E1185Volume 2
REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
AT
SAPO NATIONAL PARK
PROCESS FRAMEWORKApril 2005
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Table of ContentsTable of Contents ....................... 1List of Key Acronyms ...................... 2Executive Summary ...................... 3A. Introduction ...................... 4
Al. Description of Project Components ............................. ,.4A2. Background on Sapo National Park .5A3. Requirements of World Bank Operational Policy (OP) 4.12 .7
B. Criteria to Determine Eligibility of Communities and Project Persons8B 1. Initial Actions to Identify PAPs .8B2. PAPs in the post-conflict period .9B3. Criteria for Determining PAPs .11B4. Who Can Be a PAP and How Might They Be Addresed? . 12
C. Measures to Assist project Affected Persons ................................... 12C 1. Methodology to integrate affected people and communities into the process of developingCommunal Forest Management Plans .13C2. Training Needs and Training .15
D. Resolution of Potential Conflicts or Grievances within or betweenAffected Communities ........................ ............................ 16
Dl. Grievance Redress .17
E. Administrative and Legal Procedures ........................................... 17El. Project Management and Executing Agencies .17E2. Finances to Ensure Participation of PAPs .18
F. Monitoring Arrangements .................................................... 18
Appendix 1. Excerpt from the Draft Communal Forest EstablishmentManual on Communal Forest Creation .................................................. 20
Appendix G. Brief Description of Mercy Corps' CommunityDevelopment Committee ................. 31
1
List of Key Acronyms
BCSNP - Biodiversity Conservation at Sapo National Park (this project)CAII - Creative Alternatives International IncorporatedCDC - Community Development Committee (a model developed by Mercy Corps)CEC - County Environment CommitteeCF - Communal ForestCFEC - Communal Forest Establishment CommitteeCFMP - Communal Forest Management PlanCIP - Community Involved in the ProjectDDRRR - Disamnmament, Demobilisation, Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and ReconciliationDEC - District Environment CommitteeDWNP - Division of Wildlife and National ParksEIA - Environmental Impact AssessmentEPA - Environmental Protection AgencyESMF - Environment and Social Management FrameworkFDA - Forestry Development AuthorityFFI - Fauna & Flora InternationalFPI - Forest Partners InternationalGEF - Global Environment FacilityGoL - Government of LiberiaIDP - Internally Displaced PersonIUCN - World Conservation UnionNGO - Non-Governmental OrganisationNTFP - Non-Timber Forest ProductOP - (World Bank) Operational PolicyPAPs - People Affected by the ProjectPFD A - Project Development Facility Block A grant of the GEFPF - Process FrameworkPRA - Participatory Rural AppraisalSCNL - Society for the Conservation of Nature of LiberiaSNP - Sapo National ParkUNHCR - United Nations High Commission for RefugeesUNMIL - United Nations Mission in LiberiaUNOPS - United Nations Office for Project ServicesUSAID - United States Agency for International DevelopmentWWF - World-Wide Fund for Nature
2
Executive SummaryIn the context of the Biodiversity Conservation at Sapo National Park (BCSNP) project, the projectproponents - Government of Liberia (GoL) and Fauna & Flora International (FFI) - are required toprepare a Process Framework (PF) for the mitigation of social impacts due to restrictions inaccess to the economic resources of Sapo National Park in the areas where the Park was recentlyextended and where a management presence will be established by this project for the first time.Questions of access to areas of the Park gazetted and protected since 1983 were resolved in the1980s and are not part of this PF.
It is also possible that certain stakeholders find their access to areas surrounding Sapo Parkrestricted by the creation of Communal Forests. Because Communal Forests (CFs) represent ameans to give control of forest areas to rural communities who depend on them for cultural andeconomic ends, and because communities request voluntarily the establishment of CFs after aprocess of extensive assessments and negotiation, any resource-use restrictions imposed areknowingly accepted by the beneficiary community and are not grounds for mitigation measures.However outsiders who legitimately meet 'Persons-Affected-by-the-Project' (PAPs) criteria whoare not part of the beneficiary community and have their access restricted will need to have theirlosses mitigated, too.
The PF establishes the process by which members of potentially affected social groups, inparticular communities, participate in designing specific project activities (some of whose overallcontent they already designed during project preparation), determine measures necessary toachieve resettlement policy objectives, and implement and monitor relevant project activities.Changes in access to resources will be addressed by encouraging participation of communities inmanagement activities for the Park and adjacent resources. During project implementation, usingparticipatory processes described in this PF, plans will be negotiated describing the specificmeasures to be taken to assist the impacted persons and arrangements for their implementation.The objective of the PF is to establish an enabling environment in which the Persons Affected bythe Project may participate in mitigating against negative impacts they would undergo. PAPsprovide input into project activities, determine necessary measures to reduce social impactscaused by limiting their access, and negotiate resource management and development assistance(mitigation) plans. Potential conflicts between stakeholders such as hunters, miners, tree-users,farmers and non-timber forest product (NTFP) collectors, whose access to resources in SapoNational Park and in surrounding CFs is restricted, and those responsible for implementingLiberia's wildlife, conservation and communal forest laws/regulations, will be addressed throughthese negotiated plans under the auspices of the appropriate County and District EnvironmentCommittees (or interim surrogates) that will serve as conflict resolution committees. Thesecommittees include the participation of all relevant stakeholders from all socio-economicbackgrounds. To avert or significantly minimize opportunities for conflict, the project will build thecapacity of the committees in conflict resolution at two levels: preventative and remedial.Monitoring arrangements would fit the overall monitoring plan of the BCSNP project which will becarried out by the Liberian Forestry Development Authority (FDA) and FFI. Local communitieswould participate in monitoring through their District Environment Committee (DEC). These areoverseen by the appropriate County Environment Committee (CEC) which will monitorimplementation of plans of the PAPs.
PAPs are those persons that depend on their access to the specific (geographically defined)resources to maintain their standard of living. These groups of persons (stakeholders) will bedetermined by Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) processes described in this PF.The World Bank requires the project proponents to disclose this PF in Liberia where it can beaccessed by the public and at the Infoshop of the World Bank. The date of disclosure mustprecede the date of appraisal of the project.
3
A. Introduction
Al. Description of Project ComponentsThe Government of Liberia requested the World Bank to finance its Biodiversity Conservation atSapo National Park Project with Global Environment Facility (GEF) funds, with the long-term goalof contributing to the establishment and sustainability of Sapo National Park (SNP) as the flagshipprotected area of Liberia. This project's 5-year development objective is to consolidatemanagement and development of Sapo National Park and peripheral communal forests as part oflandscape-level development. To achieve these objectives, this project is structured into fivecomponents, namely:
* Component 1: Building up Park management operations and co-ordination mechanisms;* Component 2: Strengthening the capacity of Park staff and the Division of Wildlife &
National Parks (DWNP) of the Liberian Forestry Development Authority (FDA) to manageSapo Park and expand the national network of parks and reserves in accordance withnational policies, laws and regulations, as well as to international standards;
* Component 3: Launching a programme of environmental education and conservation/Parkawareness around SNP;
* Component 4: Continuing research, monitoring of biological parameters and resource-useat SNP and in surrounding areas, and regional/international conservation planning forsouth-east Liberia; and
* Component 5: Supporting integrated sustainable development & communityempowerment, specifically establishing and managing communal forests around SNP, andsupporting income-generating activities, sustainable agriculture and general ruraldevelopment in a manner that supports Sapo Park and communal forests.
Under components 1 and 5, Sapo National Park and/or local communities will receive funding toimplement small-scale infrastructure sub-projects or other development activities, as well ascommunal forest management plans. They will also include establishing a management presence,whether for strict protection or protection as 'Communal Forests' (CF) of the recently gazettedPark extensions and Park buffer zone, respectively.
Component 5 will entail establishing and managing communal forests as well as piloting ruraldevelopment activities compatible with communal forests and the Park. Regarding the formeractivity, environmental sustainability is inherent in all aspects of communal forest management.The Communal Forest Establishment Manual (excerpted in Appendix 1) requires that a communityagree on the specific objectives of its communal forest, and work with the FDA to develop amanagement plan that the community executes with assistance from the FDA if needed, and ismonitored by the FDA. These plans must respect the overall restrictions set out in Liberia's Act forthe Protected Forest Area Network (2003) which describes a communal forest as "an area setaside legally or temporarily by regulation for the sustainable use of non-timber forest products bylocal communities on a non-commercial basis.... Acts prohibited in Communal Forests shallinclude: No prospecting, mining, farming or commercial timber extraction. Other uses are to beregulated by the designated local community with assistance from local authorities and declaredby Regulations of the Authority." The manual furthermore requires that in the case of a communalforest doubling as a buffer zone to a strictly protected area, additional protective measures may berequired to ensure the associated park or nature reserve is fully protected.The second part of Component 5 consists of working with international and Liberian NGOs whowill facilitate villages to prepare detailed, prioritized assessments of development needs, incollaboration with relevant FDA staff. The international NGOs will then provide modest start-upgrants to communities to address health, education, income-generating activities, agriculturalintensification, apiculture, fishponds, etc. Successful initiatives can be expanded later with largergrants. Development activities will be executed nearly entirely by communities themselves, with
4
international and possibly national NGOs providing only technical support and start-up capital.Without proper screening and co-ordination with Park and communal forest managers, theseactivities have the potential to undermine rather than support the project objectives.Avoiding and mitigating the negative environmental impacts described above will be accomplishedthrough implementing the project's Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF).A2. Background on Sapo National ParkBefore the recent conflict. Sapo National Park was established in 1983. No hunting, fishing,farming, settlement, mining, NTFP collection or any other use of its resources has since beenpermitted within its borders. After its establishment in 1983, all inhabitants moved out of the areaand ceased all agriculture within it. In approximately 1983-85, GoL compensated them andanyone else who lost assets like farmland or infrastructure. Since then the Park's boundaries andthe compensation provided have not to FFI's knowledge been contested by localpeople/communities. Communities have complained to the FDA and NGOs supporting the Parkthat they have received insufficient development assistance and compensation for crop losses dueto wildlife blamed on the Park, but they have not seriously contested the Park's existence.
The area within Sapo National Park's boundaries is not considered to contain a viable ecosystem.Two large, uninhabited, adjacent and nearly intact forest blocks covering 54,100 hectares - to thewest and the north of the Park's current area - were proposed in 1983 (western extension only)and again in 1997 as extensions of the Park's core area. The FDA prepared documentation forthe extensions as early as 1999, although no action was taken until 2002 when the boundarieswere fine-tuned and the required Acts were drafted. The National Assembly formally passed theAct expanding the Park, followed by Presidential signature, in October 2003.Prior to the fighting of 2003, the Park extensions had been subject to occasional, non-intensivelegal use by local residents (hunting and NTFP collection). Local residents carried out alluvial goldmining, too, in one of these areas although it was technically illegal without the appropriate permitfrom the Ministry of Lands, Mines and Energy and the FDA expelled the miners. The two forestblocks have also been used for commercial purposes by non-local hunters and loggers. Loggingin these areas was (debatably) illegal under the Forestry Law of 2000.Until 1990, Sapo Park's management successfully led community outreach via Liberian NGOs andinternational partners like the Peace Corps, the World-Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the WorldConservation Union (IUCN). During the first war, fighting was intense in the Park area and thelocal population dispersed. When the conflict ended, the Society for the Conservation of Nature ofLiberia (SCNL) and its intemational partners mobilised support for an assessment of the Park,clearing its boundaries, offering rudimentary stipends and equipment to surviving Park staff and, inearly 1998, undertaking an assessment of community development needs around the Park. Thislast survey revealed a fluid situation in which local residents had lost nearly everything and thelocal economy had to re-start from scratch. However relatively little development assistance waschanneled to the communities around the Park from 1997 to early 2003.
