency. Grievances may be referred to customary conflict mediation arrangements where they are not directly affiliated with traditional leaders who are a party to the donation process. Alternatively, the established grievance redress mechanism (GRM) in the PF/ESMF may be referred to. The grievance process imposes no cost upon those raising grievances, and participation in the grievance process does not preclude pursuit of legal remedies under the laws of the country. 8. EXIT PROCESS for PROBLEM SUB-PROJECTS An Exit Process provides project staff with guidance as to how to deal with subprojects in which disputes emerged that were preventing implementation. These guidelines are shared with the communities, when a subproject is deemed to be a “problem� so that t hey are aware of the steps required to follow to resolve the dispute. The Exit Process is facilitated and support by the PROP Coordinator, and IA if needed. If the process does not result in a resolution of the problems faced by the community, the subproject is terminated. When it is beyond doubt that factors affecting a sub-project cannot be resolved or require support beyond IA’s capacities guidelines will be developed to allow the IA’s to systematically respond to such situations by outlining what action is to be taken during both sub-project preparation and sub- project implementation. The actions described will also help communities avoid lengthy deliberation processes or extended periods of inactivity by providing time-bound steps leading to judicious decisions on sub-project termination. 81 LAND COMMITMENT LETTER TEMPLATE Project: ___________________ Location: ___ ________________ Project Partner Name Organisation Team Leader (PMU) Provincial Support Unit Project Representative Dear Sir/Madam, Re: LAND AVAILABILITY FOR THE PROJECT This letter serves to confirm our commitment that land is available for the project. This land is given for the use of the _____________________. The owners of the land in our community are Mr/Ms. __________________________ who with a second family/tribal member confirm our commitment by putting their hand hereto; This piece of land (______________________) is confirmed to be free from dispute and the Project Representative and subsequent committees appointed by the village to administrate the infrastructure are free to use the said land to provide/improve/expand the provision of the services directly provided by the infrastructure. The landowners fully agree that this commitment is irrevocable. I/we hereby sign confirming that the above is true and correct: Party Name Signature Date Landowner Landowner Representative Project Representative (verification) Annex E. PROCESS FRAMEWORK October 2014 Content: I. Introduction II. Regional Context III. Institutional Context IV. Project Components and Access Restrictions V. Administrative and Implementing Arrangements VI. Enabling a Participatory Process VII. Grievance Redress Mechanism VIII. Budget Considerations Glossary References Appendix 1 Consultation Plan Appendix 2 Grievance Resolution Template Table 1 Matrix of Access Restrictions and Potential Social Impacts Table 2 Key Principles for Effective Participation Table 3 Decision-making matrix example Table 4 Proposed Mitigation Measures and Key Considerations Table 5 Indicative Budget Items for Participatory Process Table 6 Principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consultation Figure 1 Exclusive Economic Zones of PICs Figure 2 Screening in the Project Preparation Process Figure 3 Phase One Implementing Arrangements Figure 4 Project-Community Interactions Figure 5 Enabling Participation throughout the Project Cycle Figure 6 Elements of the Social Assessment Figure 7 Participatory Monitoring Process Figure 8 Levels of Responsibility for Grievance Management Figure 9 Stages in the Grievance Resolution Process Figure 10 Flowchart for Establishing FPIC with Indigenous Stakeholders I. Introduction The Pacific Islands Ocean Region covers 11 per cent of the global ocean area and is home to a number of diverse, yet vulnerable, island states. In recent years there has been an increasing demand for assistance to improve the environmental and resource quality of the region’s marin e areas and fisheries from Pacific Island Countries (PICs) and regional organisations. Following extensive engagement with PICs, a regional program of International Development Association (IDA) financing and technical assistance was developed, known as the Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (PROP). The PROP comprises a series of investments that will enable participating Pacific Island Member States20 to capture greater economic benefits from sustainable management of the region’s oceanic and coastal fisheries, and the critical habitats that sustain them. Through a coordinated regional approach, the PROP provides assistance to Member States who face a common set of development issues and goals, and share transboundary fisheries and fish resources. The implementation of marine and coastal management measures as part of PROP activities have the potential to result in access restrictions on marine resource use 21 which constitutes social impacts under the World Bank’s safeguard policy OP4.01 Environmental Assessment. For this reason, the PROP presents this regional Process Framework (PF) to guide participating Member States on a best practice approach to avoid and/or manage potentially adverse social impacts on marine resource users. Member States for Phase One of the PROP include Tuvalu, the Solomon Islands, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). Additional countries will join the PROP during Phase Two commencing in 2015 as conditions permit. Purpose and Scope of the Process Framework This Regional PF describes requirements to address social safeguard issues that may arise from restriction of access to natural resources under the PROP. It is recognised that the imposition restrictions on natural resources may result in raised environmental and social concerns, scenarios that disrupt social structures and community cohesion, or a loss of assets and incomes. These adverse social impacts are likely to lead to greater hardship or impoverishment unless appropriate measures are taken. Since PROP activities have the potential to result in adverse livelihood impacts to fishers and marine resource users, the World Bank’s Operational Policy (OP4.12) Involuntary Resettlement has been triggered. OP 4.36 Forests has been triggered due to the planned technical assistance in assessing blue carbon potential and creating incentives for mangrove conservation. In addition, as activities will be occurring in countries where Indigenous People22 are present, Operational Policy Indigenous Peoples (OP4.10) has also been triggered. Thus, the PF has been prepared in 20 World Bank member states include: Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, Kiribati, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. 21 Paragraph 3(b) of OP 4.12 states: the involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced persons. 22 Definition of Indigenous People is covered in Section II. compliance with requirements stated in OP4.12 and with consideration for key elements of OP4.10. This PF provides guidance for participating Member States on the implementation of access restrictions, activities and associated consultation processes. The purpose of the PF is to establish a process by which project affected persons (PAPs) and communities participate in the design of access restrictions, have input into mitigation measures necessary to achieve livelihood restoration where economic displacement is likely to occur, and contribute to ongoing project monitoring23. The overall objective of the PF is to avoid, minimize or mitigate potentially adverse effects of access restrictions and ensure PAPs are meaningfully consulted and enabled to participate in project activities that may affect them. In other words, where involuntary restrictions apply, a participatory approach will be enabled. The scope of the PF does not include activities that involve physical resettlement of persons as a result of involuntary land acquisition, as these are ineligible for PROP financing24; or voluntary community-based management measures25 as these do not trigger safeguard policies. Further, the implementation of legally enforceable national or provincial26 level marine resource management regulations27 does not trigger OP4.12, unless national legislative provisions and capacity and/or community decision-making processes are inadequate to effectively mitigate adverse social and livelihood impacts, particularly where vulnerable groups are concerned. In this case, the PF is the suitable safeguard instrument and should be applied. 23 Paragraph 7 of OP 4.12 requires a Process Framework. 24 See Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) Annex A Screening Form. 25 Footnote 6 of OP 4.12 states that “the policy does not apply to restrictions of access to natural resources under community-based projects, i.e., where the community using the resources decides to restrict access to these resources, provided that an assessment satisfactory to the Bank establishes that the community decision-making process is adequate, and that it provides for identification of appropriate measures to mitigate adverse impacts, if any, on the vulnerable members of the community.� 26 This may also be referred to as State or District government depending on the governance structures of the country. 27 Footnote 10 of OP4.12 states “This policy does not apply to regulations of natural resources on a national or regional level to promote their sustainability, such as watershed management, groundwater management, fisheries management, etc. The policy also does not apply to disputes between private parties in land titling projects, although it is good practice for the borrower to undertake a social assessment and implement measures to minimize and mitigate adverse social impacts, especially those affecting poor and vulnerable groups� Outline of Process Framework The sections of this PF are as follows:  Section I provides the background to the PROP and PF.  Section II establishes the regional context of the PROP, including the fisheries sector and marine management.  Section III introduces the institutional context, i.e. the legal and policy setting.  Section IV summarises key components of the PROP and potential social impacts of access restrictions.  Section V outlines the administrative arrangements for PROP implementation and information dissemination requirements.  Section VI outlines requirements of the participatory process regarding access restrictions including: o Eligibility Criteria for PAPs; o Livelihood restoration and mitigation measures; and o Implementation, monitoring and evaluation arrangements.  Section VII provides a grievance redress mechanism and protocols for grievance resolution.  Section VIII presents potential costs for participatory activities to be considered in program and budget allocations. II. Regional Context Pacific Region The Pacific Islands Ocean Region is home to 22 small island countries and territories divided into three subregions: Micronesia, Polynesia and Melanesia. Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of Pacific Island countries (PICs) cover a total of 30.5 million km2. This is in stark contrast to land resources of about 550,000 km2, which is equivalent to about 1.8% of their maritime jurisdiction (Figure 1). The economies of PICs are fundamentally shaped by their geography and comprise around 9 million people living on hundreds of islands and sharing common trans-boundary oceanic and fishery resources. These resources are threatened by numerous factors including overfishing, coastal habitat degradation and pollution from a wide range of sources. Overfishing threatens the long-term sustainability of the region’s key fish stocks and economic development opportunities. Additionally, climate change is projected to result in sea level rise, increased sea surface temperatures (with impacts on fishery resources and habitats), potentially more intense and frequent storm events in the region, and increased acidity - which has implications both for food security and for the ecosystem services provided by coral reefs (e.g. coastal protection). Fisheries Sector Pacific regional fisheries are divided into ‘oceanic’ (or ‘offshore’) and ‘coastal’ (or ‘inshore’) categories, depending on the geographical range and distribution and the ways in which they are exploited. Each can be summarised as:  Coastal fisheries support national food security, export commodities and subsistence livelihoods in rural areas which involve small-scale and localized harvesting of a diverse range of reef and lagoon fish, finfish, invertebrates and plants by thousands of subsistence, artisanal and commercial fishers throughout the region. Virtually all the coastal catch is taken by PICs themselves, with very little access by foreign fishing vessels (FFVs), the majority of which is from subsistence fishing activities.  