This chapter outlines necessary action items that the MoEF and East Kalimantan Government have committed to deliver to ensure that a robust system is in place to address risks and impacts on Indigenous peoples. Discussions are ongoing, so most of the responsibilities and timeline will be further discussed in program design.
Summary of the actions related to the IPPF are provided in Table 13.
Table 13 Actions, responsibility, and timeline for the IPPF.
Action Responsibility Timeline
District and village consultations on the ERP and relevant mitigation measures
DGCC and DDPI On-going and will be maintained during ERP implementation
Assignment of focal points at provincial and district levels
To be discussed, but possibly organized by Bappeda
During readiness phase and will be maintained following ERPA
signing Training and awareness raising on
key requirements and processes under the IPPF
To be discussed, but possibly organized by Provincial Environment and/or Forestry
Agency
On-going
Establishment of FGRM committees
Ongoing process under Governor Regulation making process
Following ERPA signing
Training of local dispute mediators To be discussed Following ERPA signing
APPENDICES
Appendix A1
Summary of Meetings and Public
Consultations
Minutes of Meeting of Public Consultation Identification of Issue for SESA, ESMF, FGRM
Balikpapan, October 29 – 31, 2018
09.00 Greetings from DJPPI and Bappeda
09.30 Direction from Senior Advisor for Ministry of Environment & Forestry
o REDD+ started in 2005
o This program needs to be prepared in a way that its agenda corresponds with the provincial government plans
o The process of SESA development should be in compliance with the procedures from the World Bank
o The goal of SESA is to reduce emissions
o Nested approach?
o Besides global agreements such as Cancun & Warsaw agreement, there is national policy related to this goal (STRANAS), and it has to be aligned with the global agreement
o REDD+ is one of the important factors of NDC (Nationally determined contributions)
o Permen No.16 year 2017 is addressing Paris agreement
o Kaltim as first initiation of REDD+ in Indonesia
o Role sharing between Government, Provincial, District and other levels is an important issue
o KLHK has to lead negotiation for FCPF, so that it would reach the goal that is transfer payment from World Bank
o Environment Fund Management to work under Permen No.70/2017 &
Perpres 77/2018
o Certain responsibilities are carried from the international agreements, such as: addressing risks of displacement, reversal, double counting / double claims, etc.
o SESA & ESMF need to address the issue of open access to information through developing information system for safeguard program available for all the stakeholders
o Complexity of the program could cause difficulties on the application stage, however it was working smoothly (so far)
o Before the document accomplished and brought for global negotiation, it has to be on the national & provincial level
o This program has many benefits, not only addressing the carbon emission issue but also an opportunity to protect local wisdom (traditional knowledge) and community (indigenous people), protect biodiversity and many more.
10.00 Project Coordinator/ I Wayan Susi Dharmawan
o Through at least 11 years of experiencing we became ready to fulfill this program goals.
o DDPI is always active synchronizing the program on the levels of province, district/municipality.
o To achieve emission reduction, we need to reduce deforestation and degradation of forest, either in highland, lowland or coastal area.
o The first payment will come in 2023.
o The target of emission reduction is 18.4%, but it‟s not only about carbon itself, it has multiplying effect.
o Organizing institution and mechanism for benefit sharing from this program needs to determine and obtain comprehensive information from deliberative process that includes engaging of multi-stakeholders.
o SESA should be developed through communication process with every stakeholder. To implement this program, the communication and coordination of 3 parties is needed; these are: community, private sector and public sector. Besides, to reach the target, it also needs commitment from provincial, district and local governments, as the driving force.
o Development of the program was conducted aligned with the participation process, on every level of communication among multi-stakeholders in the collaboration scheme.
o Benefits sharing was arranged with the process of consultation, and it has to be clearly carried from national level into site/local level.
o 16 Nop become the important date to ERPD submission, completed with SESA as complementary document.
o As part of readiness/preparedness program, the development of system and institution allowing involving multi-stakeholder in reduction emission needs to be initiated.