Villages around the Park increasingly expressed frustration with the talk of development supportnot followed by action in the semi-peace from 1997-early 2003. During preparation of the 18-Month Operational Plan in March 2001, a problem analysis was conducted for the Park andsurrounding zones, but it did not lead to significant support to communities as many developmentNGOs withdrew from Sinoe County in 2001-02.In March 2002, with PDF A support, participatory rural appraisals (PRAs') were again conductedfocusing on communities near the Park's then-proposed extensions (to the west and north of thePark), looking at local resource-use and economic linkages with the Park and surrounding forests.They also updated development levels and priorities since the 1998 survey.
' The term 'PRA' is a generic label for a group of participatory approaches and methods that emphasis local knowledgeand enable PAPs to make their own appraisal, analysis and plans. The purpose of the PRA here is to provide theinformation basis to enable development practitioners, government officials, PAPs and all other stakeholders to identifyand negotiate solutions, monitor progress towards these solutions and evaluate achievements.
5
This information was combined with the analysed satellite images from the Liberia Forest Re-assessment Project and the results of the biological monitoring program (see GEF project brief) todevise the zoning whereby the Park would be extended to the west and the north, and a bufferzone of sustainably used forests would be secured around the core protected area. This proposedzoning intended to balance biological considerations - areas of high biological integrity intendedfor strict protection - with local human considerations - traditionally used forest areas andresources. The Park extensions were designed to avoid curtailing in any significant way localcommunities' livelihoods. Apart from light hunting and accompanying NTFP collection (plus illegalalluvial mining) in the proposed extensions, communities did not appear to utilise them.Surrounding the expanded Park boundaries were areas of forest regularly used by localcommunities for subsistence, small-scale commercial and cultural purposes. Under the proposedproject, these areas may be made into a buffer zone where low-impact uses of forest resourcesare permitted but permanent tree cover must be maintained.Local villages do not have any legal authority over their traditionally used forests and forestresources. They complained intensely in late 2002 about outsiders coming with permits forlogging, hunting or other extractive purposes, who do not respect local needs or authority.In response, the project proposes to pilot the 'communal forest' legal mechanism at Sapo Park tomeet local needs and defending traditional forest use patterns, as well as to protect areas ofbiological importance. This is particularly true for the Putu Ridges to the north of the Park: whilethey are thought to be botanically exceptional, and possibly used for seasonal animal migrations,local uses of the forest are high and conservation efforts would be unsuccessful and damaging tolocal relations if these areas were strictly protected.The PDF A supported Park-planning workshops in Nov-Dec 2002 that brought together at the Parkover 130 representatives from around the Park, mostly chiefs and leaders of women's and youthorganisations, and another 50 stakeholders in Monrovia (Goverment, universities, the press,development agencies, Liberian and INGOs, and more). The workshops validated the problemanalysis from March 2001, highlighting the following changes:- in response to local frustration with being excluded from Park information and decision-making, workshop participants designed a two-tiered local participation structure (district-based liaison groups, a Park Management Advisory Council) to communicate with Parkmanagers and provide input to management decisions (see activity 1.4);- farmers expressed increasing concern about crop damage from wildlife which they attribute tothe Park (addressed under activity 4.2);- all participants were alarmed about logging in the western extension of the Park (whichceased in January 2003);- commercial hunting had increased and threatened local authority and management systems(addressed by the creation of communal forests and stepping up law enforcement);- the Park extensions were debated with some local participants expressing reservations thatthey can lose access to traditionally used resources and most welcoming them if communalforests are created and local development assistance is provided.; and- local residents eagerly welcomed the creation of communal forests as a means to empowerthem over traditionally used forest resources, even if it entails some restrictions on forest use(i.e. no farm clearance, mining or settlement).
Gender issues were explicitly addressed at the 2002 workshops. Women and youth reported noparticular restrictions or losses on them imposed by the Park, apart from crop damage. Theywould welcome communal forest creation, especially if accompanied by development assistancein the forms of schools, safe water supply, health care and village-based income-generatingincentive activities (see project Component 5).Since the recent conflict. When fighting engulfed south-east Liberia in March-April 2003, all Parkmanagement activities ceased and Park staff were evacuated. The local economy again
6
collapsed temporarily and the Park was left completely unprotected. There were widespreadmovements of internally displaced people, generally towards Monrovia where relief was mostavailable. By October 2003, mostly rebels and some local individuals entered the Park to minealluvial gold deposits in three sites inside the Park, all apparently in the pre-extension, core area.While the country and United Nations peace-keepers focused on establishing law and order, andon disarming and demobilising warring factions, the mining settlements inside the Park grew froma few hundred to a few thousand people. Hunters, businesspeople and relatives settled in thecamps to serve the miners and the large demand nationally for bushmeat. While widely decriednationally and internationally, their activities went almost entirely unhindered through March 2005.On several occasions throughout 2004 and early 2005 the invaders were informed of the illegalnature of their activities and presence: FDA park rangers informed them of this, beginning in thefirst half of 2004, arresting a few individuals. FDA management and environmental NGOsinformed villages surrounding the Park where many invaders were present, in particular in visits inAugust 2004. UN helicopters dropped information leaflets into the camps by air in late 2004 andmade visits to the camps beginning in March 2005. In early 2005, Park staff systematically visitedall mining/hunting camps as well as all villages surrounding the Park, informing them thatextractive activities and settlement inside the Park are illegal and must stop immediately.
A3. Requirements of World Bank Operational Policy (OP) 4.12Components 1 and 5 will likely result in cases of denial of access, or restriction or limitation ofaccess, to economic assets and resources of people and communities around Sapo National Park.This could happen in one of two ways:
(1) although surveys in March 2002 showed that the Park's northern and western extensions wereuninhabited, as a management presence is established in these areas for the first time, accessto forest resources used by some (hunters principally, possibly miners and NTFP users) will berestricted, triggering OP 4.12.
(2) Communal Forests represent a means to give control of forest areas to rural communities whodepend on them for cultural and economic ends. Communities voluntarily request Governmentto establish a CF based on a process of extensive assessments and negotiation outlined in theCommunal Forest Establishment Manual (excerpted in Appendix 1) so that any resource-userestrictions imposed are identified and knowingly accepted by the beneficiary communityduring the process of CF establishment. Footnote 6 of Bank Operational Policy (OP) 4.12states "This policy does not apply to restrictions of access to natural resources undercommunity-based projects, i.e. where the community using the resources decides to restrictaccess to these resources, provided that an assessment satisfactory to the Bank establishesthat the community decision-making process is adequate, and that it provides for identificationof appropriate measures to mitigate adverse impacts, if any, on the vulnerable members of thecommunity." Thus any limitations the beneficiary community/-ies knowingly accept whenestablishing a CF are not grounds for mitigation or compensation measures. However anyoutsiders who legitimately meet criteria 'Persons-Affected-by-the-Project' criteria (see later),who are not part of the beneficiary community/-ies and who have their access restricted willneed to have their losses mitigated. The process by which this happens is described in the CFEstablishment Manual.
When either of these 2 scenarios occurs, relevant provisions of the laws of Liberia (see section 6of the Environment and Social Management Framework - ESMF) and World Bank OP4.12 onInvoluntary Resettlement will be triggered.
The project proponents, namely FFI and the Government of Liberia, are therefore required toprepare a Process Framework (PF) - this document - to mitigate social impacts due to theserestrictions in access to the economic resources of the Sapo Park extensions and the forestssurrounding the Park that are made into communal forests. The World Bank requires that this PFis publicly disclosed in Liberia where it can be accessed by the public and at the Infoshop of theWorld Bank. The date of disclosure must precede the date of appraisal of the project.
7
This PF establishes the process by which members of potentially affected communities participatein determining measures necessary to achieve resettlement policy objectives, and in designing,implementing and monitoring relevant project and mitigation activities. For those losing access toresources in the Park's extensions - "type 1 PAPs" for the purpose of this PF - changes in accessto resources will be addressed by outright compensation measures to be designed, implementedand monitored by the affected people and project partners, unless the access is non-consumptive(i.e. sites used for rituals, burials, etc.) in which case access for such purposes will be negotiatedwith Park management.
For PAPs who lose access to resources within CFs but are not part of the beneficiary community -"type 2 PAPs" - their losses will be identified and solutions negotiated with them as an integral partof the CF establishment process (see Appendix 1). These solutions could consist of allowing type2 PAPs periodic access to the CF resources, assigning these PAPs resource-use rights in othernearby forests, and/or compensatory development measures. As individual Communal ForestManagement Plans (CFMPs) are prepared through the participatory processes described in theCF Establishment Manual, but before the CFs are set up, the CFMPs will incorporate specificmeasures to assist impacted persons and arrangements for their implementation.
The objective of this PF is to establish an enabling environment in which PAPs participate inmitigating against negative impacts. It includes the PAPs providing input into project activities,determining measures to reduce impacts caused by limiting access, and developing managementand monitoring plans. Potential conflicts between stakeholders such as hunters, miners, loggers,farmers and NTFP collectors whose access to resources in the Park and surrounding CFs isrestricted or outlawed, and those responsible for implementing Liberia's wildlife, conservation andcommunal forest laws/regulations, will be addressed through these negotiated plans under theauspices of the appropriate County and District Environment Committees (or interim surrogates)that will serve as conflict resolution committees. These committees include the participation of allrelevant stakeholders from all socio-economic backgrounds. The project will pay particularattention to the needs of vulnerable groups and especially those below the poverty line, thelandless, the elderly, women and children, internally displaced persons, indigenous peoples andethnic minorities.
Because land titling for local communities may take place as Communal Forests are established,the risk of resettlement of people exists in theory. CF boundaries will be determined in a mannerso that denial or restricting access to economic resources does not lead to involuntary physicalrelocation of PAPs. Land acquisition and any other activity that leads to the involuntary physicalrelocation of people will not be approved for World Bank/GEF funding.
B. Criteria to Determine Eligibility of Communities and ProjectAffected PersonsIf access to resources is limited or stopped as a consequence of this project, the first step inpreparing compensation and other mitigation measures is to identify who are the project-affectedpersons, which could be entire communities. Project Affected Persons are those who depend onaccess to the resources to maintain their standard of living. These persons/communities havebeen determined by a participatory rural appraisal (PRA) process. This diagnosis will serve as apoint of reference to determine who the PAPs are at the project outset. It is critically importantalso to determine the identities and number of people/communities who depend for their livelihoodon economic resources on the one hand in the Park extensions, and on the other hand in theproposed CFs.