Oceanic fisheries are the target of large-scale fishing vessels whose products (e.g. tunas, marlins, billfishes, sharks and allied species) are sourced from the Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) and landed at industrial fish processing facilities. Tuna fisheries represent a valuable economic resource with the large majority of tuna catches in Pacific Island waters taken by FFVs of Deep Water Fishing Nations (DWFN) operating under access agreements. Access fees paid by FFVs provide significant financial revenue to small islands states. One of the most significant initiatives to date has been the vessel day scheme (VDS) introduced by the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) to manage access for purse seine tuna fisheries. This relies heavily upon regional cooperation as it restricts the number of vessel fishing days in an effort to maintain sustainable catch rates. The VDS has subsequently increased revenue significantly to PNA countries28. Both coastal and oceanic fisheries contribute significantly to the economies of all PIC and both are facing increasing pressure from overexploitation and overfishing which threatens the long- term environmental sustainability, regional food security and economic viability of PICs (Hanich, 2010). Indigenous Peoples and Customary Marine Tenure PICs derive significant economic and social benefits from their marine resources, with many coastal communities depending on them for their livelihoods. Customary tenure, or communal ‘ownership’ rights over particular areas, is common throughout the Pacific region and is particularly strong in Melanesia (e.g. Solomon Islands) especially in rural areas. Customary tenure is associated with Indigenous Peoples as a traditional means of administering and allocating natural resources, i.e. land and coastal areas including coral reefs, which allows particular groups of people rights to access and control access to resources (e.g. through ‘tabu’ or no-take zones). Customary tenure is inherited through family and clan lineage and based on the principle of cooperation to meet subsistence, economic, cultural and spiritual needs (Baines 1989). Customary tenure systems are as diverse as they are complex, based on unwritten rules to ensure valuable ‘resource knowledge’ remains embedded in the local culture, which contributes to a distinct cultural identity. Communal resource ownership also means that numerous people tend 28 FSM, Kiribati, RMI, Nauru, Palau, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. to be involved in decision-making regarding the allocation of resources and proposed developments. In places where traditional leadership or customary systems have eroded, the concept of customary access rights has weakened and can also mean they are subject to exploitation (Bennett 2012). Indigenous People and customary rights are often formally recognised in national regulations or legislation and are protected internationally29, as well as in the World Bank operational policies. For the purpose of safeguard policies (specifically OP4.10), the World Bank defines Indigenous Peoples as individuals and groups with the following characteristics: (i) Self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this identify by others; (ii) Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources therein; (iii) Customary cultural, economic and social or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and (iv) An indigenous language often different from the official language of a country or region. Specific safeguard requirements pertaining to Indigenous People are discussed in Annex B Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework of the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). 29 ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries; UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People among others. III. Institutional Context Regional Legal and Policy Setting Over the last decade, substantial efforts have been made towards better governance of marine resources and fisheries in the Pacific. Regional policy initiatives such as the Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Policy (PIROP) (2002), the Pacific Plan (2005), the Pacific Islands Regional Ocean Framework for Integrated Strategic Action (PIROF-ISA) (2005), Pacific Islands Regional Coastal Fisheries Management Policy (‘Apia Policy’) (2008) and the Pacific Oceanscapes Framework (2010) have been endorsed by Pacific leaders and complimented by large-scale, multi-country conservation programs such as the Micronesia Challenge, the Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) and the expansion of a Locally Managed Marine Areas network (LMMA). Regional organizations such as Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), Fisheries Forum Agency (FFA), Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) assist in developing a coordinated regional approach for implementation of these policies, and provide support and technical assistance to PICs. Regional organizations also provide assistance for the implementation of the following conventions and treaties in PICs, including: Conventions and Treaties for Fisheries Management in the Pacific Region: o Convention (LOSC) and Agreement (UNFSA) (1982) o Nauru Agreement Concerning Cooperation in the Management of Fisheries of Common Interest (1982) o USE Multi-Lateral Treaty (1988) o Wellington Convention (1989) o Niue Treaty (1993) o The FSM Arrangement for Regional Fisheries Access (1995) o Palau Arrangement for the Management of the Purse Seine Fishery in the Western and Central Pacific (1995) o Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention (2004) o Vessel Day Scheme (2007) The policy and legal provisions for the management of fisheries in PICs are being strengthened, particularly in regards to coastal fisheries. Two recent policy initiatives include:  The Apia Policy (Pacific Islands Regional Coastal Fisheries Management Policy): the first regional mechanism to address coastal fisheries, acknowledging fishing communities involvement in management and advocacy of traditional systems that allocate fishing rights to a limited number of users and measures are enforced by communities themselves.  The Melanesia Spearhead Groups Roadmap for Inshore Fisheries Management and Sustainable Development (2014-2023) provides the Pacific subregion of Melanesia with a management framework emphasizing the value of bottom-up and community-based resource management (CBRM) approaches. At the national level, there is increasing recognition by governments that it is essential to empower fishing communities with greater management authority and access to targeted coastal fisheries, to both enhance incentives for stewardship and promote local efforts to enhance sustainability and benefits with support from research and conservation organizations. Phase One Countries This section outlines the relevant fisheries and environmental protection and management legislation and policy instruments within participating Member States. Solomon Islands The Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, Disaster Management and Meteorology (MECDM) in the Solomon Islands is responsible for national coastal resource and biodiversity planning and key legislation on natural resource management including the Environmental Act 1998, Environmental Regulations 2008 and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) guidelines. The EIS guidelines (2013) and associated Social Impact Assessment (SIA) guidelines (forthcoming) set out the process for the preparation of an EIS and require that an EIS be made publicly available and ensure public participation. In addition, MECDM have responsibility for the Protected Areas Act 2010 which provides a legal framework for the ‘owner’ of an area to declare, register and manage this area as a protected area (if approved by the Director). This process requires thorough consultation with traditional leaders, customary owners, communities, non-government organisations (NGOs) and other agencies to inform the development of a suitable management plan for the proposed area (Govan et al 2013). The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) Corporate Plan 2014-2018 and the Fisheries Section in the Solomon Islands Medium Term Development Plan 2014-2018 are guiding policies for the development of the Fisheries sector in the Solomon Islands. Key legislation includes the Fisheries Act 1998 (to be superseded) and Fisheries Management Bill 2014 (draft). Under the Provincial Government Act 1997 and Fisheries Act 1998 (to be superseded by the Fisheries Management Bill 2014), the Provincial Government has decentralised responsibilities for coastal fisheries management and is able to make specific laws or ‘ordinances’ for fisheries that are locally relevant (e.g. Western Province Fisheries Ordinance 2011, Choiseul Province Fisheries and Marine Environment Ordinance 1997, among others). Section 15 of the Fisheries Management Bill 2014 (forthcoming) will give Community Fisheries Management Plans (CFMP) legal recognition as a by-law upon adoption by the Provincial Assembly and must include written consent of customary rights holders. Customary tenure and governance systems are recognised in various national legislative instruments including the Land and Titles Act 1996, Customary Lands Records Act 1996 and the Constitution of the Solomon Islands. Article 75 of the Constitution provides that Parliament shall make provisions for the application of laws, including customary laws and customary rights over land and marine areas. Federated States of Micronesia The FSM comprises the four states of Chuuk, Kosrae, Pohnpei and Yap. The National Oceanic Resource Management Authority (NORMA) is the government entity responsible for the sustainable management of marine resources. The NORMA functions as a government department with representatives from each state. The Marine Resources Act 2002 (referred to as the ‘FSM Code’) is the principle fisheries management and development legislation and the national government manages tuna resources of the EEZ. The development and management arrangements for coastal fisheries (out to 12 nautical miles) involve a combination of traditional, state and national responsibilities. The national government plays a coordinating role through the Department of Resources and Development (DRD), however, each State manages its own coastal fisheries and maintains its own State Codes, Fishery Zones and Fishing Authorities. States have management strategies from centrally- administered open-access regimes to traditionally-controlled reef tenure systems (FAO 2002). Republic of the Marshall Islands The RMI is comprised of 34 islands and 24 electoral districts. The Nitijela (the legislature) is comprised of representatives from each district who elect the President. The Council of 12 Iroij (traditional chiefs) is selected according to custom and may request reconsideration of any laws or laws affecting land tenure. The Marine Zones (Declaration) Act 1984 specifies a 12 nautical mile territorial sea and 200 nautical mile zone for RMI’s EEZ. Inshore fisheries are designated to be within 5 miles of the shoreline. The Marine Resources Act 1997 is the key legislative instrument controlling fishing by domestic and foreign vessels within the EEZ and was amended in 2011. The National Environmental Protection Act 1984 is the key legislative instrument for environmental conservation in the Marshall Islands. The Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority (MIMRA) was established in 2007 with primary responsibility for the management and regulation of marine and fisheries resources, exploration, fishing licenses and conservation in RMI. MIMRA facilitate community-based resource management plans in outer islands through the Reimaanlok process and support from the Coastal Management Advisory Council (CMAC). Guiding documents on the Reimaanlok process have been developed and incorporate tools on community engagement for the management of community-based conservation areas (Reimaan National Planning Team 2008 and 2012). Tuvalu Fisheries in Tuvalu are legislated by the Marine Resources Act 2006. The Maritime Zones Act 2012 outlines the territorial sea and other key maritime zones, including the EEZ at 200 nautical miles. Section 8 of the Marine Resources Act 2006 outlines the responsibilities of Fisheries Officers in Tuvalu regarding the development of fisheries management plans. Fisheries Officers are responsible for carrying out consultations and gaining approval on plans from the relevant Falekaupule (see paragraph below). Falekaupule is a traditional institution comprising traditional leaders formed to handle traditional matters in Tuvalu. The Kaupule (Council) is the executing arm of the Falekaupule and have developed strategic plans that align to Kakeega II (the Tuvalu National Development Plan 2005- 2015). Environmental protection is governed by the Conservation Areas Act 1999 and Environmental Protection Act 2008. Tuvalu’s coastal fisheries are under the jurisdiction of the Kaupule on each of the nine islands, with support from the Fisheries Department of Tuvalu (TFD). The TFD aims to conduct resource and socio-economic assessments in selected islands, and then to provide ongoing support to each of the islands to develop and implement management plans that would be approved by the island councils. The community on each island has formed a fishers’ association, which operates under the umbrella of the national Tuvalu Fishermen’s Association, and has in most instances led the development of some form of management measures for approval by the Kaupule. The presence of sub-communities from all of Tuvalu’s islands leads to reduced compliance of decisions made by the Funafuti Kaupule (Town Hall), which itself has limited capacity in fisheries management. Existing Guidelines Key documents with the aim of supporting community-based marine resource and fisheries management exist throughout the region. Below is a brief summary of those which will be useful for PROP stakeholders:  The SEM Pasifika Manual provides guidelines for coastal managers on socio-economic monitoring in PICs (Wongbusarakum and Pomeroy 2008).  The Guidelines on Community-Based Ecosystems Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) for PICs complied by SPC broadens the scope of community-based fisheries management to the ecosystem scale (SPC 2010).  A Manual for the Collection of a Minimum Dataset was developed by SPC for the collection of suitable socio-economic data in relation to fisheries surveys (Kronen et al 2007).  A guide for facilitators involved in community-based marine resource management in the Solomon Islands provides important lessons learned for community-based resource management (CBRM) activities (WorldFish 2013).  