IPP75 November 2004 Guyana Protected Areas System Project Indigenous Peoples Development Plan The ultimate goal of the proposed Guyana Protected Areas System (GPAS) Project is to ensure effective protection and sustainable management of representative ecosystems of Guyana through a national system of protected areas which is self-sustained, transparent, decentralized and managed through partnerships. This will be achieved through the pursuit of a phased approach. The first phase GPAS project will be a process project -- pilot-based, and focused on assisting the GoG in developing and partially implementing the policy, financial, legal and institutional frameworks and knowledge base for the long-term management and sustainability of the GPAS. This will be done on the basis of lessons learned from establishing and managing two pilot areas, including as a fundamental principle co-management of the areas with local and indigenous populations. Project components include: Component A, Establishment of the Institutional and Technical Capacity for GPAS Management; Component B, Development of the Legal and Regulatory framework; Component C, Planning and Co-Management of Shell Beach Pilot Protected Area; and Component D, Planning and Co-management of Kanuku Mountains Pilot Protected Area. The GPAS Indigenous Peoples Development Plan was defined and consulted during project preparation as a strategy for the project as a whole. It includes agreed principles, guidelines, mechanisms and benchmarks to be followed under the project to address potential impacts of GPAS establishment on Amerindian populations under the project. Site-specific Indigenous Peoples Action Plans will also be developed as part of the participatory PA management planning process. The action plans will focus on defining, among other things, agreed participatory processes, and priority alternative income generation activities in the project study areas. (See Section D below) A. Summary of Land and Natural Resource Issues Indigenous peoples have long been recognized as playing an important role in the maintenance and sustainable use of much of the world's biodiversity. This is particularly evident in the case of Guyana, where Amerindians have conserved and protected areas since time immemorial, including sacred sites, in the hinterland areas containing the richest stores of biological diversity. There are, nevertheless, significant issues of concern to Amerindians about the potential impact of the protected area establishment under GPAS. Amerindian communities are concerned about their future and the need to ensure sustainable use of resources. They also want to ensure that their traditional rights are respected in any system that creates protected areas. Land Rights. The Guyanese hinterland is inhabited primarily by Amerindians, with most of the population living in Regions 1, 7, 8 and 9. Amerindians make up about 8% (approximately 60,000) of Guyana's total population. There are currently nine distinct Amerindian peoples in Guyana, including the Arawak, Wapishana, Caribs, Akawaio, Patamona, Arekuna, Makushi, Wai Wai and Warao groups. Over half of identified Amerindian communities in Guyana have been granted title to their lands (76 out of 119), representing approximately 11.2% of the national territory. The land grants transfer title to the Village or District Council absolutely and forever on behalf of the Amerindian communities. As part of the procedure, a survey of the land must be carried out by a qualified 1 November 2004 surveyor and the results must be lodged with the Commissioner responsible for lands and surveys. Prior to 1995, only one land had been physically demarcated. The responsibility for Amerindian land regularization rests with the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs together with the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission, which oversees the physical demarcation and processing of certificates of title. The land is owned collectively by the Amerindian community with the legal title being held formally by the Village or District Council. The titles are freehold in nature and carry with them all the usual rights of ownership, including the right to fish, farm and hunt on the land, as well as exclusive rights to all timber. The State Lands Act prohibits the grant of subsurface rights, but traditional Amerindian rights to mine are recognized under the laws of Guyana. While Amerindians hold land collectively, individual/family parcels have also been identified and generally accepted at the community level. Although significant progress has been made under current Government policy towards regularizing the Amerindian land situation, the legal framework is incomplete, especially with respect to untitled communities and requests for extensions.! Currently, thirty-seven out of 119 Amerindian communities are not yet titled. Amerindian Land Policy. In 1995, following a broad consultation with Amerindian community leaders, the Government formulated a phased policy to address Amerindian land issues. The first phase focuses on demarcating all currently titled Amerindian lands (76) on a national basis before addressing extension requests, as well as requests for new titles by untitled communities. The Government adopted this phased approach because some of the descriptions of the boundaries of communities contained in the Amerindian Act differ from what exists on the ground. The policy was designed to focus first on surveying and demarcating the already described boundaries of titled communities to aid in ground-truthing the boundaries, provide a map to the communities with clearly marked boundaries and thereby assist in dealing with illegal encroachment by outsiders, mainly miners and loggers. Following the first phase demarcation of these communities, and on the basis of boundaries confirmed through the demarcation process, the second phase would then deal with extensions and titling new areas. This policy was subsequently revised in 2002 to speed up the land regularization process by adopting a regional approach, whereby those administrative regions2 completing the first phase of the policy could then advance to the second phase -- regardless of the status of first phase activities in other administrative regions of the country. The policy was further revised in 2004 to allow for a subregional approach. So far under this policy, 39 titled communities have already been demarcated and provided with secure certificates of title, with Regions 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 being completed. Two Amerindian ' One of the provisions for Guyana's independence was the stipulation that Amerindians "be granted legal ownership or rights of occupancy over areas and reservations or parts thereof where any tribe or community of Amerindians is now ordinarily resident or settled...." To fulfill this commitment, an Amerindian Lands Commission was formed, held hearings throughout the country and reported in 1969. In its final report, the Commission recommended that 128 Amerindian communities then in existence receive title to about 24,000 sq. miles (as opposed to 43,000 sq. miles requested by Amerindians at the time). These recommendations were partially implemented through the Amerindian and State Lands Acts. 2 Guyana's local government system is organized into ten administrative regions. 2 November 2004 districts (Konashen and Baramita) totaling some 3 million acres, also received titles in 2004.3 The remaining 35 titled communities have not yet been demarcated. In addition, there are another 37 communities without title. Phase 2 work has already started in Regions 2 and 10. Eight of the nine titled and demarcated villages in Region 2 have submitted extension requests to date, which are under review. In Region 10, work is currently underway in coordination with the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission to review the status of seven untitled communities on the basis of a land use study conducted by the Commission together with the communities. Titles for four of the seven communities have already been approved by the Government (but not yet formally transferred), and numerous logging and mining concessions in the region have been cancelled to facilitate the implementation of the new titles. (See Social Assessment Summary). Once an area is authorized for demarcation by the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs, the demarcation activities are overseen by the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission, which bids the work out to private certified topographical firms/individuals. Demarcation work cannot be initiated without the permission of the Amerindian community acting through its elected Council. Local community members are usually involved in carrying out the demarcation work, although this is not mandated by law. Once completed, the demarcation must be checked by Lands and Surveys and a letter of satisfaction signed by the Village Captain (acting within the authority conferred by the community) must be issued before final payment to the firm. While the approach and methods currently used to demarcate Amerindian-owned lands are procedurally clear (albeit not yet fully codified), the process for reviewing and granting extensions and titling new areas are still not fully developed or codified, with a number of pilots in process (e.g. in Regions 2 and 10). The new Amerindian Act, which is currently being developed based on an extensive consultation process carried out with Amerindian communities, is expected to include specific, transparent and concrete procedures for resolving indigenous land issues. The Government is also considering recommendations for the establishment of a Commission on Indigenous Land Claims. The new Amerindian Act is expected to be presented to Parliament and passed by the end of 2004. (See Section B below.) Resource Use Rights. Amerindian communities have always enjoyed traditional usufruct rights for hunting and gathering activities on unallocated State lands, and are concerned about preserving these rights. This concern has come increasingly to the fore over the past 20 years with the increased presence of mining and logging operations near areas occupied by Amerindian communities. Government policy is to exclude from mining concessions those lands which are lawfully occupied by Amerindian communities. Nevertheless, Amerindians complain about the impact such activities have on their use of forest resources. Some Amerindian communities are also adversely affected by the serious environmental (in particular, river) pollution brought about by mining. The use of highly destructive dredging operations and informal placer mining (for gold and diamonds) are particularly serious in the extent to which they degrade rivers and ultimately impact the livelihoods of local communities. B. Legal Framework Constitution of Guyana (1980. revised 2001-03). The Constitution of Guyana protects all rights to property and any interest in or right over property. Thus, Amerindians are constitutionally protected from being deprived of their rights whether these are in respect of lands held formally 3 These districts were added to Schedule I of the Amerindian Act in 1977, but titles were issued (under the State Lands Act) in 2004. The districts have not yet been demarcated. 3 November 2004 under legal title or rights and other privileges over land which are not held under formnal legal title but are exercised traditionally. When new legislation is passed in Guyana which may affect Amerindian rights, it has been the practice to save Amerindian rights. 