STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT...

LIPI Building 3rd Floor, Jl. Ir. H. Juanda No. 18, Bogor 16122, Indonesia • Tel: +62 251 8324 487 • Fax: +62 251 8340 414 • www.hatfieldgroup.com

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL

ASSESSMENT (SESA) FOR INDONESIA’S

REDD+ READINESS PREPARATION

PRELIMINARY REPORT

RFP NUMBER: 01/POKJA ULP/PPI/05/2018

Prepared for:

DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF CLIMATE CHANGE

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTRY

(KEMENTERIAN LINGKUNGAN DAN KEHUTANAN)

GD. MANGGALA WANABAKTI BLOK IV LT. 6

JL. JEND. GATOT SUBROTO

JAKARTA

Prepared by:

PT HATFIELD INDONESIA

LIPI BUILDING 3RD FLOOR,

JL. IR. H. JUANDA NO. 18

BOGOR 16122,

INDONESIA

OCTOBER 2018

WB 8916

VERSION 1

SESA East Kalimantan – Preliminary Report i Hatfield Indonesia

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................. II

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ II

DISTRIBUTION LIST ....................................................................................... III

AMENDMENT RECORD ................................................................................. III

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

1.1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT ............................................ 1

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE INCEPTION REPORT ................................................... 1

2.0 ORGANISATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SETUP ........................... 2

3.0 STARTING SITUATION .......................................................................... 3

3.1 INCEPTION PHASE ACTIVITIES .................................................................. 3

3.2 EAST KALIMANTAN .................................................................................... 5

3.2.1 Stakeholder Mapping ....................................................................... 5

3.2.2 Data Analysis .................................................................................. 6

3.2.3 Gap Analysis ................................................................................... 6

3.3 JAMBI ........................................................................................................... 6

3.3.1 Stakeholder Mapping ....................................................................... 6

3.3.2 Data Analysis .................................................................................. 7

4.0 APPROACHES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ................................... 8

4.1 APPROACHES ........................................................................................... 10

4.1.1 East Kalimantan ............................................................................ 10

4.1.2 Jambi............................................................................................. 10

5.0 INDICATIVE FINDINGS ........................................................................ 11

5.1 STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENTS (SESA) ........................................................................................................ 11

5.2 POTENTIAL RISKS/IMPACTS TO GUIDE THE ESMF DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................... 15

5.2.1 Improving Land Governance ......................................................... 16

5.2.2 Strengthening Government Capacity for Forest Administration ................................................................................ 17

5.2.3 Reducing Deforestation Linked to Oil Palm Expansion .................. 17

5.2.4 Reducing Deforestation Linked to Over logging and Timber Plantation ...................................................................................... 18

5.2.5 Reducing Encroachment by Providing Sustainable Alternatives.................................................................................... 19

5.3 INDICATIVE CONTENT OF SESA, ESMF, FGRM AND IPPF .................... 20

5.3.1 Indicative Content of SESA ........................................................... 20

5.3.2 Indicative Content of ESMF ........................................................... 21

5.3.3 Indicative Content for FGRM ......................................................... 22

5.3.4 Indicative Content for IPPF ............................................................ 23

SESA East Kalimantan – Preliminary Report ii Hatfield Indonesia

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Summary of consultant team’s tasks for the assignments............................................ 2

Table 2 Summary of relevant secondary data compiled during the inception phase. ............... 4

Table 3 Summary of timeline for completing SESA & ESMF. ................................................... 9

Table 4 Shortlist of predicted environmental impacts of ER Program in East Kalimantan. ................................................................................................................. 13

Table 5 Shortlist of predicted social impacts of ER Program in East Kalimantan. .................. 15

Table 6 Potential implications and mitigation measures for land governance. ........................ 16

Table 7 Potential implications and mitigation measures for reducing deforestation linked to oil palm plantation. ........................................................................................ 17

Table 8 Potential implications and mitigation measures for reducing deforestation linked to over logging and timber plantation. .............................................................. 18

Table 9 Potential implications and mitigation measures for reducing encroachment by providing sustainable alternatives. .............................................................................. 19

Table 10 Indicative content of SESA. ........................................................................................ 20

Table 11 Indicative content of ESMF. ........................................................................................ 21

Table 12 Indicative content of the FGRM. ................................................................................. 22

Table 13 Indicative content of IPPF. .......................................................................................... 23

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Medium list of predicted positive environmental impacts............................................ 12

Figure 2 Medium list of predicted negative environmental impacts. ......................................... 12

Figure 3 Medium List of predicted positive social impacts. ....................................................... 14

Figure 4 Medium list of predicted negative social impacts. ....................................................... 14

SESA East Kalimantan – Preliminary Report iii Hatfield Indonesia

DISTRIBUTION LIST

The following individuals/firms have received this document:

Name Firm Hardcopies CDs Email FTP

Mrs. Novia Widyaningtyas FCPF /

P3SEKPI

- - -

Mr. I Wayan Susi Dharmawan - - -

AMENDMENT RECORD

This report has been issued and amended as follows:

Issue Description Date Approved by

1 First version of Preliminary

Report

2018-10-12

Bambang TSA

Project Director

Adhi Rachmat S Hariyadi

Project Manager

SESA East Kalimantan – Preliminary Report 1 Hatfield Indonesia

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) has provided the Government of Indonesia with grant to

finance the preparation of REDD+ Implementation. The overall goal of this project is to strengthen the

technical and management capacity for REDD+ implementation at national and sub-national levels.

Forest Carbon Partnership Facility selected East Kalimantan Province as a CarbonFund pilot province

for activities in 2018 to 2024. Similarly, Initiatives for Sustainable Forest Landscape (ISFL) selected

Jambi Province for BioCarbon Fund pilot. The two mechanisms aim for implementation of

performance-based payment system that will be formalized under Emission Reduction Payment

Agreement (ERPA). Both FPCF and ISFL have kicked off the programs in respective provinces, and

indicative approaches have been developed accordingly. FCPF Grant supports a subset of readiness

effort that consists of the following components:

1. Analytical Work;

2. Support of Readiness Process;

3. Reference Emission Level (REL) and Monitoring, Reporting & Verification (MRV); and

4. Regional data collection and capacity building.

In East Kalimantan, Social and Environmental Standards for REDD+ (SES REDD+) has been

developed based on national safeguards-related initiatives such as The Principles, Criteria and

Indicators for REDD+ Safeguards (PRISAI) and Safeguards Information System (SIS).