A guide for facilitators involved in community-based conservation management in the Marshall Islands, known as Reimaanlok, outlines important steps for the implementation of conservation planning processes (Reimaan National Planning Team 2008 and 2012). IV. Project Components and Access Restrictions Component Activities of the PROP The PROP will directly contribute to enabling the participating PICs to capture greater economic benefits from sustainable management of the region’s oceanic and coastal fisheries and the critical habitats that sustain them through four key components: Component 1: Sustainable Management of Oceanic Fisheries The objective is to help participating PICs sustainably increase the net economic benefits provided to them by the region’s purse seine and long-line tuna fisheries, through: (i) Strengthen both the sustainable management and value of access to Pacific Island tuna fisheries and the portion of this value captured by the region. (ii) Ensure an equitable distribution within PICs of the benefits of a more valuable natural capital assets. Component 2: Sustainable Management of Coastal Fisheries The objective is to support participating countries to sustainable increase the benefits they receive from defined coastal fisheries, focusing on those with the greatest potential, i.e., coastal fisheries such as bechê-de-mer (BDM) that (i) can generate export earnings for the country, and/or (ii) support livelihoods, food security and dietary health, through: (i) Sustainable management of targeted coastal fisheries. (ii) Linking sustainable coastal fish products to regional markets. Component 3: Sustainable Financing of the Conservation of Critical Fishery Habitats The objective is to strengthen and develop models of sustainable financing for the conservation of critical habitats that underpin oceanic and coastal fisheries in the region, through: (i) Establish a Pacific Marine Conservation Development Fund to support the establishment of large-scale oceanic Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), including mechanisms for cost and benefit sharing. (ii) Establish a pilot Pacific Blue Carbon regional program for the conservation of small to medium scale marine habitats. Component 4: Regional Coordination, Implementation Support and Program Management The objective is to provide regional coordination, implementation support and program management, to ensure coherent approach to program implementation within the wider context of the Pacific Oceanscapes Framework and wide dissemination of results and lessons learned; as well as regional and national implementation support and training as needed for the program to achieve its objectives. The PROP provides a ‘menu of options’ under these four components from which Member States may develop programs and activities based on specific needs of fisheries management and environmental protection. Women selling produce sourced mangroves and estuaries at Honiara Central Market Possible Access Restrictions Access restrictions are management measures designed to maintain sustainable harvest rates within a specific geographic area that may be imposed by national governments and provincial level governments (as is the case in the Solomon Islands). These measures are typically enforced to deter illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing (IUU) activities, and avoid exploitation or overfishing of existing fish stocks and valuable export commodities (e.g. BDM), however, they are inherently challenging to implement given the nature of ‘open access’ 30 resources. Although customary marine tenure restricts access to ‘outsiders’ in theory, it is not a sufficient management measure in itself. Lack of capacity and understanding of environmental process, 30 Open access resource is distinguished from common-property resources whereby common-property resources may allow many users to share the resource subject to informal and formal restrictions (Tietenberg 2006). loss of traditional knowledge, poor management and economic incentives that drive overharvesting are prevalent in customary areas and remain as key challenges for effective community-based management. Table 1 (below) identifies proposed access restrictions (and applicable project components) and provides an indicative list of social impacts that could arise from PROP activities if not carefully planned for or mitigated against. Such impacts will need to be addressed prior to the implementation stages of the PROP to ensure safeguards compliance especially in cases where national legal provisions, policy and capacity is insufficient to protect fishers and marine resource users from adverse impacts, including economic displacement. It excludes the strengthening and enforcement of fisheries management laws by governments as these do not trigger safeguard policies. Social and Livelihood Impacts Restricting access on an involuntary basis, whether the area is under open access rights or communally-owned, directly and indirectly impacts local communities. Impacts may include the loss of access to areas that support subsistence lifestyles, infringement upon customary tenure and the rights of Indigenous Peoples, the loss of access to places with cultural and spiritual value, economic displacement, and/or increased food insecurity. Restricting access to certain areas may also inhibit access to assets or result in a loss of fixed physical assets. Although it can be difficult to determine the extent to which these restrictions result in adverse social impacts (i.e. the magnitude), it is almost certain they will affect fishers and fisheries stakeholders disproportionately. For instance, if Bechê-de-mer (BDM) harvesting is limited in the area, fishers involved in BDM harvesting, processing and selling would be affected but other types of fishers would not (e.g. finfishers). The gender dimension of fisheries management and marine resource value chain is also important to consider, as women partake in different fishing activities to men (e.g. gleaning, preparation) and are typically excluded from decisions that may impact upon their livelihood unless they have reasonable bargaining power (Kruijssen et al 2013; WorldFish 2013). Where investments in fisheries development contribute to local/regional economic development, it is likely people participating in the informal economy will be drawn into formal employment. This dynamic tends to impact more heavily upon women who chose to enter formal employment, and leads to significant changes to existing social structures of the broader community, and in some cases, also exposes them to health risks. Table 1: Matrix of Access Restrictions and Potential Social Impacts Component in the Potential Social Impacts Project Activity PROP restrictions - Stimulation of economic activities in rural area. Improved market access - Overharvesting due to increased value of and increase in resources and easier access to markets. economic value of - Increased formal employment marine resources Coastal land opportunities. Component (especially export access - Change in social structures and exposure Two commodities) including to poor lifestyle habits and health risks construction of coastal due to increased economic activity and facilities and formal employment (which affects surveillance hubs women disproportionately). - Loss of fixed physical assets or access to assets. - Loss of access to key resources or assets that support subsistence livelihoods and Implementation of local economy and livelihoods impacted natural resource Fisheries disproportionately. Component - Customary systems of natural resource management plans (i.e. Management Two governance and land/coastal tenure of protected areas; coastal Plans^ Indigenous societies adversely impacted. fisheries) - Infringement upon rights of Indigenous Peoples. - Increased food insecurity. - Stimulation of conservation activities in rural area. - Loss of access to key resources or assets Expansion of protected that support subsistence livelihoods and Component Mangrove local economy and livelihoods impacted area network and habitat Three (Blue habitat disproportionately. restoration for the Blue Carbon) conservation - Social change and potential loss of social Carbon pilot/s cohesion as a result of new revenue source (carbon credits) and subsequent economic development. - Loss of assets or access to assets. ^ In the Solomon Islands, Coastal Fisheries Management Plans will be developed at the Provincial Government and community level. In FSM, Coastal Fisheries Management Plans will be developed at the State Government level. Even if the loss experienced during no-fishing/harvesting periods is likely to be offset by improved harvests and greater income over the long term (and supplemented by alternative species in the short/medium-term), the impact must be assessed on the premise that offsets cannot be guaranteed. As such, although PROP activities are likely to have an overwhelming positive benefit to communities through PICs, the consequences of the proposed restrictions can only be known after appropriate socioeconomic analysis and sufficient consultation with PAPs has been undertaken. For this reason, the participation of PAPs in determining livelihoods impacts and appropriate mitigation measures is essential. Section VI outlines the participatory planning process for the PROP. Voluntary Access Restrictions Component Three activities may include technical assistance that leads to measures to restrict the use and harvesting of mangroves (under the Blue Carbon Fund) in small and medium scale habitats and the expansion/designation of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). Although these measures have the potential to alter resource-based livelihoods, these are anticipated to be voluntary in nature and developed will the full cooperation with targeted communities. Lastly, activities involving the development of small-scale coastal infrastructure to support fisheries activities and management (e.g. surveillance hubs) will be screened to ensure they do not involve involuntary land acquisition and physical displacement. Any fisheries-related development will either occur on existing or newly purchased state land, and will not involve compulsory acquisition or dealings with land under customary ownership. Should these activities take place on land that is used or occupied by persons and potentially result in the loss of assets or access to assets, a separate safeguards instrument (i.e. Resettlement Policy Framework) will be triggered (Annex C in the ESMF). Further, in the event that a community and/or landholder voluntary donates land for a project that has direct community benefit, and provided alternatives have been considered, the World Bank’s Voluntary Land Donation Protocol must be followed (see Annex D in the ESMF). V. Administrative and Implementing Arrangements This section outlines the implementation arrangements for the PROP including the responsibilities of agencies and stakeholders at each level. A regional organisation will coordinate activities to ensure a common regional approach is undertaken and alignment with national activities for PROP is achieved. Regional Level – Coordinating Agency The Forum Fisheries Committee (FFC) and Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) will act as the Coordinating Agencies for the PROP, working through the Oceanscapes Unit in PIFS in consultation with the Parties to the Nauru Agreement Office (PNAO) for Component One, and the Marine Sector Working Group (MSWG) from the Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific (CROP) for Component Three. The FFC will monitor the overall program implementation and act in an advisory role to the Project Support Unit (PSU) which will be located in FFA (Honiara-based) and work with national Implementing Agency representatives to deliver PROP-financed activities. National Level – Implementing Agency The Project Implementing Agency (IA) in each Member State is the department or ministry with the prime responsibility of national fisheries management. For PROP Phase One this includes:  Fisheries Department (TFD) of the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) in Tuvalu;  The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) in the Solomon Islands;  The Marine Resource Authority (MRA) in RMI; and  The National Oceanic Resource Management Authority (NORMA) in FSM (for Components One and Four). Each IA will nominate or recruit dedicated staff including a national PROP Coordinator to manage PROP activities, responsible for implementation at the national, provincial/state and local levels in partnership with other agencies, NGOs and relevant fisher associations. The IA is also responsible for safeguard compliance and shall also authorise the translation of this PF and its dissemination to PROP partners as required. Overall, Implementing Agencies are responsible for:  Completing formal agreements with FFA and other relevant parties;  Establishing procurement arrangements (with support from FFA);  Delivering training and capacity building to achieve safeguard compliance;  Ensuring that PROP-supported fisheries management activities are aligned to safeguard policies through a screening process;  Achieving environmental and social safeguard compliance;  Providing technical assistance and relevant templates to Partner Agencies;  Compiling reports and data from Partner Agencies;  Maintaining a stakeholder register for fisheries stakeholders;  Providing support for community consultation processes (unless otherwise stipulated);  Financing mitigation and livelihood restoration measures;  Oversee management of grievance resolution process (lodging/responding); and  Documenting voluntary and co-management agreements (including land donations) that may occur for activities under Component Two and Three. The IA has ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance to World Bank safeguard policies through screening and review processes. IAs will screen proposed activities through criteria listed in Annex A of the ESMF prior to implementation (as shown in Figure 2) and prepare safeguard documentation in coordination with the FFA. During project implementation, the IA will be responsible for ensuring the safeguards requirements are properly implemented. The PROP Coordinator in each IA will be responsible for integrating key elements of the PF into Implementation Plans and monitoring arrangements to ensure that where safeguard policies are triggered the suitable instrument is in place. Figure 2: Screening Stage Partnership Arrangements IAs are responsible for ensuring the appropriate formal agreements (e.g., MoU, contracts and/or services line agreements) are in place prior to the commencement of PROP activities and before community consultation takes place. Any documentation that is signed by project partners constitutes a legal document and should clarify roles and responsibilities for managing tasks and resources, as well as procedures for joint decision-making. Contracts and formal agreements should also outline the timeframe and budget required to deliver PROP activities. Figure 3 (below) presents the PROP implementation arrangements. During the project preparation stage, partnership arrangements for the implementation of activities will be clarify the roles, responsibilities and expectations of:  Coordinating Agency (FFA and FFC);  Implementing Agency (Ministry or Department);  Project Support Unit (PSU);  PROP Coordinators and/or Steering Committee/s;  Project Managers;  Partner Agencies (such as NGOs, Provincial Government, etc.); and  Project Team (i.e. persons conducting community consultation and their supervisors). Both FFA and IAs are responsible for delivering induction sessions and training to build capacity and