4 Amerindian Act. The Amerindian Act is the main law regulating Amerindian affairs, and provides for identification and registration of Amerindians, protection in employment, and the like. It is based on an Amerindian Ordinance from approximately a century ago, and many of its provisions are not enforced. There is broad agreement in Guyana that the Act is outdated, incomplete and in need of replacement. Thus, the Government of Guyana, with support from a World Bank IDF grant as well as funds from the German Society for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), undertook a national consultative process starting in 2002 to review and revise the Amerindian Act. This process, which includes an initial three-month period for review of the Act, nation-wide community consultations led by a technical team,5 the compilation of a comprehensive report on suggested revisions, and follow-up regional consultations on the draft revised legislation, is nearing completion. Consultations with local communities were completed in May 2003, and a summary of community recommendations for revising the Act was completed in November 2003 for Cabinet consideration. Once the new law is drafted, further consulted on a regional basis, presented to Parliament and approved (expected by the end of 2004), it would necessarily inform the process of drafting the new Guyana Protected Areas System Act under the Phase I project (see Component B below). State Lands Act. The rights of Amerindians in state or public lands are specified in the State Lands Act. As mentioned above, irrevocable grants of title are currently being issued under Section 3 of the Act in relation to lands recognized as traditionally owned by Amerindians. Given the absolute nature of Amerindian titles issued under the State Lands Act, no protected area can be established over Amerindian lands held by such titles unless and to the extent that the relevant community gives its consent. Although the State Lands Act makes it an offense for any person to trespass or unlawfully occupy any State lands, Amerindian rights are specifically protected. These rights and privileges over State lands are defined by the State Lands (Amerindian) Regulations which, among other things, provide Amerindians a right of occupation over State lands which are untitled and unlicensed. The regulations also allow Amerindians to extract materials for personal use, such as for construction of residences or canoes, with permission. Since Amerindian user rights over State lands are constitutionally protected, any protected area that is established over such lands must recognize and protected Amerindian rights unless the relevant Amerindian community gives its consent. Forests Act. Rights with respect to state forests are governed by the Forests Act. The current Act contains the provision that, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prejudice, alter or affect any right or privilege heretofore legally possessed, exercised, or enjoyed by any Amerindian in Guyana, provided that the Minister from time to time by publication in the Gazette may make any regulations (...) defining the privileges and rights to be enjoyed by Amerindians in state forests." To date, no regulations have been issued pertaining to Amerindian rights and privileges. The rights and privileges that existed over state land before it became state forest would be saved by this provision and would be constitutionally protected. 4 A recent example is the Water and Sewerage Act in which all Amerindian rights are saved. 5 The Government held a total of 33 hearings, in which representatives of 111 communities and four Amerindian NGOs participated, with all but two of the meetings taking place in hinterland regions. 4 November 2004 Mining Act. All mining in Guyana is governed by the Mining Act 1989, which vests the ownership of all minerals in the State. The Act saves traditional Amerindian rights in relation to mining. Under current government policy, mining on lands which Amerindian communities hold in title is not authorized unless the community consents. In relation to State lands, current policy is to exclude from mining concessions all lands lawfully occupied by Amerindian communities (i.e., all lands which they occupy and use). In practice some communities engage in mining activities that are considered to be more than medium-scale without government's involvement. Protected Areas Legislation. While Guyana does not yet have framework legislation for PA establishment and management, it currently has two separate laws to cover the two existing legislated protected areas - the Iwokrama Wilderness Preserve and Kaieteur National Park. The 1996 Iwokrama International Centre for Rainforest Conservation and Development Act creates the Iwokrama Centre in Region 8, and divides the area into a wilderness preserve and a sustainable use area. The Act prohibits mining, forestry and other resources utilization of the Iwokrama area, unless the Iwokrama Centre gives consent. Section 6 of the Act specifically recognizes and protects legal and traditional Amerindian rights, stating that, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prejudice, alter or affect any right or privilege heretofore legally or traditionally possessed, exercised or enjoyed by an Amerindian who has a particular connection with any area of land within or neighbouring the Programme Site." Kaieteur National Park in Region 8 was created in 1929 by the Kaieteur National Park Act. There were no saving provisions in the Act for Amerindian rights or privileges. The Act was amended in 1999 to extend the size of the park (which, until then, was considered too small to provide for effective protection of the area), and a second amendment to the Act was made in 2000 to save and protect Amerindian rights and privileges in the KNP area.6 As discussed and agreed in principle in recent broad consultations (see section C below), in order to adequately address Amerindian land and resource use rights, any comprehensive framework legislation for protected areas establishment and management under the GPAS project would need to, among other things: * Prescribe a clear and transparent process for the designation of protected areas; * Institute a process of public consultation and participation for the establishment of protected areas and for the development of management plans for such areas; * Provide for non-interference with the continuation of any Amerindian community's access to and use of land and resources when such uses are compatible with the sustainable utilization of natural resources, in accordance with the procedures and mechanisms established by law to address such land and resource use issues; and * Create a mechanism for the joint management of protected areas with Amerindian people. Conclusions. Based on the legal framework analysis, the following was concluded: 6 Notwithstanding the amendment, a legal action filed in 2000 against the govemment on behalf of the local village of Chenapau seeking protection of their constitutional and traditional rights vis-a-vis the extension of KNP. The case was recently dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to appear in court. 5 November 2004 * Amerindian rights, privileges, customs and usages are protected by law in various statutes and in the Constitution. * The GPAS, by definition, deals with protected areas, and is therefore an inappropriate route to address the national Amerindian issue as a whole. This should be addressed through a nationally agreed and debated mechanism established by law, such as the new Amerindian Act. * The GPAS project should, however, include appropriate mechanisms and procedures in its design to ensure the protection of Amerindian rights as they pertain to the establishment and management of protected areas. * The activities to be carried out in project study areas during the preparation phase of the project (i.e., activities under Components C.1 and D.1) will not in any way diminish Amerindian traditions, rights, privileges, and usages provided there is no interference with traditional Amerindian activity in practice. In addition, there would be no legal violation of Amerindian rights, traditions, privileges and usages once these are saved by law in the pilot protected areas. In light of the above, and to ensure that an adequate legal framework is in place to protect Amerindian rights, it was therefore agreed that the Phase I GPAS project would not commence until a draft of the new Amerindian Act is tabled in Parliament. The new Amerindian Act is expected to include specific, transparent procedures and mechanisms for the resolution of indigenous land and resource use issues. It was also agreed that on-the-ground investment activities in the project study areas (such as those under Components C.2 and D.2, including the implementation or enforcement of management plans, construction of PA infrastructure, permanent demarcation of PA boundaries, and the like) would not take place until a new Amerindian Act that satisfactorily addresses land and resource use issues is passed by Parliament. To deal with any issues or complaints arising in relation to the GPAS project, especially during the interim period between tabling and passage of the new Amerindian Act, it was further agreed that a satisfactory grievance mechanism would be established by project effectiveness. This mechanism would be easy to use, inexpensive and accessible to local communities without requiring the expense entailed with recourse to legal services/lawyers and without prejudice to individual or collective legal rights. (See Section D below for additional information on social safeguard benchmarks and mechanisms included in the project design.) C. Indigenous Involvement in the GPAS Project Participation during GPAS Preparation The indigenous peoples development plan (IPDP) was developed and consulted among all key project stakeholders (including key Government agencies, Amerindian NGOs, Amerindian Captains, Councils and communities, and other stakeholders). It includes agreed principles, guidelines, mechanisms and benchmarks to be followed under the project to address requirements prescribed by the Bank's relevant social safeguard policies. The process for developing broad-based participation in GPAS began in November 1994 with an Objectives Oriented Project Planning (OOPP) workshop, which included 34 representatives from a broad range of government and international agencies, NGOs, the University of Guyana and Amerindian groups. The workshop conducted a problem analysis, established the objectives of 6 November 2004 the project, and identified the activities and assumptions related to project implementation. A number of stakeholder assessments were also conducted during project preparation, including a 1995 review of Amerindian issues in Guyana by an international specialist on land tenure issues, a 1996 assessment of the potential impact of GPAS on indigenous peoples by a cultural anthropologist; and a 2000 preliminary socio-economic survey of Amerindian communities in the Kanuku Mountains area, among others. The project preparation missions in October 1995 and January/February 1996 also focused on the identification of specific options for Amerindian participation. Introductory information on PAs was distributed to all Amerindian leaders, position papers on the establishment of the NPAS were solicited from four Guyanese Amerindian interest groups, and informal visits were made to a number of Amerindian villages adjacent to potential PAs, culminating in a four-day workshop for Amerindian leaders in February 1996 in the Amerindian village of Paramakatoi (Region 8). The Paramakatoi workshop was organised to (i) share information with Amerindian representatives on the role of indigenous peoples in the management of protected areas around the world, and (ii) to elicit the participants' ideas about how Amerindians could participate in the establishment and management of PAs in Guyana. Over 70 Amerindian community leaders and representatives from every region of the country participated in the event. At the end of the workshop, the participants passed a resolution acknowledging their involvement thus far, and recommending active future Amerindian participation on the GPAS project at the national level. The participants also stated that prior resolution of land rights issues should be a condition of the project. More recently (November 2003), the Government of Guyana undertook an extensive public disclosure and consultation process targeting stakeholders at the national, regional and local levels (in or near the two project study areas). This process involved the disclosure of general information on the proposed project design through newspapers, websites, and direct distribution to stakeholder representatives, as well as copies of an earlier draft free-standing version of this document entitled the "GPAS Social Framework Strategy" which included the social assessment, IPDP and process framework (see the Bank's InfoShop for a copy of the document disclosed). Written comments were solicited, and four public meetings were held to discuss the proposed project and social framework strategy. Three regional meetings (one in the Kanuku Mountains area, and two in the Shell Beach area) brought together over 280 indigenous community members, local government officials and NGO representatives, while the final national meeting brought together another 50 participants from key Government agencies, stakeholder groups, private sector representatives, and environmental and indigenous NGOs. Final results of the consultations show that the meetings were well attended and considerable interest and support for the project were expressed. The main concern voiced by some communities and indigenous leaders during public hearings and in written comments was the need to address land and resource use issues in the project study areas, as well as the need for timely dissemination of adequate, clearly formulated and accessible information to facilitate the effective participation of local communities and other stakeholders in project implementation. Questions were also raised about the PA declaration process; the potential impact of PAs on local livelihoods; and how local communities would be involved in PA co-management. These issues were discussed during the consultations and have been factored into the current project design. They will continue to be addressed throughout the planning phase of pilot PA establishment through ongoing stakeholder consultations and participatory processes (see below). 