1.1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ASSIGNMENT

To support REDD+ implementation in Indonesia, World Bank requires Strategic Environmental and

Social Assessment (SESA) and Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) as key

safeguards documents. These two documents are integral parts of the readiness components, where

analytical components of the SESA will be used for ESMF. The indicative REDD+ ESMF is already

established for national level, and will be used as the basis for ESMF development. SESA and ESMF

are part of the Emission Reduction Program Document (ERPD) that has been developed for East

Kalimantan Province. Development of SESA followed the guideline prescribed in Government

Regulation (Peraturan Pemerintah – PP) no. 46/2016 regarding guideline for Strategic Environmental

Assessment.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE INCEPTION REPORT

The purpose of this inception report is to describe the process for setting up team organisation, as

well as administrative setup. This inception report also contains description of proposed team

mobilisation according to the tasks for completing SESA, ESMF and the components therein.

Additionally, inception report contains identification of starting point for PT Hatfield Indonesia. This is

primarily crucial for East Kalimantan Province, as the process of ERPD write up has started. Activities

done during the inception phase and initial findings are also reported in this document. The inception

phase covered a period from contract signing in August 2018 to October 2018 when preliminary

report is due for submission.


2.0 ORGANISATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SETUP

Key staffs assigned by PT Hatfield Indonesia have at least ten years of relevant experience, including

considerable experience in Sumatra and Kalimantan, Indonesia. Our team of experts brings strong

knowledge and experience in preparing SEAs for regional planning and working on REDD+ programs

supported by the KfW and other international organizations. Our experts include key staffs who have

successfully prepared ESMF documents for project developments supported by the World Bank and

the Government of Indonesia in the past two years. This demonstrates experience with the World

Bank safeguard policies: Environmental Assessment (OP/BP 4.01), Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04),

Forests (OP/BP 4.36), Pest Management (OP/BP 4.09), Physical Cultural Resources (OP/BP 4.11),

Indigenous Peoples (OP/BP 4.10), and Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12).

The team of experts covers a full range of scientific disciplines, including natural resource

management, socio-economic and community engagement, forestry, REDD+, and conservation. The

key staffs include individuals with knowledge of the policy environment governing various REDD+

programs with strong experience in working with central and local governments, international

organizations and civil society. In addition, our team of experts has extensive experience in

developing strategic environmental and social assessments in Indonesia, particularly in situations

where multiple stakeholders are involved. Immediate mobilization of all proposed experts is possible

as all are based in-country, and are available to commit to their respective roles under this

assignment. Additionally, PTHI will also assign non-key experts to support with SESA and integrated

ESMF. The team is organised according to the tasks summarised in Table 1.

Table 1 Summary of consultant team’s tasks for the assignments.

Team Assignments Roles/Tasks Team Members

Data Collection Collecting secondary data in East

Kalimantan and Jambi;

Conducting interview (primary

data) in East Kalimantan and

Jambi

Collecting spatial data for East

Kalimantan and Jambi

Ichsan Irwanto (East Kalimantan)

Akhmad Wijaya (East Kalimantan)

Kasaya Anissa Rahmaniah (Jambi)

Erick Mardi Tjahyono (Jambi)

Rina Wulandari (Bogor - spatial

data)

Data Analysis Analysing data to support identification

of strategic issues for SESA and ESMF.

Analysis is done in tabular, as well as

spatial format

Rudi Tambunan

Syarifah Syaukat

Bambang Tri Sasongko Adi

Adhi Rachmat Hariyadi

Yunus Helmy

Public Consultation Arranging and conducting public

consultations in East Kalimantan and

Jambi. Public consultations consist of

one in each province (East Kalimantan

and Jambi), and at least two of the

districts in the province (representing

permanent sampling plot locations)

Dany Yuda Saputra (East

Kalimantan)

Akhmad Wijaya (East Kalimantan)

Mashudi Noorsalim (Jambi)

Erick Mardi Tjahyono (Jambi)

SESA write-up Formulating SESA report based on

analysis and data available to support

identification of strategic sectors, as

well as potential impacts

Rudi Tambunan

Syarifah Syaukat



Team Assignments Roles/Tasks Team Members

ESMF write-up Formulating ESMF report based on

SESA. ESMF includes Indigenous

People’s Plan (IPP); Access Restriction

Action Plan (ARAP) to support

identification of strategic sectors, as

well as potential impacts

Rudi Tambunan

Syarifah Syaukat


Mashudi Noorsalim

Jaya Perana

PTHI recruited consultant’s representatives consisting of Mr. Akhmad Wijaya and Mr. Erick Mardi

Tjahyono in East Kalimantan and Jambi provinces respectively. Representatives will bridge

stakeholder engagement activities and assist SESA/ESMF writing teams with additional data

collection, data analysis and drafts as required. Team mobilisation and activities are supervised the

Mr. Bambang Tri Sasongko Adi, the Project Director.

3.0 STARTING SITUATION

PT Hatfield Indonesia (PTHI) started the assignment on August 1, 2018. By that time, the Emission

Reduction Program Document (ERPD) for East Kalimantan Province and interim SESA & ESMF had

already been developed. Therefore, PTHI’s entry to the process in East Kalimantan Province needed

to be adjusted and aligned with existing progress through the following approaches:

1. Understanding the contents of East Kalimantan’s ERPD by examining this document and

attending review sessions done by World Bank’s Technical Advisory Panel (TAP);

2. Coordinating with Local Council for Climate Change (Dewan Daerah Perubahan Iklim – DDPI)

and other organisations involved in the development of East Kalimantan’s ERPD; and

3. Collecting secondary data and records of Focused Group Discussions (FGD) and public

consultations leading to the development of interim SESA and ESMF for East Kalimantan.

Kick-off of Emission Reduction (ER) Program in Jambi Province had taken place, but the ERPD has

not been produced for Jambi Province. Entry to the process in Jambi Province needs to be done

through coordination with General Secretariat (Sekretariat Bersama – Sekber), other organisations

and individual consultants involved in the development of Jambi’s ERPD.