competency on administrative and reporting procedures for the project. This includes raising awareness regarding behaviour and communication protocols and grievance resolution procedures in place for interactions with project affected persons (PAPs) and community interface. The IA, with support from Partner Agencies (PAs), will have responsibility for the overall participatory process as outlined in Section VI. This may include assisting to establish Fisher Associations or Councils where these do not currently exist and where they will assist in project implementation and enhance stakeholder representation. Overall, these agencies will lead PROP activities in a way that strengthens national capacity in community consultations and community-based resource management (CBRM), and contributes to a better understanding of ecosystem services and public goods aspects of critical habitats. Partner Agencies In most cases IAs will choose to engage external assistance for the implementation of activities at the subnational and local level. This is likely to involve contracting works through the PSU (or equivalent), NGOs, research institutes, community-based organisations (CBOs), or in partnership with Provincial/State Governments. The Partner Agency (or partners) could be utilised to support initial baseline studies and surveys, conduct community engagement and participatory activities, facilitate the formation of representative bodies, implement community development and livelihood programs, and/or assist in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities. Each Partner Agency will be responsible for daily tasks of the work they are contracted for or have a written agreement about, compliance with grievance procedures and other administrative requirements set out by the Coordinating Agencies and the World Bank. PAs will typically be the Provincial level Government and NGOs working with local communities and Fisher Association or Councils. Partner Agencies are responsible for:  Conducting consultation in a manner that aligns to the PF;  Ensuring consultation is well-documented;  Ensuring consultation activities and project activities are adequately resourced;  Submitting budget acquittals and transparent financial reporting to enable the development of future programs based on accurate budgets;  Timely reporting on contracted and subcontracted activities;  Follow-up and feedback with stakeholders and communities; and  Delivering training and capacity building for staff and communities. Reporting procedures including detailed financial acquittals will be outlined by the IA in formal agreements and templates will be supplied to the Partner Agency for this purpose (especially in cases where procedures do not exist or reporting is considered to be weak/insufficient to meet project requirements). Figure 3: Phase One Implementation Arrangements Representation and Information Dissemination Adequate representation and defined communication channels are both crucial in order to enable a successful participatory process. Figure 4 indicates the levels at which it may be necessary to establish key liaison points so that local-level stakeholders are in regular communication with representative bodies/liaison officers and vice versa. It will also be important for the representative bodies/liaison officers to have access to relevant project representatives and decision-makers. Figure 4: Project-Community Interactions The IAs are responsible for managing information dissemination, overseeing public consultation and assuring compliance to the guidelines and protocols set out by safeguard instruments on consultation. These agencies will ensure project team members are trained on relevant communication protocols and procedures regarding stakeholder engagement. Dedicated channels for information dissemination will be established by the IA to ensure regular, ongoing communication with stakeholders throughout the project cycle. PROP will require the engagement of communities and other fisheries stakeholders at the national, provincial and local level. Consultation methods and activities will be defined in the Consultation Plan prior to implementation of subprojects by personnel responsible in the IA or Partner Agency for community interface and the delivery of public consultation and information dissemination at the local level. Consultation activities will enable meaningful consultation and align to the principle of free, prior, and informed consultation (FPIC) particularly in cases that require joint-decision making and a high degree of community participation (e.g. access restrictions). Information will be presented in a format accessible to the target audience through culturally appropriate and relevant methods. Consultation sessions will include special outreach efforts tailored to the need of vulnerable groups such as women, youth, elderly and disabled persons so that the process is socially inclusive and a range of stakeholder views and perspectives are adequately represented. Consultation methods will be designed in consideration of the different sociocultural norms that inhibit participation and input into decision-making from vulnerable groups and persons. Each activity will be well-documented to ensure the views of stakeholders are captured and incorporated into project design, and/or addressed where necessary. In addition, follow-up with communities on the outcome of consultation and participatory activities will be undertaken where it is due. VI. Enabling a Participatory Process The PROP requires a participatory approach for activities that may result in the restriction of access to marine resources to ensure compliance with OP4.10 and OP4.12. This section provides guidance to the Coordinating and Implementing Agencies on a participatory planning process that will ensure that all project beneficiaries will be sufficiently consulted on proposed activities, meaningfully participate in project implementation and that any negative impacts are avoided or adequately mitigated. It outlines key information to inform the development of Marine Protected Area Management Plans, Coastal Fisheries Management Plans and any project-related Action Plans. Key Principles A successful participatory process is founded upon consultation and engagement methods that follow the principles set out in Table 2. Table 2 Key Principles for Effective Participation (i) All communities will be approached openly in an effort to collaborate and be made aware of the option to refuse to participate in the project. (ii) All project beneficiaries shall be engaged in a method that is culturally appropriate and based on free, prior, and informed consultation (FPIC31) where Indigenous Peoples are present. (iii) Engagement preparation shall take into consideration issues of gender equity, illiteracy, disability, ethnicity and socially excluded groups to ensure that dialogue is inclusive, tailored to meet the needs of vulnerable persons and carried out in the appropriate language(s) and methods to ensure an adequate understanding of the activity is achieved. (iv) Communication will begin early in the project preparation stage, occur regularly throughout the project cycle in a consistent and transparent manner and allow for the timely disclosure of relevant information and comprehensive discussion of social and environmental impacts. (v) Consultation shall be well-documented, adequately resourced, capture stakeholder views to inform decision about the project (i.e. two-way communication) and allow adequate time for community decision-making. A transparent and well-planned engagement process will contribute to building broad community support for the PROP and relevant activities, so long as stakeholder feel informed and their expectations are managed throughout the process. Misguided and unplanned engagement is likely to lead to miscommunication, mistrust, raised community expectations and/or disputes, which could result in the eventual termination of activities. In order to avoid this becoming a project risk, it is expected that the principles for effective participation set out in Table 2 (above) are followed, and that participatory activities are carried out by suitably qualified or experienced persons. Moreover, full representation is the foundation of an equitable participatory process. 31 Free, Prior and Informed Consultation Principles are presented in ESMF, Annex B: Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework. Careful identification of stakeholders at the early stage of project planning will ensure the inclusion of different and diverse stakeholder groups (e.g. artisanal fishers, commercial fishers, conservation interests) and that their views are adequately captured and used to inform project design. Participation in Implementation Stages Figure 5 outlines key project stages for enabling participation and identifies sequence of tasks relevant for community engagement in compliance with social safeguards policies that could arise under Component Two and Three activities. Figure 5: Key Project Stages for Participation Screening (ESFM) Strategic Site Selection During the scoping phase of project implementation in each country, targeted coastal fisheries will be identified by the Implementing Agency for inclusion in the PROP. Targeted areas will be selected strategically, based upon a demonstrable value for coastal fisheries and marine protection to ensure program objectives are met. This may require an initial ‘situational analysis’ of coastal fisheries and marine protected areas through a Frame Survey32 or similar rapid analysis methodology, and include cost/benefit scenarios where possible. Identification of Participating Communities Once strategic sites for Component 2 activities have been identified, a targeted Awareness- raising Campaign will commence to allow for interested communities to come forward. Local interest in implementing the program is a fundamental requirement and communities must not be coerced into participating in the program. For this reason it is important that the awareness- raising campaign clearly explains the proposed activities and associated responsibilities without raising stakeholder expectations about benefits. The campaign will utilise communication channels such as radio, social media, public notices, advertising, information sessions, existing networks (e.g. LMMA, NGOs) and widespread advocacy through partners and provincial level offices. It will also direct interested communities to relevant persons or organisations (e.g. NGOs) for further information and to start a formal engagement process. The targeted sites will be selected based on the following criteria:  The fisheries are well-defined (i.e., within a distinct geographic boundary, for a particular species or group of species, or for a stock);  Each site must have the potential to accrue positive economic benefits to stakeholders through improved fisheries management;  Each site must not encompass more than four small to moderate-sized communities, which must be neighbouring communities (i.e. ‘clusters’);  Strong local leadership, be socially cohesive33, and ideally have a stakeholder group or association formed that could be recognized with authority to formulate management measures on behalf of stakeholders (or capacity to formulate a representative group);  Strong interest in improving management regimes; and  Strong local commitment and formal confirmation that fishers in the targeted fishery are fully committed to participate in the project (i.e. signed agreements). Areas or communities with a history of inter- and intra-community conflict over resources are unlikely to be good candidates for early inclusion in the PROP but may be considered for later stages of the program. Consultation Plan It will be necessary to develop a Consultation Plan for each subproject, which outlines consultation activities and engagement methods for the proposed activities. This will be particularly relevant where ‘clusters’ of villages have been selected to participate. The Consultation Plan will be developed by the IA as part of project design phase and later incorporated into project Implementation Plans. 32 A Frame Survey provides a comprehensive inventory of the fisheries sector through a census approach. Further information is available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y2790e/y2790e09.htm 33 Social cohesion refers to a community which is not deeply divided by factions within the community, where trust amongst members exists and cooperation is relatively easy to establish. The Consultation Plan shall identify stakeholder groups, as well as methods and timeframes for engagement that align to the principles set out in Table 2 above (a template is provided in Appendix 1). The Consultation Plan should also specify communication methods and responsibilities for engaging with communities, grievance procedures, as well as protocols for establishing FPIC consultation with Indigenous Peoples as appropriate (ESMF Annex B Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework provides a flowchart). Engagement methods need to target the inclusion of vulnerable groups in communities (e.g. women, youth, elderly, disabled) with consideration of the inherent difficulties and different socio-cultural norms that restrict their input into decision-making. Dialogue with implementing partners is required to determine the appropriate roles and reporting arrangements for consultation and engagement activities, such as who will prepare and conduct engagement sessions and document engagement activities and collect stakeholder feedback. The project may require the nomination of a ‘liaison officer’ within the villa ge cluster and at the Ward level or Provincial Government level, whichever is most suitable for the local context. Identifying Project Affected Persons Project affected persons (PAPs) are those who depend on access to resources to maintain their stand of living and who may or may not have formal legal rights or claims to the resources in question34. The participation of those who may lose access to particular resources or assets (i.e., the directly affected persons) and are subsequently adversely impacted upon is integral to the PROP design and its implementation, therefore accurate and early identification of PAPs and screening for Indigenous People is essential. Although PAPs are generally associated with a specified geographic area or targeted site, the extent to which persons could be impacted will vary depending on the fishing activities they are typically engaged