7 November 2004 In the Kanuku Mountains region, the Government of Guyana and Conservation International- Guyana (CIG) carried out a phased approach to inform and consult local communities on the proposed establishment of a PA in the Kanukus area. The Consultation Phase formally initiated and introduced the process to stakeholder communities. Community coordinators and interpreters were recruited and trained by CIG. Local capacity-building began and involved all institutions identified as key to the process. The second phase or the Community Resource Evaluation (CRE) phase was carried out in 2002 as communities expressed interest in participating. The CRE workshops focused on creating opportunities and tools that would enable the participants and the community at large to share their knowledge and to gather information to produce a profile of what resources are used, when and where that use occurs, and the threats that exist to the continued use of resources. Eventually, the CREs were completed in all 18 Amerindian communities in the Kanuku Mountains area. Results from this process were consolidated and analyzed, and taken back for verification by each community. This constituted the third phase of the process. The final phase involved the compilation of the CRE report, which was completed in September 2003. It is expected that this report will be integrated with the Land Use Planning of the area being undertaken by the Government, which will then present various options for resource management to be developed with each community. Community Representative Group (CRG) for Kanuku Pilot Study Area Under the GPAS project for the Kanuku Mountain Pilot Study Area, the eighteen (18) communities agreed (with the Region 9 District Council) to be included in the Study Area. The GoG in partnership with Conservation International - Guyana (CI-G) and these eighteen communities with funding from the World Bank, recognize the need for a fully participatory approach to plan and implement the activities for the Kanuku Mountains Pilot Study Area under the GPAS project. A Community Representative Group (CRG) will be selected by the representatives of the eighteen communities as the site level group to represent them in the implementation of the GPAS project. The group will satisfy the requirements of a representative group for the eighteen communities as outlined by the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs (MOAA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and will comprise of village members of the eighteen communities who have been a resident member for the last four years or more. The size of the CRG will be dependent on the budget available for mobilization of appointed members for meetings with the Lead Agency, Project Implementation Unit (PIU), EPA and other relevant GoG agencies. It is suggested that there would be six members with four (4) alternate members who would be selected by the eighteen communities. All ten (10) representatives would be involved in capacity-building activities as developed under the GPAS project. The members of the CRG will interface directly with the Lead Agency and the GoG and members will have equal rights and responsibilities as representatives of the eighteen communities. There will be an elected Chairman by the members of the CRG who will so act for the purposes of initial meetings of the CRG. This Chairman will serve for a period of one year, and may or may not be re-elected as the CRG sees fit. 8 November 2004 The CRG will be represented in the Kanuku Mountains Steering Committee (KMSC) which will contribute to the decision-making process. In relation to the Shell Beach area, the conservation efforts of a local NGO (the Guyana Marine Turtle Conservation Society) have helped change the dynamics of the area. The conservation movement has been able to convert active turtle hunters into turtle conservationists and the beach currently has eight rangers from the local communities who work full time for half of the year in the conservation of the marine turtles. Shell Beach has a long history of conservation and it was recognized that this activity could expand and be better achieved if the area becomes a PA. The PA consultation process in Shell Beach formally started in May 2003, with the identification of local stakeholders and the completion of preliminary work, including an initial social assessment. The follow-up to this activity will focus on individual stakeholder community visits. These visits will provide an introduction in the form of educational workshops and PA information. The most recent community consultations took place in July (Kanuku Mountains and Shell Beach) and September 2004 (Kanuku Mountains) to discuss and agree on the definition of the respective project study areas, to identify which of the local communities would agree to inclusion in the project study area, and to discuss and agree on the formation and TORs of Community Representative Groups for each area. Indigenous Participation in GPAS Project Implementation. GPAS adopts the full involvement of local and national stakeholders as a basic principle for the establishment and management of protected areas. Therefore, the project would support the development of agreed participatory mechanisms at national and local levels during project implementation that would seek to fully engage Amerindian communities located in project study areas in GPAS activities. (See Section D for details.) D. Mechanisms and Benchmarks The World Bank policies related to social issues triggered by the phase I GPAS project are (i) the Indigenous Peoples Operational Directive (OD 4.20), because of the project's possible benefits and the potential adverse impacts on indigenous peoples; (ii) the Involuntary Resettlement Operational Directive (OD 4.12), because of the project's potential for non-physical displacement; (iii) and the operational policy note on the Management of Cultural Property (OPN 11.03).7 The mechanisms and benchmarks described below have been built into the GPAS project to address the issues raised per O.D. 4.20 and O.P. 4.12. Issues raised by O.P. 4.12 are further addressed in the Process Framework for Mitigating Potential Livelihood Impacts. The following main principles for the GPAS were discussed broadly and approved by the GoG Cabinet in December 2002. The specific mechanisms included in project design to operationalize these principles are presented in the next sections. 7During the March 2003 pre-appraisal mission, it was agreed with Government that the cultural property safeguard issues would be addressed through the legal framework for protected areas to be developed under the first phase project. 9 November 2004 * Amerindian land and resource uses for traditional and subsistence purposes will be upheld; * The process of PA establishment will ensure that the rights and interests of local populations are respected; * Local communities, and stakeholders in general, will play an active role through direct involvement in the planning and design, implementation and management of the system and its components; * Protected areas will not be located in titled Amerindian lands without the informed consent of the communities involved; * Protected areas will not result in involuntary resettlement; * Where potential protected areas fall within lands claimed by Amerindians, efforts will be made to resolve those claims prior to the formal declaration of any PA; and * The Government of Guyana will formally declare a time-bound moratorium on the granting of new (logging, mining, ranching or other) concessions in areas identified as project study areas under the first phase GPAS project to further enhance their viability and build further confidence with stakeholders in the proposed participatory process for establishing and managing pilot protected areas. Component A: Development of Institutional and Technical Capacity for Project Management This component would support the creation and operation of a multi-stakeholder National Protected Areas Advisory Committee to review and provide technical input into the work of the PIU within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This committee would be chaired by the Executive Director of the EPA, and provide a forum for broad-based stakeholder participation at the national level in the Phase I project. Members of the Committee would meet on a regular basis and would likely include representatives from key GoG agencies, Amerindian communities, NGOs, scientists, PA specialists, private sector representatives, and environmental NGOs/interest groups. The specific roles, responsibilities and composition of the national committee will be defined in the project Operational Manual and agreed during the first three months of project implementation. A grievance mechanism would also be established to address potential land and resource use issues within the project study areas, as well as other concerns that may arise in relation to the GPAS project. This mechanism would need to be easy to use, inexpensive and accessible to local communities. The specific characteristics and details will be further defined, taking into consideration stakeholder feedback during the public disclosure process, as well as the procedures and mechanisms as defined in the draft new Amerindian Act. Once the new Act is passed, it is expected that the scope of the grievance mechanism would be revised to deal only with specific GPAS related issues not addressed by the new legislation. It was agreed that, prior to negotiations, the Government would prepare a proposal for establishing an appropriate grievance mechanism to address Amerindian and other stakeholder concerns under the proiect. including inter alia the scope, placement, authoritv and mode of operation of this mechanism. Establishment of the grievance mechanism is a condition of effectiveness. Furthermore, the development of a communications strategy under this component would be done to facilitate the participatory processes by fostering increased public understanding of the GPAS and generating well informed dialogue among stakeholders, especially at the local level in and around PAs. 10 November 2004 Finally, lead agencies (such as Conservation International Guyana and the Guyana Marine Turtle Conservation Society) designated by the Government to carry out pilot PA establishment and management under the Phase I project must formally commit in their operating agreements with the Government to all the principles of the project, including all agreed participatory guidelines and mechanisms as described in this document. Preparation of satisfactorY draft operating agreements is a condition of negotiations; signature of satisfactory operating agreements with lead agencies is a condition of effectiveness. Component B: Development of GPAS Management, Financial and Legal Frameworks As noted above, in order to ensure that an adequate legal framework is in place to protect Amerindian rights, it was agreed that prior to project effectiveness, a draft new Amerindian Act would be tabled in Parliament. Adoption of a new Amerindian Act that satisfactorily addresses indigenous land and resource use issues is a condition of disbursement for investment activities in project study areas under Components C.2 and D.2. During project implementation, this component will seek to define co-management models for participatory PA management. These will be based on the ongoing experience of establishing pilot PAs in Guyana under the first phase project as well as the lessons learned from experiences in other countries that involve indigenous communities and organizations, NGOs, academic institutions, and other stakeholders. The model to be proposed should include appropriate approaches for: (i) co-management of conservation concessions and other forms of delegating the implementation and administration of protected areas; (ii) participatory processes and capacity building at the community level for developing site-specific co-management approaches; and (iii) instruments and guidelines for monitoring and evaluating co-managing institutions. This component will also support development of a draft Guyana Protected Areas System Act for Parliamentary consideration. Preparation of the draft Act would be done on the basis of a legal diagnosis of Guyana's relevant laws and regulations, as well as an analysis of PA framework legislation in other countries. Recommendations and lessons learned in the course of designing and carrying out activities related to PA establishment under the Phase I project and the development of co-management models will also serve