3.1 INCEPTION PHASE ACTIVITIES

Activities in inception phase consist of preparation and communication (coordination) with existing

stakeholders. Preparation involves activity components such as:

Finalising contracts with external sub-consultants and representatives in East Kalimantan and

Jambi;

Conducting internal team briefing to ensure that all team members have the same

understanding on the objectives of the assignments, and all team members are aware of roles

and responsibilities in achieving the objectives of the assignments (outlined in Section 2.0);

Secondary data collection (from DG PPI, P3SEKPI and other credible sources), summarised

in Table 2;


Engagement with stakeholders in East Kalimantan, specifically SESA and Safeguards team;

Engagement with stakeholders in Jambi, specifically members of Sekber, Provincial

Government (Environmental Agency, Bappeda), NGO (WARSI) and existing programs in

Jambi (MCA-I and Forest Programme II); and

Drafting SESA & ESMF for East Kalimantan Province.

Table 2 Summary of relevant secondary data compiled during the inception phase.

Description of documents Source Relevance for SESA and

ESMF

ERPD Advanced Draft and

annexes

P3SEKPI SESA Baseline

information

SESA Strategic Issues

Interim SESA

ER Program objectives

Safeguards Gap Analysis REDD+ Working Group East

Kalimantan

SESA Gap Analysis

ESMF Matrix DDPI Indicative environmental

and social risks

Indicative environmental

and social impacts

Workshop on customary

communities (Masyarakat

Hukum Adat)

Forestry Agency – East

Kalimantan Province

Compilation of strategic issues

for Indigenous Peoples Plan

(IPP)

Minutes meeting and results

TAP review

P3SEKPI Improvements on Safeguard

sections

Compilation of Background

Information

P3SEKPI Safeguard REDD+

ERP Design and Matrix P3SEKPI ER Program design

Strategic Issues

Underlying causes &

drivers

Risks and impacts

Spatial data P3SEKPI Baseline data

Strategic Issues

Gaps

Meeting Records 2015-2018 P3SEKPI Documentation of meetings on

SESA and ESMF as part of the

process prescribed in PP

46/2016.

ERPD Vietnam P3SEKP Examples for SESA & ESMF

Various publications on

REDD+ and natural resource

management issues in East

Kalimantan

Desktop research Background information on

strategic issues and

safeguards principles


Activities at national level during inception period consist of involvement and support during World

Bank’s Technical Advisory Panel mission in Jakarta and Bogor. Minutes meetings and result of TAP

mission were used as background information to further develop SESA and ESMF for East

Kalimantan Province. Detailed activities conducted for East Kalimantan and Jambi provinces during

inception period are described in sections below.

3.2 EAST KALIMANTAN

Referring to the PP 46/2016 regarding the guideline for strategic environmental assessment (SEA),

stakeholder mapping, screening and scoping processes were done in the initial stage of SESA in East

Kalimantan. This was done based on secondary data available from P3SEKPI, DDPI, as well as from

REDD+ working group and forestry agency in East Kalimantan Province.

3.2.1 Stakeholder Mapping

Stakeholders consisting of government and non-government agencies at provincial, district and grass

root levels are identified in Chapter 1 of ERPD Document. These stakeholders are categorised into:

Stakeholders that influence the implementation of Emission Reduction (ER) Program;

Stakeholders that will be impacted by ER program implementation; and

Stakeholders relevant with information on ER program.

3.2.1.1 Government Stakeholders

Government stakeholders relevant with the ER program implementation are:

Central Government: MoEF and MoF;

Provincial Government: Bappeda, Forestry, Plantation, Fishery, Environment, Mining

agencies; and

District Government: Bappeda of district/city.

3.2.1.2 Non-Government Stakeholders

Non-government stakeholders relevant with the ER program implementation consists of (but not

limited to):

Regional council for climate changes (DDPI), national & regional forestry councils;

NGO (WWF, TNC, Bioma, Forclime, GGGI, Kerimapuri, Kawal Borneo, Prakarsa Borneo,

Yayasan Bumi);

University & Research Institute: Center for Climate Change Study, Mulawaraman University,

CSF; and

Working Groups: District REDD+, Green Economy, Timber legality

All of these stakeholders have been involved in the development of existing ERPD.


3.2.2 Data Analysis

Analysis done in SESA includes assessment of strategic issues consisting of:

Environmental carrying capacity for sustainable development in East Kalimantan Province;

Estimation of environmental and social impacts and risks;

Performance of ecosystem services;

Efficiency in natural resource utilisations;

Vulnerability and adaptation capacity towards climate change; and

Resistance and resilience of natural resource potentials to climate change.

Results of analysis are the basis for formulation of Environmental and Social Management Framework

(ESMF). The ESMF document sets up safeguards mechanisms to mitigate negative impacts.

Ultimately, this process recommends improvements on policies, plans and programs contained in the

ERPD. Existing data and information from sources listed in Table 2 allow identification of

Strategic emission reduction issues;

Risks;

Impacts; and

Gaps between planned ER activities and existing Safeguards.

3.2.3 Gap Analysis

Gap analysis was done by comparing the risks identified in the interim SESA (and further analysed in

SESA) with existing safeguards and World Bank’s operational and bank policies. Gap analysis is

done to ensure that all risks caused by the ER Program are addressed by the existing safeguards to

also to ensure the compliance with the WB/OP standards.

Should one or more World Bank’s OP/BPs are triggered by ER Program, the next step of the analysis

is to conduct gap analysis. This analysis aims to identify if existing national regulations and safeguard

(e.g., SIS REDD+, PRISAI, and SES REDD Kaltim) are relevant to address the abovementioned

risks. Safeguard mechanism to address these risks will be formulated in Environmental and Social

Management Framework (ESMF) documents that will be developed separately from SESA.

3.3 JAMBI

Activities in Jambi Province consisted of Introduction and preparation of stakeholder engagement.

Preparation for ERPD development includes planning for recruiting individual consultants for writing

up ERPD chapters.

3.3.1 Stakeholder Mapping

In addition to the representatives of MoEF (c.q., Directorate General for Climate Change),

stakeholders in Jambi consist of Substance Team, Private Sectors and FCPF-World Bank.


3.3.1.1 Substance Team

Substance team of Jambi Province is tasked with initiating the process of developing the design for

the ER Program, and developing the ERPD. The substance team members are:

Academics (University of Jambi – UNJA);

Jambi provincial government agencies such as plantation, forestry, environment, regional

research, provincial planning/Bappeda, and Forest management units (Kesatuan Pengelolaan

Hutan – KPH);

Technical Implementation Units of central government offices: Bukit Duabelas National Park,

Nature Conservation Agency (BKSDA); Watershed management office (BPDAS) Batanghari,

and Social Forestry and Environmental Partnership (BPSKL), and Production Forest

Management Bureau (BPHP);

Organisations such as: Banir, KKI Warsi, YLBHL, Cakrawala, WWF, SSS Pundi, Gita Buana,

Mitra Aksi, ZSL, CAPPA and SETARA; and

Private sectors: PT Wira Karya Sakti, and PT REKI.