10.30 – 12.00, SESA session (Narasumber: Dr. Rudy P.Tambunan and Moderator: Dr. Adhi Rahmat) ppt attached, Session for Identification of Issue in SESA
o Ahmad Sofyan (Universtas Widyagama Mahakam): Potential impact of fertilizer from plantations, it has significant impact to environment. What are the mitigation measures for reducing fertilizer use as potential impact to environment? Berau, urban growth drives into excessive build-up area;
then how to monitor if the build-up areas are converted from the land of indigenous/local community?
o Niken: The potential impacts and the details of mitigation plan has to be in compliance with each other; and it will be even better if the mitigation plan contains information about role sharing. Probably relative example to check: program of strengthen capacity of government breaking into further details with the mitigation plan for alternative community livelihood?
o Wahyudi – Dinas Kehutanan: The problem of overlogging? PHBL should have the information about how it is measured, for certification, in relation with Permen Kehutanan? Check relevancy among the potential impacts and the details of mitigation plan? Hutan Tanaman? Need to further explanation since when the period comes so it has to log?
o Sabarudi: Policy framework explanation for this program? In the 3rd component, INPRES No.8 Year 2018 about Palm Oil Development, as part of ESMF.
o Stevi: Overlogging is a problem. Messy logging causes ineffectiveness and results in higher emission levels, the similar problem also occurs in the process of harvesting (RIL-C).
o Andri/Sabarudi: Permen 84/2014 about Management of Tenurial Conflict in Forest Area needs more research, particularly in social forestry context.
The law should serve as a way to integrate conflict and find solution. IPPF (17 ERPD) talks about involving indigenous people, and now the detailed mechanism or process needs to be developed to overcome issues about indigenous peoples involvement.
o Ahmad Wijaya: According IPPF, we are starting to identify opportunities for indigenous people, starting with enclave as the place to live for indigenous people, so, this program is one of the opportunities to strengthen local communities.
o Rudiansyah: Mahakam Ulu, 84% is forest area (HL, HPT & HP), and now almost 100% becomes HOB. This is a threatening / weakening condition for the area that served as the green area or protected area, since there is no incentive mechanism developed. Besides, this area also needs additional infrastructure, since the current living conditions are very limited and the amenities are hard to access.
o Mas Yuyun: Potential impact is only a symptom, so that‟s why we have to find the real problems/issues here (for example, the demand of timber and
political concern/issue), and the connection between these problems and potential environmental/social impacts has to be address here, including the system or mechanism allowing the indirect factors to be the part of induce factor.
o Krisnan: Explanations about indirect/induced impact as potential impact and how it will be influencing in impact assessment are needed explicitly in the document (for example, with the issue about fertilizer, when its analysis could be strengthen with econometric or macro conditions of the area); and in relevance with driver and underlying causes discussed in ER.
o Maria Abu Bakar/Bappeda Passer: To protect Hutan Alam, about the number? Is it still the same nowadays, since the build-up area was developed rapidly?
o For this time, there is possibility to convert cagar alam into another function, as far as there‟s agreement from authorization owner, such as one of the forest enclave planned to be smart city. About the use of fertilizer, if we have to reduce in using fertilizer, instead of government support fertilizer for community to boost their planting growth.
o Rahmina/TNC: Reminder, after 2013 discussion about safeguard there are 11 issues that still relevant, such as tenurial issues that become our concern at that time, and it still running until this time, please reconsider that issue, so the conflict resolution in that aspect will be sharp and specific.
o Bu Nur/Senior Advisor: The forest guard area issue is very important for involving stakeholders in program implementation in line with 4 pillars (those are reduce emission, economic growth, sustainable development, and one more pillar). It became one of the strength of REDD+ to elaborate the positive possibility, such as incentive for forest guard area, and to address fairness as well, so provincial government has to follow this scheme.
13.30 – 16.00, Session for Identification of Issue in ESMF, FGRM, IPPF
o Stevie: IPPF needs to be developed because we need to know the size of area that claimed by IP. Kaltim has former study about land owned by indigenous people. ERPD need to be confirmed, and when this document is accepted by indigenous people, then the procedure should be created as scaffolding adaptation for IP to applied ER. What type of recognition procedures is developed? Especially for those were prevailed in Kaltim, How about related policy in Kaltim about I ? All of this material could be arrange as road map in recognition process.
o Rahmina/TNC: The content of IPPF, is it designed for every site of IP?
How many IPs are recognized in Kaltim by now? How is recognition
process conducted, by rule or confession as self-claimer/determination?
Recognition process through Law implementation, starting from identification until legalization, can take 3 years, when the UU 41 is applied, but if we use district regulations it can be faster. To socialize program with IP, its needs to simplify context in informal version.
o Krisnan: WB approach to determine IPPF is slightly different. For example, IPPF as determined by Public Works Ministry (Kotaku project) has 4 criteria‟s (those who are closely attached to ancestral territory, self- identification and identification by others, indigenous language, and customary institution). From the same example, it's explained that there is a 7 step procedure in grievance mechanism.
o Hamli/Kukar: The mechanism of problem solving needs to be aligned with local wisdom (traditional knowledge?).