as inputs into this legislation. Particular attention will be paid to establishing the necessary linkages with related legislation, including the new Amerindian Act, to ensure effective protection of Amerindian land and resource use rights. The PIU will work closely with the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs and other line agencies to carry out a coordinated dissemination and consultation process on the proposed legislation. It is expected that the Guyana Protected Areas System Act would include the following (for social safeguard purposes): a definition of the categories of sustainable use PAs to be established and the user rights that would apply; the mechanisms for ensuring local stakeholder agreement with and participation in PA establishment and management; the participatory management planning process for the PAs (including definition of what the management plan would include, and specification of possible co-management arrangements); and procedures for identifying and selecting alternative income generating activities in and around the PAs. In addition, this component will fund technical assistance in conflict resolution to the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs to help address Amerindian land and resource use issues that may arise in the pilot areas under the project. Activities would include on-the-job support to the Ministry in conflict management, mediation and arbitration for key stakeholders. It would also include field activities for land demarcation (under KfW funding). These activities would be done in 11 November 2004 coordination with the grievance mechanism to be established and supported under Component A. Preparation of a satisfactory draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and MoAA defining MoAA participation in the proiect is a condition of negotiations; signature of the MOU is a condition of effectiveness. Component C: Planning and Co-Management of Shell Beach Pilot Protected Area Component D: Planning and Co-management of Kanuku Mountains Pilot Protected Area The remaining two components would fund both preparatory and implementation activities related to the establishment and management of the Shell Beach and Kanuku Mountains Pilot PAs. Both components will be executed in two stages: a first stage of participatory planning and preparatory activities for establishing the PA and developing conservation-based alternative income generation subprojects; and a second stage of effectively implementing PA declaration, co-management of the pilot PA, and income generation activities (Types 1-3, see below). Disbursement for investment activities under Components C.2 and D.2 are conditioned on the following: (i) adoption of new Amerindian Act that satisfactorily addresses indigenous land and resource use issues: (ii) satisfactory establishment of the Shell Beach and Kanuku Mountains Steering Committees; and (iii) preparation of agreed PA Management plans for each agreed PA, including site-specific indigenous peoples action plans. Mechanisms and benchmarks built into the project under Components C.l and D.1 (Planning Stage) include the establishment of local Steering Committees in each of the two project study areas; preparation of detailed site-specific social assessments; preparation of agreed management plans for each agreed pilot PA through participatory planning involving the key stakeholders; the preparation of agreed draft PA declaration proposals for each area; and the identification and design of income generation activities. Mechanisms and benchmarks related to Components C.2 and D.2 (Implementation/investment stage) include activities related to the active co- management of the Shell Beach and Kanuku Mountains pilot PAs and implementation of sustainable income-generation activities involving local communities in the project study areas (Types 1-3, see below). The following paragraphs provide further detail. Local Steering Committees to be established for each project study area would likely include stakeholder representatives from local communities, NGOs, regional government, and other relevant stakeholder groups. This committee would work closely with the Lead Agencies for each area in the participatory planning of the PA management plans and the PA declaration proposals. Once agreement is reached for the establishment of the pilot PAs within the study areas, the committees will become the steering bodies for PA administration. A participatory management planning process would be agreed with local stakeholders through discussion and approval of the local steering committee. Information gathered and systematized through feasibility studies would be complemented through participatory planning techniques and methods, such as rapid appraisals, direct observation, consultations, workshops, interviews, focal groups, sketch mapping and other methods. Local communities and other local stakeholders would be directly involved in identifying the main threats, problems and potentials, as well as their interests for PA establishment and management. Detailed site-specific social assessments would be one of the feasibility studies conducted during the planning process for the PA Management Plan. The social assessments would consist of: identifying existing ethnic groups in the project study areas; generating demographic data and maps of areas occupied; direct consultation with the groups in a culturally appropriate manner; 12 November 2004 analysis of the indigenous economy and its relationship to the natural resource base; analysis of the relations with regional society; analysis of any land issues in the area; analysis of the existing institutional capacity for dealing with indigenous group requirements; and a cultural impact assessment, including belief systems and values, species of particular sacred, ritual and ceremonial significance, sacred sites and other significant sites (e.g., burial grounds). These social assessments would be conducted by experts with recognized knowledge and expertise on the areas' indigenous people, and would be part of the feasibility studies to be conducted prior to PA declaration. The participatory approach is expected to define a shared vision for the PA, management goals and strategies. The PA management plan would be formulated on the basis of the outcomes of this participatory process, and would include, among other things, a review of land/resource use issues; management classification; local implementation arrangements; co-management plans and the agreed participatory co-management framework (including draft co-management agreements); a monitoring and evaluation plan; basic infrastructure planning; and local training needs. The management plan would also include site-specific indigenous peoples action plans defining user rights; agreed participatory processes, local conflict resolution mechanisms, mitigation strategies to address potential limits to resource use, proposed priority alternative income generation activities, and other agreed actions for the project study areas under the first phase project. The PA declaration proposals would be based on the findings and recommendations of the management plans for each area. The proposals will include broad zoning proposals for each area, showing main restricted zones and those recommended for resource use. The declaration proposals would be discussed and agreed with stakeholders at both the national and local levels prior to seeking parliamentary approval. Conservation-based alternative income generation activities would be defined on the basis of information gathered through the feasibility studies, other related studies (CREs in the Kanuku Mountains and Shell Beach areas), and the participatory management planning process. The procedures and criteria for identifying, selecting, environmental impact screening, managing and monitoring the income generating activities would be developed in the Operational Manual and further refined during project implementation in the Subprojects Manual. Preparation of a satisfactory Subprojects Manual is a condition of disbursement for subproiects under Components C.2 and D.2. Livelihood activities would be classified into three types depending on the status of Amerindian lands in the project study areas:8 * Type I Subproiects would be for titled but not demarcated as well as untitled communities, which would be eligible for educational and outreach activities, needs assessments, identification of potential future subprojects, technical assistance and training. Some examples could include training for soil management or technical assistance for marketing. * Type 2 Subprojects would be for titled and demarcated communities, which would be eligible for all of the above Type 1 activities as well as implementation of subprojects that could be 8 Implementation of Types I and 2 subprojects would not be subject to disbursement conditions for Components C.2 and D.2. 13 November 2004 located on titled/demarcated land. Some examples could include small enterprises for heart of palm production, small-scale cocoa processing facility and small livestock raising. * Type 3 Subprojects would be implemented once subregional Amerindian land issues are satisfactorily resolved in accordance with the new Amerindian Act, and PA boundaries are determined. These subprojects would have the broadest eligibility criteria and could include multi-village and/or subregional activities such as the development of ecotourism (feasibility study, business plan, guest house construction, etc.) or a multi-village crabwood oil processing plant. Because they are either for preparatory activities (Type 1 subprojects) or site-specific income- generation activities restricted to already titled and demarcated lands (Type 2 subprojects), the implementation of Types 1 and 2 subprojects would not be subject to the disbursement conditions for Components C.2 and D.2. As a further measure to ensure the protection of Amerindian land and resource use rights under the project, a default clause has been added to the draft Grant Agreement which provides for remedies if the Government were to revoke or abridge any land or resource use rights granted under existing legislation. E. Implementation Arrangements The EPA would be the implementing agency for the project, although the NGOs Conservation International Guyana (CIG) and the Guyana Marine Turtle Conservation Society (GMTCS) respectively would execute most activities in the pilot areas of Kanuku Mountains and Shell Beach. The EPA would establish a Project Implementation Unit (PIU), directly linked to the Executive Director of the EPA, to coordinate the overall project, and execute the majority of activities listed for Components A and B. The PIU would be composed of a Project Coordinator supported by administrative and technical staff as well as specialized consultancies as needed. A KfW-funded consultant would also be contracted to assist the PIU in planning and supervising the German-funded activities. Detailed roles and responsibilities, as well as detailed project implementation procedures will be included in the GPAS project Operational Manual. Preparation of a satisfactorv Operational Manual is a condition of project effectiveness. The EPA needs considerable institutional strengthening to effectively administer and manage the project and to provide the needed technical expertise for adequate implementation and supervision of all social and environmental safeguard issues outlined in this document as well as the Social Assessment Summary and the Process Framework for Mitigating Potential Livelihood Impacts. Such institutional strengthening is envisioned under the project, including technical assistance, capacity building and training. Additional staff and specialized consultancies under the project will include such disciplines as rural sociology, anthropology, strategic communications, natural resource economics, conflict resolution/mediation, PA management and others. Conservation International Guyana (CIG), as designated Lead Agency for executing the Kanuku Mountains pilot PA under Component D, has considerable experience in community-based natural resource management and participatory approaches to be followed under the project, and will also use specialized consultancies for specific tasks as needed, such as site specific social assessments. While the Guyana Marine Turtle Conservation Society has a long track record in activities for the protection of endangered turtle species in Shell Beach, they would require more direct technical and administrative assistance to carry out education and participatory activities as Lead Agency for Shell Beach. Operating agreements to be signed with CI, and the Guyana 14 November 2004 Marine Turtle Conservation Society, would require compliance with the project legal agreement and all key principles and safeguards outlined in project documentation. The Ministry of Amerindian Affairs (MoAA) would