3.3.1.2 Private Sectors

Private sectors, specifically land-based businesses (e.g., plantation and forestry sectors) are

stakeholders relevant with ER program implementation in Jambi. Private sectors consist of plantation,

forestry and ecosystem restoration companies.

3.3.1.3 FCPF-World Bank

FCPF and World Bank as the funds provider for ER Program in Jambi Province assigned a

representative to assist the development of ER Program Design and the ERPD document.

3.3.2 Data Analysis

Identification of strategic issues has been done in the initial draft of project document. Currently, the

Project Development Objectives (PDO) is being developed. The draft contains the following

components:

Strengthening Policy and Institutions;

Implementing sustainable land management; and

Result-based payments and management

These components will be used as the basis for identifying strategic issues, risks, impacts in the

SESA, as well as the basis for establishing mitigation plan in the ESMF.


4.0 APPROACHES AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Time for preparing the SESA and ESMF document is very limited, so approaches and implementation

plan must be done in effective and efficient manners. General approaches for completing the

assignment are:

Secondary data collection and compilation;

Identification of strategic issues from secondary data (East Kalimantan) and focus group

discussions (Jambi);

Data Analysis based on secondary data (risk, impact and gap analysis with existing

safeguards); and

Development and finalisation of SESA & ESMF documents (including Land Acquisition and

Resettlement Action Plan-LARAP, Access Restriction Action Plan-ARAP, Feedback

Grievance and Redress Mechanism-FGRM and Indigenous Peoples Plan-IPP)

The timeline for completing the assignment is summarised in Table 3.


Table 3 Summary of timeline for completing SESA & ESMF.

Milestones PTHI

Team Mobilisation

2018 2019

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

Inception / Preliminary Report Data Collection, SESA & ESMF writing

Draft Final SESA & ESMF – East Kalimantan Data Analysis, SESA & ESMF writing

Public Consultation – East Kalimantan Public Consultation team

Revision to the Draft SESA & ESMF – East Kalimantan SESA & ESMF writing

FGD on Safeguards – Socialisation at District level in East

Kalimantan Public consultation and data collection

Draft Final SESA & ESMF - Jambi Data analysis, SESA & ESMF writing

Public Consultation - Jambi Public consultation team, data collection

Revision to the Draft SESA & ESMF – Jambi Data analysis, SESA & ESMF writing team

FGD on Safeguards – Socialisation at District level in Jambi Public consultation team, data collection

Finalising SESA & ESMF documents for East Kalimantan and

Jambi provinces SESA & ESMF writing


4.1 APPROACHES

Specific approaches for developing SESA and ESMF documents are described in sections below.

4.1.1 East Kalimantan

4.1.1.1 Integrating Existing Work

Extensive work has been done by team in East Kalimantan, and most of this work has been included

in the ERPD. Therefore, the approach for completing the SESA and ESMF documents for East

Kalimantan Province consists of integration of existing work and alignment with input from TAP

mission. Based on TAP evaluation, the crucial aspects to improve are the development of SESA,

ESMF and FGRM documents. Additionally, there is a need to include the Indigenous People’s Plan in

the existing SESA draft. These are the steps that need to be discussed with the ERPD writing team in

East Kalimantan.

4.1.1.2 Focused Group Discussion (FGD) and Interviews

These were done to fill in the gaps on aligning the SESA, ESMF and FGRM requirements with

additional information available among ERPD writing team in East Kalimantan. The use of interim

SESA and ESMF are discussed and agreed as a useful approach for developing the SESA, ESMF

and FGRM.

4.1.1.3 Risk and Impact Analysis

Risk and impact analysis are done by SESA writing team based on the data contained used in ERPD,

as well as on the additional information obtained during FGD and interviews. This is part of the

scoping process, which forms the basis for establishing ESMF (including FGRM and Indigenous

Peoples Plan).

4.1.1.4 Public Consultation

Public consultation is done by Public Consultation Team to ensure input and subsequent buy-ins from

relevant stakeholders on the improved version of SESA and ESMF. These will be used to formulate

recommendations for:

Justifying the strategic issues, risks and impacts identified in SESA; and

Safeguards on environmental and socio-cultural issues (i.e., avoiding, mitigating or offsetting

negative impacts), as identified in the scoping process.

4.1.2 Jambi

4.1.2.1 Secondary Data Collection and Compilation

Secondary data collection in Jambi Province starts with the acquisition of Strategic Environmental

Assessment (Kalian Lingkungan Hidup Strategis - KLHS) on spatial plan and/or on medium term

development plan. This assessment provides a basic understanding on strategic environmental and

social issues that need to be explored further in the context of ER Program implementation in Jambi.


4.1.2.2 Involvement in the ERPD Development Process

Involvement supports the identification of strategic issues, as the project document objectives and ER

program design are developed. These strategic issues are the materials for subsequent screening

and scoping process prescribed for SESA development.

4.1.2.3 Screening and Scoping

Long list of strategic issues are screened into medium and short lists of strategic issues. The

shortlisted strategic issues are subject to further analysis within SESA exercise.

4.1.2.4 Data Analysis

This step consists of risk, environmental and social impact analysis of short listed strategic issues.

Clustering of these into positive and negative impacts enable identification of issues with highest risks

and impacts. These form the basis for formulating recommendations for mitigating the negative

impacts in ESMF document.

4.1.2.5 Public Consultation

Public consultation is done in the following manners with that described in Section 4.1.1.4.

5.0 INDICATIVE FINDINGS

Findings during the inception period are limited to those of East Kalimantan Province. Indicative

SESA and ESMF results are described below. These results are subject to refinement and adjustment

based on the result of FGDs and public consultation processes.

5.1 STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENTS (SESA)

Interim result and subsequent Focus Group Discussions done during SESA indicate a long list of

positive and negative environmental issues that are further translated into impacts. These long lists

are summarised into medium list of Positive and negative environmental impacts shown in Figure 1

and Figure 2 respectively.


Figure 1 Medium list of predicted positive environmental impacts.