in. The stakeholder mapping exercise conducted as part of the Consultation Plan should consider relevant stakeholders across the value chain, i.e. artisanal fishers, processors, mongers/sellers. The stakeholder mapping exercise may occur in tandem with the initial social assessment (below), the focus of which will be to determine the legitimacy of a person’s resource use and dependency, and in turn, their right to participate in the project. It is recommended that a community information session be held to discuss or disclose information on the following:  Consider group representation and accountability for the subproject (e.g. utilise existing groups, nomination, establish a new steering committee or Fishery Association);  Responsibilities of nominated ‘liaison officers’ and their duty to represented PAPs in an unbiased manner; and  Role of the village court, ward councilor, Provincial Government (or equivalent). A confidential stakeholder register should be compiled to record persons that have been (i) involved in community consultations and (ii) are identified as a PAP, and is maintained by the IA and project team. 34 See Paragraph 15 of OP4.12 (Annex 1). Social Assessment Prior to implementation of activities in Component 2 and 3, a sound understanding of the existing environment and sociocultural context should be developed through conducting biological and socio-economic (census) baseline assessments as part of the Action Plan. The purpose is to establish primary data35 from which impacts can be measured and improvements can be monitored (i.e., surveys design incorporates key socioeconomic indicators used for social analysis and M&E purposes). These assessments can be disruptive as they require extensive engagement with participating communities, hence require the lead-in time necessary should not be underestimated. It is recommended that communities are notified at least two to four weeks prior to the commencement of survey activities and adequately briefed on the upcoming activities to build understanding about what is required of them. The assessment should provide more detail of the local context, specifically:  Sociocultural aspects of the community or cluster of communities;  Local economy and subsistence activities;  Level of dependency on marine and coastal resources and current threats;  Local governance structures including decision-making on natural resources;  Customary tenure, boundaries, access rights and authoritative powers;  Sites and/or resources that may hold cultural/spiritual significance for Indigenous Peoples; and  Territories and/or resources under dispute. The level of detail required for the social assessment depends on selected activities and the extent to which they are likely to cause adverse social impacts (Figure 6). If PROP activities are limited and/or unlikely to have adverse social impacts, it is possible for the assessment to be based on the IAs own experience and secondary sources. It may be included as part of the environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) for the project and should consider requirements for compliance with OP4.10. 35 Wongbusarakum and Pomeroy 2008, Kronen et al. 2007, and Bunce et al. 2000 provide useful manuals on the collection of socioeconomic data in relation to fisheries. Figure 6: Elements of the Social Assessment (Bunce et al. 2000:4). It is essential to educate participating households and communities about the purpose of these assessments; and be transparent about how the information may be used, i.e., who ‘owns’ the data and where is it kept. Where Indigenous populations are involved, assessments must respect the confidential nature of indigenous knowledge36 and use discretion where this knowledge has been shared (see Annex B Indigenous People Planning Framework for further guidance). Further engagement sessions are required to discuss:  Grievance resolution procedures in place for the project (Section VII);  Options for those who wish to voluntarily opt out of participating in the program altogether (and will be subsequently excluded from future events and activities);  Future stages of the project including participatory activities; and  Clarify roles and responsibilities moving forward. Each stakeholder engagement session should be comprehensively documented, specific decisions that have been made and included in progress reports throughout the course of consultation. 36 Indigenous People have a right to protect their intellectual property and intangible cultural heritage (i.e. traditional knowledge, customary law, including the right to control access and recording of such information). Guidelines for handling traditional knowledge has been developed for RMI (see Reimaanlok 2008). Participatory Livelihoods Assessment Once baseline assessments have been completed and a general understanding about the area has been established, Partner Agencies will facilitate open dialogue with participating communities about options for access restrictions and collect their feedback on anticipated livelihood impacts. This may occur in association with a suitable CBO such as a Fisher’s Association or Village Committee where broad and unbiased representation can be guaranteed. The dialogue may take the form of a large community meeting, focus group discussions or series of targeted sessions to discuss a range of options and alternatives for access restrictions with PAPs in a transparent manner. The aim of this assessment is to ascertain, with the participation of PAPs, the extent of economic displacement that may be attributed to PROP activities, how particular segments of the community may be affected differently and how adverse livelihood impacts can be avoided or restored. The assessment should provide an indication of the economic value related to proposed access restrictions, and therefore, an estimate of costs worn by PAPs so the value of specific livelihood activities is captured. This may be considered as their ‘contribution’ to the project. In addition, it should be identified whether management plans or marine resource use planning adversely affects the customary rights of Indigenous People. Through this exercise, it is important that the advantages and disadvantages of each option are presented in a format accessible to the target audience and discussed with various groups (e.g. women’s groups, village leaders). For instance, special outreach efforts to include specific segments of the community (e.g. youth, women, disabled, elderly) are critical and for this reason methods should be detailed in the Consultation Plan for proposed activities. It is imperative that the process allows for the most directly affected and disadvantaged groups to be heard as inequitable participation is a key project risk and safeguard compliance issue. This will enable communities to make well-informed choices about the nature of restrictions and subsequent livelihood impacts before any decisions are made. The findings of this assessment will inform agreements put in place with communities and PAPs regarding mitigation procedures. Eligibility Criteria The restriction of access to marine resources, whether the restrictions are temporary, permanent, or long-term but not permanent, could adversely impact upon persons using these resources for commercial, subsistence and customary purposes. The extent to which persons using marine resources are impacted will vary based on their level of dependency for such resources (which should be determined during socioeconomic surveys). As such, the level of dependency is likely to influence the eligibility of PAPs for certain compensation measures. Therefore, the eligibility criteria to determine which mitigation measures are most appropriate will be based on the following: (i) Partial loss of livelihood; (ii) Complete loss of livelihood; (iii) Increased vulnerability, particularly for marginalized groups or persons. In order to assess which mitigation measures will be suitable, it will be necessary to discuss these options with PAPs and communities. For instance, PAPs will need to be determined if the categorization of individuals is necessary, or a community-wide approach is preferred. Criteria may be expanded to define persons whom are ineligible for the livelihood restoration program (LRP) or similar, such as persons using illegal or destructive fishing methods (e.g. dynamite, cyanide) or non-residents or immigrants whom do not have customary or access rights. Artisanal fishers and communities may have multiple sources of income from different sectors such as agriculture or tourism. Where this is the case, the LRP should focus only on the restoration of lost income from fisheries-related activities or those linked to PROP activities. Importantly, the LRP has a defined scope and is not designed to be a large-scale community development program (CDP). Although CDPs are likely to be developed as part of PROP Component Two (Coastal Fisheries), the scope and applicability will be different to LRPs as they are not designed to ‘offset’ livelihood impacts. Table 3 illustrates how a decision-making matrix could be developed in cooperation with PAPs for the purpose of a LRP. A brief explanation can be included in each category, and include analysis of how men and women, and youth and adults may be impacted in different ways. Table 3: Decision-making matrix example Partial loss Complete loss Increased vulnerability Gleaners BDM traders 7 men; 3 women Finfishers 20 persons Fishmongers 2 youth 1 man; 3 women Note: The information in this table is for illustrative purposes only. Mitigation Measures and Livelihood Restoration The aim of enabling a participatory process is to avoid and mitigate any adverse social impacts where access restrictions may apply. The pre-mitigation of adverse social and livelihood impacts will only be successful in cases where effective consultation and stakeholder engagement has been undertaken. During this process, specific livelihood mitigation measures will be developed with the full participation of PAPs and communities by suitable Partner Agencies (i.e. NGO, CBO). So that participating communities are not penalized for their willingness to improve local fisheries and environmental management and their participation in the project, any loss that may occur as a result of restricted access will be offset by provisions detailed in a LRP. The objective of a LRP is to improve or restore PAP livelihoods to pre-displacement levels while maintaining the sustainability of the park or protected area. The LRP will be based upon decisions made by PAPs and formal agreements with the IA. Partner Agencies will assist in the set up and administration of LRPs. It is important to consider a comprehensive range of issues that may cause adverse social impacts once the specific activities are further defined. For example:  Who will benefit directly from the activities and whether this will be controlled by dominant persons in the community;  The location of important sites with significant resource and cultural values, such as sacred/tabu sites, key water sources and fish stocks, for consideration in project design;  Sensitivity of a communities belief system and the linkages between the local environment and natural resources and cultural identity;  Loss of assets or access to assets;  Elements of the project that may infringe upon customary rights;  Elements of the project that may disrupt social cohesion;  Elements of the project that may cause gender inequity issues;  Time commitments required to participate in activities which may take away from important subsistence tasks;  Heightened risk of conflict arising in adjacent communities resulting from exclusion from project activities; and  Perceptions of favouritism between communities leading to conflict. This list is not exhaustive and may need to be further refined with assistance from suitably qualified social scientists. Mitigation measures in response to identified social impacts were outlined in Table 1 (Section IV) and are presented again in Table 4 alongside a list of key considerations for the development of mitigation measures or LRP in collaboration with communities. Table 4 Proposed Mitigation Measures and Key Considerations Standard Mitigation Measure Considerations Partnership approach with communities to Quality of FPIC consultation undertaken establish co-management strategy/regime to with communities determine best approach to avoid adverse Full representation of various stakeholders impacts to customary rights in consultation with consideration for gender equity Strengthen Community-Based Management Use of appropriate technology (CBM) systems and LMMA approaches Support, equipment and training provided to Suitability of equipment and ongoing participating communities for natural resource training requirements management and MCS activities Use of appropriate technology Nominate community liaison officers or Recruiting suitable persons that do not communication focal point as required have any conflicts of interest Strengthen monitoring, control and Use of appropriate technology surveillance (MCS) activities Cultural considerations and inter- community disputes regarding controlled access Livelihoods Restoration Program (LRP) Livelihood restoration options that are appropriate to the local context and environmental setting Long-term development strategy phasing in key components Integration of different technical approaches Participatory Monitoring Arrangements Monitoring is the systematic gathering and analysis of data to gauge if something is changing and inform decision-making. Participatory monitoring is a mechanism that drives learning, adaptation and improvement, which are essential elements of sustainable environmental management. This typically involves collaboration between scientists, government and local communities in an iterative process focused on a specific geographic area, habitat or species. Figure 7 outlines stages in the participatory monitoring process. Participatory monitoring has distinct benefits: integrating local knowledge into scientific monitoring; building social capital; empowering local people to understand and manage their resources; strengthening local institutions and CBOs; and facilitating decision-making around resource use and management measures. However, it also has its limitations. M&E requires the establishment of baseline indicators (socioeconomic and biological) with periodic assessment of conditions to assess change. Community participation will be required for (i) monitoring environmental baseline data and (ii) monitoring livelihood restoration programs, once formal agreements are in place. PAPs and communities will require financial and technical assistance from Partner Agencies to set up a monitoring program that includes training on specific techniques (e.g. transects, catch amounts) for monitor environmental health and fish stocks, as well as appropriate technology and equipment to support these activities. Partner Agencies, or those administering the LRP, will be responsible for regular follow-up with PAPs regarding effectiveness of the LRP once activities are underway. Figure 7: Participatory Monitoring Process * Key indicators will be generated from initial assessments. Monitoring training will be offered to communities at this stage of the process. VII. Grievance Redress Mechanism Throughout PROP implementation, it is imperative that the rights of PAPs and project beneficiaries are protected. For this reason, a formal grievance redress mechanism (GRM) will be established for PROP prior to implementation. The GRM presented in this section outlines a process for resolving community-level grievances that may be raised by PAPs or community members regarding specific project activities, the engagement processes, and/or unanticipated social impacts resulting from PROP activities. The GRM does not deal with grievances relating to internal communication or disputes between the project team, Collaborating Agency, IAs and Partner Agencies; nor intra/inter-community conflicts that are not project-related. Procedures for Resolving Community-level Grievances The grievance process is based upon the premise that it imposes no cost to those raising the grievances (i.e., Complainants); that concerns arising from project implementation are adequately addressed in a timely manner; and that participation in the grievance process does not preclude pursuit of legal remedies under the laws of the country. To manage this process effectively, it is recommended that a ‘focal point’ for grievance management be established prior to implementation, to be decided on by the IA with approval from the Coordinating Agency (FFA). This may be an individual such as the PROP Coordinator (or alternatively a committee comprised of members from the IA and PA where membership to the committee should not comprise any persons with a conflict of interest, and include at least one female representative where available). The PROP Coordinator (and/or Committee) will be responsible for managing grievances related to the PROP including a grievance logbook or database to track the progress of formal grievances. Training on the GRM will be provided to relevant project teams and partners during project induction. Specific details on grievance resolution arrangements (i.e. specific persons and contact details) may be included in a Consultation Plan or Implementation Plan developed for the project. PAPs should be advised of the GRM in the early stages of engagement, and be made aware of:  How they can access the GRM;  Who to speak to and lodge a formal complaint;  The timeframes for each stage of the process;  The GRM being confidential, responsive and transparent; and  Alternative avenues where conflicts of interest exist. The PROP Implementation Plan will acknowledge the need for both informal (i.e. customary) and formal grievance mechanisms and outline grievance procedures to be followed by the Collaborating Agency, IAs and Partner Agencies for PROP. Generally, complaints and disputes will be resolved at the lowest possible level. Grievances may be firstly referred to customary conflict mediation arrangements where appropriate (i.e. community disagreement about management measures) and so long as they are not directly affiliated with traditional leaders who are party. If the issue cannot be resolved at this level, it will be raised to the next (and so on). Each grievance should be treated in a confidential manner. The responsible agencies involved in grievance management are illustrated in Figure 8. Figure 8: Levels of Responsibility for Grievance Management The grievance resolution process includes four key stages – Receive; Investigate/Enquire; Respond and Follow up/Close Out as illustrated in Figure 9. Relevant personnel (i.e. project field teams, Community Liaison Officers and Partner Agencies) will be required to accept formal grievances and ensure the mechanism for doing so is accessible to the people most likely to need it (i.e. PAPs). The formal grievance should be documented in written form (i.e. grievance form and logbook), assessed on its level of urgency/severity and assigned to the appropriate person (i.e. PROP Coordinator, Grievance Committee) who then acknowledges, to the Complainant, that the grievance has been received and is under review within seven days. Grievance Resolution Template is included in Appendix 2 for this purpose37. 37 In cases where a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) is triggered, it may be necessary to expand on the GRM outlined in this section (refer to RPF). Figure 9: Stages in the Grievance Resolution Process If the issue is easily resolvable, the responsible party takes action to address the issue directly and record the details for filing into the Grievance database. If the grievance is a more complex project-related issue, it will be investigated further, and then formally responded to within a two to three week timeframe or a timeframe that has been agreed to with the Complainant. If additional time is needed, the Complainant will be advised of this. Generally, grievances should be resolved within 30 days. The response should communicate findings of the investigation and resolution, and seek approval from the Complainant. The Complainant will either accept or appeal the outcome. If the Complainant is satisfied with the outcome then the grievance is closed out and they provide their signature (or fingerprint) on the grievance form as confirmation. If an agreement is unable to be reached between the Complainant and IA, the grievance will be escalated to the Coordinating Agency (FFA) for review and a final decision. If necessary, further action will be taken to resolve the issue. The national courts are the last avenue for addressing grievances, and that claimants should not bear any costs in this regard. A grievance is closed out when no further action can be or needs to be taken. Closure status will be entered into the Grievance database as follows:  Resolved – resolution has been agreed and implemented and signed documentation is evidence of this.  Unresolved – it has not been possible to reach an agreed resolution and the case has been authorised for close out by the Grievance Committee.  Abandoned – cases where the attempts to contact the Complainant have not been successful for two months following receipt of formal grievance. Appendix 2 provides templates for lodging grievances. VIII. Budget Considerations Budget for Participatory Activities This PF emphasises the importance of successful community engagement and participation to achieve project objectives. Each national budget will therefore include two major components: (i) activities and resources to support ongoing participatory processes; and (ii) implementation of management measures and plans (e.g. coastal fisheries management plans). Since many of the initial consultation and engagement activities will be piloted or trialed, the operationalization of projects should be adequately documented to inform subsequent activities on the actual costs and realistic timeframes required to undertake such activities, as well as lessons learned. A planning tool for projects is provided in Appendix 1. The budget for each national program will be distributed by the IA. Table 5 outlines the budget considerations for IA and contracted Partner Agencies when undertaking consultative and engagement activities. Table 5: Indicative Budget Items for Participatory Process Category Item Project Management and  Project inception, planning and development Administration  Induction and training of project team  Capacity building  Program monitoring  Report compilation and project evaluation  Administering grievance procedures  Administering CBRM activities  Logistics, planning and resourcing  Stakeholder engagement materials Social Assessment  Census and socioeconomic survey of PAPs  Training, transport and logistics  Information dissemination  Technical assistance Income/Livelihood Program  Cost of census and socioeconomic survey (PAPs)  Valuation and inventory of assets and resources (seasonal)  Cost estimate for income restoration  Cost estimate for communication development programs  Cost for relocation of assets, etc.  Subsistence replacement (transition) Ongoing Consultation and  Communication costs (phone, internet) Engagement  Community Liaison Officers wages Category Item  Capacity building  Reporting, monitoring and evaluation  Administering grievance procedures  Logistics, planning and resourcing  Stakeholder engagement materials Monitoring  Monitoring training  Equipment  Recording forms and database  Follow up socioeconomic surveys on baseline data (3yr; 6yr intervals) Contingency 10% Glossary Complainant: Person that has lodged a formal grievance. Displaced Persons: persons who are affected in any of the ways described in paragraph 3 of OP4.12, i.e. all those people who lose land or the right to use land (para. 3a) or who lose “access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods� (para. 3b). The term is synonymous with “project -affected persons� and is not limited to those subjected to physical displacement. Informed consent: people involved (i.e. PAPs) are fully knowledgeable about the project and its implications and consequences and freely agree to participate in the project. Indigenous Person/Peoples: individuals and groups with the following characteristics: (i) Self-identification as members of a distinct indigenous cultural group and recognition of this identify by others; (ii) Collective attachment to geographically distinct habitats or ancestral territories in the project area and to the natural resources therein; (iii) Customary cultural, economic and social or political institutions that are separate from those of the dominant society and culture; and (iv) An indigenous language often different from the official language of a country or region. Involuntary: actions that may be taken without the displaced person’s informed consent or power of choice. It excludes those which are community-driven with broad community support and therefore ‘voluntary’ in nature. Meaningful consultation: A process that (i) begins early in the project preparation stage and is carried out on an ongoing basis throughout the project cycle; (ii) provides timely disclosure of relevant and adequate information that is understandable and readily accessible to affected people; (iii) is undertaken in an atmosphere free of intimidation or coercion; (iv) is gender inclusive and responsive, and tailored to the needs of disadvantaged and vulnerable groups; and (v) enables the incorporation of all relevant views of affected people and other stakeholders into decision making, such as project design, mitigation measures, the sharing of development benefits and opportunities, and implementation issues. Resettlement: covers all direct economic and social losses resulting from land taking and restriction of access, together with the consequent compensatory and remedial measures. Resettlement is not restricted to its usual meaning - physical relocation. Resettlement can, depending on the case, include (a) acquisition of land and physical structures on the land, including businesses; (b) physical relocation; and (c) economic rehabilitation of displaced persons (DPs), to improve (or at least restore) incomes and living standards. Power of choice: people that may be affected by project-related changes have the option to agree or disagree with the land acquisition or involuntary measures without adverse consequences imposed formally or informally by the state. Project affected person: people affected by project-related changes in the use of land, water and other natural resources. Also see ‘displaced persons’. Vulnerable groups or persons: Distinct groups of people who might suffer disproportionately from project effects (including resettlement), such as women, youth, disable and ethnic minorities. References Bunce, L., Townsley, P., Pomeroy, R., and Pollnac, R, (2000), Socioeconomic Manual for Coral Reef Management. Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). Townsville, Australia: Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network. Last viewed on 05.05.2014 at http://www.socmon.org/publications.aspx Baines, G. B. K, (1989), ‘Traditional resource management in the Melanesia South Pacific: a development dilemma’. Chapter in Berkes, F (eds), Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-based sustainable development. London: Belhaven Press. Bennett, Gregory (2012), Customary marine tenure and contemporary resource management in Solomon Islands . Paper presented at the 12th International Coral Reef Symposium, Cairns, Australia, 9-13 July 2012. Last viewed on 10.05.2014 at http://www.icrs2012.com/proceedings/manuscripts/ICRS2012_22A_3.pdf FAO (2002). Information on Fisheries Management in Micronesia. Last viewed on 25.06.14 at http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/FSM/body.htm Govan, H., Schwarz, A.M., Harohau, D., Oeta, J. (2013), Solomon Islands National Situation Analysis. CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems. Penang, Malaysia. Project Report: AAS-2013-16. Last viewed on 10.05.2014 at http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resources/publications/solomon-islands-national-situation-analysis Hanich, Quentin (2010), Regional fisheries management in ocean areas surrounding Pacific Island States . In Terashima, H (eds), Proceedings of the International Seminar on Islands and Oceans (pp. 195-212). Tokyo, Japan: Ocean Policy Research Foundation. Last viewed on 20.05.14 at http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1102&context=lawpapers Kruijssen, F., Albert, J.A., Morgan, M., Boso, D., Siota, F., Sibiti, S., and Schwarz, A.J. (2013). Livelihoods, markets, and gender roles in Solomon Islands: case studies from Western and Isabel Provinces. CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems. Penang, Malaysia. Project Report: AAS-2013-22. Last viewed on 20.05.14 at http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/AAS-2013-22.pdf Kronen, M., Stacey, N., Holland, P., Magron, F., and Power, M. (2007). Socioeconomic Fisheries Surveys in Pacific Islands: a manual for the collection f a minimum dataset. SPC Reefisheries Observatory. New Caledonia. Last viewed on 19.06.2014 at http://www.spc.int/DigitalLibrary/Doc/FAME/Manuals/Kronen_07_SocioFishSurveys.pdf Reimaan National Planning Team (2012). Reimaanlok: An approach for Community-based management. A facilitator’s guide to implementing the Reimaanlok Conservation Planning Process. Last viewed 10.05.14 at http://seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/sites/seagrant.soest.hawaii.edu/files/publications/reimaanlok_fieldguide.pdf Reimaan National Planning Team (2008). Reimaanlok: National Conservation Area Plan for the Marshall Islands 2007-2012. Melbourne: N. Baker. Last viewed on 10.06.2014 at http://www.kobedia.org/media/downloads/documents/Reimaanlok.pdf SPC (2010). A community-based approach to fisheries management: guidelines for Pacific Island countries. Noumea, New Caledonia. Last viewed 20.05.14 at http://www.spc.int/coastfish/en/component/content/article/58-a-community-based- ecosystem-approach-to-fisheries-management-guidelines-for-pacific-island-countries.html Tietenberg, Tom, (2006), Open access resources, last viewed on 07.06.2014 at http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/155050/ Wongbusarakum, S. and Pomeroy, R. (2008), SEM Pasifika: Socioeconomic Monitoring Guidelines for Coastal Managers in Pacific Island Countries. Apia, Samoa: Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP). Last viewed on 05.05.2014 at http://www.socmon.org/publications.aspx WorldFish (2013), Community-based marine resource management in Solomon Islands: a facilitator’s guide, CGIAR Research Program on Aquatic Agricultural Systems, Penang, Malaysia. Manual: AAS-2013-17. Last viewed on 10.05.2014 at http://www.worldfishcenter.org/resource_centre/AAS-2013-17.pdf Acts and Subordinate Legislation Environmental Act 1998, Solomon Islands Environmental Regulations 2008, Solomon Islands Protected Areas Act 2010, Solomon Islands Fisheries Act 1998, Solomon Islands Fisheries Management Bill 2014, Solomon Islands Provincial Government Act 1997, Solomon Islands Land and Titles Act 1996, Solomon Islands Customary Lands Record Act 1996, Solomon Islands Marine Resources Act 2002, Federated States of Micronesia Marine Resources Act 1997, Republic of the Marshall Islands Marine Zones (Declaration) Act 1984, Republic of the Marshall Islands National Environmental Protection Act 1984, Republic of the Marshall Islands Marine Resources Act 2006, Tuvalu Maritime Zones Act 2012, Tuvalu Conservation Areas Act 1999, Tuvalu Environmental Protection Act 2008, Tuvalu PROP Process Framework Appendix 1 Consultation Plan Consultation Plan Template Title or Topic Subproject / matter being consulted on Consultation Lead Name of person managing the consultation Organisation Name of organisation the Consultation Lead represents Partners / Team Detail of partnership arrangements and team members assisting with consultation Project Overview Overview of the subproject for which the consultation is taking place (including reference code) Location Location for consultation activities (for each stakeholder group). Purpose/objectives/  Why is the consultation being undertaken? e.g. To establish a participatory process scope for marine and coastal management.  What is the policy, plan or strategy you are consulting on/about?  What matters need to be decided?  Is there an expected / preferred outcome of this consultation? Decide on the level of engagement required:  Inform (provide stakeholders with objective information that informs their feedback)  Consult (obtain public feedback, alternatives etc.)  Engage (work directly with stakeholders to ensure public & private concerns are understood)  Participation (involve stakeholders in each aspect of the issue, including developing alternatives, decision-making etc.) Background  Does information already exist on the matter?  Are there any background issues that need to be monitored?  Is it part of a larger project or process?  What is the current situation? What sensitive or cultural issues should be considered? Are Indigenous Persons present? Relevant Statutory Describe the specific issue that is governed by the Fisheries Act or Regulations. provision  Are there any non-statutory needs or requirements that also apply to this consultation? Budget Allocation Outline budget allocation across key tasks or components Stakeholder groups Identification of stakeholders at (local, district, state/provincial, national levels - � Commercial � Tourism interests (recreational fishing) � Aquaculture � Fisher Associations � Women’s Association 126 PROP Process Framework � Gleaners � Artisanal fishers � Fishmongers / processors � Indigenous communities � Conservation interests � Other group/s (please specify): Methods What kind of consultation is most suited to the issue?  Introductory Letter  Information sessions  Awareness campaign  Radio program  Social media and websites  Public forums and meetings  Workshops  Advisory committees  Surveys  Discussion groups Will the engagement technique suit the capacity and language needs of the stakeholders involved? Information dissemination  What information is being provided to stakeholders to inform their input/feedback?  Does the information articulate clearly the purposes, objectives and methods of the consultation process?  Is the information written/published in a way that is easily understood? (Layman’s terms?) How will you communication with communities? (e.g. nominated Liaison Officer?) How will you ensure the stakeholders have enough time to absorb the information and understand it before providing comment/input/feedback? Resources and technical Consider sources of expertise. Resources may be available internally, or from other assistance agencies/partners, or available for purchase.  Have you investigated experts from other government agencies?  Are there provisions for the purchase of advice/support/research if required? Resource considerations:  Translation of materials into local vernacular  Posters, flyers, radio script, etc  Transport requirements, lodging and logistics. Grievance Management Consider the grievance procedures for the subproject.  Have the consultation team been familiarised with the grievance procedures?  Who will record and report grievances? Ensure the consultation team has access to Grievance resolution template and database and/or person in charge of these. Monitoring, Output and  How will the consultation process outcomes be documented and you know if ithas Reporting been successful?  How will the information gained from such consultation be used? 127 PROP Process Framework  How will decisions reached from completed consultation be implemented?  How will you inform the stakeholder/public of the outcomes?  Who should the consultation report be submitted too? Stakeholder Mapping Exercise Representative group/s Identification of stakeholders at local, district, state/provincial, national levels being consulted includes consideration of-  who is affected;  who is interested, their level of influence and the appropriate level/method of engagement;  how representation across all target groups will be ensured;  whether there are any other government agencies that hold an interest in the matter on which consultation is required;  whether there are there any stakeholders/groups that are difficult to access (and, if so, how will the consultation process allow for their input/feedback?). Consultation Plan prepared by: Approved / Not approved Signature: Date: / / Signature: Name: Date: / / Position held: Name: Position held: 128 PROP Process Framework Example Consultation Planning Tool: Subproject Budget and Work Plan Code Activity Total Bud Year One days get Village/Stakeholder/Subproject: {insert Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec name} Inception meeting 1 Recruit Liaison Officer 7 Identify key stakeholder 3 groups Develop Consultation 7 Plan Develop engagement 5 materials Community pre- 3 awareness Comm. information 2 session/meeting Conduct social 5 assessment Code Activity Total Bud Year Two days get Village/Stakeholder/Subproject: {insert Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec name} 129 PROP Process Framework Stakeholder Survey Tool for capturing stakeholder views and feedback on the PROP and/or subprojects: Stakeholder Key Interest Key Concerns REGIONAL FFA PNA SPC SPREP PIFS WCPFC Melanesia Spearhead Group (MSG) Committee on South Pacific Tuna and Billfish Fisheries Coral Triangle Initiative Conservation NGOs WorldFish Other NGOs NATIONAL Fisheries Ministry/Department Environment Ministry/Department ______ Ministry or Department ______ Ministry or Department PROVINCIAL/STATE Commercial operations Civil Society (CBOs) LMMA Network members Local conservation groups Local NGOs; Women’s groups Local Fisher Associations Cluster villages (1) Cluster villages (2) 130 PROP Process Framework Appendix 2 Grievance Resolution Template For the Grievance Database template refer to Excel Spreadsheet (attached separately). Grievance Resolution Procedure Template (Illustrative purposes only) Recorded by : ____________________________________ Date : ______________ ID Number : ____________________________________ Location : ____________________________________ Name Representing Contact Details Complainant 1 Complainant 2 Complainant 3 Complainant 4 Nature of Complaint :________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Resolution Action Plan: Date Persons Involved Activity Details Satisfactory outcome? Yes � No � Why not ? ___________________ Print Name (Complainant) : _________________________________ Signed (Complainant) : ______________________________________ Date : Signed (Officer) : ______________________________________ Date : Submitted to Manager? No � Yes � Who ? ___________________ Recorded in database as : ID#__ 131 PROP Process Framework Annex F. SAFEGUARDS STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS I. Minutes of Regional Consultations Pacific Island Regional Oceanscape Program (PROP) Consultation on Program Design, Environmental and Social Safeguards, and Implementation August 15, 2014 Majuro, Marshall Islands On August 15, 2014, a consultation was held with representatives of the key national Government agencies and regional organizations responsible for implementation of the proposed Pacific Island Regional Oceanscape Program (PROP). The meeting was chaired by Dr. Tim Adams, Director of Fisheries Management, the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). A list of participants is included in Annex 1. Opening Dr. Adams opened the meeting by introducing the purpose to have a discussion and shared understanding of the scope of the proposed Program, and particularly the environmental and social safeguards policies that would apply to its implementation, and the draft Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) for the Program (including a process framework for consultation with coastal communities in the course of implementation of component two). Dr. Adams reminded participants that he had just circulated the draft ESMF to them the day before, and asked all participants to review the document and hold any consultations with stakeholders necessary, and send him any comments or feedback for finalizing the document to submit to the World Bank on behalf of the countries in early September. Presentation Mr. John Virdin, Sr. Natural Resource Management Specialist from the World Bank, was asked by Dr. Adams to present an overview of the current design of the PROP, and to give some background on the World Bank’s environmental and social safeguards policies and instruments, including the draft ESMF. The presentation is attached as Annex 2, and explained the current proposed investments, intended outputs, the applicable World Bank environmental and social safeguards policies, and the draft ESMF. Discussion The discussion focused over a number of hours on the scope of the PROP, ESMF and implementation, with overall consensus on the proposed design. Key points included:  The scope and design of fisheries surveillance investments, to allow for much great presence in the countries’ waters to combat illegal fishing;  The responsibility for application of the ESMF, and the role of the process framework in guiding implementation of coastal fisheries management activities via consultation and consensus with targeted communities;  The role of FFA in supporting implementation in each of the countries, as well as the World Bank; and  The next steps for completing design and moving to implementation. 