work closely with the EPA and its project team in the design and implementation of participatory management, assisting in the resolution of Amerindian lands claims, and participating in conflict resolution mechanisms involving Amerindian concerns. MoAA will receive direct technical assistance under Component B.4 to help it address Amerindian land and resource use issues related to the project. The Ministry will also participate in the national PA advisory committee to be established under the project, and collaborate with the EPA in the design and implementation of the GPAS Grievance Mechanism to be established by project effectiveness. In addition, MoAA technical staff would be closely involved in activities related to Amerindian communities under Components C and D, in particular the design and implementation of participatory PA management activities, as well as in the design of GPAS guidelines and development of appropriate legislative linkages for effective protection of Amerindian rights under the PA framework legislation to be developed under Component B. MoAA will also be responsible for facilitating the resolution of any land issues that may arise in connection with the establishment of the two pilot PAs. A National Protected Areas Advisory Committee would be established under the project; this multi-stakeholder steering/monitoring committee would provide guidance to the EPA on the establishment and management of the GPAS and support the inter-institutional coordination at the national level. In addition to the national advisory committee, each pilot PA under the project would have a local PA steering committee comprised of representatives of local communities, regional government, NGOs, and other relevant local stakeholders. F. Monitoring and Evaluation Social safeguard issues will be monitored by technical specialists contracted by the EPA during project implementation and by technical specialists participating in Bank/KfW supervision missions, on the basis of social indicators included in the GPAS M&E plan, to be further refined throughout project implementation. At the local level, they will be monitored by the lead agencies in coordination with the local steering committees and other stakeholder representatives in a participatory manner to be agreed during project implementation. G. Costs The estimated cost of implementing the above social safeguard mechanisms will be approximately US$970,000. 15 APR0e0e 10:06 AMi OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 63395 P.01 . :: ^' 5, h42 ' A 5% & 34xat' Mrs. Judith Lisansky, Task Team Leader, Quyana Protected Areas Systeni Project, The World Bansk, 1811 Strect, N.W., Washington. D.C. 20433, U.S.A. Dear Mns. Lisansky, ;Indienous rPekoAs Devoumeat Plan fUDP) an0d Pre Frnaetork foI * l~~~~~~~idatius PotentIal Livelhoo DSC4 ,^ T'he above docuUInLi arc submitted to the World Bank for your approval and for inclusion in the Bank's TNFOSHOP. Plcase note the addition of a section on the Commuunity Rcpresewnttive Group (CRG) for the Kanouku Mountains Study Arm in the IPDP. ursnsi. Rog,e .: uvcheou, M.D Head of res?idential .Sccaria: - 5-pO03-24 - ,: ; . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~y A,, I~~~- . .'U I I PR-08-05 10!07 AM OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 63395 P.02 -7- Novcmber 2004 Guyana Protected Areas System Project Process Framework ror Mitigating Potential Livelihood Impacts PrQoect Stmq.IirN The ultimatc goal of thec proposed Guyana Protctced Areas System (GPAS) Project is to ensure affontive. protection and sstrainable inan"Skimezit of represcntativc ccosysthms of Cuyana through a national system of protected arcas which is self-sustained, transparcnt, t decentralized and managcd throulgh partnerships. This will be achicved through the pursuit of a phased approach. Thc first phase CPAS project will be a process project -- pil0t-bascd, and focuscd on assisting the GoG^ in developing and partially impimcenting the policy, financial, legal and bistitutional frame'iorks and knoN%ledgc basc for the long-trnin managcemen and 4 sustainabilit) or thc GCiPAS. This will be done on the basis or lessons learnid From cstablishillng -and managing two pilot areas, including as a findamental principle co-managactnc of the areas with IuL;ul antd inedigenous populations. Project components inctide: Componcnt A, Establishetnnt of the lristitulioiial and Technical CapacitN for GPAS Management, Componcnt B. . - Developmncit of the Legal and Regulatory fraineuork; Componmnt C, Planninig and Co- Maanagement of Shell Beach Pilot Protecced Area. and Component D. Planning and (Co- nauagenlimt of Kanuku Mountains Pilot Protecte;d Arca. gYN1.sical Displactment No involuntary phvsical displacement or relocation of people would be required to sucecssfully implemcnt GPAS. and none would take place as part or projcet i' mplenmcrnmJtiin ; ?.tential Inmpacts Qn Livelihoods The local, largely Amerindian populations in thc project stud) ; rea$ arc expected to benefit direct)) frotn the proposed project tihrousgh their in%ollement in the puticipator% managenc:nt plannin,g process. uhich would assist in clarifying and rcsolving an. land issues kinder proccdurcs to be included in the new Amerindiarm Act to bc tabild in Parliament prior to cffectivcncss, and adopted prior to disburscrtient for investment activitics under Cornomponcnts C and D. (See also GPAS Indigenous Peoples Action Plan.) Thcy arc also expC(ed.d to bcnerit from co-manasgmcnt opportunitiis, activitic:5 aimdcl at improvi'ig thlc sustainalelc ubc' . . aind ianageimnot of natural resources, and support for alternalivc incomc-gencrating activitics :; cw as ccotourism or othlrs undor the project. In additioni, the creation and inanagcnrurt of PAs .. SWould likcl) scr%c as buffer zones against encroachment onto indigenous lands, and illegal tmtningorloggingoperations. J'! oweveNcr, thb possibility exists that in the course of cstablishing and managing the pilot PAs under the PRAS, somc livelihood activitics of people living within the PAs or in s'uriouindinig buffcr zoncs might be impactod suuh as by potential rimitatiomi; on natural resource C'traClion or : thcr restrictions. This Process Framicorl% outlincs tcle crilria and procedtircs that the project will follo%% to ensure that eligible, afTceted persons are assisted in their efforts to rcstore or Jrnprovk their livelihoods in a mannier that mainitains the environmental integrity and Wustainabilit) of the proposed PAs. Thcse criteria and procedurcs ssould bc dotailcd in thc Manageiiiciin Plans to be dcx.cloped lor the pilot PAs. In all such cases, the project would address #ic livclihood issues of aTeectd populations in a manniier whiclh is fair. just. and in accordaicce uith local Iwns;, as well as convistent with the World Barik's Safeguard Policies on Involuntary kesettlcicnt (OP 4.12) and Natural Habitat: (OP 4.04). *! tiLg and Eihibilite Crtcra lhc project activities for mitigating potential nonph5sical Oisplaceeinnt would target local lo%%-incomc communities, primarily indigenous people, that arc localcd within the project study areas and "ho usc natiural resources in the protected area. It is expected tiat an% local pcople whose living docs not depend primarily on natural resourcc usc, as APR-09-05 10 :09 AM OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 63395 P.03 Novembor 2004 w4ell as illegal uisers of natural resotirces, would not he eligible. Merchants or artisans dcaling in egally obtai led natural coagmoditiw maz bccoligibl c Measures to Assist Alf~ced P(pulations lhe mitigation of nonphysical displaccmcnt under thc project would be addressed under the project by the participator) devclopment and implecnentation of Managemnent Plans (Coomponenlts C and D) for the protected area and buffer zonc that would include situ-specific indigcnous pcoplcs action plans that wsould clarify usc zoncs, potential restrictions and mitiSation measures for proposed restrictions to be taken including, among others. alternative livclihood activities to bc supported under the projcct that would seek 1 compensatc for any necv livelihood limitations to result rrom tlle proposcd protected arca TIhe dcvclopnirent of the drafl managemcnt plan w%ould be carriod out in a highl) participatory * manncr and incilude sitc-specific feasibilitv studies and a sitc-specific social assessnment that would furtler clarifN local communiuics user rights, potential impacts on the local population as wcll as assisting in designing adequate mitigation menastires. Th guidclines ror the process and content of developing the managemcnt plans will be included in a project Operational Manial. In addition, the formal declaration of and investments in the pilot protected arcas under the project %ould not bc donc until a broad consensus is reached about the boundaries and zoning of the PA to be declared and the PA management plan. Implemcntatioli. Mitigation activities will b. cirried out by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in close coordination with the two NGOs rcsponsible for on the ground managenicnt or thc tWo pilot PAs (Conservation International Guyanna and the Guyana Marinc Trurtle Conservation Society). as sel as with thc Ministr! of Anicrindian Affairs (MoAA). In particular, MoAA %%ould v%ork clowslv vith the EPA and its project te.arn in thc design and implementationi of participatory PA manaagement processcs and in rcsolving indigenotus land issuLs1 and participate in conflict resolution mechanisms involving Amcrrindian concerns. hticntial conflicts or grievatics. A s=Iisractory grievance mechanism would be established prior to project effectiveness to assist in the me:diation of any land or resour Oied Amerinditan lands (76) on a natiotal basis bcfore Raddrcssing extension requests, as wcll as requosts for nem titles by untitled comrmunitics. ' Thc Covcrnment adopted this phased approach because some of the descriptions of the - boundarics of communities contained in the Amerindian Act difTfr from uhat cxists on the : %round The policy was designed to focus first on survc ing and demarcaring the alrcady #escribed boundaries of titled cornmmunities to aid in ground-truthing the boundaries, provide a ; . a^p to tho con1miiniIi. with clc-irly mnarketd h"ind1arieq and there-by assist in dealing with illegal :. rncroachinemt by outsidcrs, mainl) mincrs and loggcrs. Following tho first phase demarcation of fihese Communities, and on the basis of boundarics confirmed through thie demarcation process, ithc second phasc would theln de,al witlh cxtcnsions and lilling nc" arcas. ,Tibs polic) %%as subsequently reviscd in 2002 to speed up the land rcgularizanion process b) Idopting a regional approach, whereby those administrativc regions conpicting the first phase of 'the polic) could thOn ad'anc to the smcond phase - regardless of the status of first phase i ;*ctiv itics in other aduninistr&tiv.e regions of the; countn. *Thc policy was further reviscd in 2004 to - Wlow for a subregionial approach. . $o far Linder this policy, 39 titled communities have alreadt- ben demarcated and providcd iith: . ecurc ceiii icates or tiric, with Regions 2, 3. 4. 5, 6 autd 10 being compltlcd. Two Amerindian m . . On°t orldieprovisionts tbr c;uana's indepe %asoenc l J the tlifiJnatimi that Am.eindianw "be grantd legal onvcrship *i pr tightns of Occplanncy over area s and r s3rvatiks orp,afw Ihoreotfwlbee rew tribe or communi1y of Amerindians is * k ))v Or%Ij.uriUit isoidcnu on ,nled .,l''T fiul itll 1 .l,:a bOI}i mit.Cs?l., fAnuA s.trbu-juI;,II I 4uud' (C'rlNuu,siuouiO wes ior,IK, hwId ; arwinigs throughout the: Country and tepoilted l 196')9. xi its IrUt LmWit, Ute (2tmUSlLsLoI rM0o111Mmend tIwl 128 : kmerindiOn communiii itiis then in Lxil4enIe receivc titl to ahout 24,00 sq. miles (air opposed Lo 43,(00 sq. mile-s. uvqUeu4t.J bI A,nerindiwzm a[ tho time). tlNwe recominemblions were ranrttia)i inimpi enled tlwough the: Autlieriiiin tndl SLic T,and.s Acts. ;uty,aia's local gownlinnent sViIeLn is organizcd into len adnulmi,,ridive regions 2 * , * b -~~~~~~~~7 - * ! I I I I I APR-08-05 10 :0 AM OFF I CE OF THE PRES I DENT 63395 P . 