Figure 2 Medium list of predicted negative environmental impacts.

Sustainable management practices

are improved

Emission at the village level is reduced.

Improve protection to protected areas and reduce the level of

illegal logging

Forest area will be more protected and

this will minimize deforestation in the

future

Improved forest protection and other ecosystem services

Clear FMU boundary will improve forest

area management by FMU

Improved capacity of FMU to manage forest

area better

Minimise deforestation by

improving supervision and alternative

community livelihood

Improved forest protection from fire

Reduced illegal logging

HCV areas within timber plantation concession will be

more protected

Reduced forest degradation and

deforestation

Better protection of conservation forest

Improved quality of habitat, environment and protected areas

within the estate crops

Sustainable benefits for environment and

community

Improved the quality of environment and

ecosystem

Improved forest and natural habitat

protection

Reduced forest conversion for new

estate crops

Reduced land and forest fire

Better village landuse and reduced forest

conversion

Better protection and improved mangrove

ecosystem

Reduced threat on forest habitat

Potential success of the project and

positive impact to environment

Improve the level of ER program success

Better project performance (reduced

emission, improved forest cover)

Potential land conversion due to cultivation of some

commodities

Non sustainable agriculture practices and estate crops

practices

Reduced forest area if the dispute through SF is not well

implemented.

Potential increase of illegal logging by communities due to

loss of livelihood income

Posible introduction of invasive species

Reduced environmental quality due to application of non-

environmental friendly fertilizer

Increasing threats on swamp/peat area

Unsustainable agriculture practices will potentially reduce

the quality of riparian environment

Unsustainable aquaculture practices will potentially reduce

the quality of aquatic environment

Potential threat to protected/conservation areas due to inappropriate licensing

process


Environmental impacts are further summarised into short lists consisting of impacts described in

Table 4.

Table 4 Shortlist of predicted environmental impacts of ER Program in East Kalimantan.

Positive Impacts Negative Impacts

Improve protection to protected areas and reduce the

level of illegal logging

Potential loss of community livelihood for MA and local

community

Improved carbon stock Reduced forest area if the dispute through SF is not

well implemented.

Forest area will be more protected and this will

minimize deforestation in the future

Potential increase of illegal logging by communities

due to loss of livelihood income

Improve forest management practices Potential threat to protected/conservation areas due to

inappropriate social forestry licensing process

Clear FMU boundary will improve forest area

management by FMU

Possible introduction of invasive species

Improved capacity of FMU to manage forest area

better

Unsustainable aquaculture practices will potentially

reduce the quality of aquatic environment

Improved forest protection and other ecosystem

services

Improved quality of habitat, environment and protected

areas within the estate crops

Better village land-use and reduced forest conversion

Sustainable benefits for environment and community

Reduced land and forest fire

Improved forest and natural habitat protection

Reduced forest conversion for new estate crops

Reduced illegal logging

HCV areas within timber plantation concession will be

more protected

Positive respond and interest from plantation company

that will positively impact on reducing illegal logging

Reduced forest degradation and deforestation

Better protection of conservation forest

Better protection and improved mangrove ecosystem

Similarly, screening and scoping process of SESA produced long lists of predicted positive and

negative social impacts. These lists are summarised into medium list of predicted positive and

negative impacts, as shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively.


Figure 3 Medium List of predicted positive social impacts.

Figure 4 Medium list of predicted negative social impacts.

Reduced land / area conflict as a result of

better licensing system

Reduced conflict between communities on

forest area

Community groups including vulnerable

group will be receiving more benefits.

Potential loss of local community income

Improved community livelihood

Potential additional income by involvement in the community forest

fire brigade

Improved capacity on SFM and RIL at various

stakeholders

Reduced conflict between company and

community by collaborative and

participative approach

Improved capacity of community group related

to social forestry

Increased community income from social forestry program

Improved capacity on forest conservation

Improved access to forest by the forest

conservation partnership scheme

Improved capacity of government and private sector, as well as farmers

group

Improved capacity of small holders in

sustainable crops practices

More benefit for local community

(environmental services, e.g., ecotourism, and economic activities)

New opportunity for community's livelihood

Improved community income and food security

Sustainable income generation for local

communities

Possible tensions and conflicts among stakeholders

due to inadequate FGRM

Community concerns are not accommodated into the

program/activities due to lack of capacities

Limited forest timber for community housing

construction

Less impact for vulnerable groups (MA, poor people and

women)

Trigger for new disputesLess opportunity for local

community to utilise forest resources

Potential for resettlement or reduce community access to

forest

Potential conflict with community and other surrounding entities

Potential unability to access to finance for the newly

established company

Potential conflict due to not all community members

have a chance to participate

Potential conflict due to lack of awareness on forest

conservation

Losing the opportunity for community to have a value

added to agricultural commodities

Potential conflicts between formal and traditional laws

Potential loss of community livelihood

Potential trigger for new disputes


Social impacts are further summarised into shortlists containing predicted impacts described in

Table 5.

Table 5 Shortlist of predicted social impacts of ER Program in East Kalimantan.

Positive Impacts Negative Impacts

Reduced land / area conflict as a result of better

licensing system

Less opportunity for local community to utilize forest

resources;

Reduced land/tenurial conflict between private sector

and community

Potential conflicts between formal and traditional laws

Improved community livelihood Community concerns are not accommodated into the

program/activities due to lack of capacities;

Community groups including vulnerable group will be

receiving more benefits.

Trigger for new disputes

Improved capacity of government and private sector,

as well as farmers group

Potential for resettlement or reduce community

access to forest

Improved capacity of small holders in sustainable

crops practices

Potential conflict with community and other

surrounding entities;

Improved capacity on SFM and RIL at various

stakeholders

Potential loss of community livelihood, for them who

have to find other forest area due to the boundary

demarcation/ conflict with private sectors.

Better access to forest resources for cultural reason

and non-timber forest product.