132 PROP Process Framework Conclusion Dr. Adams concluded the meeting with thanks to the participants and noting the objective had been reached to ensure consensus on the scope of the PROP and proposed instruments, and requested participants to conduct the needful review and consultations of the draft ESMF in the coming weeks. Annex 1. List of Participants Name Title Organization Dr. Tim Adams Director of Fisheries Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Management Agency (FFA) Mr. Eugene Pangilan Deputy Director National Oceanic Resource Management Authority (NORMA), Federated States of Micronesia Ms. Maria Sahib Fisheries Policy Specialist Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority (MIMRA), Republic of the Marshall Islands Mr. Sylvester Diakite Undersecretary Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR), Solomon Islands Mr. Sam Finikaso Director of Fisheries Tuvalu Fisheries Department (TFD), Tuvalu Dr. Simon Nicol Principal Fisheries Scientist Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) Dr. Transform Aqorau CEO Parties to the Nauru Agreement Office (PNAO) Mr. John Virdin Sr. Natural Resource World Bank Management Specialist Annex 2. PROP Presentation See attachment F, section V of current ESMF. 133 PROP Process Framework II. Minutes of Consultations in Solomon Islands Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscapes Program Draft Process Framework Consultation Report Claire Forbes (social safeguards consultant) engaged a number of fisheries stakeholders from national and regional agencies on 21-30 May 2014. This document provides a short overview of meetings undertaken to date and key points for discussion relevant to the development of a PF. Completed Schedule Day Stakeholder Role Organisation Wednesday Ms. Ronnelle Deputy Director, Policy, Planning & MFMR 21 May Panda Project Management Mr. Simon Diffey MSSIF Team Leader MFMR Key Points General meet and greet Thursday Ms. Rosalie Masu Deputy Director, Inshore Fisheries MFMR 22 May Mr. Steve Lindsay Technical Advisor, Inshore Fisheries MFMR Ms. Ronnelle Deputy Director, Policy, Planning & MFMR Panda Project Management Mr. Simon Diffey MSSIF Team Leader MFMR Dr. Tim Adams Director, Fisheries Management FFA Dr. Christian Permanent Secretary MFMR Ramofafia Ms. Salome Pita Consultant, SIA Guidelines MFMR Key Points  Brief overview of key components of the PROP;  Org Structure of MFMR (off/onshore divisions) in Corporate Plan 2014-18;  New Fisheries Bill (goes to Parliament in June) will replace Fisheries Act 1998  EIA/SIA guidelines on fisheries processing facilities to be implemented by MECDM under Env Act 1998;  Discussion around potential PROP activities and social impacts/considerations;  Lack of data on coastal/artisanal fishers and stocks;  Challenge of open access resource: community-driven solutions are critical;  SI commercial operations and monitoring arrangements;  The high value of BDM, exploitation of export commodities and need for better management so it is not boom/bust scenario; and  Importance of ‘scaling-up’ lessons learnt across country/Pacific region. Friday 23 Dr. Tim Adams Director, Fisheries Management FFA May Key Points  FFA’s operations re: oceanic fisheries; funding sources; assistance to PNA; VDS review; data and surveillance management;  Treaty-level instruments and harmonized management terms and conditions;  Opportunity via PROP to strengthen cooperative management through rights-based access  SPC’s strength and role in coastal fisheries (outsource Comp. 2 to SPC); alternative livelihoods; models of customary ownership and marine management; data limitations; 134 PROP Process Framework Day Stakeholder Role Organisation and  Challenge of regional approach to coastal fisheries/regional coordination of export fisheries – i.e., strengthen community-based fisheries management whilst linking these to valuable export markets, and improving control of export commodities for coastal fisheries nationally/regionally. Friday 23 Dr. Raoul Cola Project Manager, Pacific CTI Coastal ADB May Fisheries Project Key Points  Overview of ADB’s Coastal Fisheries Coral Triangle Initiative (US$18.5mil) currently in implementation phase in five CTI countries ending in 2015;  Focus on community-based coastal fisheries, MPAs, training, provincial govt fisheries policies;  Administered by Govt Ministries (implementing agencies) but delivered by NGOs;  Category C required no safeguard documentation Saturday Mr. Simon Diffey MSSIF Team Leader MFMR 24 May Mr. Willie Local fisheries officer Guadalcanal Prv Key Points  Field trip to Lambi (provincial/rural coastal fisheries).  Discussion with local fisheries officer and fishers (men and women) about fisheries centre, fishing activities, access to markets, customary marine tenure and voluntary land donation for fisheries building. Sunday 25 Mr. Richard Banks MSSIF Offshore Fisheries Advisor MFMR May (fisheries economist) Key Points  New Fisheries Bill for Solomon Islands.  Financial arrangements and decision-making re: VDS. Monday 26 Mr. Francis Deputy Director, Provincial Fisheries MFMR May Tofuakalo Division Ms. Rosalie Masu Deputy Director, Inshore Fisheries MFMR Mr. Peter Kenilorea SILMMA Coordinator MFMR Key Points  Functions of Provincial Division and responsibility / reporting arrangements of provincial fisheries officers, and budget allocations to Provincial Government  Staffing capacity in Provincial Fisheries Centres across 9 provinces and levels of autonomy  Role of National Coordinating Committee (NCC) for ADB CTI project  Coordination of Solomon Islands LMMA network & Pacific Regional LMMA network which covers 7 countries (approx 106 communities officially in SI network)  MFMR SILMMA Coordinator (Peter) works in part-time capacity due to funding  SILMMA Country Coordinator nominated by members in AGM (Jimmy in Choiseul), connects to LMMA networks in other PICs  Limited data but TNC conducting CBRM mapping (AusAID funded)  Working with Provincial governance structures, community leadership/mediation and community based conservation associations  Need for Provincial management plans  Funding arrangements and partnerships with large NGOs and donors  Training and capacity building activities at local and provincial level including monitoring and proposal support 135 PROP Process Framework Day Stakeholder Role Organisation  Key social risk is raising the expectations of communities. Tuesday 27 Mr. Francis Deputy Director, Provincial Fisheries MFMR May Tofuakalo Division Key Points  Preparation for meeting with Provincial Fisheries Officers and Secretaries on Wednesday (cancelled) Wednesday Ms. Ronnelle Deputy Director, Policy, Planning & MFMR 28 May Panda Project Management Mr. Steve Lindsay Technical Advisor, Inshore Fisheries MFMR Key Points  MFMR partnership with WorldFish/NGOs, lacks accountability/transparency  Potential PROP activities for Component 2 (concern for raising community expectations)  New Fisheries Bill and guidelines for Fisheries Advisory Council  PMU responsibilities for donor projects (including PROP)  Roadmap for Inshore Fisheries Management 2014-2023 by Melanesian Spearhead Group Wednesday Ms. Anne-Maree Country Manager WorldFish 28 May Schwarz Key Points  Solomons operations and programs at local and ‘hub’ level  WorldFish’s regional activities and outreach and partnership with JCU and Uni of Wollongong (participatory action research)  Regional commonalities and information sharing on CBRM challenges and lessons learnt being developed including ‘readiness criteria’ for enabling community-driven approach  Focus on facilitating the process and strengthening the learning cycle  Fisheries ordinances and community fisheries management plans (CFMP) to be recognized through Fisheries Bill  Extreme capacity constraints at Provincial level  NCC/SILMMA enabled collaboration at the national level (but limited effectiveness due to capacity/funding constraints) Ms Mia Ramon Country Manager, Coastal Fisheries SPC Division Key Points  Overview of SPC’s Solomon’s office and Coastal Fisheries Division (FAME) with ten staff (Moses ex-Director of Fisheries in Vanuatu recently recruited)  SPC’s support to national ministries and coordinated regional approach  Funded activities require long-term view supported with appropriate technologies  ‘Ridge to Reef’ programs across numerous ministries and partners  Limited capacity in Ministry which requires long-term approach, sound management as well as strengthening of SILMMA and at provincial level  Opportunity for youth employment and career pathways (env/fisheries sector) Thursday Agnetha Vave- Director, Conservation and Environment MECDM 29 May Karamui Division Key Points Chanel Iroi Undersecretary Technical and Director, MECDM Environment and Conservation Division  Brief overview of key components of the PROP and FFA/SPC/MFMR roles  ECD’s functions are to implement the Wildlife Protection and Management Act 1998 (controls import and export of listed species of flora and fauna) and the Environment Act 136 PROP Process Framework Day Stakeholder Role Organisation 1998 (development controls, prevention of pollution, and comply with regional and international conventions and obligations relating to the environment).  Distinction/overlap between MFMR and MECDM responsibilities.  Policy on MPAs to be developed, usually these are voluntary in nature and designated by communities; REDD+ Roadmap finalized (not endorsed).  Role / status of Environment Advisory Committee. Thursday Erik Johnson Senior Operations Officer, Honiara World Bank 29 May Key Points  Safeguards approach and documentation for Rural Development Program  Screening process and application of Voluntary Land Protocol in PICs  Common social issues and challenges for projects in Melanesia Thursday 5 Quentin Hanich Fisheries Governance Program Leader ANCORS UoW June Key Points  Component 3 Blue Carbon, design of financial mechanisms for protected areas  Limited social risks/impacts on artisanal fishers, food security Notes Solomon Islands MFMR: (i) Engagement with other ministries and organisations - Monthly involvement in National Coordinating Committee (NCC) on Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) which includes NGOs, Govt Ministries and major donors. Funding for USCTI and USAID Coral Triangle Support Partnership has ended and resulted in the loss of funding for NCC coordinator therefore NCC have not convened any meetings in 2014. Funding for ADB CTI Pacific project expected to end in Q4 2015. - MECDM: MPAs and EIS legislation re: fish processing centres; penalties and enforcement for environmental protection/pollution. - Lands: land management and administration, related land use planning and land allocation - relevant for development applications for fish processing centres and provincial fisheries centres usually located on state land. - SPC Coastal Fisheries Division: submit written requests for technical support each year. Often long delays due to limited capacity to support / high demand across PICs. - FFA: regional management of tuna fisheries, VDS (with PNA), data collection and regional- level surveillance. (ii) Engagement with provincial government - Powers vested in Provincial Governments through the devolution orders under the Provincial Government Act 1997 and the decentralised responsibilities for coastal fisheries management and development under the Fisheries Act 1998. Provincial governments have power to pass Resource Management Ordinances (including Fisheries Ordinances) to protect and conserve their natural resources and through Provincial Assemblies/Town and Country Planning Boards, they have planning control over urban areas (excluding customary owned land). - MFMR has a dedicated Provincial Division: 11 out of 26 fisheries centres are functioning (established on government land). - MFMR have seconded 15 Officers to provincial fisheries centres to support provincial fisheries officers. - Poor fiscal management and capacity at provincial level but good data on existing assets. 137 PROP Process Framework - Provincial Fisheries Officers (PFOs) require training in admin, fiscal and asset management, reporting, management of fisheries centres, management of marine resources, as well as marketing of resources/products. - Weak two-way communication channel: information dissemination is difficult and PFOs are required to send monthly reports but happens infrequently. - Marketing responsibilities focused on marketing of products within Honiara (not export market). - Very limited capacity to support community-base resource management (CBRM) with one staff member at part-time employed as SILMMA Coordinator. - Provincial level Inshore Fisheries Management Plans do not yet exist. - Recurring annual budget supplied by Ministry of Provincial Government and Ministry of Finance (with significant portion going to NGOs to facilitate CBRM work). 138 PROP Process Framework III. Minutes of Consultations in Tuvalu 139 PROP Process Framework 140 PROP Process Framework 141 PROP Process Framework 142 PROP Process Framework Attachment 3: Powerpoint presentation See attachment F, section V of current ESMF 143 PROP Process Framework IV. Minutes of Consultations in the Republic of Marshall Islands Pacific Island Regional Oceanscape Program (PROP) Consultation on Program Design, Environmental and Social Safeguards, and Implementation October 22, 2014 Majuro, Marshall Islands A stakeholder consultation was held on October 22, 2014, with representatives of the key national Government and local government agencies of Republic of Marshall Islands to discuss Pacific Island Regional Oceanscape Program (PROP) and the Environmental and Social Safeguard Management Framework (ESMF). A list of participants is included in Annex 1. Opening The consultation was opened by Ms Maria Sahib of Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority (MIMRA). Ms Sahib had reminded the participant that the draft ESMF had been emailed to each stakeholder prior to the consultation on any feedback that they might have on the draft document. Presentation Ms. Sahib, who is the International Fisheries Policy Analyst from MIMRA, presented on the overview of the current design of the PROP, and a background on the World Bank’s environmental and social safeguard policies and instruments, including the draft ESMF. The presentation is attached as Annex 2, explains the components of PROP, intended outputs, the applicable World Bank environmental and social safeguards policies, and the draft ESMF. Discussion The discussion focused over the scope of the PROP, ESMF and implementation. Key points included:  Component 1 and 2 of PROP and the various activities being funded. A stakeholder queried on the issue of financial sustainability of coastal communities and that this program should be able to that.  The PROP will be guided by the ESMF to mitigate any impact, as the activities funded might have a minimal negative environmental and social impact ;  The role of FFA in supporting implementation in each of the countries, as well as the World Bank;  The next steps for completing design and moving to implementation.  A setback was identified in proceeding with the negotiations of PROP. A delay in the update of report from a previous WB funded project in RMI impacted on the timeline for negotiations to proceed. An engagement with the Ministry of Finance has been proposed to provide update to the Bank in order for the facilitation of the PROP negotiation. 144 PROP Process Framework Conclusion Ms Sahib concluded the consultation and thanked everyone for their participation and looked forward to everyone’s support in implementing the PROP. Annex 1. List of Participants Name Title Organization Ms Doreen DeBrum Acting Secretary Ministry of Foreign Affairs Ms Florence Edwards Head of Coastal Division Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority Mr Albon Ishoda Adviser Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mr Sam Lanwi Deputy Director Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority Mr Tion Nabau Legal Advisor Marshall Islands Marine Resource Authority Ms. Maria Sahib International Fisheries Policy Marshall Islands Marine Resource Analyst Authority Annex 2. PROP Presentation See attachment. 145 PROP Process Framework V. Presentation on PROP safeguards that was presented at all consultation meetings 146 PROP Process Framework 147 PROP Process Framework 148 PROP Process Framework 149 PROP Process Framework 150 PROP Process Framework 151 PROP Process Framework 152