B1. Initial Actions to Identify PAPsTo identify PAPs initially and minimise potential resettlement of livelihoods, the PDF A supportedPRAs in March 2002 that visited 20 villages of 10 houses or more within 5 km of the extensionboundaries. Teams mapped settlements including all infrastructure, as well as associated smallersettlements and resource-use focusing on economic linkages with the Park, its proposedextensions and surrounding forests. They assessed demographics, active communityorganisations, recent history and development levels & priorities. An estimated 8000+ people
8
lived in the area and were thus directly or indirectly surveyed. The report is in the project files andis available upon request from FFI.
The PRA team (composed entirely of Liberian FDA or NGO staff) determined that Park extensionswould not significantly affect local residents or the local economy (as it functioned in late 2002).Those who would be affected were hunters and miners, who did not provide reliable quantitativedata on their activities, possibly for fear of punitive action. Because they knew subsistencehunting of non-protected species is permitted and mining is allowed with appropriate permits, theirreticence indicates they might be involved in illicit activities. The project proponents found noevidence that their legal (or illegal) use of the (then-proposed) Park extensions representedsignificant portions of their incomes or of the local economy. Given the extent of forest in the area,and the possibility of restricting local hunting to residents only through creating communal forests,the importance of hunting in the proposed extensions would have been further diminished andcompensated by gains in controlling hunting in communal forests.
However the PRA team felt Park staff urgently needed to address the following local issues:- crop damage by wildlife,- commercial hunting and alluvial gold mining by local residents and outsiders,- the lack of any means for communities to communicate with Park staff effectively and to
participate in Park management, and- addressing local development needs which tended to be (in order of priority) education, health
including water & sanitation, and roads & bridges.
On the basis of information from the PRAs, as well as 2001 satellite imagery and faunal surveys,the communal forest boundaries in Map 1 were proposed, while the exact metes and bounds forthe Park extensions were refined. The rationale underlying this included (a) restricting traditional,legal uses of the forest by local residents as little as possible in the extensions, (b) securing legalcontrol for communities over the forest areas they traditionally have moderate to high dependenceon (for subsistence, commercial or cultural purposes), (c) ensuring key forest areas for Sapo Parkthat will better ensure its long-term ecological integrity, and (d) buffering and even halting externalencroachment on the Park by securing a sustainable-use forest belt around the Park. Anotherreason for proposing these specific boundaries is that they were not likely to provoke conflictbetween the Park and local communities, whose support the Park needs over the long-term.B2. PAPs in the post-conflict period.The fighting, economic collapse and demographic movements of 2003-to-present profoundly butprobably only temporarily altered the socio-economic conditions surrounding the Park. Footnote 6of OP 4.12 ends by stating "This policy does not cover refugees from natural disasters, war, or civilstrife." The United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) and relief agencies like UNHCR, andINGOs were responsible to deal with rebels, refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) inthe post-conflict period of 2003-04. Those who invaded the Park since the fighting and since thepresent project was agreed are considered either IDPs or squatters. Those that are not able toreturn to their villages for security concerns are IDPs, while those who could return but feel theeconomic opportunity of mining and hunting in the Park is better than returning home are the latter.The fact that these individuals took up illegal activities inside the Park at a time of total break-downof law and order must be considered. Rebels and villagers have knowingly pursued illegalactivities and maintained them inside the Park, especially after having been warned numeroustimes in 2004 and early 2005. Widespread allegations of complicity of local and nationalauthorities in the mining and bushmeat trade do not justify their actions. If the allegations are truethey demonstrate how disrupted the local economy was where any cash-generating activity, evenillegal ones, and rent-seeking from them, were considered the most attractive options.From the perspective of securing Sapo Park, it would seriously undermine the Park and the WorldBank-GEF project to give any indication that compensation might be given preferentially to peoplewho invaded the Park (the original area, not the extensions) knowing it was illegal. It would set theworst sort of precedent to reward law-breakers and, by default, penalise law-abiders. FFI, theFDA and their partners will assess the disturbance caused by the invasion to the Park's originalarea and its biodiversity, while the Bank will ensure independent monitoring/supervision of the
9
relocation of these squatters back into the communities they came from. Because the extensionswere gazetted in October 2003 and this news was not rapidly communicated to Sinoe County,people who went into the extensions might be justified if they said they did not know they were inthe Park. These could be considered PAPs.Map 1. Original boundaries of Sapo Park, its 2003 extensions & proposed CF buffer zone (source: LFR).
* socio-economic survey sites > I C.*towns - r~- major roads I g
Sapo National Park ( '_ park extension -- -\
proposed communal torests
-A ~~~4-~ -, , , |Duao
a P-dke rL~
-L ~ N
I V J) ': ~ ~ I . I
t - ~ -*Jedepo t ) hpp
Jb3,'ior~ s i 5 1 ion
Sapo National Park
Map 2. Locations of known mining camps inside Sapo Park as of March 2005 (source: Conservation Int.).
Sapo ationj Park
J hebh's,- Tk j X= s T
X 2, 0~~~~~~~~~IA Baghdad \D
v m Spo NtoPark Gba60ni (W 8 45, N 5.3nl P -
) 5 _) * / . *~~~~~~~~~Rock| own )*'$
(estimate)i.
. . s_ * . * ~~~~Dudowicken */J,< ,
* large settlements l*/iil . mining sites / _u
A Gbabonm research station . /t Sapo National Park t~-|t0+_ ¢es1
10~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A major objective of this PF is to determine who is a PAP. In the post-conflict upheaval of south-east Liberia, for the purpose of this PF it is proposed that:
. UNMIL, UNHCR and specialised NGOs will address all disarmament, demobilisation,rehabilitation, reintegration and reconciliation (DDRRR) needs of ex-combatants. None ofthem will be entitled to any compensation from this project as per OP 4.12's footnote 6,unless a combatant can prove (s)he was a user of the Park extensions prior to the fightingarriving. In many cases combatants were recruited from villages as the fighting sweptthrough, so some combatants may fall into this category.
. As per OP 4.12's footnote 6, local inhabitants who sought refuge inside the Park during thefighting will not be entitled to compensation, and anyone who entered the original Parkarea since the fighting knowing it was the Park will not be entitled to special treatment.
. Therefore no one will be allowed any compensation for activities inside the original Parkboundaries. Compensation will be considered for the Park extensions. Residents ofonly those villages near the Park extensions (i.e. to the west and to the north) may beeligible for any compensation. No hunters external to these villages will be eligible, even ifthey have hunted in the extensions, unless they did so based upon traditional rights andnot due to permits issued to them or to them being allowed by traditional authorities to huntthere temporarily.
. No one who has committed significant law infractions inside the Park - such asmasterminding hunting or mining activities, rent-seeking from these activities, makingsignificant investments in infrastructure inside the Park, or killing of major charismaticwildlife like elephants - will be eligible for compensation, even if (s)he used to use theresources in the Park extensions. As is common practice in western law, by committing amajor crime a person forfeits ordinary rights. The FDA will be the judge of what constitutesa 'significant' law infraction, in recognition of the need for reconciliation, and will agreeprecise amnesty (or prosecution) policies towards different crimes committed in the Park.
. The Liberian DDRRR experience shows that villagers presenting themselves fraudulently ishighly likely if compensation were offered to everyone who said (s)he used resources in thePark extensions prior to recent fighting or without knowledge of their gazettement (i.e.without knowledge they were doing something illegal), and without knowing that the useswere illegal (i.e. villagers knew mining was illegal without a permit, and hunting of protectedspecies was illegal; so these activities do not constitute the grounds for compensation).Therefore a system must be set up whereby fraud is minimized and local communityauthorities rather than outsiders are made judges of who deserves compensation. Itargues also for a system whereby compensation can be delivered more effectively tocommunities than to individuals by outside agencies. This system would work by theproject offering assistance to affected communities, not individuals. Individuals wholost/lose livelihoods may present a case for special assistance to their communal forestmanagement committee/council or community council in charge of programmingdevelopment assistance. To prevent fraud, a zero-sum game per village must beestablished so that a community does not gain any additional support for having individualswho lost livelihoods due to the Park's expansion. Instead, losses due to the Parkextensions will be assessed at the community level with those communities sufferinglosses to receive additional development support in compensation according to the dataproduced from the PRAs described in the following paragraph.
B3. Criteria for Determining PAPsTo identify definitively in the post-conflict period all type-1 PAPs - i.e. those who suffer losses dueto the establishment of a management presence in the Park extensions - the NGOs 'ForestPartners International' (FPI, Philadelphia, USA) and 'the Society for the Conservation of Nature ofLiberia' (SCNL, Monrovia, Liberia) independently carried out from December 2004 to March 2005a series of PRAs of communities potentially affected by the Park extensions. This included anassessment of their overall livelihood activities and those livelihoods dependant upon the Parkextensions. These assessments are both qualitative and quantitative to the extent possible, and
11
take account of the evolution of livelihoods and demographics in the areas concerned. Theparticipatory diagnosis used standard and replicable tools such as PRA that attempted to identifystakeholders having activities, even seasonal ones, in the Sapo Park extensions. It recordedwhere the PAPs were - and thus how to contact them - and the types of resources affected. Itmapped the activities and evaluated the extent and timetable of resource use. The diagnosisupdated general information on neighbouring lands and village clusters. The diagnosis will serveas a t=O baseline against which to monitor changes and impacts of compensatory measures forPAPs, and the methodology is easily replicated to allow follow-up diagnoses for monitoring.Information on PAPs from the diagnoses will be available in English from project and Park staff.This can be easily translated into local languages by DECs (or surrogates) and local auxiliariesworking alongside Park staff so that the information reaches all social levels.
The FPI methodology is available upon request from FFI (africa(afauna-flora.ora) and FPI(forestpartners(-comcast.net). The preliminary report and data are available at the time of writing(March 2005) from the same sources. People who entered (encroached on) the zone after theconclusion of the participatory appraisal will not be eligible for consideration as type 1 PAPs.
To determine identities and numbers of type 2 PAPs - namely those who suffer losses due to theestablishment of communal forests and are not part of the beneficiary community - the CommunalForest Establishment Manual includes a process of identifying all users of the target CF, whetheryear-round or seasonal, current or former. All relevant (type 2) PAPs must be identified, contactedand play a role in identifying the boundaries of a CF, in determining the membership of theCommunal Forest Establishment/Management Committee, in developing and executing the CFmanagement plan, and in benefiting from the CF. Sections 3.1, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 of the CFEstablishment Manual outline these processes (see Appendix 1). Any person identified as a type2 PAP will be consulted on an on-going basis, as outlined in the Manual, and thus be able toparticipate in meetings and decisions concerning management of the forest resources in questionand/or mitigation and compensation measures.
B4. Who Can Be a PAP and How Might They Be Addresed?PAPs include all groups of stakeholders and their families and dependants/households dependenton the resources of the Park extensions (type 1 PAPs) or communal forests (type 2 PAPs) asprimary or secondary sources of livelihood. They include, for example, fishermen and all fisheries-related people, agriculturists, NTFP-collectors, crafts people, pastoralists, hunters, artisanalminers, firewood collectors, and other local wood-cutters/users. PAPs include groups that practiceseasonal occupations or second-profession activities and who depend on this second activity asan alternate source of income when their main livelihood fails due to whatever reason.