Potential inability to access to finance for the newly

established company

Improved access to forest resources and improved

community livelihood

Losing the opportunity for community to have a value

added to agricultural commodities

Improved capacity of community group related to

social forestry

Improved capacity on forest conservation

Improved access to forest by the forest conservation

partnership scheme

Sustainable income generation for local communities

More benefit for local community (environmental

services, e.g., ecotourism, and economic activities)

5.2 POTENTIAL RISKS/IMPACTS TO GUIDE THE ESMF DEVELOPMENT

Environmental safeguards management framework (ESMF) in this preliminary document is based on

potential risks that may be associated with the ER program design. However, the risks are mainly

hypothetical and need to be justified with more evidence. At this stage, the risks listed in this section

not conclusive. World Bank Safeguards1 employ indicative approach for four types of interventions

consisting of:

Type 1: Capacity Building;

1 Indicative Safeguard approach for the four types of Technical Assistance activities.


Type 2: Assisting in preparation of policies, programs, plans, or legal frameworks;

Type 2: Land-use planning and natural resource management; and

Type 4: Preparing feasibility studies or technical designs.

These types are used as references in formulating the environmental and social management

framework (ESMF) for ERP in East Kalimantan.

The following potential risks/impacts will also be used as the reference to develop the Feedback

Grievance Redress Mechanism (FGRM) and the Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (IPPF).

5.2.1 Improving Land Governance

Improving land governance involves two aspects consisting of capacity building and improving

regulatory instruments. Risk and gap analyses have identified that improving land governance can

potentially trigger OP/BP 4.36 (Forest). 4.10 (indigenous people) and 4.12 (Involuntary re-settlement).

Improving land governance is relevant with Type 1 and Type 2 interventions. Capacity building for

improving land governance does not usually have adverse environmental impact. However, the

policies resulting from the efforts for improving land governance may have impacts on the forest

management and social impacts, including potential involuntary resettlement. Strategic Environmental

and Social Assessment (SESA) does not foresee involuntary resettlement as a potential risk, but

recognise that there may be impacts on indigenous communities. Safeguard measures are already

available in form of relevant government regulations, SIS REDD, PRISAI and SES REDD Kaltim.

Potential implications and relevant mitigation measures related to improving land governance are

summarised in Table 6.

Table 6 Potential implications and mitigation measures for land governance.

Implications Mitigation measures

Law 23/2014 transfers land-based (forest-

based) governance to the provincial level.

This may create gaps between policy-

making processes at the provincial level with

implementation process at district level.

Some districts in East Kalimantan (e.g.,

Mahakam Ulu and Kutai Barat) are remote

and lacking communication infrastructure, so

province-to-district coordination can be

challenging. Improving land governance may

involve introduction of policies that district

implementers may not be familiar with.

OP/BP 4.36:

Empowering forest management units (Kesatuan

Pengelolaan Hutan – KPH) that operate in the districts.

Empowerment may include increasing capacities related with

ER Program such as carbon stock assessment/carbon

accounting, carbon sequestration and MRV;

Identification of critical land and formulation of watershed

management approaches (rehabilitation and/or

infrastructures for land and soil conservation such as

retaining dam and gully plug); and

Inclusion of ER Program within management plans of the

KPH.

Contradiction between government and

customary (adat) policies. Designation of

forest, conservation areas and/or carbon

accounting areas may overlap with existing

customary land tenure (e.g., customary

forest) used for foraging, religious and other

customary purposes. Consequently, there is

a risk of alteration (or restriction) for access.

OP/BP 4.10

OP/BP 4.12 (Not foreseen)

Indigenous Peoples Plan and Access Restriction Action Plan that

include (but not limited to):

Procedure for Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC);

Compensation for access restriction; and

Compensation for livelihood displacement (if relevant with

access restriction/modification).


5.2.2 Strengthening Government Capacity for Forest Administration

This strategy is relevant with Type 1 Technical Assistance (Capacity Building). There are no adverse

environmental and social impacts associated with this strategy, and safeguards instruments are

adequate to support this strategy. The risk is possibly more closely associated with management

(time schedule) and administrative, rather than with environmental and social aspects. The risk

consists of:

Potential delay in conducting capacity building for conducting Environmental Assessment

(OP/BP 4.01); development of Environmental Action Plan (OP/BP 4.02); and

The lack of reputable training providers for conducting Environmental Assessment (OP/BP

4.01); development of Environmental Action Plan (OP/BP 4.02); natural habitats management

(OP/BP 4.04) and forest management (OP/BP 4.36).

5.2.3 Reducing Deforestation Linked to Oil Palm Expansion

This strategy requires engagement with private sector (plantation companies), and is closely related

to technical assistance Type 3 (Land-use planning and natural resource management). This strategy

may consist of halting the expansion of palm oil plantation (moratorium), and introducing sustainable

plantation mechanism. Reducing deforestation linked to oil palm expansion is anticipated to have

environmental and social impact; thus triggering OP/BP 4.02, 4.01, 4.04, 4.09, 4.10, and 4.36.

Therefore, mitigation measures need to be formulated (Table 7).

Table 7 Potential implications and mitigation measures for reducing deforestation linked to oil palm plantation.


Introduction of sustainable oil palm plantation may still

pose environmental threats (such as changes in

hydrology, loss of biodiversity and natural resources)

OP/BP 4.01

OP/BP 4.02

OP/BP 4.09

OP/BP 4.36

OP/BP 4.10

It is recommended that sustainable oil palm

plantation is preceded by proper environmental

assessment (OP/BP 4.01) and environmental

action plan (OP/BP 4.02);

Sustainable oil palm plantation should consider

benefit to local communities, as well as respect to

the customary and indigenous peoples’ rights

(natural and cultural resources). This needs to be

included in the IPP;

Inclusion of local communities in maintaining HCV;

It is recommended that sustainable oil palm

plantation adopt natural resource and/or

biodiversity management concept such as HCV,

ISPO or RSPO.

Oil palm plantation alters the natural vegetation,

and may also employ specific measures for pest



control (biological and/or chemical). Therefore,

proper assessment on pest management will be

required to be included in the preparation of

sustainable oil palm plantation.

Limiting oil palm plantation may produce social impacts

related to employment and potential benefit that

community / indigenous people may receive

Limiting expansion of oil palm plantation must be

accompanied by efforts to optimise production by:

Ensuring high quality harvest; and

Post-harvest processing.

Limiting oil palm plantation may create tension

between plantation companies and local communities.

Such tension may arise due to changes in plans, and

the anticipation of employment and/or benefit that may

not be realised due to these changes.

Limiting the expansion of oil palm plantation, and

introduction of sustainable oil palm plantation needs to

consider the following steps:

Socialisation of moratorium and introduction of

sustainable oil palm plantation. It is important that

plantation companies, local communities and

government share common understanding of the

approach;

Formulation of alternative revenue for plantation

companies and communities. This is to offset the

potential revenue that cannot be realised due to

the limitation; and

Setting up conflict resolution mechanism. This

may also be addressed in Feedback Grievance

Redress Mechanism (FGRM).