While we are reviewing RPJM, there is collaboration effort within KLHK & MoHA, then, when the ER will be developed as an input to RPJM, we have to make sure that both documents match each other.
o Bu Niken: In the process of acceptance for this document, is there any process that need to developed, or we only need to state the strategy as the indicative program? Is it possible to adapt it all since we have time restrictions? How about the budgeting, mapping of manpower, and other concerns to be addressed in the applicable/detailed version/local action plan? How to overcome an issue of potential inequality of candidates accepting the incentives?
o Krisnan: The content of ESMF & IPPF is strategic, and it was define as a framework. For further steps, it needs to be developed into the detail plan.
o Erry/WWF: FGRM needs to be conducted on the local/village basis, since every single village has distinguished/different characteristics. Mechanism of MUSRENBANG can be used as an instrument to address the social aspects of this program, and obtain the benefits of it.
o Bu Nur/Senior Advisor: ESMP & IPPF define the strategic level, then the more detailed documents should be developed to inform the local government about the goals of ER.
o Prof. Dedi Ruhiyat: It was an insightful discussion with lots of information gathered. However, we need the breakthrough to accelerate the process of document preparation and get to the detail stage, so that all direction/procedural and factual matters could be resolved in this document. All the expected input will strengthen the document, and could also be applicable in next stage.
Appendix A2
Outline of Indigenous Peoples
Plan
OUTLINE OF AN INDIGENOUS PEOPLES PLAN
This outline is part of the World Bank Safeguard requirements. An indigenous peoples (IPs) plan is required for all projects with impacts on IPs. Its level of detail and comprehensiveness is commensurate with the significance of potential impacts on IPs. The substantive aspects of this outline guide the preparation of an Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP), although not necessarily in the order shown.
A. Executive Summary of the Indigenous Peoples Plan This section concisely describes the critical facts, significant findings, and recommended actions.
B. Description of the Project This section provides a general description of the project; discusses project components and activities that may bring impacts on IPs; and identify project area.
C. Social Impact Assessment This section:
i. Reviews the legal and institutional framework applicable to IPs in project context.
ii. Provides baseline information on the demographic, social, cultural, and political characteristics of the affected IP communities; the land and territories that they have traditionally owned or customarily used or occupied; and the natural resources on which they depend.
iii. Identifies key project stakeholders and elaborate a culturally appropriate and gender-sensitive process for meaningful consultation with IPs at each stage of project preparation and implementation, taking the review and baseline information into account.
iv. Assesses, based on meaningful consultation with the affected IPs communities, and the potential adverse and positive effects of the project. Critical to the determination of potential adverse impacts is a gender-sensitive analysis of the relative vulnerability of, and risks to, the affected IPs communities given their particular circumstances and close ties to land and natural resources, as well as their lack of access to opportunities relative to those available to other social groups in the communities, regions, or national societies in which they live.
v. Includes a gender-sensitive assessment of the affected IPs perceptions about the project and its impact on their social, economic, and cultural status.
vi. Identifies and recommends, based on meaningful consultation with the affected IPs communities, the measures necessary to avoid adverse effects or, if such measures are not possible, identifies measures to minimize, mitigate, and/or compensate for such effects and to ensure that IPs receive culturally appropriate benefits under the project.
D. Information Disclosure, Consultation and Participation
This section
(i) Describes the information disclosure, consultation and participation process with the affected IPs communities that can be carried out during project preparation;
(ii) Summarizes their comments on the results of the social impact assessment and identifies concerns raised during consultation and how these have been addressed in project design;
(iii) In the case of project activities requiring broad community support, documents the process and outcome of consultations with affected IPs communities and any agreement resulting from such consultations for the project activities and safeguard measures addressing the impacts of such activities;
(iv) Describes consultation and participation mechanisms to be used during implementation to ensure IPs participation during implementation; and (v) Confirms disclosure of the draft and final to the affected IPs
communities.
E. Beneficial Measures
This section specifies the measures to ensure that I P s receive social and economic benefits that are culturally appropriate, and gender responsive.
F. Mitigative Measures
This section specifies the measures to avoid adverse impacts on IPs; and where the avoidance is impossible, specifies the measures to minimize, mitigate and compensate for identified unavoidable adverse impacts for each affected IPs groups.
G. Capacity Building
This section provides measures to strengthen the social, legal, and technical capabilities of (a) government institutions to address IPs issues in the project area; and (b) IPs organizations in the project area to enable them to represent the affected IPs more effectively.
H. Grievance Redress Mechanism
This section describes the procedures to redress grievances by affected IPs communities. It also explains how the procedures are accessible to IPs and culturally appropriate and gender sensitive.
I. Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation
This section describes the mechanisms and benchmarks appropriate to the project for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the IPP. It also specifies arrangements for participation of affected IPs in the preparation and validation of monitoring, and evaluation reports.