Depending on the type of PAP and the identified impact, affected people will be able to benefitfrom a menu of compensation and mitigation measures including, in the short term, temporaryunskilled labor (for civil works contracts, etc.) as part of the DDRRR process, and alternativeincome-generating activities like cash crops, Park employment and others to be identified andnegotiated over the medium and long terms. PAPs will participate in the decision-makingprocesses that may restrict or deny access to the resources as outlined in the participatorymanagement structures to be established under the project (see the GEF project brief), the CFEstablishment Manual and the ESMF.
All communities adjacent to impacted zones are to be considered as involved. PAPs are aseparate and distinct group from Communities Involved by the Project (CIP's) insofar as they livein adjacent villages. All adjacent villages are CIP's. Villages situated further away, which aretraditionally dependent on the CIPs through customary land tenure, are also considered CIPs.People other than those in the CIPs, i.e. non-adjacent PAPs depending in one way or another onresources in the protected areas, will be identified and eligible for compensation measures throughthe PRAs of type 1 PAPs and through the CF establishment process for type 2 PAPs.
C. Measures to Assist project Affected PersonsTypes 1 and 2 PAPs in this project will be assisted and their participation sought through theprovision of community-based employment and development schemes (type 1 PAPs), and through
12
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
implementing communal forest management plans (type 2 PAPs). In these schemes and plans,mitigation measures will be taken in order to fully restore the income base of the affected people,cognizant that the economy of south-east Liberia is undergoing profound changes and that short-term measures will differ from medium-term and long-term measures as the economy leaves thepost-war period.
These community-based employment and development schemes and communal forestmanagement plans will be "stand alone" documents and will be reviewed and approved by theFDA and FFI. They will comply with the provisions of the disclosed Environmental and SocialManagement Framework prepared as a standalone document for this project.
Rather than create new and duplicative structures, the PF seeks to build on existing or plannedstructures within the BCSNP project, and broader national rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts.Thus the mechanisms and structures used in this PF for identifying PAPs & assessing losses,ensuring PAPs' and CIPs' participation in the design and implementation of mitigation measures,monitoring livelihoods and outcomes of mitigation measures, and delivering developmentassistance and employment, are already built into the BCSNP project and other agencies' (Govt.of Liberia, USAID, Mercy Corps, UNOPS, CAII, UNMIL, etc.) activities. Inter-village associationswill be important in the forms of County-, District-, Town- and Village-level committees for thenegotiation of natural resource uses and determination of appropriate compensatory measureswhen needed.
Cl. Methodology to integrate affected people and communities into the process ofdeveloping Communal Forest Management PlansPotential and existing areas in and around Sapo National Park where economic activities may berestricted or denied to PAPs have been or will be determined based on biodiversity conservationneeds, current forest policies and local regulations.
Type 1 PAPs. Type 1 PAPs will receive first priority in the short-term through labour-intensive,infrastructural work programmes as law and order are restored to the Park. The 2002management planning workshops, FPI's PRAs of December 2004-March 2005, earlier surveys oflocal community livelihoods and development priorities (March 2002, March 1998) and UNOPS'sJanuary 2005 visit to the Park provide a solid basis for designing short-term, labour-intensiveworks programmes to restore key Park and village infrastructure. The approach will involveoffering employment based and organised out of the villages surrounding the Park for localresidents, while at the same time offering employment far away from the Park for non-localoccupants of the Park as they are encouraged to leave. No special treatment for those leaving thePark and returning to local villages will be given so not to establish an incentive for people toinvade the Park in the hope of gaining employment.
A labor-intensive construction programme for the Park will be pursued in the short-term, building orre-building a Park visitor's center, the safari/research camp near Jalay's town, a permanentmeeting hall (sturdier than the one of thatch from 2001), two Park sub-stations, ten rangeroutposts, and possibly trails and demarcating the boundary. The work will draw on FDA andespecially the Park's staff as foremen to re-establish the FDA's authority and legitimacy at thePark, and for FDA to be seen as a provider of benefits. Infrastructural works will be doneaccording to an infrastructural master-plan whose development FFI will support. The elements ofthe master-plan were defined during the November-December 2002 Park management planningworkshops, in which participated 110 representatives of local communities, and another 50 of localauthorities, FDA staff, NGOs and development agencies. The master-plan will be subjected to allthe reviews and approvals required in the ESMF, as well as Liberia's two environmental laws.Because Liberia's capacity to enact these documents will be weak initially, FFI and FDA commit toensuring that the spirit of their provisions is met.
The short-term construction programme will include schools, clinics, market places and otherinfrastructure requested by communities in the 1998, 2002 and 2004-05 assessments, too. Even ifsome of the buildings remain empty initially, they will be used in the medium- and long-terms asfurther development assistance is provided. The priority for the short-term labour-intensive
13
construction programme is to provide jobs to vulnerable populations, to inject cash into collapsedlocal economies and to rebuild basic local infrastructure.
Significant rehabilitation of bridges and roads should be avoided until the Park has a functionalprotection programme or else good roads and bridges could increase threats to the Park. Suchworks must be subjected to full environmental impact assessments (ElAs).
Locally hired auxiliaries have worked alongside Park staff, serving as ambassadors of the Park intheir villages, assistants to the rangers and aiding the Park in gathering and spreadinginformation. While they do not work full-time, they are paid US$20/month and are available for50%-100% of their time. Such employment is being re-started at the time of drafting this PF.Hiring of auxiliaries is done strategically to compensate villages suffering losses from the Park.
Development assistance for the medium and long-terms around the Park will be based on a self-help model whereby communities are mobilised to identify and prioritise their development needsthemselves. They are then offered grants to address their highest priority needs; they themselvesexecute the projects. Successfully used grants may be followed up with subsequent grants tobuild on successes. Although it is still under negotiation, Mercy Corps is seriously consideringinvesting in south-east Liberia around the Park, applying its Community Development Committee(CDC)/REFLECT methodology to ground all development assistance upon locally defined needs,local participation, community self-mobilisation and full inclusion of all stakeholders, in particularthe weak and vulnerable.
Appendix 2 briefly outlines this methodology. This involves building up a CDC to channel socio-economic development and peace-building support to the community in question. The CDC is acommunity-owned and -managed civic organisation that mobilizes and manages resources for thedevelopment of the whole community. Membership of the CDC is composed of citizens freelyselected or elected by all citizens of the community to serve as volunteers for specific time periods.Depending upon local needs, this community mobilisation/capacity-building will lead to creation orstrengthening of local and traditional organizations of wood users, hunters, fishermen, youth,women, pastoralists (if any), miners and other stakeholders to ensure their views are accountedfor.
Development assistance planning will involve working with local communities to define localpriorities in ways that benefit all segments of society, not just an elite. Because development willoccur adjacent to the Park, non-forest-based livelihoods will be encouraged to develop away fromthe Park (and the proposed communal forest buffer zone), while forest-based activities will beencouraged towards the Park and communal forests. Thus agricultural intensification (esp.lowland irrigated rice), raising of larger livestock, plantations of non-native trees (rubber,introduced fruit trees) and other non-forest activities should be promoted away from the Park.Non-invasive tree crops, NTFPs, controlled hunting and other forest-friendly activities can occur incommunal forests. Possible mitigation measures for type 1 (and type 2) PAPs could includeproviding them with negotiated access rights to other designated areas, or training them toimprove their skills in manners that reduce their dependence on the forest resources in question.
This PF sets an initial short-term target of compensating communities with type I PAPs with cashincomes at least 5 times greater than those lost by its community members due to restrictions fromthe project. This will be monitored based upon records of the salaries paid in the context of thelabour-intensive programme, compared to the PRAs conducted by FPI which measured estimatedlosses. Because the economy of south-east Liberia would evolve rapidly over the medium andlong terms with or without this project, what precisely should constitute appropriate compensationin the medium and long terms will need to be negotiated with communities, local authorities andPAPs. This question will be addressed by the Park Management Advisory Council, with input fromdistrict-base liaison committees, and the Council's recommended solution will be communicated tothe World Bank for approval within 13 months of the project becoming effective.
Type 2 PAPs. Target compensation levels for type 2 PAPs are relevant only in the medium andlong terms because CFs will not be established until 2006 or later. Beneficiary communitiesthemselves represented by their Communal Forest Establishment Committee (CFEC) will prepare
14
their Communal Forest Management Plans consistent with the principal that no PAP is to be madepoorer by establishment of a CF. This involves evaluating the trade-off between protecting thebenefits accruing to the beneficiary community and restricting access to PAPs (who arenecessarily from outside the beneficiary community) e.g. it may be possible that some resourceuse by outsiders would be allowed in certain parts of the CF at certain seasons according to rulesnegotiated and enforced by the stakeholders themselves. These activities will drastically reducethe potential negative environmental impact in the CF. As a CF is established, it will be the subjectof a comprehensive sensitization and consultation process to determine the existence or not oftype 2 PAPs, based on the eligibility criteria outlined in Section B above.
Decisions to approve or not-approve Communal Forest Management Plans will be made byrespective County Environment Committees (CECs), District Environment Committees (DECs - orinitially the surrogates for CECs and DECs, namely the Park Management Advisory Council andthe District-based Liaison Groups) and the FDA, consistent with the provisions of the ESMF. Insituations where PAPs deserves compensation, a solution agreeable to all parties will benegotiated through a consultative process according to the CF Establishment Manual (seeAppendix 1) which becomes part of the overall Communal Forest Management Plan. This planwould now form the basis according to which economic resources in the areas affected aremanaged to the benefit of all stakeholders and the bio-physical and social environments.
C2. Training Needs and TrainingCommunities with PAPs and those affected by CFs need will support in defining their developmentneeds in an inclusive manner, in realistically determining and monitoring their losses and livelihoodimprovements, and in ensuring local decision-making forums operate to improve all local residents'well-being, especially the weak and the vulnerable's. Regardless of which development partner(s)support rural livelihoods around Sapo Park over the medium and long terms, which cannot bedetermined with certainty at the time of drafting this PF, the FDA and FFI will engage futurepartners to ensure that pro-poor structures like the Community Development Committee model isused. This will ensure that communities themselves are able to define and direct developmentsupport to make it most effective and to identify problems and take corrective actions incollaboration with those responsible for implementing the PF.
NGOs like FPI and FFI will continue working with the FDA, SCNL, EPA, Ministry of Internal Affairs(MIA) and other Liberian partners, developing skills in PRA and assessments/monitoring of naturalresource use. This is budgeted into project components 2, 4 and 5.
As the main agencies responsible for implementing the PF, FDA staff (especially those at thePark), CECs, DECs (and the Park Management Advisory Council and district-based liaison groupsinitially until CECs and DECs are operational), NGO partners, EPA staff and local authorities needto be trained to understand the principles and procedures of this PF (and the ESMF). The formaltraining to support the PF/ESMF processes in this project will occur in two phases. The first will becarried out approximately 3-6 months after the project begins. Its objectives are to ensure basicawareness of the rationale, objectives, requirements and procedures for the PF and ESMF in themain personnel to be involved in implementing them. It will also build the skills of these people toa common minimum level, since at the outset their skills and experience in the topic will differgreatly.
Table 8.1: Course outline for the first training in PF/ESMF skills.Target Course description Duration Resourcesaudiences- EPA-Monrovia 1. Environmental and social policies, procedures and 2 days Because thestaff responsible guidelines three trainingfor EIA and 1.1 Review and discuss Liberia's national environmental modules willaudits policies, procedures, and legislation as well as the relevant follow one- CEC and DEC international conventions informing Liberia's policies, another, a totalstaff procedures and legislation budget of- selected FDA 1.2 Review and discuss the Bank's safeguards policies $15,000 isstaff at SNP 1.3 Strategies for consultation, participation, conflict proposed forregional HQ and prevention, conflict resolution and social inclusion the three of
15
in Monrovia 2. Selected topics on environmental protection 2 days, them. The-selected CFMC 2.1 Principles of ecology and the importance of the Sapo following the course is toleaders National Park ecosystem above occur at or- MIA tribal 2.2 Principles of sustainable forest resources use methods module near Saporeserve staff 2.3 Safe waste disposal and implications on public health Park. TheApproximately 2.4 Protection and management of water resources World Bank25 people to be 2.5 Disaster preparedness (civil conflict, floods, other) will supply atrained, plus 5 3. Environmental and Social Management process: 5 days, senior trainertrainers and 3.1 Review of environmental and social management including for modules 1organisers. processes field and 3.However 3.2 Use of screening forms and the checklist to determine exercises,additional SNP adverse impacts from sub-projects following thestaff (rangers, 3.3 How to measure cumulative adverse environmental and aboveofficers) will be social impacts modulespulled into 3.4 Design of appropriate mitigation measurestopics 1.3, 2.1, 3.5 How to review and clear the communal forest2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and management plans2.5. 3.6 The importance of public consultations
3.7 How to monitor mitigation measures3.8 How to embed the environmental & social management
I process into civil works contracts
Between 12 and 21 months into the project, depending upon when is deemed most suitable (andnot during the height of the rainy season), a second 10-day training session will be organised.This will focus much more on topic 1.3 and those in module 3, and will proceed in a learning-by-doing manner. It will emphasise solving real problems encountered in the implementation of theproject by conducting a series of evaluations of proposals, simulated audits and other practicalskills. The specific outline will need to be determined nearer to the time. Consistent with its offerin mid-2004, the World Bank will be requested to provide one senior trainer to ensure consistencywith all applicable social and environmental safeguards.
The training will be organised by FFI, with assistance from the EPA, FDA and participating donorslike the World Bank. Costs estimates are based on the assumption that the training program for allparticipants will be held at the county level, with resource persons coming mostly from other partsof the country. Participants will come from local communities and relevant towns and cities.Estimates include cost for all participants and consultants. Refresher training for CECs and theFDA may be offered subsequently, if useful. The total training budget is estimated at US$30,000and is covered in the existing budget of Component 2. However the World Bank offered to furnishexpert consultants in applying World Bank safeguard policies, worth an additional $10,000.
D. Resolution of Potential Conflicts or Grievances within orbetween Affected CommunitiesTo avert or significantly minimize opportunities for conflict between communities and/or individuals,the project must both attempt to prevent conflict and ensure remedial conflict resolution whenconflict occurs. At the preventative level, the aim is to identify potential conflicts and to foresee,through participatory methods described above, ways to reduce these conflicts. To avoid conflict,setting up communications that favor existing networks is essential, as well as setting up preciseand widely publicised rules for the management of resources (embodied in the Park's and CFmanagement plans), known and accepted by all with clear rights & duties of each actor, as well asthe modes of penalization.
The project's forum for communicating and debating (potential) conflicts is in Activity 1.4:establishing participatory management and communications in Park management. This is theprimary means to address type 1 PAPs' complaints. The activity consists, first, of "creating andholding regular meetings of relatively informal district-based liaison groups that will be responsiblefor ensuring effective 2-way flow of information between local communities and SNP staffconcerning Park issues, opportunities (like development possibilities), problems and more. Theywill not have decision-making authority. Local authorities, youth representatives, women's groups,as well as chiefs will be represented in these groups." (Sapo National Park 5-Year Management
16
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Plan, 2003 - in project files and available upon request from FFI) District-based liaison groups willbe broad based and include all socio-economic groups like wood users, hunters, fishermen,farmers, miners, women, youth and representatives of all other PAPs.
Activity 1.4 also involves "creating and holding regular (6-monthly) meetings of a Sapo NationalPark Management Advisory Council composed of designated representatives of the liaisongroups, Park and DWNP management, representatives of relevant government authorities and theprivate sector, and other relevant stakeholders. The objective of the Council is to serve as acommunication, planning and monitoring mechanism/forum for the Park." (ibid.) Decisions fromthe district liaison groups and SNP advisory council will be fed directly into planning developmentassistance, developing mitigation measures and providing other forms of compensation too.
Communal forest management committees (see Appendix 1) will be the primary forums forpresenting, debating and taking actions concerning type 2 PAPs.
Dl. Grievance RedressAt the remedial level, after the conflict has already happened, local community-based authorityand enforcement systems will be used whenever possible, making recourse to official project andstate systems only as a matter of last recourse. This may.not always be possible since it will oftenbe FDA staff, representing the state, who are enforcing a law or regulation concerning the Park.Therefore it is the FDA, not a local community, that is responsible to take penal action. Wheneverpossible the FDA will seek to work with rather than against local and traditional authoritystructures.
If a law/regulatory infraction occurs and the perpetrator - either a type 1 or a type 2 PAP - andlocal authority structures disagree with the application of law/policy as done by the FDA, thismatter can be referred to the district liaison groups or Park management advisory council (whichwill evolve into DECs and the CEC respectively) for debate and resolution. These bodies are notdominated by the FDA, or by the beneficiary community in the case of a CF, but include all localstakeholders plus independent outsiders like NGOs supporting the Park, CFs and communities.
District liaison groups, DECs and traditional authority structures will be the primary forums wheredisputes will be heard. Should a PAP refuse an agreement or settlement arrived at by the aboveforums, or should a dispute between groups arise during the implementation of the managementplans which cannot amicably be resolved by the above forums, then an appeal to the SNPadvisory council or CEC (when operational) can be made. Should the grievance persist, a civilcourt will settle the litigation, preferably the Environmental Court envisioned in the EnvironmentalAct of 2002 but not yet operational as of the drafting of this PF. All individual PAPs have the rightto refuse the provisions proposed by the district liaison group/DEC/traditional court and take theircases to the Advisory Council/CEC when other grievance redress measures have failed. Thisgrievance process will be clearly communicated as part of the establishment of the district liaisongroups, DECs, SNP Management Advisory Council and CEC(s). It will be kept as simple aspossible so as (1) not to over-tax the weak capacity in south-east Liberia to handle such matters,and (2) to facilitate access, speed, flexibility and openness to various proofs taking into accountthat most people are illiterate and poor.
In the rural societies it often takes time for people to decide that they are aggrieved and want tocomplain. Therefore, the grievance procedures will give people up to the end of the next fullagricultural season after they have been aggrieved.
E. Administrative and Legal ProceduresEl. Project Management and Executing AgenciesThe FDA (through its Division of Wildlife & National Parks which includes staff at Sapo Park) andFFI are the 'custodians' of the Process Framework, with overall responsibility to ensure that therequirements therein are implemented and complied with. For instance, the FDA and FFI willensure that district-based liaison groups, the Sapo Park Management Advisory Council, and laterDECs & CECs, are established and rendered operational through training, technical and basicadministrative support. The FDA (in particular its Communal Forest Division) and FFI, along with
17
the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the EPA (largely through DECs and CECs), will be responsiblefor ensuring that communal forest establishmentmanagement committees are fully participatory,i.e. that they represent the interests not of any powerful group or elite but rather all groups' withinthe community including the weak, poor and vulnerable. All agencies above will monitor thatgrievances are addressed with integrity, neutrality, speed and in accordance with the letter andspirit of this PF. The FDA and FFI will invite and collaborate with development agencies likeUNOPS, Mercy Corps and others interested in working around the Park, ensuring that they adoptan approach that both supports the voices of all members of society including the weak, poor andvulnerable, and mobilises communities to take charge of their own development as planners ratherthan as passive recipients.
During the execution of the proposed project, FFI will provide technical assistance to coordinateproject implementation. With specific reference to this PF, FFI will ensure that (a) the baselinestudies are done with adequate rigor and detail to determine PAPs, affected communities and theincomes lost which will form the basis for determining mitigation measures and compensation; (b)district-based liaison groups, the Park Management Advisory Council, and later DECs & CEC(s)are established, their roles are known and understood, and they receive a basic introductorytraining in their responsibilities with regard to the PF and ESMF and follow-up training after 12months; (c) the FDA, CFECs and the above committees keep adequate records to monitor theimplementation of this PF (keeping copies in the project files for reference by the Bank asrequested); and (d) independent groups like FPI, SCNL and others conduct follow-up surveys tomonitor changes in incomes, further losses (if any) and improvements in livelihoods of PAPs.
E2. Finances to Ensure Participation of PAPsThe meaningful and effective participation of PAPs can be ensured only when financial resourcesare made available to and accessible by them, thereby enabling PAPs to participate in projectactivities that would restore their incomes to at least pre-project levels. The project budget (sub-components 4.2 and 5.1-5.2) reserves approximately $60,000 for assessing arid monitoringsurrounding communities' forest resource use, wildlife-human conflicts, development needs andincomes/livelihoods. A grant proposal is pending to the French GEF (Fonds Frangais pourI'Environnement Mondial) that would double this amount. The Communal Forest component of theproject includes approximately $35,000 of assistance to support the implementation of CFmanagement plans, particularly launching sustainable forest-resource-based livelihoodscompatible with the CF model and being adjacent to Sapo Park. Sub-component 5.2 ('Support toincome-generating activities, sustainable agriculture and general rural development') reserves atleast $20,000 for community-executed sustainable development grants. However the figures of$35,000 and $20,000 are minimum amounts. Success will attract additional resources, particularlyin present-day Liberia where donor money is widely available for promising or proveninitiatives/models, but where these are too few in number to absorb the resources currentlyavailable. If development efforts are successful, these figures are likely to increase 5 to 1 0-fold.
F. Monitoring ArrangementsArrangements for monitoring implementation of this Process Framework fit the overall projectmonitoring plan, led by FFI, the FDA and, as their capacity is built, by bodies like district-basedliaison groups, the Park Management Advisory Council, DECs, CECs and other bodies withsignificant EPA and MIA input. FFI will remain ultimately accountable to the Bank for monitoringthe implementation of the PF.
The objectives of monitoring implementation of the PF are (a) to ensure that the bodiesestablished and tasked, inter alia, with implementing the PF are performing their duties adequatelyand if not, to ensure their capacity is built to do so, (b) to ensure that the actions taken to resolveconflicts, to compensate losses, to distribute benefits catalysed by project and to improve overallwelfare in the peri-Sapo Park area are having their intended impacts and to take corrective actionif not, and (c) to conduct a final evaluation of whether or not the PAPs identified have beenaffected in such a way that their living standards are equal or higher than before the project.
18
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The PF will be considered successfully implemented if affected individuals, households andcommunities maintain their pre-project standard of living or improve on it, and local communitysupport is built and remains supportive of the project.
A number of indicators could be used to determine the status of PAPs and of affectedcommunities. Because of the fluid demographic and economic situation in the area in the post-conflict period, and the fact that only short-term rehabilitation & reintegration assistance is beingprogrammed presently for the Park area, this PF does not propose definitive indicators andmilestones of success. These will be developed in a participatory manner after 12 months fromthe project start date by local community representatives chosen to represent the views of district-based liaison groups, representatives of CF establishment committees, FDA, EPA, MIA,representatives of development organisations and FFI. They will be communicated to the WorldBank for comment and a no-objection approval.
Indicative parameters, verifiable indicators and procedures that could be used are proposed asfollows. Each community with type 1 PAPs will have a compensation dossier recording its initialeconomic situation, development priorities, livelihoods in order of priority and economic relation tothe Park. Then the dossier will be expanded as the project progresses to include project-generated or catalysed employment, development assistance received (infrastructure, seedcapital, training, jobs, capital items provided, marketing assistance, etc.), number of grievancesmade and number resolved, and the overall level of support for the BCSNP project in thatcommunity (in a measurable form that can be monitored). Dossiers should indicate the number ofpeople presenting themselves as PAPs, as well as the number judged to have legitimate claims.The dossiers should also track (i) the percentage of individuals accessing funds regardless ofwhether they are PAPs or not, (ii) whether the community's development priorities change, and (iii)how the relative importance of different livelihoods evolves in the post-conflict era.
To monitor performance in addressing losses suffered by type 2 PAPs, each CF will establish adossier at the outset of its establishment listing all those suffering losses who are not from thebeneficiary community (i.e. who are legitimate type 2 PAPs), their losses and the actions proposedto mitigate these losses as per the CF management plan. As the project progresses, thesedossiers will be expanded to include information on how mitigation actions are implemented,whether grievances are brought before the relevant traditional authorities & DECs/CECs or district-based liaison groups and SNP Management Advisory Council early on, and how these wereresolved.
All dossiers for both types of PAP will be reviewed during the mid-term and final projectevaluations to evaluate progress against agreed indicators, and to make recommendations forimprovements.
19
Appendix 1. Excerpt from the Draft Communal ForestEstablishment Manual on Communal Forest Creation3.1 Who should be involved?To promote inclusiveness within a clear structure, stakeholders must be identified and their rolesand responsibilities clearly defined. Within this structure, stakeholders can and must contributetheir resources and perspectives. Main stakeholders should include:
1. FDA (responsible for forest sector management)2. Ministry of Internal Affairs (responsible for local/tribal rights and administration)3. beneficiary communities, in the present care those surrounding Sapo National Park, and any
other community/person likely to be affected4. traditional authorities5. logging (or other) concessionaires6. conservation and community development NGOs/CBOs
3.1.1 Forestry Development Authority/State authority-- roles/responsibilitiesThe Communal Forest Unit is under Community Forest Services, which in turn is under theDivision of Conservation. The Division of Conservation is headed by the Deputy ManagingDirector for Conservation Forestry. The CF Unit's roles and responsibilities in CF establishmentand management, in particular during the pilot initiative, should be to:
a. prepare rules, regulations and basic resource-use criteria to be used by a communitydeciding to establish a CF. These would explain, for example, where CFs generally mayand may not be established and what can and cannot be done in them;
b. define different categories of CF based on different possible CF objectives (i.e. strictrural development/livelihood enhancement areas, protection of sites of cultural significance,conservation buffer zones or a combination of these or other objectives) and prepareappropriate rules and regulations;
c. facilitate dialogue between all stakeholders, hosting workshops and consultations andfacilitating conflict resolution forums during and after CF establishment; send legal noticesto relevant stakeholders;
d. negotiate, if appropriate, with concessionaires to relinquish/swap/decommission land orinclude lands in their holding in the CF;
e. assist beneficiary communities to prepare simple, locally feasible CF managementplans;
f. provide technical (research, sylvicultural & wildlife management advice, other)assistance, as well as financial support , law enforcement and capacity-building to ensuresound implementation of management plans;
g. facilitate training of relevant FDA staff and beneficiary communities in community-based resource management;
h. monitor and evaluate implementation of management plans, and take corrective action ifthe plans or general CF rules and regulations are not followed, including revoking the CFstatus of the area as a last resort;
i. ensure that the Environment Protection Agency's EIA requirements are satisfied;j. evaluate funding needs and ensure that CFs benefit from fees levied on tree-cutting (like
conservation or severance fees);k. support the development of sustainable non-timber forest products (NTFP) industries
that take biodiversity conservation into consideration and will benefit communities withCFs;
20
1. explore with MIA the appropriate tenure mechanism/arrangement to ensure tenuresecurity as well as the permanent maintenance of forest cover; and
m. demarcate/survey CF boundaries.
3.1.2 Ministry of Internal Affairs-- roles/responsibilitiesAll county and local government activities, including the offices of the County Superintendent andtraditional chiefs, are under the MIA. Their roles and responsibilities are to:
a. educate and sensitize tribal authorities of their rights to use the forest land (sustainably);b. facilitate the establishment of the CF committees;c. prepare and issue a Tribal Land Certificate for the selected area for the CF;d. monitor the piloting process to make sure the wishes and needs of the community are
taken into consideration; ande. facilitate conflict prevention and resolution.
3.1.3 Communities surrounding Sapo National Park and those likely to be affected--roles/responsibilities
The beneficiary communities will define and communicate their needs, and explore withappropriate stakeholders alternatives, structures and rules for meeting those needs. This consists of:
a. organizing themselves into functional committees, possibly with external facilitationand/or assistance, to define their forest-related needs and the geographic limits of localforests meeting those needs;
b. working with the FDA, MIA and other partners to prepare a request for theestablishment of a CF, according to the procedures laid out in this manual;
c. drafting and implementing simple but effective management plans (with technicalassistance from FDA and possibly NGOs or others) containing, inter alia, rules and quotasfor use of forest resources and the modalities of sanctioning offenders;
d. selecting and supporting communal forest guards to police boundaries so as to detectinfractions of CF rules, regulations and quotas (as per the management plan and general CFrestrictions), to prevent immigration of individuals from other communal forestcommunities, and to deter encroachment of loggers, miners and other intruders;
e. participating in locating and demarcating CF boundaries;f. organizing village-based forest (sub-)committees within standard CF structures as
parallel decision-making bodies to the official village councils or traditional authorities.These will resolve boundary and related disputes of inter-communal forests andcommunities; and
g. reporting to FDA/MIA through standard CF structures all problems which localorganizations cannot solve.
3.1.4 Traditional Authorities-Roles/ResponsibilitiesTraditional authorities give legitimacy to the process of CF establishment and help mobilizebeneficiary communities, especially by:
a. mobilizing the community to form the necessary committees to establish and manage aCF;
b. identifying and helping codify traditional forest management/conservation practiceswhich may be beneficial to CF management;
c. ensuring the quality of input of traditional perspectives;d. assisting with implementing management plans and enforcement of various by-laws,
respecting communal boundaries, conservation practices, the control of abuses in the use offorest resources (timber, non-timber), etc.;
21
e. providing leadership in conflict resolution among tribal groups; andf. playing a central role in the location and demarcation of CF boundaries.
3.1.5 Logging (or other) concessionaires - roles and responsibilitiesIt is in the interest of concessionaires to be a part of the process of selecting areas for establishingCFs, especially because they may have to give up some of their rights in the interest of balancingcommercial, conservation and community uses of the forest, and they may have a legitimate claimto compensation. Therefore they should participate by:
a. presenting their interests in and legal claims to an area proposed for CF status to theappropriate bodies (FDA, MIA, EPA, CF committees), as well as their past investments inthe area that could constitute the grounds for compensation in cases where concessions existprior to the creation of a CF;
b. consulting with and including representatives of communal forests in demarcating newconcession areas near proposed CFs, and preparing user-friendly maps of concession areasto be established near the CFs; and
c. sharing operational plans with communal forest communities that could affect the CF,and giving preference for training and recruitment to CF community members nearconcession areas, possibly including individuals from other communal forests.
3.1.6 Conservation and development NGOs/CBOs, international agencies/donorsIn addition to Liberian and private sector entities, not-for-profit and international agents cansupport the critical conditions for sustainability and success of CFs. Some of their roles are to:
a. raise public awareness about the possibility of establishing communal forests;b. assess in a neutral, objective manner specific communities' interest in establishing CFs,
assess the strategic context for CFs in given locations, support the process of creating CFestablishment committees and other initial steps in collaboration with relevant Stateauthorities (see section 4);
c. design and lead workshops, conferences and training courses for CF communities andrepresentatives of other concerned groups;
d. define and execute research in assessing community needs for livelihoods, incomegeneration and training needs, as well as in efficient harvesting, processing and marketingof non-timber and timber forest resources;
e. assist/facilitate CF communities in developing and implementing appropriate CFmanagement plans, mindful of the central role of gender issues and analysis in them; and
f. develop and market quality grant proposals to support all these activities.
3.2 How should a communal forest "community" be defined?For a communal forest to be established in a lasting manner, the beneficiary community mustconsist of people whose lives are linked spatially or culturally, and who share common interestswith respect to the forest in question. This is not to say that conflicts will not exist within"communities"; rather it is to say that the community consists of a people who in ways defined bygeography and/or forest use are all concerned by the same area of forest. It must be possible tomanage, negotiate and enforce rules regarding the forest area in question, effectively andlegitimately, by a committee composed of members of the community. Community/CFinstitutional arrangements must take into account social differences so that the CF managementstructures recognize the cultural, social and economic values of the traditional users of the forests,ensuring connection between the people and the resource they depend on.
22
Options for defining CF 'communities' include individual villages or village clusters, ethnic groupswith a shared culture living in a defined area, people of different backgrounds who share similaraccess to the forest resources in question, political divisions/groups, or sub-groups of a communitywith similar needs of forest resources. A communal forest could be defined by what constitutes afeasibly managed area of forest (defined perhaps by natural features) and the CF 'community'would be defined in relation to that. If a CF is used as a tool to support conservation as well ascommunity rights and welfare, i.e. if it is a buffer zone such as is proposed around Sapo Park, theecological landscape will be an important criterion.
Whatever its defining features, the 'community' must be tested, meaning the FDA and MIA,supported by partners, must assess the social feasibility and practical ability of the proposed'community' to receive title to the forest area in question. A probationary period should beconsidered for the 'community' to establish functional committees as outlined in this manual.
3.3 Criteria for selecting precise areas for communal forests.
Specific practical criteria for defining the exact area for a CF area include, but not limited to:
a. the proposed area should represent the will of critical resources users within theapplicant community;
b. the area should not lie within other incompatible protected areas;c. areas that are likely to advance rural livelihoods, rural development, cultural values
and/or nature conservation should receive favourable consideration;d. if the proposal is likely to affect commercial concessions then there must be a
potential solution to resolve this conflict. It is important to note here however, that a majorpurpose of establishing CFs is to restore balance between commercial, conservation andcommunal uses of the forest. Because forest sector reform demands equitable sharing offorest resources, restrictions on the rights of commercial users may need to be negotiated;
e. the area should not conflict with national-level forest strategy and national land-useplanning strategies;
f. the area should not present immediate conflicts with other tribal groups or'communities', unless there is an immediate potential solution to this problem and thecommunal forest designation of the area offers the most effective means of management ofthe area (instead of another protected forest designation set out in the Act for the Creation ofa Protected Forest Area Network); and
g. the area should be of sufficient size so that it constitutes a sustainable source ofpriority forest products and services for all or a well-defined part of the community.
To illustrate sections 3.2 and 3.3, the following eight design principles were found in long-lastingcommon-pool resource management institutions and resource areas, from Ostrom (1999):
Principle Explanation1. Clearly defined boundaries Individual or households with rights to withdraw resource units from
the common resource-pool, with boundaries of the resource-poolclearly defined
2.Congruence a. The distribution of benefits from appropriation rules is roughlyproportionate to the costs imposed by provision rulesb. Appropriation rules restricting time, place, technology and/orquantity of the resource units are related to local conditions
3.Collective-choice Most individuals affected by operational rules can participate inarrangements modifying such rules4. Monitoring Monitors, who actively audit common-pool resource conditions uses
and/or are the users themselves5. Graduated sanctions Users who violate operational rules are likely to receive graduated
sanctions (depending on the seriousness and context of the offence)
23
from other users, from officials accountable to these users, or fromboth
6. Conflict resolution Users and their officials have rapid access to low-cost, local arenas tomechanisms resolve conflicts among users or between users and officials7. Minimal recognition of The rights of users to devise their own institutions are not challengedrights to organize by external governmental authorities8. For common-pool resources Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolutionthat are part of a larger system and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested(nested enterprises) enterprises
See Appendix F for additional observations on critical conditions for successful community-basedcommon-pool natural resources management.
3.4 Piloting Communal Forest Creation: the Process-the Steps 2
3.4.1 Step 1: Clarification of legal and regulatory issues related to CFsDevolution of forest management responsibilities to rural peoples must be done in a clear legalframework. Prior to enacting the Act for the Creation of a Protected Forest Area Network,local/traditional peoples' rights in relation to the forests in the Liberia were confused from alegislative point of view. This changed with this Act, although further clarifications of therelationship between 'Communal Forest' and 'Tribal Reserves' as defined in Article 66 of theRevised Rules and Regulations Hinterland of Liberia (see Appendix C) appear necessary and mayrequire proposing new or amending existing laws and regulations. The pilot initiative at Sapo Parkwill need to test the coherency of Liberia's Hinterland Laws with its Forest laws, and proposeneeded revisions. One critical issue to resolve, which could hinge on whether a Communal Forestshould be considered a sub-set of Tribal Reserve, is whether CF land is to be deeded or grantedunder a long-term lease arrangement to the beneficiary community. (The same choice would applyto whether exclusive use rights are granted in perpetuity or for a specified period, if this is theapproach adopted.)
The Act creating a Protected Forest Area System in Liberia defines communal forests as "areas setaside legally or temporarily by regulation for sustainable use of forest products by localcommunities on a non-commercial basis" (see Appendix C). Creating CFs with the.objective ofrural communities' livelihood security must allow some revenue-generating activities. Thus thedefinition of "commercial" requires interpretation, and the word may have to be amended toprovide flexibility reflecting the objective of a given CF. Furthermore because this category ofprotected forest area does not have a history in Liberia, the FDA does not currently have specificrules and regulations pertaining to uses of CFs. These will need to be developed in the course ofthe pilot initiative.
3.4.2 Step 2: Preliminary Assessment of the Targeted AreasAn assessment must initially be conducted by the FDA and supporting partners to determine:
* cultural and ethnic identities of the area(s);* the existence of important site selection criteria such as the availability, approximate quantity
and location of forest products on which a CF will depend, as well as notable biodiversity andproximity to other protected forest areas;
* environmental impact issues which may require attention during the establishment process;* potential land-use conflicts;
2These are suggested steps, the sequence of which may be altered according to the reality on the ground and what islogical remembering that at Sapo Park, this is a pilot process to test and learn.
24
* forested areas used by neighbouring communities that could be grouped into one CF; and* areas to eliminate from consideration at the very beginning of the CF establishment process.
3.4.3 Step 3: Identification of a beneficiary "Community"A "community" must decide of its own accord, through acquired awareness or encouragement byFDA (as a forest management strategy) and/or by the MIA (for cultural reasons), to establish a CF.The process may be initiated by an NGO/CBO in collaboration with the community, too.A community can be defined as a village, town or groups of villages and/or towns adjacent to aforest area that is of social and/or economic value to them. It should abide by the principles insections 3.2 and 3.3 above, namely that the members of the community have shared and notconflicting interests in the targeted forest area, and they must be able to effectively negotiate andconduct the management of the forest area through the committees established to that end.
3.4.4 Step 4: Sensitization of the greater CommunityThe relevant national, country and local authorities, and or other entities like NGOs/CBOs assistingthe identified "community", must communicate to all communities and other stakeholders in theproximity of the area targeted for CF establishment:
- the objectives of CFs,- what is entailed in creating one, and- the benefits, responsibilities, challenges and constraints involved in a communal forest.
This is the occasion for discussing the laws, rules and regulations, and for identifying conflicts thatthe preliminary assessment may not have uncovered and that the FDA, MIA, EPA or othergovernmental structure would need to address, for example conflicts with commercial operators orsectoral plans for the area (like road-building).
3.4.5 Step 5: Endorsement by Traditional AuthoritiesThe Tribal Authorities and "community" representatives must meet to approve moving forwardwith establishing a CF and to discuss their roles. This is a time to tease out proactively anyimmediate likely problems at the local level. This step may require participatory facilitation to dealwith power imbalances and issues arising from the heterogeneity of the group.
3.4.6 Step 6: Spread Information, Raise AwarenessAt a well-publicised, facilitated meeting or series of meetings, the Manualfor EstablishingCommunal Forests in Liberia is distributed and its content discussed, emphasizing the steps. Thisis the chance for the "community" and relevant stakeholders (see section 3.1) to share information,discuss concerns, responsibilities, duties and thoroughly debate issues to build consensus on thespecific objectives and boundaries (geographic as well as in terms of uses) of the CF. The"community" and relevant stakeholders then affirm their commitment to establish a CF. Since thepiloting of CFs around Sapo Park is an adaptive process, changes to the content of the Manual arelikely.
3.4.7 Step 7: The Institution to Guide Establishing a Communal ForestIf the "community's" consensus at the end of Steps 4-6 is to establish a CF, a Communal ForestEstablishment Committee (CFEC) is created from the "community" to be responsible for leadingthe CF establishment process.
25
The size and membership of the CFEC:These depend on the composition of the "community" and should reflect the various interests,including gender differences, of local communities/stakeholders. Each village, town or settlementmaking up the "community" must be represented, i.e. it cannot be too exclusive. At the same timethe size must be workable, i.e. it cannot be too large or it becomes unmanageable. Suggestedmembers include but are not limited to the highest ranking traditional authority/-ies in the"community", representatives of local, key forest-resource user groups and the CountyDevelopment Superintendent. The FDA Regional Manager and/or the manager of an adjacentprotected forest area (like a chief Park Warden) should be included to help the CFEC ensure theproposed area is appropriate for CF status and conforms to FDA regulations. (S)He also ensurestechnical input from the appropriate FDA Divisions and assists in presenting the request to the FDAmanagement. Inclusion of the County Environmental Officer ensures the EPA's environmentalimpact and natural resource management issues are addressed.
The roles of the Committee:
* to assure "community" input through public consultation meetings on inter-tribal/clan issuesthat may need to be addressed;
* to ensure that the "community" has all relevant infornation as the CF creation request ispresented to the appropriate authorities so the "community is making fully inforned choices;
* to facilitate gathering of all necessary documents and other information from each stakeholder,that is from elements of the "community" initiating CF creation as well as holders of legalrights to and in the vicinity of the forest area being targeted for CF;
* to ensure that the proposed CF meets the community's agreed criteria and to ensure adequateconsensus within the "community" to make the CF viable; and
* to draft a preliminary report on the rationale and criteria for CF boundary selection based on theneeds and desires expressed by the various elements of the "community"; the report must alsospecify the benefits intended to accrue to the community as well as to forest conservation.
3.4.8 Step 8: Area SelectionBased on information gathered from the CFEC's work, any other public consultations and from theassessment in Step 2, the CFEC in collaboration with the Tribal Authorities define the CF area andapplies to MIA for a Tribal Land Certificate3. MIA reviews the proposed area by conducting an on-the-spot investigation of the targeted forest area to ensure it is free of conflicting claims, not onlyby other local groups or individuals but also by other sectoral State agencies like, for example, theMinistry of Transportation or Lands, Mines & Energy. MIA assesses if the purpose of the CF isjustified and if satisfied, issues the Tribal Land Certificate to the "community" which gives it theright to apply for a deed to the land within a limited period.4
3.4.9 Step 9: Submitting the Formal Request for establishing a CFContent of the request:* Main contact person for the request,* Names of co-operating towns/villages/settlements,
3They apply for a Tribal Land Certificate assuming that a communal forest is deemed to be legally compatible withand thus a sub-set of a tribal reserve under the Hinterland Laws. Otherwise this part of the process will need revision.If exclusive use rights are granted rather than a title deed, the process will need revision, too.4 If the timeframe for acquiring a deed after receiving the Tribal Land Certificate (TLC) is not realistic, the applicationfor the Certificate must be made at the appropriate time in the process. Instead of a TLC, stakeholders may agree on atemporary land tenure mechanism such as a lease agreement that can be extended as the viability of the CF isestablished.
26
* Names of community representatives or contact persons in eachtown/village/settlement,
* Minutes of community meeting(s) approving this request and attendance list(s),* Description or sketch map of potential forest areas for inclusion. This should show the
location of people around the area, the extent of the forest and other prominent features suchas roads, rivers and key resources,
* List of the key resources and/or features of importance to the community, and* Tribal Land Certificate (assures acquisition of land title by deed, unless communal
forests are established through granting exclusive land-use rights rather than a title deed).
Routing of requestThe official routing of such application is CFEC4Commissioner+County SuperintendentOfficevMIAvFDA.
Process of ApprovalThe request is reviewed at the County level by representatives of the Superintendent's Office andthe Regional FDA Manager, with representatives of the CFEC present, to confirm that the area isclear of conflicting claims and to establish that the proposed area is justified and "community"needs have been considered. Once the application has been cleared and co-signed by the threeparties, the County Superintendent ceremoniously approves the request and without delay forwardsit to the MIA for approval in a timely manner.
Once approved by MIA, the request is transmitted to the FDA to determine:
v how the CF fits into the protected forest area system, that is whether it appreciably benefits tothe system;
V whether it serves as a buffer zone for another protected forest area (PFA), or it promotes socio-economic empowerment or both (conservation services would dictate FDA funding);
v/ initial funding options;V whether ownership of the particular CF can be by deed, or other means such as a long-tern lease
that will provide adequate tenure security 5;V activities that are prohibited or permitted based on PFA classifications as well as attributes of
the site selected and objective of the CF. This may involve, if not already proposed, zoning ofthe CF into different areas with different resource uses permitted in each;
V boundary mapping to ensure the boundaries are appropriate and realistic;V formal registration of the CF, whatever the mechanism for ownership; andV appropriate forest regulations to facilitate creation and management, including clear definition
of roles and responsibilities of the "community" the FDA in its management.
Once approved by the FDA, copies of the application and all supporting documents are sent back tothe "community", represented by the CFEC, via MIA.
3.5 Public Awareness Regarding Application Approval and Way ForwardUpon approval of the application to establish a CF by the FDA, public consultations are held toacquaint all members of the identified "community" and other relevant stakeholders, includingrepresentatives of neighboring towns and villages who may be affected in some way, the media andother, with the progress up to this point and to preview the rest of the process. Depending on themakeup of the "community", several meetings may be needed in different areas of the"community" facilitated by published notice as defined by the EPA Act (newspapers, radio-vernacular, public places, etc).
5As previously stated, if exclusive land-use rights rather than a title deed is granted, the same choice of rights-in-perpetuity versus rights-for-a-specified-period must be made.
27
U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3.6 Institutional Arrangements for Management of Communal ForestsFrom this point, the roles of the stakeholders should be directed at supporting the CF"community's" institutional, technical and financial capacity to manage the CF sustainably topursue its stated objectives, such as securing local rights to the forest, livelihood enhancement andpossibly biodiversity conservation. Without this capacity, communal forests are unlikely to fulfillexpectations.
3.6.1 Establishment of the Communal Forest CouncilA "community" meeting is held to dissolve the CFEC and elect members of a Communal ForestCouncil (CFC-the CF's prime decision-making body. It should be facilitated jointly by arespected traditional authority figure and a locally respected representative of the Government. Ifseveral villages and/or towns make up the "community", each may elect a local Communal ForestManagement Committee (CFMC) to look out for the needs of that local village/town and to ensurethe effective use and management of the CF resources in their area(s). One or two electedrepresentatives from each CFMC will then form the CFC. The FDA Regional Manager (and theFDA manager of an adjacent protected forest area, if relevant), the MIA Regional Coordinator andthe District Environment Officer (DEO - see Appendix E) should be non-voting members. TheDEO (mandated by the Act establishing the EPA) is to liaise with the "community" onenvironmental protection matters and access support from the EPA especially in the area ofcapacity-building for sustainable environmental management.
3.6.2 Structure and functions of the CFC
At the community meeting mentioned above, stakeholders will determine the structure of theCouncil. It can be made up of sub-committees to implement the different activities planned for theCF (agro-forestry, education, business, hunting, conservation, etc.), and include different positionslike president or treasurer. However it must not be too complex or else it will become unworkable.
The functions of the CFC are to:
* ensure that all activities undertaken in the CF conform to FDA and EPA requirements andMIA policy guidelines;
* formulate a management plan for the CF with the support of FDA, MIA and NGO partnersand input from public consultations attended by all relevant community members. Themanagement plan will meet the objectives articulated in the request to establish a CF, andinclude:- objectives of the CF being created;- a participatory resource assessment/mapping;- a zoning of the CF including special sites to be protected such as water sources and
cultural sites, development use and conservation use zones-in case there areconflicting demands;
- technical activities such as baseline data collection and inventories;- a plan for CF land utilisation such as agro-forestry, NTFP collection, hunting, and wood
collection (poles, firewood, other);- other short- and long-term income generating activities, as well as structures for
marketing products like co-ops - an important element of sustainability is how themanagement plan incorporates a market mechanism for generating income;
- quotas and regulations like seasonal restrictions or bans for harvesting in the CF;
28
I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- conditions for harvesting in the CF, i.e. whether resource harvest would be forsubsistence uses or for sale, and if for sale whether benefits can accrue to individuals,groups and/or to the entire community6;
- activities that are forbidden - activities like farming, livestock grazing and timberharvesting are not generally permitted because they degrade or remove forest cover,although activities that do not destroy the forest canopy may need to be reconsidered 7 .Activities permitted in a CF may depend on the objectives and location of the CF, andshould be negotiated with the FDA;
- a simple monitoring plan to assess whether forest resources are being harvestedsustainably;
- forest management activities such as rehabilitation of degraded areas;- the particular CF's management structure which could include different committees (for
community development, law enforcement, conservation activities, women's activities,for example);
- mechanisms for enforcing rules, controlling access and punishing infractions, includingthe division of roles between the FDA and the "community";
- social controls that will reinforce compliance;- conflict resolution mechanism(s);- rules about non-"community" members entering CF, which might be on the basis of
reciprocity with other "communities" or may fall under the responsibility of localgovernment/Traditional Authorities to monitor; and
- the resources required for implementing the management plan (financial, technical,human, other) as well as possible income streams;
* mobilize, manage and monitor resources to implement the management plan, includinghuman, financial, technical and other resources;
* draw up the CFC's bylaws which outline the roles and responsibilities for each member-how positions are to be passed on, meeting frequency and procedures, decision-makingpolicy and procedure, etc, and how the CFC's operation will be funded;
* manage funds - CFs could generate money for the community, especially if use-rights areleased to outsiders (see footnote 4);
* disseminate simple, easy-to-follow rules for the community based on the management planand promote the CF through local awareness campaigns; and
* serve as the CF's point of contact for external bodies and individuals.
Appendix G contains a summary of the Community Development Committee model followed byMercy Corps to pursue community mobilisation, empowerment and upliftment. Because thismodel is well tested and to avoid creating parallel, duplicative structures as Mercy Corps initiateswork with communities around Sapo Park, the CF establishment pilot should consider workingwith the structures to be catalysed by Mercy Corps.
3.7 Implementing the Communal Forest
6 The issue of interpreting "on a non-commercial basis" from the legal definition of communal forest is critical here. If"commercial" means that nothing harvested from a CF can be sold for profit, this severely restricts what can be done ina CF, and thus the likely interest rural communities will have in establishing them. If 'commercial' is interpreted as'not by external commercial operators', then many more activities could be permitted but the risk of unsustainableresource harvest increases dramatically. Another question to resolve is whether profits generated by the CF can accrueto individuals of the community, or whether they must accrue all or in part to the community.
7Timber harvesting is not currently permitted although it might be considered if communities were beneficiaries ofrevenues in a non-commercial fashion and timber sales/hunting permits for outsiders were permitted once every, say,10 years and not for the first 10 years of existence of a CF. See previous footnote.
29
Once the draft Management Plan has been agreed by the CFC, it is taken to the full "community"for formal adoption. The community as a whole has to take ownership of the Management Planand accept shared responsibility for its priorities and implementation.
Those facilitating the CF process should agree with the "community" and test appropriate tools formonitoring, adapting and learning so that the communal forest is made operational and sustainable.Indicators and a timeframe should be agreed for evaluating the successes and short-comings of theCF.
30
Appendix G Brief Description of Mercy Corps' CommunityDevelopment Committee
This description is included for the sake of exploring with Mercy Corps, a primary partner for the CF pilotinitiative at Sapo Park, alternatives for a CF institutional mechanism. More specifically, the pilot initiativewill test if and how Mercy Corps' Community Development Committee (CDC) could serve as either a CFCouncil or a CF Management Committee.
I. Roles and Responsibilities of the Community Development Committee
"For a program or project to be pro-poor, or to serve the needs of the poorest and most marginalized,careful attention needs to be paid to the complex and multi-layered power relations within a target Icommunity or group. To access that community through the most visible, most literate or vocal, is likelyto result in strengthening existing power structures that underpin poverty and inequality in a communityor group
By Hannah Beardon, Reflect ICT's Project Coordinator, India.
The entry point of Mercy Corps' programs in a community for channeling socio-economic development andpeace-building support is the Community Development Committee (CDC). The CDC is a community-owned and -managed civic organization that mobilizes and manages resources for the development of thewhole community. Membership of the CDC is composed of citizens freely selected or elected by all citizensof the community to serve as volunteers for a specific period of time. These include citizens residing insatellite villages that are directly a part of the main town.
Membership of the CDC should be as follows:* Local government representatives (town chief and assistant town chief) - 2* Elders' representatives (1 female and 1 male) - 2* Adults' representatives (1 female and 1 male) - 2* Youth representatives (1 female and I male) - 2
REFLECT circle members' representatives (1 female and 1 male) - 2* REFLECT facilitators (1 female and 1 male) - 2* Agro-forestry representatives (1 female and 1 male) - 2* Education sector representatives (1 female and 1 male) - 2* Health sector representatives (1 female and 1 male) - 2* Business sector representatives (1 female and 1 male) - 2* Peace-building sector representatives (1 female and 1 male) - 2
Total 22
The socioeconomic development initiatives of the community should be coordinated and managed by theCDC. The CDC should have a corps of officers elected by secret ballot by all citizens from the membershipof the CDC. The following positions are recommended for effective administration of the CDC:
1. Chairperson2. Vice chairperson3. Secretary4. Assistant Secretary5. Treasurer6. Assistant Treasurer
The CDC with the support of local NGO partners and Mercy Corps staffers should develop:a. Meeting procedures of the CDCb. Duties of the corps of officersc. Policy decision-making procedures
31
The CDC should set up subcommittees to manage specific socio-economic development and peace buildingactivities in the following areas:
1. Peace-building: palaver management, civic education, etc.2. Education: educational infrastructure development, sustainability and quality management 253. Health: health and hygiene promotion, water and sanitation infrastructure sustenance and
management4. Agriculture and Forestry: best agricultural practices, money-making crops, asset management,
value-adding industries and marketing5. Business: micro-enterprise development, basic business management training, self-help groups
development
Each subcommittee shall have a team leader and a secretary-one female and one male. The members ofthe subcommittees shall appoint their team leader and secretary. The 'Scope of Work' and tenure of thesubcommittees shall be determined by the CDC. The scope of work of each subcommittee, based on needsof the community, shall be documented by the CDC with the support of local NGO partners and MercyCorps staffers.
The roles of the CDC include, but are not limited to the following:* Leading the community in identifying, analyzing, prioritizing, planning and implementing action
points to address community problems* Identifying and recruiting suitably qualified citizens as volunteered REFLECT facilitators* Facilitating the 'self-selection' of REFLECT circle members* Setting up and managing the REFLECT circles* Initiating income generation activities/projects to sustain community-driven development processes* Providing incentives (cash or in-kind) to REFLECT facilitators* Mobilizing and managing resources to implement action points evolving from the REFLECT
process* Advocating for change of policies and practices that impede socioeconomic development* Leading intra- and inter-community networking to gain strategic relationships that lead to
development of shared social infrastructures* Leading the strengthening of traditional and new conflict management mechanisms
The CDC is:1. A community-owned and managed civic organization2. Non-profit, non-political, non-religious, and non-governmental3. Accountable to the community4. An advocacy and capacity building CBO
To integrate Mercy Corps' 'Community Organization Model' described above, into the Communal ForestManual, it would be highly desirable to piggy-back CF committees on top of what Mercy Corps is planningto avoid developing parallel structures, confusion and possibly conflicts in the form of power struggleswithin targeted communities. The pilot initiative around Sapo Park could adopt the CDC model and use theopportunity of CDC subcommittees to lead the CF work. The subcommittee on agriculture and forestry(agro-forestry) could be broadened and its capacity strengthened to handle the various stages of developingthe communal forest. This would streamline community structures, ensuring the CF initiative engages withone or more sub-structures within a mechanism co-ordinating all development resources and accountable tothe local community and to donors.
32
![Joseph Jenkins Roberts [President of Liberia]--The Republic of Liberia--An Address (1869)](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/577d22a11a28ab4e1e97dd93/joseph-jenkins-roberts-president-of-liberia-the-republic-of-liberia-an.jpg)