5.2.4 Reducing Deforestation Linked to Over logging and Timber Plantation

This strategy requires engagement with private sector (logging companies), and is closely related to

technical assistance Type 3 (Land-use planning and natural resource management). This strategy

may employ two main objectives consisting of prevention of over logging and creating added value to

timber plantation (e.g., non-timber forest product and/or carbon credits). Implementation may trigger

risks related to OP/BP 4.01 (Environmental Impact Assessment), 4.02 (Environmental Action Plan),

4.04 (Natural Resource), and 4.36 (Forest). Numerous examples have been implemented in East

Kalimantan (Berau Forest Carbon, FORCLIME and Reduced Impact Logging). Table 8 shows

indicative impacts / implications with the potential mitigation measures.

Table 8 Potential implications and mitigation measures for reducing deforestation linked to over logging and timber plantation.


Sustainable harvesting mechanism such as Reduced

Impact Logging may create damages such as area

damage and topsoil

OP/BP 4.01

OP/BP 4.02

OP/BP 4.04

OP/BP 4.36

Environmental impact assessment should be

conducted to anticipate the level of damages

caused by harvesting mechanism. Consequently,

environmental action plan may be developed to

mitigate more damages;

Improving silviculture methods to further reduce



negative impacts; and

Environmental monitoring should be done to

assess the status of forest/natural resources in the

logging concession areas.

Limiting timber plantation operation to reduce

deforestation may create tension between timber

plantation companies and local communities. Such

tension may arise due to changes in annual plans, and

employment and/or benefit that may not be realised

due to these changes

Limiting the operation of timber plantation, and

introduction of sustainable timber harvest/silviculture

methods need to consider the following steps:

Socialisation and introduction of sustainable

timber plantation. It is important that plantation

companies, local communities and government

share common understanding of the approach;

Formulation of alternative revenue for plantation

companies and communities. This is to offset the

potential revenue that cannot be realised due to

the limitation; and

Setting up conflict resolution mechanism. This

may also be addressed in Feedback Grievance

Redress Mechanism (FGRM).

5.2.5 Reducing Encroachment by Providing Sustainable Alternatives

This strategy is closely linked with Technical Assistance Type 3 (Land-use planning and natural

resource management). This strategy may employ objectives related to sustainable use of natural

resources and other economic activities such as trading and creative economy. This strategy may

trigger risks related with OP/BP 4.07 (Water resource management), 4.09 (Pest management), 4.10

(Indigenous people), and 4.20 (Gender development). Impacts or implications of the proposed ER

component and indicative mitigation measures are summarised in Table 9.

Table 9 Potential implications and mitigation measures for reducing encroachment by providing sustainable alternatives.


Design and implementation of sustainable alternatives

may involve development of income generating

activities based on agriculture and/or creative

economy. Local communities may not be able to sell

their products / commodities due to constraints such as

inability to access market, and failure to address

indigenous/customary communities, vulnerable groups

and gender representative.

OP/BP 4.10

OP/BP 4.20

Sustainable alternatives need to be developed

based on sound feasibility study that includes

production capacity, market demands, pricing and

value chain analysis;

Coordination and collaboration with Provincial

Service Bureau (Badan Layanan Usaha Daerah –

BLUD);

Collaboration with private sectors through

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs;

Training on financial aspects for local

communities;

Implementation of Best Management Practice

principles, especially for land-based activities;

Issues related to customary and indigenous

communities, as well as their involvement in



economic activities need to be reflected in the

Indigenous Peoples Plan (IPP);

Introduction of social forestry and conservation

partnership schemes to encourage natural

resource protection and management; and

Economic benefit from sustainable alternatives

needs to reach all members of communities,

including vulnerable groups and gender

representatives.

Economy based on natural resource (e.g., agriculture)

may have implications in pest and watershed

management. Agriculture activities may attract pest,

and may also alter watershed characteristic in the

area. This is particularly crucial in areas of critical

watersheds in East Kalimantan Province consisting of:

Mahakam, Kandilo (Paser), Manggar (Balikpapan),

Bontang, Sangatta, Tarakan, and Nunukan.

OP/BP 4.09

OP/BP 4.20

Sustainable alternatives need to consider the following

steps:

Inclusion of pest management and pest control as

part of the feasibility study (especially for

agriculture-related scheme); and

Consideration of provincial spatial plan to ensure

the preservation of critical watershed;

5.3 INDICATIVE CONTENT OF SESA, ESMF, FGRM AND IPPF

5.3.1 Indicative Content of SESA

Based on several references and series of discussion with the Moef-FCPF team and the World Bank

Team, the following tabel describe the indicative content of SESA.

Table 10 Indicative content of SESA.

No. Section

1 1. INTRODUCTION Concise background about ESMF, link to the FCPF and World Bank Safeguard Policies, and why SESA is needed for the ER Program

2 1.1 Background

3 1.2 Objectives

4 2. METHODOLOGY Methodology for data collection (baseline, public consultation), impact assessment

5 2.1 Data Collection

6 2.2 Data Analysis

7 2.3 Public Consultations

8 3. BASELINE CONDITION Already exist in the ERPD (Bab 3

ERPD, especially Section 3.2.1 to

3.2.6).

Compiled from spatial map collected

from the Province and data that have

been validated for the ERPD

development.

Any potential additional data will be

collected but should ensure the

consistencies with the ERPD (total

area for district, province and other

numbers).

9 3.1 Environmental and Social Conditions

10 3.1.1 Natural Forest Type

11 3.1.2 Climate conditions

12 3.1.3 Forest fires

13 3.1.4 Soil and topography

14 3.1.5 Biodiversity status

15 3.1.6 Socio-economic and culture conditions

16 3.2 Landuse and Forest Cover

17 3.2.1 Mining, Oil and Gas Concessions

18 3.2.2 Forest Concession (HA and HTI)


No. Section

19 3.2.3 Plantatioin concessions

20 3.2.4 FMU concession

21 4. DESCRIPTION OF ER PROGRAM Already available at ERPD (Section

4.1)

Already available at ERPD di Section

4.3.1 (need to be updated from

MOEF, the new design in response to

the TAP review)

22 4.1 Drivers and Underlying Causes of Deforestation and Forest Degradation

23 4.1.1 Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation

24 4.1.2 Underlying Causes

25 4.2 ER Project Components and Activities

26 4.2.1. Component 1: Improving land governance

27 4.2.2. Component 2: Strengthening Government Capacity for Forest Administration

28 4.2.3. Component 3: Reducing Deforestation Linked to Oil Palm Expansion

29 4.2.4. Component 4: Reducing Deforestation Linked to Overlogging and Timber Plantation

30 4.2.5. Component 5: Reducing Encroachment by Providing Sustainable Alternatives

31 4.2.6. Component 6: Project Management and Monitoring

32 5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Refer to matrix we have developed,

but need to be discussed among

team for any revision/ adjustment.