06 No% embcr 2004 districts (Konasheii and Baramita) totaling .soniv 3 million acres, also reccived titles in 2004.' Thc rtmaining 35 tilled comnimuntics have not vet been denmarcated. In addition, rherc are another 37 comlmuniiies without title. PhMsa 2 %ork hbas alrevidy started in Regions 2 and 10. Eight of th; nine titled and demarcated villages in Region 2 have submitted extension requests to date, w%hich ar tindcr reviciv. In Region 10 work is currently underway in coordinatiorn with the Ouyana Lands and Survets Cotnmission to rcview the statUs of sevCn untitled comniiunitics on the basis ofa lacnd usc study conducted by Ihe Cominission togethicr vvith the communlities. Titles for four of the scven communities have already been approved bY the Goovcrnment (but not yet formall) transferred), and numerous logging and mining conccssions in the region have becn cancellcd to racilitatc the implementation of the ncw titles. (See Social Assessment Summary). Once an area is authoriz7d Ior demarcation by the Ministry of Amerindian Aflairs, the demarcation activities arc ovcrsecn by the Guyana Lands and Stirveys Commission, whicli bids dte %%ork out to privatc ccrtirlid wopographicaf firmns/indi%iduals. Demarcation wvork calnnot be initiated %itrhout the permission of the Anierindian commtunit' acting through1 its clcctvd Council. :Local coiniunity mebncbers arc usually i,ivolved in carrying out the detnarcation work, although this is not mandated bv law. Once completed, the dcmarcation must be chocked by Laands and Surveys and a lettcr of satisfaction signed by the Village Captain (acting within the atuthority conferred by the comrnunit ) must be issucd before final payment to rhe Fir")- While the approach and methods currontl1 usod lo den:ITrcate Amerindian-owncd lands arc procedurally clear (albeit not yet fully codified), thc process for rcvieving and granting cextensions and titling new% areas are still not fuliy developed or codificd, with a nimber of pilots In process (e.g. in Regions 2 and 10). I'he nc% Amnrindian Act, which is currently being - developed based on an extensive consultation process carried out with Amnerindian commiunities, is expccted to include specific, transparent and concrcte procedurcs for rcsolving indigenous land isXsues. UIhe Government is also considering recommendations for the cstablishment of a tComrnmission oni Indigenuus Land Claims. TIhe new Ameritidian Act is expected to be presented 'o Parliament and passed by the cnd of 2004. (Scc Scetion B below.) A.80ou c Ri hU. Arneriindiani conmmnitilitics havc al%-ays enjoyNed traditio nal usufruct rights for hunting and gatherinig activities on unallocatedA State lanids, and are concernled about -,prcserning thcsc rights. This concem has comen increasingly to the fore over the past 20 )cars '; ith thc increased prLmence of mining and loggintg operations near areas occupied by Amerindian cornmunitics. Government policy is to cxclude from nmining conecssions those lanids which arc . lazvfijll) occupied bN Ameec indiati commiiiiuniities Neertliteless, Amcrindianis comnplain abotut tlhu impact such acti%itics have on their usc o01'rrest resources. Some Anicrindian communities arc also advcrscly aftxhted by the scrious environmental (in particular, river) pollutioni brought abuut b, mining The use of highly dstructivc dredging . -rations and infortnal placer mining (for gold and diamonds) arc particularl) scrious in the : .etent to Ahich thoy degradc rivers wid ultimately inmpact the livelihoods of local communities. A LegaI Framicivork Consilution of Cu' ana (1980 rejised Z(Ž)A43). T'he ConstituTion of (iuyana prorcics all rights to propcrty and anN inttrcst in or right over prop:rty. Thus, Amerindians arc constitutionalll. protected fiofn being deprived of their rights 4hcther these arc in respect of lands held Formall) , 3 lbes disa ict were bd(tlk tll 'Schedtle I to lIhe ArICTicrimti A0t i, i 977, I,t titlcs weye i9Sited (wiLid' (lie Si,tte [.ttids Act) in 20).4. 'Ilic distrrctLz have nt yet lxŽen dvitiRired' 3 A ; APR-08-05 18:11 AM OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 63395 P.07 Novcmbtr 2004 undcr legal titlc or rights and other privilgces o'cr land >%hich arc not hcld utder formal lcgal titlW tbut are exercised traditionally. Whcn new legislation is passcd in (iuyana which may affect Anmerindian rights. it has been the practicc to savc Amnrindiai righlts. 4 n&msindian Act ThV Amerindia,n A is the main la% rcgulating Ajcrindian afTairs, andI provides for identification and registration of Amerindians, protcction in employment, and the like It is based on an Amncrindian Ordinance from approximately a centur) ago, and rmany of its provisionis are not cnforced. Thcre is broad agreement in Guyana that the Act is outdated, onctnphlav and in need or replacement. ThuJS, the Government of Guyana, with support from a World Banl Il)F grant as well as funds from the Gcrman Society for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), undertook a national consultative process starting in 2002 to revicw and revise the Amerindian Act. This process, which tneludes an initial three-month period for rcvicwx of the Act, nation-wide community consulrations lcd by a tecduieacll tcarm, the compilation of a comprehensiAc report on suggcstcd rcvisions, and follow-up regional consultations on the draft 'eised legislation, is nearing compiction. Consultations %%ith local communitics xere completed In May 2003, aTid a suinniary of community recornmendations for revising the Act was completed November 2003 for Cabinet considerationi. Occ theC new lawN is drafted, firther consulted on a regional basis7 presented to Parliament and approved (expected by the end of 2004), it would cccssarih. inform the process of drufbrig the new Guyaana Protected Areas System Act under the Phasc I project (see Component B belo). ;ll Lands Act. The rights of Amerindianis in state or public lands are specificd in the Stc;te 1.ands Acl. As mentioned above, irrevocable; grants of title arc cttrrently being issued under Section 3 of th.c Act in relation to lands recoginized as traditionally owned by Amerindians Given the absolute n3attui or Amerindian titles issued under the State Lands Act, no protccted tjrea can bc established over Amerindian lands held bh such tities unless and to the extent that thc. Welcvant conmmunity gives its conseni. . iAlJivugi tlih Statc Lands Act makes it an offiense for anv person to trcswpass or unlavfidly occupy tny State lands- Amerinidian rights are speciticall- protected These rights and privileges ovcr State lands are defined by thc State Lands (Amerindian) Regulations xvhich, among other things, trovidc Amerindians a right of occupationi ovcr Statc lands which arc untitled and unlicensed. he rcgulations also allow Amerindians to extract materials for personal usC, such as for iconstrtictioni of residcencci or canoes, with pemission: tSinee Anmerindian user righis over Statc lands arc constitutionally protected, an) protected area It ib cstabli1shcd o-vr suclh lands must rucognize and protietcd- Amrerindian rights unless thc irelevant Amerindian community gives its conseni-t. for=ess Act. Rights with respet to state forcsts arc governed by the Forests Act. Thc c urrent Act * conlains the provision that, 'Nothinjyg in this Act shall be constrted to prejudice, altcr or afTect any Vnight or priVitege hcrctorore legall) possessed, excrcised, or enjoyed by any Aiicrindian in 0uyana, providedL that the Minister from time to timc by publication in the Gazette may make an 4eregulations (...) defining the privileges and rights tv be enjoycd by Amcrindians in state forests." Tv datc, no rmgulationsi have been issuod pertaining tto Amerindian rights and privilcgcs. 'Te rights and privilcges that existed over statc land be:ore it became sutac rorest would be saved by Fthis provision and would bc constitutionally protected. A wcoil exanmple is thi Wat.r iull Se%4%rage Act iii which all Aftnerindiunl nghts we, savcxl 5 hc Govenuiic-,1 held a total of 33 hearing,., iTi which rcprwcnitatikeq of I I I COIflimUnlitieS z1id IbLr Anierilzdian NGOs pmrticiuatett, NVith all but t0- tf td,e mn-ingt: tirtgin place in hiiltlaTand regions. 4 . .... . .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~J APR-08-05 10:12 AM OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 63395 P -r Novcmber 2004 Mining Act. All mining in Guyana is govcrned bh thl2 Mining Act 1989, which vcsts the ; owncrship of all mincrals in the Statc. The Act savcs traditional Amnerindian rights in rclation to mining Under currcnt govemrmcr policy, mining on lands w hich Arncrindian communities hold in titlc is not authoriz-d untess the communit, oonsrnts. In r-lationi to Statc lands, curreint policy is to cxclude from mining conccssions all lands lax0lully occupied by Amerindian communities (i.e, all lands wbhih they occup) and usc) In practiCe sOmo communitics cngagc in mining activitics that are considcrcd to be; more than mendium-scale wvithout governimnet's invol% ement Proteclc&Axeas Legisl9kioJ2 While Guyana docs not yuL have framneworkl l:gislation for PA establishnicat and nmnagement, it currentlk has two separato laws to covcr thC two c"Yisting legislatod proteCted areas the Twokrama Wildcriecss Preserve and Kaicteur National Park. Thc 1996 ln okra7ma inrernaliorunl C.ntre fior &Rinf rvv Conservation arntd Developicln Act creates the twokraina Ccntrc in Region 8, and dividcs the arca into a wilderniss preserve and a sustainable usc area. Thc Act prohibits mining, forestry and other rwsourcCs utilization of thc Jwokramna area, unicss the Iwokrirma Ccntre gives conscnt. Section 6 of the Act spccifcally -recognic/s and protects lcgal and traditiotial Amnrindian rights, statinig that, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to prejudice, alter or affect any right or privilege heretofore legally or ilioniall) possssesd, cx:rcired or cnjoycd hy an Arnerindiaii who has a particular connection :with ari) arca oirland v%ithin or neighbouring the Programme Site." aCaictcur National Park in Region 8 was created in 1929 by the Kciietur National Park Act. . ; Therc ~ere no sav-ing proviSisis in thc A(;( for Amerindian rights or privilCgcs. lbc Act was -amended in lQ99 to cxtend the size of the park (which, until then, was considered too small to * rovidc foi- effective procctioni of tdie arca) and a second amendmcnt to the Act ^sas madc in . 2000 to sac and protect Anmerindian righis and privileges in thc KNP area ; 'A* discuassd and agrnzd in principlc. in rocint broad consultations (see section C below), in order ".-to adequately addrcss Arnerinidian land and rcsourcc uws rights, anr comnprehonsivc franicwork , Jegistation for protected areas cstablishinent and managenment under the OPAS project would weed to, among other things: * Prcscribe a clear and transparent process for the designation of protocted arcas; . . * Inslittiae a process of public consultation and participation for the cstablishitient of protcctcd arcas and for the decvlopnent of' managcmcnt plans for such arcas, ; - * Pror,ido for non-intorfercnee with the continuation of amy Amerindian cnninnity'f :y access to and use of land and resources when such uses are compatible with th¢ ' sustainable utilization of naltiral resources, in accordanee with the procedures and mechanisms establishied by law to address such land and rcsource. use issues, and * Croate a mechanism for the; joint nmanagemeunt of protcted areas with Amerindian 4 people. Conclistons. Based on the leg71 frarmcork analysis, the following %as concluded: N ! otmithAitikliing thei amendelnit, a legal 0tfjtoil tiedl in 2X.rX agaiii: tK stiveri-imnciit on bh0alf uvrnt local villag 'e or . ChaeiuIp sLckirmg pIrOtectiOn ofthJeir soflsCtittiionaI andl I.Iioiul;r ighl;i vis-i-Vis tthe exensio ofr KNP. nic case a rvcM:6tl) diszimnswd due lo the plain(ilrs ailure io apwar in court. ., w~~~~~~~~~~~~ APR-e8-05 1 1:3 AM OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 63395 P. 09 Novenber 2004 * Amerindian right%, privilcges, customs and usages are protccted bN laN in various statutes and in Lhe Constitilion. * The GPAS, by dcrintiion, deals with protected areas, and is theroforc an inappropriatc routc to address the national Amerindian issue as a whole;. This should be addresscd throuogh a nntionally agreed and debawd mechanism cstablishcd b) lavn, sueli Lis dav ote;W Amerindian Act. * The GPAS project should, ho%kever, includ; appropriatc racchanisms and proccdures in its dcsign to cnsurc the protection of Amerindian rights as thc) pcrtain to thc establishment and mnanagement of proelcted areas T* he activitics to bc carried out in project study areas during the preparation phase of the project (i.e, activities under Components C. l and D, I) will not in any way ditninish Amerindian traditions, righis. privileges, and uisags provided thcrc is no interference with traditional Amerindian activity in practice In addition, there wvould bc no legal violation of Anacrindian righls, Iradilions, privileges and usages once these arc savcd bJ law in the pilot protected areas 'In light of the abovc, and to ensure that an adcquate kcgal framework is in placc to protect : Amcrindian rights, it was therceore agreed that thc Phase I GPAS project would not commcncc , milm a drafl of thc new Amerindian Act is Labkd in Parliamcnt Thc ncA Amcrindian Act is vxpected to include speCifiC, transparent procedures and mechanisms for the reso ltion of : indigcnous land and resouice use issues, At was alo agrced that on-the-ground invcstmerit activiaties in thc project study areas (such as5 khosc under Components C.2 and 0.2, including the implementation or enforcemont of * managcnment plans, construction of PA infiastrUcture, permanent demarcation or PA boundaries, ;, aiid the likc) would not takv place unlil a nvws Amcrindian Act that satisfactorily addresses land . nd rcsource use issues is passed by Parliaeniet To deal with any issucs or complaints arising in rclation to the GPAS project, especially durinig ihc intcrinm pcriod between tabling and passagc of the ncw Amerindian Act, it was furthcr agrced * tit a satisrzilu;:y g,iutvwge niclianiisi ivould be rstailhslieud b) plujuct vfY6rLhwhvuv. Tliz u mechanisn vNould bc casy to usc. inexpensive and accessibic to local communlitics without Nequiring the expCIise entailud with recoursc to legal senices/lawcrs and w-ithout prejudice to individtal or collectivc legal rights (Sce Section D belo%% for additional inforimiation on social safeguard benchmarls and mechanisnms included in the project design.) L' Indigenwu.s ln~ r'oA'emeni in the *.PA.S Iiojec --F Wk1patiorndurin CGPAS.Pr/February 1996 also focused on the identitication of spLcific options for Amerintdiani participation. IntroductorN information on PAs * was distributed to all Amerindian leaders, position papers on the establishmcnt of the NPAS wcre solicited from four (Chuianrse; Amerindian intcrest groups, and informal visits wcre made to a punibcr of Amnrinridan villages adjacent to potential PAs. culminatitng, in a four-day workshop for Amerindian loaders in Februar) 1996 La the Amornidiani village of Paramakatoi (Rcgion 8). - The Paramakatoi workshop was organised to (i) sharc informatioii N ith Anicrindian ; vprcscntatiN cs on thc rolc of indigenous peoples in thc mnanagemrent of protectod areas around thc World, and (ii) to elicit the participants' ideas about how Anierindians could participatc in thc establishmcnt and management of PAs in iuyana Over 70 Amerindian community leaders and i'cpresenrarivcs t'romi every region of the country participated in thc cvcnt. At te r end Or the wurkqhnop the parlininDris n:sscd a resolution acknowlJedaina their involvcment thlius far, and tcotimending active futtire Amerindian participation on the GPAS projcct at thc national lcvel. The participants also stated that prior resolution of land rights issucs should bc a condition orthic . Proijct . lMore recendl) (November 2003), the Govcrnment of Guvanam undcrtook an extensive public , scto,sure and consuftation proces's targeting stakcholders. at the national, regional and local lrcvcls (in or near Ehe two project study areas) This process involvcd thc disclosure of gencral information on thc proposed project design through nczespapers. wcbsites, and direct distribution tO stakeholde re-prescinitives, as %ctll as copies orwi %;wlici dbafl flQc-standing version of'this * ilocurmnt entitled the '"GAS Social Framnework Stralcegy" which included the social assessment, ; PDP and proccss franicxior (see the BanlC s lnfoShop for a copy of the documcnt disclosed). Written comrmtents were solicited, and four public mcetings were held to discuss the proposed project and social framework strategy. Three regional mectings (one in the Kanuku Mountains area, and ltNo in the Shcll Beach area) brought together ovcr 28() indigiiotis comniuniht pncmbers, local govcmnment officials and NGO represenatlives, while the final national mceting brouighit together anoliy 50 paiLticipanits from key Gocrnmont aScncics, stakkoholdor groups, privatc sector reprcsentatis. es, and en,. itonrientat and indigenous NGOs Final resujlts of the consultations show that the mectings %'cre wcll attvnded and considerabl; . . .lntcrcst and support for the project wvere exprcssed. the main concern voiced by some : omniunitics and indigenous leaders during public hearinigs and in %'.Titicn comments was the . pccd to address land and resource use issues in the project study areas, as well as the iiced for . imcly dissenitnation of adequatc, clearly formulated and acccssible information to facilitate: the ; ffcctic lparticipativir or lue;al communitiCs and other stakeholders in project implementation. . uCStions were also raised about the PA declaration process; the potential impact of PAs on local ivclihhodsl and how local communities would be involved in PA co-managemcnt. Thcsc issues - wcrc discussed during the consultations and have been factored into the currcnt project design. -- sIhe- will contintc to be addressed throughout thb; planniiing phasc of pilol PA establishmlent hroogh ongoing stakcholder consultations and participator. processcs (see below). 7 . : - - .- . I I I I APR-08-05 1 0: 15 AM OFFICE OF THE PRES I DENT 63395 P. 1 1 Novomber 2004 in the Kernuku 1Mounlabts reglon, th; Governmcit of Guvana and Conscrvation Interinational- Guyana (CKi) carried OLIt a phased approach to intorim and consult local conimunitics on thc proposed establishment of a PA in the Kanukus arca. The ConsutLltion Phase formally initiated ftd introduced the process to stakeholder conumunities. Commuinity coordinators and intcrpretcrs wcrc rccruiktd and trained by CIO. Local capacity-building began and involNed all institutions identified as key to the process. The sccond phasc or the Comrnunilt RLsource Evaluation (CRE) phase was carrid out in 2002 aks ComImunities expressed interest in participatinig. The CRE workshops foctised on creating bpportjnities and tools that Nwould enable the parlicipanits and tht community at large to share their knowledgc and to gathier inforination to producc a profilc or what resources ire tised, when And where that use occurs, and the threats that exist to the continuLed use of resources- E-entually, the CREs %%cre completed in all 18 Anmerindiani communities in the Kanulu Mountains area. Ressults From this process werc consolidated and analyzed, and taken back for vcri(icationi by cach conmtinit). 'Ihis constituted the third phasc of the process. The final phase involved the compilation of the CRIi report, which was completed in Sepjn:inber 2003. It is expected iliat this report will bc integrated with the Land Use Planning of the arca bcing undertakern b) tho Govermeiit, whichi %ill then present various options for resource Managcment to bc developed with each commnunit%. lomnluilt Pirltaii- Qroup,(CRG) nuku _Lot Studt Arca Under thie GPAS project for tEe Kanuku Mountain Pilot Study Area, the eighteen (18) pommunitics agreed (with the Rcgion 9 District Council) to be includcd in the Stud) Area Thec OoG iii partnership with Conservation International - Guyana (Cl-U) and thcsc eighteen ionu'iitics with liundiing fromi the World Bank, recognize the nced for a full) participator) ipproach to plan and impleiment the activitis for Lhe Kanuku Mountainis Pilot Study Area Linder thc GPAS project. A Community Reprcscntative Group (CRG) will be; selected by the represenitativ.es of the ciglnei communities as the sitc lcvcl group to represont them in the implementationi of the (iPAS project. The group will satisf) the requirements of a representative group for the cigbtcn comimitiunities as outline;d by the Ministry of' Amerindian Affairs (1MOkA) and the -itvironmental Protection Agency (rPA) and will comnprise of villagecrnbers of the cightn : vomn1unirics who have becn a resident member for the last lbur years or more. Why sizc of thc CRG will be dependent on the budget availabic for mobilization of appointed * cnimbers for meetings with the Lead Agenc%, Project Implemcntation Unit (PIUl), EPA and other televant GoCG agencies. It is suggested that therc would be six members with four (4) alternate .: zMeMbers NNho N ould be sclccted by he; cight,en com munities. All ten (]0) rcpresentatives wouild : be in-olhed in capacit5 -building activirics as developed under the CPAS projcct. ; he mcmber s of the CRG will intcrfacc directly with the Lead Agency and the CoG and members Will have c(ital rightts and responsibililics as representatives of the eightcCI commtinitiCs, - bere %Nill be an elected Chairman by the members of tic C(RGC ho will so act for the pturposcs of initial meetings of the CRG. This Chairman will serve; for a period of one ycar, and nia or ba) not bh re-clccted as the CRC sees fit. 8 4J APR-089-05 10:16 AM OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 63395 P.12 Novcmber 2004 Tho CRG will be represented in the Kanuku Mountaiiis Stecring Commituc (KMSC) iO-hich i'ill contributo to thc dccision-making process. . In rclalion to thc Shell Beach area, the conscrvation efforls of a local NGO (th; Guyanit Marine :Turthl Consornation Socicty) havc helped change the dynamics of the arca. Tth conscrvationi * moven1ent has been able to con ert acti% e turtlc huntcrs into turtic conscrvationists and the beuch : currcntl' has cight rangcrs rroin the local conimunitics hvo work full Lime for half of the year in :thc conscrvation of the marine turtles- Shell Reach has a long histor) of conservation and it was .recognized that this activit) could cxpand and bc better achicved if thc arca becomrs a PA. The PA consultation process in Shell Beach formally started in May 20(3, vNith the identification of local stakeholders and the completion of preliminary work, including an initial social asessnmcnt. The follow-up to this activity will foctis on individual stakeholder communit> visits, Thcsc visits will providu an introduction in the fornm of cducational workshops and PA * information The most recent community consultations took place in Jul) (Kanuku Mountains and Sliel ; Sch) uind Scpteimbher 2004 (Kanuku Mountains) to discuss and agree on thc definition of thec respectivc project StLd) areas, to idcntlif which of the local commnuniics woild agree to . inlusion in the projcct study area, and to discuss and agree on the formiationi and TORs of . !ommni nity Ropreentalive Grrnup; For each aren igcnous Particia tion in GPAS Proice t pnicmeiitation. GPAS adopts the full involvement of J1ocal and national staklholders as a ba:sic principle for the establishment and managcment of ; protecied arcas. Therefore, the projcct would support the development of agreed participatory . nc"hanisms at national and local levels dtiring project impleimentation that would seek to full. . ngagc Amncrindian communilics locatcd in projcr stud) areas in OiPAS activities. (See Scction D for details jP. Pe chanishns and Bench marks 4,hc World Bank policies relkaed to socinl issues triggered by the phasc I GPAS projcct arc (i) the .4 tndigcnous Pcoples Operational Directive (OV 4.(I), bccatisc of the project's possiblc benefits . nd the potential adverse impacts otn indigeniour peopleS, (ii) the Involuntarq Resettlement , pciational Directivc (O 4.12), becausc of the project's potential for non-physical 4ispladernint, (iii) and the operational polic) notc otn the Management of Culhural Property (OPN i:' !103),7 Th meehasisfs and benchnvirks devAriAl hclmn havc been built into the OPAS project to address the issues raised per 0 D 4 20 and O.P. 4.12. Issucs raised by O.P. 4.12 ar: ' . fiirthicr addressed in the Piocess Framnework for Mitigating Potential l.ikclihood lmpacts. Thc following main principics for tlc OPAS were diseusscd broadly and approved by theO GoG:. Cabinct in December 2002. The specific mechanisms included in project design to operationtllizc , hcsc principles arc presentod in thc next sections. . :' )*>uring tle %far.-II 2,03 Pic-a;p.[AaanU au.iou. it *.; with 1,ovcnimiim(dud ui. vuluturi,, proparIt ;wuI.guNr -'; eS woull b, aWldrcssed hlrougi tie lei:gl Ihj.i¶ lil: 1 jt piOfrdi, atill to he develorpd unler the fiNTg phiase . : woject,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ APR-08-05 10:16 AM OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 63395 P-13 Novcmber 2004 * Anierindian land and rcsource uses for traditional and subsistence purposcs will be upIield: * The process or PA establisihment will cnsurc that thc rightis and interests of local - po)ufations are respected; * Local communities. and stakcholders in general, will plaN an activc role through direct inNofvnuivnt in the planning and design, iriplcmentlation and managetmicnt of the system and its components. * Proccted areas N i1l not bc located in titled Amerindian lands vxithout the informed consent of thc comniurri s inolo4d;. : * Protecltd areas will not rcsult in involuntary resottlement, * Where potential protceted areas fall within lands clairmnd by Amerindians, efforts wsill bc made to rcsolve those claimns prior to the formal declaration of an) PA; and * Thc Gosernmcnt of Guyana will lortnall-, declare a time-bound moratorium on the granting or new (logging, mining, ranching or othor) concessions in areas idcntified aS project study areas under thc rirst phasc GPAS project to further enhance their viability and build further coifidcnce with stakeholdcrs in thI proposcd participatory process for establishing and m-anaging pilot protectd areas Component A: Development of Institutional and Technical Capacity for Project Managcment This component would support thc creation and opcration of a multi-stakeiolder National i:tceded Arens AdvLwory Commrittee to review and provide technical input into the wvork of ihe *TIU ivithin the Environniental Prulvclion Agenc% (EPA). This commituce would be chaired b . ' #hc Exccutii c Director of the EPA, and provide a forum for broad-based stakeholdcr participation . the nationial IvCcI in the Phase I projec, Mcmbers of the Committee vould mcet on a regular . ' sts and would likely include representatives from key GoG agencies, Anierindian communitics, . JGOs, scientists, PA spccialists, privatc sector represontatives, and cnvironmcntal NCOslinterest r oups The sp;cific rolcs, responsibilities and cunmposition of the national committec vwill bc . * ifincd in th. project Operational M;nuial and agreed during the first tbree months of projcct ' snplenmentation. i.A gitetarnte mechanism would also be cstablished to address poteniial land and resourcec use issucs w%ithini thvc project study areas, as elacl as othier conccrns ftat ma) arise in rclation to the (IPAS projcct. This mechanisnm would need to be casv to usc, inexpcnsive and acccssible to local tomxnunitihs. T'he specific characteristics and details will be furthuer defined, taking into | e wonsidoratioi2 stakeholder feedback durinig the public disclosurc process, as wvell as the proceduiros I-'. mcchanisms as deined in thc draft new Amnrindian Act. Once the niew Act is passed, it is ' pccted thati ltlhescopeof^ thgrievance mechanisni wouljd bc revised to dcal only with specific :. ?t:PAS relatcd iSSues not addressed by the nc legislation. Jit Lyagreed that- prior to tiaLo!ns. the GovcrnilcnLt-would g prca[r po a1 for establishing an ApMrpratcgriyancc . eccabism to addn:ss AMcrindian and other stakcholder concerns under the Droject. incluWi_nZ yAf~r~lii. ............ tec sop.c.lacenit aurhxorit- and mod of operatiqq.u of this mechansm., . &s bbskli CntoFrFthc griesancc mechani,smi is a co dtign fu,tbermore, the development of a communications .vtrategy under this component would be : Ione to facilitalc the participator) processes by Iostering increased public understanding of the .7bPAS and gSncrating wec.l informed dialogue ;ami ng stakeholdors, espocially at thu local l,o,l In ind around PAs -0 . APR-08-05 10:17 AM OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 63395 P 14 Novemiiber 2004 Finally, lead agencies (such as Conservation Intonational Guyana and thc Guyana Marinic Turtlc Conservalion SocicTy) designated by the (Government to canr out pilot PA cstablishmcnt and managcnicnt under thc Phase I project nmusi formally commit in their operating agreements nith thc Government to all the principlcs of thic proicct, includirng all agreed participatory guidelines and mechaniistmis as described in this document. Preparation o f.ptisfactorL_draR f2ratin, egrents is a n ngit nof goti ,' . .atu rec .aL isfactQr3 operating ag chments with lead agencies is a condition ofctcOctivcness Component B: Development of GPAS N1oanaement, Financial and Legal Frameworks As noted above, in order to ensurc that an adcquatc legal franiessork is in place to protcct :Anicrijidiani rights, it was agreed that prior to project effectivcncss, a draft new Amerindian Act would bc tablkd in Parliatncnt. Adplon io a nks Am;rindian Act that =ris cl oril vs s :indigenoUs land and resource usc issues is a qqkdition of disbursementjCgr jnvestment actiNitics in pro/jW _I%d)y .aras undoQr onlCtsC .2 and DL2. During project implementation, this component will swck to define co-management ntodes for -participator% PA managenieiit. These will be based on the ongoing experience of establishing pilot PA in Guyana under the fhrsl phase project as well as thc lessons learned from expcrienccs in other countries that involve indigenous communities and organizations, NGOs, keademic -institutions, and other stakeholders. nc tnodel to be proposed should include appropriate approaches for: (i) co-manaScumnt of conservation concessions and other forms of delegating the implementation and administrationi of protectvd areas; (ii) participatory processes and capacity building at theo cotnnunity level for developing site-specific co-management approaches. and (iii) instrtirmenits and guidelines fOr monitoring, and cvalualing co-managing institutions. This componient will also support developnient of a draft Guyana ProIevteldAreassystemAd for parlianwiitary consideration. Preparatiorn of the. drafl Acl would be donc on the basis of a lcgal diagnosis of Guyana's relevant laws and regulations, as well as an analysis of PA framncwork leislation in other countrics. Recormmnwdalions and lessons leamed in the course of designinig Ond carrying out activities related to PA establishment under the Phatse I project and the 0evelopment of co-management models will also serve as inputs into this lcgislation. Particular tt9cntion N%ill bc paid to establishingthie necessary linkagcs %%ith rclate;d legislation, includingthc 4iew Aimcrinidian Act, to ensurc cfTveeive protection of Arncrindian land and resource usc rights. tTc PRI -ill work closely with the Ministr) of Amerindian Affairs and othier line agencies to carry otit a coordinated dissemination and consultatiotn process oll the proposed legislation. k is cxpocted thu the Guyana Protected Areas System Act would include the following (for social safcguard purposcs): a definition of the categories of sustainable uIsC PAs to bc established *nd tic uscr rights that would apply, the mcchanisms fur ensuring local stakeholdcr agreemcnt with and participation in PA establishm;nt and managemcnt. thle participatory management planning process for the PAs (including definition of whal the management plan would includc, and spccil5cation of pussible co-nianagueicrnt arrangements); anid procedurcs for identifying and selecting, altrnDative incomc generating activities in atnd around thv, PAs. 4i additlion, this componcnt will fu nd tc. Bc 2 Syt2prEjo2s %sould bc for titled and dcmarcawAe communities, which would bc eligible for all of the abovc Type I activitics as well as implementation of subprojccts that could b, '' . impiccir.rteio;iia ot I y x I and 2 .subprojc ts would not bs ~itibwct t o di ursaneu.tu condlitionis thr (romnipoeitsi C 2 And D).. .,;, ,1 Ji , :: APR-08-05 10:20 AM OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 63395 P. 17 November 2004 locatcd on titmlcd/dinarcatcd land. Sonic cxamlples could include small cnterprises for heart of palm production. snwmll-scalc cocoa processing facilily and smTkall livestock raising. - ;* I?pe3 Subprojects woould be implemcnted onice subregiotial Amerindian land issues arc .tiqfactorily resolved in accordancc- with th% nmw Anwrindian Act, and PA boundaries arc * detcrmined. These subprojccts Nwould have the broadest cligibilit> criteria and could includc multi-village and/or subregional activities such as the dcvelopment of ocotourism (feasibilit) study, business plan, guest housc construvcion, ac.) or a multi-villagc crabxvood oil processing plant. . Becqusc thcy arc cither For preparator) activities (fypc I subprojecis) or sitc-specific income- . * jgencration activities restricted to alrcad' titled and demarcated lands (Type 2 subprojects), t'he implementntinn orT>pes I and 2 subprojects would not be subjcct to the disbursement conditions i for Components C.2 and D)2. As a Furtiher measure to ensure the protection of Amerindian land ; nd resoure: use rights under thc project, a default clausc has been added to thc draft Grant . Agrcenient ^llihcb provides for remedies if the Government were to rc%loke or abridgc any land or - lesource use rights grantixi under e\isting legislation. - E. mplementation Arrangennl.s The EPA ~%ould be thc implementinig agcncy for Lhc project, although the NGOs Conscrvation . ntWemational Guyana (CIG) and th. (ju'.ana Marine 'I'irtle Cinservntion socic4t (GMTCS) tespectivcl) swould execute most activitics in the pilot areas of Kaniuku Mountains and Shell - ach The FPA wvould establish a Projoct ITuplementation Jnit (PIU)1) dirctl) linked to thlc ; xccutivc Direclor of the EPA, to coordiniate the overall project, anid exectite the nuajorit) of ; activitics listed for Componints A and B. The PL) would bc composed of a Project Coordinalitor t. Wupporled by> administrativc and Wchnieal staffas well as specialized consultancios as needed. A . fUW-funded consultant would also bc contracted to assist thc PILJ in plainnling and supcnrising thc . crmiiah-fuzdcd activilics. Octailcd rolcs and rewponsibilition. as wcll as detailed projc't : . plementation procedures .%ill be included in the GPAS project Operational Manual. ' i ioa of a saLtisfactor Operational Manual is a condition of prq&cct effCclti%c.ncs5. , Thc EPA necds considerable instidttiional strengthening Lo efTectivcl) administer and managc the ; project and to provide the nceded technical expertise for adcquiate implementation and t ; updrvision ol all social and environmental .safeguard issucs outlined in this documcnt as -ell as the Social As;it-%%vncn1 Summary and the Process Framewvorkt for Mitigating Potential Livelihood A ' - Impacts. Such institutional strengthening is envisioned under the project, including technical I 45 :sistancc, capacit> building and iraining. Additional suiff and specialized consoltancics under V Wc project will includc succh disciplincs as rural sociology, anthropologt, strategic ornmiunications, naturat resource economics, coittlict resolution/mediation, PA matnagement and 'others, . Consenation Inticriational Gx)ana (00), as designated Lcad Agency for ceecuting the Kanuku Momntains pilot PA under Component D. has considcrable cxperience in conmniunity-bascd Iaturnl resotirce managemrnt and participatoTy approaches to bc folloN%ed under the proicct, and |'ill also usc specialized consultancics for specific tasks as nceded, such as site specific sociazi *Assessments Whilc the Guyana Marinc Ttirtle Conservationi Societ) has a long track record in :: mctivitics for the protectioni of cndang,ered turtlz species in Shbll rBcach, they would require more d.irect techiiical and administrative assistance to caram ollT education and participator) activitics as 'Lead Agenc3 for Shelf l 8ech. Operatling agrecrnenits to be signed with Cf. and the Guyana 14 |PR-08-05 10:21 AM OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 63395 P- 18 Novembor 2004 Marinc Turtle Conscr%ation Society, would require complianec with the projcct lcgal agreement and all ke) principIcs and'sarcguards outlincd in prmject doctincntulion. The Ministr) of Amnrindian Affairs (MoAA) would work closely witli the EPA and its project tarn in the designt and ilenuntatian of participator- managcmcnt, assising in t!:c r eolution u f Arnerindian lands clainms. and participating in conflict rvsolition mechanisms invoking Amerinidian concerns Mo AA will receive direct technical assistance under Component B 4 to :help it address Amerindian laid and resource use issucs rclated to the project. The; Minisiry %%ill also participate in the national PA advisory commitice to be established under the project. and collaboratc vwitli the EPA in the dcsign and implcmentation of the OPAS Grievance Mechanismi to bc establishe:d by project effectivoless. In addition, MoAA twchnical staff would be closely involvcd in activitics related to Amerindian conimunilties under Components C and 0, in -particular the dcsign and implemcnialion of pamrticipatory PA managemenit activities, as well as in the dcsigii of (;PAS guidclines and developmiient of appropriate legislative link-agcs for effective protection of Amerindian rig,hts under the PA framc%%ork lcgislation to be developed under Componnciit B. MoAA will also be respoosibic for facilitating the resolution of any land issucs that may arise in connection with the establishment of the two pilot PAs. A National Protccted Areas Advisory Committec would bc establishlcd under the project; this umilti-staLcholdcr stecrinp/mon;torinp rnminittel wmiuld pnrewivet aiiidsince- to the FPPA on the. tsablishmrcnt anld managcment of the GPAS and suppoil the inter-instilutional coordination at the - national lcX cl. In addition to thc national advisory comimiittcc, cach pilot PA undcr the project Would havc a local PA stecring committec comprised of reprcsentatives of local communities, ! egional govcrinment, NGOs, and other rdelvant local srakeholders. F. MHonroring and Epatuation Social sarcguard issLCs will bc nmonitorcd by tcchnical specialists conlractNd by thc EPA during ; project imnplenientation and by technical specialists participating in R.'nk-/Kf%' sipimision : missions, ot tc basis or sociat indicators included in the GPAS M&E plan, to bc furthcr refined throughout project implementation At the local level, they will be monitored by the lead ageticies in coordination with thc local stocring committees and othcr sLakuholdcr reprcscntatii cs : io a participator) mannner to be agreed during projet impkmentation. *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ....St .:lu estimated cost of implomentinp the above social safiguard mechanisms will be approximatcls US$970,000. 1 5 .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .,,*