Results from field FGD need to be

added later on.

33 5.1 Policy and Regulation Framework

34 5.2 Gap Analysis

35 5.3 Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

36 5.4 Environmental and Social Mitigation Plan

37 5.5 Institutional Arrangement for SESA

38 5.6 Public Consultation for SESA

39 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

40 6.1 Conclusions

41 6.2 Recommendations

5.3.2 Indicative Content of ESMF

Indicative content of ESMF (Environmental, Social Management Framework) is presented in Table

below:

Table 11 Indicative content of ESMF.

No. Sections

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Concise background about ESMF,

link to the SESA, and why ESMF is

needed for the ER Program

2 1.1 Background

3 1.2 Objectives

4 2.0 ERP PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Same content with SESA

5 2.1 Component 1

6 2.2 Component 2

7 2.3 Component 3

8 2.4 Component 4

9 2.5 Component 5


No. Sections

10 2.6 Component 6

11 3.0 POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK Same content with SESA

12 3.1 GOI Regulations

13 3.2 World Bank Safeguards Policies

14 3.3 Gap Analysis

15 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Similar content with SESA, with

some adjustment based on the TOC

16 4.1 Project Categorisation

17 4.2 Project Screening

18 4.3 Environmental Impact Assessment

19 4.4 Social Impact Assessment

20 4.5 Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework

21 4.6 Resettlement Planning Framework

22 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT Refer to the Mitigation Plan in

SESA, and describe the structure

and hierarchy of institution at the

province and national

23 5.1 Institutional/Stakeholder Analysis

24 5.2 ESMF Institutional Arrangement

25 6.0 CAPACITY BUILDING AND TRAINING

26 7.0 ESMF IMPLEMENTATION BUDGET

27 8.0 ESMF CONSULTATION AND INFORMATION DISCLOSURE

5.3.3 Indicative Content for FGRM

Indicative content of FGRM (Feedback Grievance Redress Mechanism), referring to several

references and based on discussion with the World Bank Team, is presented in table below:

Table 12 Indicative content of the FGRM.

No. Sections Content

1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Why FGRM is needed for the ERP, given the Kalimantan and REDD+ context

2 1.1 Background

3 1.2 Objectives

4 2.0 LAWS AND REGULATIONS FRAMEWORK Summary of Guidelines (ILO, WB, Cancun) and National Regulations (PP, MOEF Min. Decrees)

5 2.1 International Guidelines

6 2.2 National Regulations

7 3.0 SOCIAL CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT AREA Baseline from secondary sources, map of tenurial/tradiaional community (MHA), Socio-Economic baseline data (income, livelihood activities, access to the natural resources)

8 3.1 Social Baseline Conditions

9 3.1.1 Indigenous Peoples

10 3.1.2 Tenurial Aspect

11 3.1.3 Overview of Land/Tenurial Conflict

12 3.2 Community Livelihood

13 3.2.1 Community-Forest Interaction

14 3.2.2 Sources of Livelihood

15 4.0 CURRENT PRACTICES ON LAND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Traditional and Formal Laws in handling conflicts



16 4.1 Traditional/Cultural Laws

17 4.2 Formal Laws

18 5.0 PROPOSED FGRM FOR REDD+ Description of FGRM for the ERP, process, hierarchy, procedures, institutional setup.

19 5.1 Goals and Objectives of FGRM

20 5.2 Scope of the FGRM

21 5.3 Principles of FGRM

22 5.4 Structure of FGRM

23 5.5 Procedures of FGRM

24 6.0 OPERATIONALISATION OF FGRM How to internelise the FGRM in the government level and jow to link the FGRM at the project level to the National System

25 6.1 Roles of Stakeholders in the FGRM

26 6.2 Institutional Arrangement of the FGRM

27 6.3 Monitoring and Evaluation Requirement

28 6.4 Communication and Coordination

29 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusion and recommendations (next action plan for FGRM implementation)

30 7.1 Conclusions

31 7.2 Recommendations

5.3.4 Indicative Content for IPPF

As one of the deliverable, Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework will have the following indicative

content:

Table 13 Indicative content of IPPF.


1 1.0 INTRODUCTION Why IPPF is needed for the ERP,

given the Kalimantan and REDD+

context 2 1.1 Background

3 1.2 Objectives

4 2.0 THE ER PROJECT DESIGN Summary of Guidelines (ILO, WB,

Cancun) and National Regulations

(PP, MOEF Min. Decrees) 5 2.1 Project Objectives

6 2.2 Project Components

7 2.3 Project Beneficiaries ad Locations

8 3.0 LEGAL AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IN IPs List and short description of

applicable laws, regulations, and

policies 9 3.1 Relevant GOI Regulations and Policies

10 3.2 World Bank Safeguards Policies

11 3.3 Relevant International Instruments

12 4.0 Indigenous Peoples in Indonesia From relevant secondary data and

from ERPD doc. 13 4.1 Indigenous Peoples in East Kalimantan

14 4.2 Potential Impacts on Indegenous Peoples

15 5.0 POSSIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR RISKS

IDENTIFIED

From internal team discussion and

through the FGD in the province and



16 5.1 Screening for the presence of Indigenous peoples national level

17 5.2 Social Impact impact assessmendtz

18 5.3 FPIC

19 5.4 Preparation of IPs Development Plan

20 6.0 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT Refer to ERPD

21 7.0 MONITORING AND EVALUATION Monev Plan during project

implementation

22 8.0 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM Summary from FGRM and address

specific issues on IPs

23 9.0 DISCLOSURE ARRANGEMENT Plan, media, materials

24 10.0 BUDGET REQUIREMENT Estimate on budget for IPPF

implementation

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT...

Documents

Transcript of STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT...