Comprehensive Study on Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanisms in

Vanuatu

Republic of Vanuatu

2

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. 2

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 4

BACKGROUND: .............................................................................................................................................. 4 PURPOSE OF THE CONSULTANCY: ................................................................................................................ 5 REQUIRED OUTPUTS: ................................................................................................................................... 5 UNIQUE CHALLENGES IN VANUATU - FGRM AND LAND OWNERSHIP IN VANUATU: ................................ 5

METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................ 6

PRINCIPLES - WORLD BANK SAFEGUARDS – CANCUN SAFEGUARDS .................................... 7

WORK PLAN ............................................................................................................................................... 8

1. EXISTING FORMAL AND INFORMAL FEEDBACK AND GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISMS AT NATIONAL, PROVINCIAL AND LOCAL LEVEL. .............................................. 9

INFORMAL MECHANISM FOR LOCAL GRIEVANCES: ................................................................................... 10 LAND OWNERSHIP ISSUES: ........................................................................................................................ 10 FORMAL LEGISLATIVE MECHANISMS ARE COVERED UNDER THE FOLLOWING ACTS: ............................ 11 CURRENT FGRM’S: .................................................................................................................................... 11

2. POTENTIAL GRIEVANCES AND CONFLICTS THAT MAY ARISE AS A RESULT OF REDD+ ACTIVITIES IMPLEMENTATION, CURRENT GRIEVANCE PATTERNS AND TRENDS IN FORESTRY AND REDD+ AND LIKELY FUTURE SCENARIOS. ............................ 14

3. CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHS AND CAPACITY GAPS FOR FGRM RESOLUTION. ......................................................................................................................................... 18

4. FGRM FRAMEWORK INCLUDING A PLAN FOR BUILDING ON STRENGTHS AND CLOSING THE GAPS. ............................................................................................................................. 21

TABLE 1 – FGRM FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 22 STEPS TO UTILIZE THE FGRM FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................... 24 1. RECEIVE GRIEVANCE ........................................................................................................................................... 24 2. REGISTER GRIEVANCE AND ACKNOWLEDGE .................................................................................... 25 ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT ....................................................................................................................................... 25 3. ASSESS, ASSIGN AND DEVELOP A PROPOSED RESPONSE ............................................................... 26 ASSESSING ELIGIBILITY FOR THE GRM ................................................................................................................... 26 ASSIGNING RESPONSIBILITY ................................................................................................................................... 27 4. COMMUNICATE PROPOSED RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT AND SEEK AGREEMENT ON THE

RESPONSE. .................................................................................................................................................. 28 5. IMPLEMENT THE RESPONSE TO RESOLVE THE GRIEVANCE. ........................................................... 29 6. REVIEW THE RESPONSE IF UNSUCCESSFUL AND REFER TO APPROPRIATE PARTY FOR

MEDIATION. ............................................................................................................................................... 29 7. CLOSE OUT THE GRIEVANCE. .............................................................................................................. 30 MONITORING, EVALUATION, FEEDBACK AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 31 POTENTIAL GAPS ........................................................................................................................................ 32

3

5. USING THE CUSTOMARY APPROACH [DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS] TO SUPPORT THE FGRM FRAMEWORK. .............................................................................................. 33

TABLE 2 – DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISMS ................................................................................... 34

6. PLAN FOR IMPROVING, ON AN ONGOING BASIS, THE FGRM AND COMMUNICATING THE FINAL FGRM TO STAKEHOLDERS. ......................................................................................... 37

APPENDIX 1 - OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATIONS ON FIVE REDD+ ISLANDS ...................... 39

SUMMARY OF EFATE CONSULTATIONS ..................................................................................................... 40 MEETINGS ON ERROMANGO, MARCH 16 TO MARCH 21, 2017 ............................................................ 42 SUMMARY OF ERROMANGO CONSULTATIONS .......................................................................................... 43 PRESENTATION OF INCEPTION REPORT AND ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION OF SCENARIOS, MARCH 1, 2017 .......................................................................................................................................................... 44 MEETINGS ON TANNA, MARCH 6 TO 8, 2017 ......................................................................................... 45 SUMMARY OF TANNA CONSULTATIONS .................................................................................................... 46 MEETINGS ON SANTO, MARCH 11, 2017 TO MARCH 14, 2017 .......................................................... 47 SUMMARY OF SANTO CONSULTATIONS .................................................................................................... 48 MEETINGS ON MALEKULA, MARCH 14 TO MARCH 16, 2017 ............................................................... 50 SUMMARY OF MALEKULA CONSULTATIONS ............................................................................................. 51 MEETING WITH DOF AND REDD+ STAFF, MARCH 28, 2017 ............................................................... 52 WORKSHOP WITH DOF AND REDD+ STAFF, APRIL 4, 2017 ............................................................... 52

APPENDIX 2 - LIST OF ATTENDEES AT MEETINGS .................................................................... 53

PERSONS INTERVIEWED ON ERROMANGO FEBRUARY 17, 2017 .......................................................... 53 PARTICIPANTS - INCEPTION REPORT AND SCENARIO DISCUSSIONS MARCH 1, 2107 ........................ 53 PERSONS INTERVIEWED ON TANNA MARCH 7, 2017 ............................................................................ 54 PERSONS INTERVIEWED ON SANTO MARCH 12 AND 13, 2017 ............................................................ 55 PERSONS INTERVIEWED ON MALEKULA MARCH 14, 2017 ................................................................... 55 PARTICIPANTS – OVERVIEW OF WORK DONE TO DATE - MARCH 28, 2017 ....................................... 55 PARTICIPANTS - WORKSHOP – APRIL 4, 2017 ...................................................................................... 56 PARTICIPANTS – WORKSHOP APRIL 21, 2017 ...................................................................................... 57 FGRM VALIDATION/FINAL PRESENTATION 27TH APRIL 2017 ........................................................... 58

APPENDIX 3 - DOCUMENTS REVIEWED ........................................................................................ 59

APPENDIX 4 - CHECK LIST FOR FGRM FRAMEWORK ............................................................... 60

APPENDIX 5 - TASKS TO BE IMPLEMENTED TO GET FGRM FRAMEWORK UP AND RUNNING. ................................................................................................................................................. 63

COMMUNICATION AND EDUCATION:......................................................................................................... 63 TRAINING .................................................................................................................................................... 63 MEDIATION SKILLS .................................................................................................................................... 64 WEBSITE ..................................................................................................................................................... 64 SURVEY ....................................................................................................................................................... 64 OTHER TASKS ............................................................................................................................................. 65

4

Introduction

Background: Vanuatu is relatively a low deforestation country located in South Pacific Region. The forests area of the country is approximately 4,400 square kilometers and the majority of it is of low density. The Government of Vanuatu seeks to use REDD+ as a tool to sustainably manage its natural resources while at the same time promoting sustainable development in the country. The main objective of REDD+ program for Vanuatu is limiting the increase in emission from forestry and other related activities without putting undue limitation for economic and social development. To achieve this objective, it is recognized that a substantial amount of institutional capacity development is required to be done during the readiness phase of the REDD+ Project including development of a national feedback, grievance and redress mechanism (FGRM) to address concerns, grievances and disputes that may arise during the implementation phase and potentially even during the readiness phase. This project proposes to develop one or more FGRM’s to resolve potential conflicts that may arise as a result of REDD+ readiness and implementation realizing that unknown conflicts may emerge for various reasons not yet foreseen. Even though the deforestation rate is relatively low that does not mean there will be no conflicts over the use of forests, land and resources in future. Therefore there is a requirement that any FGRM established, address concerns about the impact of REDD+ policies, and enable the stakeholders to seek redress if there are conflicts while implementing the project. However it should be noted that any FGRM is intended to complement, not replace, formal legal channels for managing grievances (e.g. the court system, organizational audit mechanisms, etc.). Stakeholders will always have the option to use other, more formal alternatives, including legal remedies. The existence of a FGRM does not prevent citizens or communities from pursuing their rights and interests in any other national or local forum, and citizens should not be required to use any FGRM before seeking redress through the courts, administrative law procedures, or other formal dispute resolution mechanisms. Not all complaints should be handled through a FGRM. For example: grievances that allege corruption, coercion, or major and systematic violations of rights or policies

5

are normally handled by organizational accountability mechanisms rather than by a FGRM. This study on FGRMs will investigate and analyze the present grievance mechanisms in Vanuatu in the context of the proposed REDD+ project implementation and recommend measures to establish an FGRM. The key to the FGRM will be to, as much as possible, utilize customary approaches to resolve conflicts while ensuring transparency of the government responses.

Purpose of the consultancy: To develop an FGRM for Vanuatu that incorporates elements of customary-

approach friendly system. To set out the methods and administrative process for establishing an FGRM

in the country, including key elements and concepts that should be incorporated into any FGRM.

Required Outputs: 1. Review the existing formal and informal feedback and grievance redress

mechanisms at the local, provincial and national level. 2. Identify the potential grievances and conflicts that may arise as a result of

REDD+ activities and implementation, including characterizing current grievance patterns and trends in forestry and REDD+, and projecting likely future scenarios.

3. Identify current institutional strengths and capacity gaps for FGRM resolution.

4. Propose plans for improving, on an ongoing basis, the FGRM and communicating the final FGRM to stakeholders.

5. Prepare an FGRM framework including a plan for building on strengths and closing the gaps.

6. Suggest customary approach friendly mechanism to establish the FGRM in the country.

Unique challenges in Vanuatu - FGRM and land ownership in Vanuatu: In most jurisdictions implementing a REDD+ program, government owns the majority of land. In Vanuatu, individual landowners or groups of landholders own the majority of land and ultimately these landowners and landholders decide what activities will take place on their land. This presents unique challenges in establishing any FGRM to deal with conflicts and disputes. Vanuatu also has in place a unique customary system of dealing with issues at the local level such that most issues do not have to go to court.

6

The challenge will be to develop an FGRM that make use, to the extent possible, the customary system, while at the same time providing for ways of dealing with the technical issues that are certain to arise. The system should also incorporate, where possible, some method to keep track of REDD+ issues and disputes so that a body of knowledge is developed that can be adapted in different locations even if that location has different issues. The consultation should also make it clear that the present court options that exist under various pieces of legislation will not be affected. Persons will still have the option to go to court to enforce their rights. It should also be made clear that any FGRM developed will not deal with land ownership issues. That will remain the purview of the Custom Area Land Tribunal under The Custom Land Management Act.

Methodology

1. Conduct document review: SPC for relevant materials from other Pacific Island countries, Internet, related Vanuatu legislation and regulations and the Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) Oct. 2013.

2. Conduct initial interviews with REDD+ team to determine in broad-brush strokes the current system for dealing with grievances in Vanuatu and to determine potential areas of conflict and possible disputes.

3. Identify key, primary and secondary stakeholders from the government, local level and NGO’s.

4. Conduct interviews with stakeholders to identify likely conflict scenarios that could arise during the readiness phase and implementation of REDD+ and get their views on which person (or what organization) might be best able to provide conflict resolution. Meetings should take place on Efate, Erromango, Tanna, Malekula and Santo.

5. Outline the key elements and concepts that should be incorporated into any FGRM in Vanuatu including the World Bank Safeguards.

6. Clarify likely issues and conflict scenarios that could arise during the readiness phase and implementation of REDD+ that will require some form of FGRM.

7. Determine who (or what organization) is best able to conduct and oversee an FGRM(s) in Vanuatu, depending on the type of issue that arises.

8. Review findings during a workshop with REDD+ team in order to refine conclusions and possible solutions moving forward.

9. Conduct workshops with stakeholders to review possible conflict situations and the preferred options for one or more FGRMs. [Workshops may be repeated on different islands or only in Vila (to be determined)]. Options presented during workshops should set out key elements of any FGRM, the steps to be carried out during an FGRM, whether the FGRM(s) should be

7

formal or informal, or both and who or what organization might operate the FGRM.

10. Outline the key messages to be included in any education program surrounding an FGRM.

11. Where possible, compare any potential FGRM in Vanuatu with other Pacific island jurisdictions.

12. Draft an interim report that includes a step-by-step outline of what was done by the consultant, a list of persons met and conclusions.

13. Get feedback from key persons on contents of interim report. 14. Refine interim report based on feedback and draft final report.

Principles - World Bank Safeguards – Cancun Safeguards The FGRM needs to be democratic, transparent, include broad participation (local communities, NGOs, national government extension officers, women groups, and other relevant stakeholders). It has to promote respect for national sovereignty, include all resource users of a potential lease area in the grievance process, and take into account, where applicable, the seven World Bank safeguards established in Cancun set out below.

1. Actions complement or are consistent with the objectives of national forest programs and relevant international conventions and agreements.

2. There are transparent and effective national forest governance structures, taking into account national legislation and sovereignty.

3. There is respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities.

4. There is full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders. 5. Actions are consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biological

diversity. 6. Actions address the risks of reversals. 7. Actions reduce displacement of emissions.

8

Work Plan

Activity Wk. 1

Wk. 2

Wk. 3

Wk. 4

Wk. 5

Wk. 6

Wk. 7

Wk. 8

Wk. 9

Wk. 10

Wk. 11

Wk. 12

Wk. 13

1 Document review X X X X 2 Initial interviews with REDD+

team X X X

3 Identify stakeholders X X X 4 Interview stakeholders & visit

islands X X X X

5 Outline key elements & concepts for FGRM

X X X

6 Clarify issues and conflict scenarios

X X X

7 Develop options for management of FGRM

X X X X

8 Review findings and refine initial conclusions at REDD+ workshop

X X

9 Conduct workshops with stakeholders

X X

10 Outline key message for education on FGRM

X X X

11 Compare FGRM for Vanuatu with other Pacific islands if possible

X X X X

12 Draft interim report X X X 13 Get feedback on interim report X X 14 Incorporate feedback into report X X 15 Final Report X X

9

1. Existing formal and informal feedback and grievance redress mechanisms at national, provincial and local level. In order to understand the formal and informal mechanisms that exist in Vanuatu it is important to understand the present government structure in the country.

The Decentralization Act and Physical Planning Act govern the local government structure and physical planning (zoning) respectively. The Provincial level deals with the making of by-laws, regulations and revenue control. All government departments are represented at the Provincial level but not at the area level. For example, agricultural field assessments (which include the departments of fisheries, agriculture, livestock and forestry) are carried out at the area level. Area Council members are nominated for 4 years and approved by the Minister under State law. They represent 5 sectors: chief representative nominated by chiefs in the area, woman’s rep., youth rep., church rep. and business rep. The Area Council can meet up to 4 times per year but usually only meet twice, mainly on development issues. There are 7 Area Councils on Tanna, 2 on Erromango, 9 on Santo, 7 on Efate and 6 on Malekula.

10

The Area Council does not normally deal with grievance issues unless they are part of another agenda. Its mandate could be expanded to include grievance but it was clear during consultations that participants did not think this was the appropriate body to deal with REDD+ grievance issues. The opinion was that the Area counsel did not meet often enough to provide a consistent forum to deal with grievance issues and that there was a lack of expertise in regards to REDD+ issues. In practice an issue may go from the Village Council to the Island Court if there are land issues (the usual scenario), but this does not happen very often. Where it does go to the Island Council it is because there are many claimants.

Informal mechanism for local grievances: Grievances, other than land disputes are dealt with in a customary manner. Land disputes are also dealt with in a customary manner but where ownership is not resolved the matter is referred to the Custom Area Land Tribunal for a final determination as to ownership of the land. The current customary system of dealing with grievances at the local level works quite well. In addition, the present court system works well to deal with grievances that allege corruption, coercion, or major and systematic violations of rights or policies, although the process can be expensive and time consuming. If there is a family issue it first goes to an elder in the family. If it can’t be resolved by the elder it goes to a Nakamal or village council convened by a chief or customary leader or leaders who have the authority to convene and preside over meetings of a Nakamal. Most issues (probably 90%) are resolved at this level. Issues that can’t be resolved by the village council go to a ward council (made up of a number of villages). If the ward council can’t resolve the issue it goes to the area council of chiefs. If the area council of chiefs can’t resolve the issue it goes to the Island Court (whole island). It is worth noting that the chief may garner more influence and respect on some islands than others. However where possible, and applicable, the chief should be involved in the dispute resolution process since he is usually a font of local knowledge. The downside of the informal grievance process is that it can be time consuming and may not initially produce resolution, although most grievances are eventually resolved in Vanuatu. The other downside is the weak support for the vulnerable, youth and women.

Land ownership issues: It is important to point out that the government has limited powers to deal with how land is used in Vanuatu. The Constitution is clear in sections 73 and 74 that

11

land belongs to custom owner and that “rules of custom form the basis of ownership and the use of land in Vanuatu”. The government will however get involved when non-indigenous persons or corporations want to lease land from custom owners [see Land Leases Act]. Although the Environmental Protection and Conservation Act requires persons to comply with the requirements of the act to protect the environment, even under that act, the government requires the consent of custom landowners in order to establish a community conservation area [see section 35 as amended]. Disputes involving land ownership start with a Nakamal convened by a chief or customary leader or leaders who have the authority to convene and preside over meetings of a Nakamal. Under the process set out in the Custom Land Management Act, the Custom Area Land Tribunal then deals with the issue if the Nakamal is unable to reach a decision. The Island Court (under the Island Courts Act) can review the decision of the Nakamal or the Custom Area Land Tribunal. Where the parties to a land dispute wish to use mediation, the Custom Land Management Act (section 31) provides for mediation to be conducted by a mediator chosen by the parties. Often, where the parties cannot agree on a mediator, a custom land officer who works under the Custom Land Management Office then mediates the issue.

Formal Legislative mechanisms are covered under the following Acts: Land Acquisition Act Land Leases Act Land Reform Act Island Courts Act Custom Land Management Act Forestry Act Forestry Rights Registration and Timber Harvest Guarantee Act [will be replaced by the Planted Forests Bill] Community Conservation Act Physical Planning Act Environmental Protection and Conservation Act

Matters requiring court intervention go first to the Island Court then Magistrates Court and finally the Supreme Court.

Current FGRM’s: GRMs in Vanuatu vary in their degree of complexity and can range from a very simple system (e.g. a letter to a person in charge disputing a matter) to more

12

complex process involving a full FGRM framework similar to the one set out in section 4. Some examples are shown below. A GRM may, or may not, involve the keeping of data and may, or may not, have a built in review mechanism to keep track of grievances or the success of the GRM process. A GRM does not have to be legislated to be effective so long as it follows a format similar to the FGRM framework setout in section 4 (see the IRCNNN Project mentioned below). On the other hand, a fulsome FGRM framework may be part of a legislative process like the one used to resolve land ownership disputes under the Custom Land Management Act. GRM’s tend to be project specific and last for the life of the project. There are several examples of GRM’s that have been used in Vanuatu in the recent past and a couple of existing ones. Neither the Ministry of Agriculture nor the Department of Forestry currently has any GRM in place to deal with disputes that might arise as a result of REDD+ activities. Issues that might arise currently in the DoF are dealt with informally and on an ad hoc basis. Section 45 (1)(c) of the Environmental Protection and Conservation Act sets out powers to make regulations regarding dispute resolution in order to resolve environmental disputes. However to date no regulations have been passed. This power under the Environmental Protection and Conservation Act would need to be amended in order to deal with REDD+ issues as it currently only refers to environmental disputes. It is also worth noting that the power to make regulations mentions prescribing criteria in regards to the appointing of a mediator, arbitrator or facilitator. This would appear to indicate that any GRM that is established would require agreement of custom landowners in order to be implemented. The first example is the Quarry Act 2013, that provides, for an inquiry to be held by the Commissioner where there is a complaint with respect to the operation of a quarry, (with an Appeal to the Minister), however there is no process set out in either act or the regulations (which there are none) that sets out what constitutes an inquiry or an appeal. A second example is the work of GIZ to develop a GRM for the National Advisory Board on Climate Change and Disaster Management (NAB), which is currently at the stage of conducting a desk review.

13

A third example is the summary form of GRM operated by the Department of Energy, whereby grievances are started by writing a letter to the Program Manager, with an appeal to the Minister if the person grieving is not satisfied with the Program Manager’s decision.1 A fourth example is the MCA Efate Ring Road Project case study on the Millennium Challenge Account. This GRM was established to deal with grievances that arose during the construction and repair of the ring road around Efate.2 The GRM in this case utilized the customary system of trying to resolve disputes by going to the chief and if necessary having a Nakamal. The chiefs agreed to encourage a speedy hearing, something that could be encouraged with REDD+ grievances. If the customary processes were deemed inappropriate or unsuccessful within seven days the aggrieved person would register their grievance with the MCA Environmental and Social Assessment Officer or the SHEFA Provincial Planning Officer. They would attempt to settle the grievance amicably within five working days, with advice provided as necessary by the contractor and other stakeholders. In cases where a resolution was not easily found within the five days, MCA and the Provincial Government could establish a Grievance Committee comprising knowledgeable persons and community leaders, experienced in the subject area and with skills in mediation to assist with the management of the grievance. Mediation meetings would be held with interested persons. In this example there were few grievances that reached the third stage of the GRM. A fifth example is the IRCNNN Project (Increasing Resilience to Climate Change and Natural Hazards) where there are two frameworks that have established GRM’s to deal with grievances in relation to Resettlement Policy3 and Environment and Social Management4. Both of these frameworks utilize a 3-step grievance process, i.e. Community Level, Project Level and Appeal to Customary Land Tribunal in the case of the Resettlement Framework (with a final appeal to the Supreme Court) and to the Minister of Climate Change in the case of the Environment and Social Management Framework. At the Community Level the grievance is dealt with in the customary way by an Nakamal with 7 days. If there is no satisfaction at the community level the matter moves to Project Level.

1 Framework for the Vanuatu Rural Electrification Project, Stage II, December, 2016. 2 CASE STUDY ON THE EFATE RING ROAD PROJECT: LESSONS LEARNED FROM INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN VANUATU (Draft Report) by Michael Goddard, Leisande Otto and Brigitte Olul 3 IRCNNN Project, Resettlement Policy Framework, May 2017. 4 IRCNNN Project, Environment and Social Management Framework, April 2017.

14

At the Project Level the PMU in the Geohazards Department mediates the Grievance within 14 days. If there is no satisfaction at the project level the matter moves to the Appeal Level, which can take up to 30 days. The process at the Project Level is a shortened version of the FGRM set out in section 4. The PMU is responsible for tracking the grievance and keeping the database up to date. A sixth example is the R4D project of the Public Works Department. The PWD has a GRM focal person in each PWD office in each of the 6 provincial headquarters. This person works with the provincial government to address grievances that relate to public works and its impact on the community. The PWD is presently developing a GRM guide to manage the different types of grievances that relate to different projects. The GRM is managed out of the PWD office in Port Vila. The seventh example is the Grievance and Complaints Logging System (GCLS) developed by the World Bank to facilitate effective grievance management in relation to WB funded projects. The mediator in this example is the Complaint Administrator. This system is currently in use in Tonga, Tuvalu and in Vanuatu (i.e. VAIP, Vanuatu Aviation Investment Project). This process is free for use by any WB project and is backed up by a manual on how to use the GCLS system, as well as an online video (www.isafeguards.com). The GCLS approach is shown below:

2. Potential grievances and conflicts that may arise as a result of REDD+ activities implementation, current grievance patterns and trends in forestry and REDD+ and likely future scenarios. All the grievances and conflicts identified are “potential” only. Since SESA and consultations on benefit sharing have not yet taken place it is difficult to frame and predict grievances. The ability to project future scenarios at this point in the project

15

is impossible other than to say that pressure to carry out REDD+ activities is likely to increase grievance issues. A study of REDD+ grievances in other countries [Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, Ghana and Cambodia] shows a consistent pattern that in some cases mirrors the situation in Vanuatu. For example, issues of benefit sharing, expanding of agricultural and grazing areas, encroachment (migrants) and land tenure are constant issues. Other types of grievances that do not necessarily have a parallel in Vanuatu because of the unique land tenure situation in Vanuatu are: encroachment into National Forests, conflicts with loggers, taxes on private forests. All of the issues that are common with other countries are dealt with in this section in one form or another, keeping in mind that ultimately landowners and leaseholders can decide what activities will take place on their land. As mentioned earlier, the common issue of land tenure (ownership) is dealt with either using the customary system of dealing with disputes or a referral to the Custom Area Land Tribunal. The issue of carbon credits and how to direct the money from carbon credits [benefit sharing] is addressed in Vanuatu – Legal Framework for REDD+, Aug. 2014 and will be addressed in a consultation to take place later this year. This is also likely to be a source of grievance and will revolve around the property rights of landowners and leaseholders. The consultations have identified the some of the following principles as key to the success of REDD+ and the establishment a viable FGRM:

Government should present clear land use policies to landowners with a

variety of options, allowing for effective feedback, i.e. get stakeholder “buy-

in” and it will ensure support for REDD+ initiatives and will ensure that

grievances and disputes are likely to be few.

Engage Civil Service Organization, (i.e. CSOs) to help resolve potential

grievances at the community level.

Stakeholders and the community need to be educated on how any FGRM will

work.

There needs to be better coordination, communication and cooperation

among some the following stakeholders: forestry, agriculture, livestock,

fisheries, environment, provincial government, customary chiefs and

communities.

A REDD+ FGRM should be kept separate from the Custom Area Land

Tribunal.

Don’t “reinvent the FGRM wheel”. Vanuatu is a small country and seven

different approaches to GRMs were identified in section 1, as being semi-

16

formal. Vanuatu should establish a common FGRM that can be used across

projects in several different sectors.

The disputes that trigger a FGRM on one island may differ from those on another due to different drivers of deforestation, differing populations (uneven distribution of villages or size of the village), ease of travel between villages or degree of Internet access and might involve agricultural, environmental, conservation or water rights issues. Because of the unique situation of land ownership in Vanuatu where landowners and leaseholders control what uses are conducted on their land, the customary method of resolving disputes that are referred to another party during the FGRM process may vary. In order to present clear land use policies to landowners (so as to reduce the likelihood of grievances), as part of the REDD+ project design, it is important to recognize that conflicts between a REDD+ (DoF) policy or program and another government policy or program have to be kept to a minimum. Stakeholders expressed the view that Government needs to develop clear land use management policies that adopt best practices and promote harmonization between sectors. For example, REDD+ promotes the planting of trees, a policy that may conflict with a Department of Agriculture program that promotes the planting of coconut trees or other crops. The Department of Livestock on the other hand may be promoting more livestock on land that could be the subject of contrary policies being promoted by both Agriculture and Forestry. If a mechanism does not exist then one needs to be developed to address what is likely to involve highly technical issues. Each of the 5 target islands, Efate, Santo, Tanna, Malekula and Erromango will need to have their own land use management policy.

Issues on some of the islands may include:

Efate - incentive for tree planting on degraded land and forest rather than clearing forest.

Santo - alternatives to copra, e.g. cocoa, coffee, canarium oil. Tanna - promotion of coffee to the exclusion of other strategic options. Malekula - replacement of aging coconut plantations and timber harvesting. Erromango –cutting and replacing of trees. Likely inter-government conflict

may arise between the Ministry of Environment and the Department of Forestry on how to better manage the rainforest. There may be a conflict with Agriculture regarding better subsistence farming methods and the possible promotion of coconut plantations.

Stakeholders suggested that the following initiatives would lead to better REDD+ project design at the Provincial level and help establish a harmonized land use policy:

17

The National level should facilitate PTAC meetings in each province so as to

develop a land use management policy with strategic options to be offered to

landowners.

If the National level is not interested in the issue of land use management,

that PTAC should initiate the process to develop land use policy on each

REDD+ island using the Provincial Secretary to coordinate efforts since

he/she chairs PTAC.

PTAC should liaise with the CSO REDD+ network in each community to get

views at local level.

PTAC, CSO and REDD+ technical committee need to be strengthened in

regards to mediation skills and to how to reach consensus.

Communication needs to be improved between the different departments

(Agriculture, Forestry, Livestock and Fisheries) in the Ministry of Agriculture

on what constitutes DoF policy on REDD+

Communication needs to be improved from REDD+ technical committee

members back to their own departments.

Where there is interest at the Provincial level, PTAC should facilitate the

development a physical planning area under the Physical Planning Act to

strategically zone land use for agriculture, livestock and forestry.

The consultations identified 4 different possible parties to a dispute involving REDD+ activities: the government, landowners, leaseholders and migrants or any combination of those. During discussions with various stakeholders in Port Vila, Efate and on the islands of Erromango, Tanna, Santo and Malekula, the persons consulted identified the following issues as likely to create grievances during REDD+ implementation [See Appendix 1 for details of consultations]:

1. Benefit sharing.

2. Rights to carbon credits.

3. Expanding of agricultural and grazing areas.

4. Encroachment of migrants.

5. Water rights.

6. One or more parties to a REDD+ program not following the agreed

implementation plan in the proper manner.

7. One or more parties to a REDD+ program refusing to follow the agreed

implementation plan.

8. Lack of consultation with vulnerable groups during the planning of REDD+

implementation.

9. Failure to provide access to land where the initial REDD+ implementation

plan provided for access, e.g. coastal areas or land locked parcels.

18

There was a suggestion that the new joint ventures involving tree planting on Tanna

and Erromango could lead to conflict issues when the time comes to harvest the

trees. It was suggested that REDD+ ensure that the parties enter into a written

contract that clearly sets out how the landowner and the company share any benefit

from the harvesting of the trees and how any carbon financing might take place.

This would eliminate REDD+ from any dispute and leave it up to the courts should

there be a issue between the company and the landowner.

Note: Note that leaseholders get their right to originally negotiate with a landowner (or landowners) based on the Green Certificate they get from the Department of Lands based on their negotiated development plan. Note if the leasehold is over land owned by several landowners a trust may be involved. In the case of the conservation of a water catchment area the Provincial Government, the Department of Lands, Environment and Rural Water Supply would also have an interest.

Although land ownership issues were identified as being likely, it was agreed that all

issues dealing with land ownership should be dealt with as it is now at either the

local level, or where it cannot be resolved at the local level, at the Custom Area Land

Tribunal.

Any FGRM that is established is not intended to interfere with a person’s right to go to the appropriate court.

3. Current institutional strengths and capacity gaps for FGRM resolution. The current customary system of dealing with grievances at the local level works quite well, although a grievance may take some time to work its way through the system. There is also the established traditional scheme and a legislative scheme to deal with land ownership issues. In addition the present court system works well to deal with grievances that allege corruption, coercion, or major and systematic violations of rights or policies, although the process can be expensive and time consuming. Whether one utilizes the formal FGRM framework set out in section 4 or the customary system of dealing with grievances, there is always the risk that over time, any resolution may become moot, because of a change in government policy, a landowner or leaseholder changes his or her mind, or facts that led to the original

19

resolution of the issue have changed. However, it should be noted that most grievances in Vanuatu get resolved eventually. However it is anticipated that most grievances will be resolved utilizing the framework set out in section 4. Where matters are referred to a customary dispute resolution mechanism referred to in section 5 the experience of the customary system would indicate that most grievances will be resolved using the customary dispute resolution mechanisms set out in section 5. As mentioned earlier, there is the chance that a grievance still might not be resolved quickly using a dispute resolution mechanism set out in section 5. This may be the case even though final resolution might ease the burden on the community involved and encourage investment. Despite this, it should be noted that grievances rarely remain unresolved in Vanuatu. Since no regulations have been passed to date under the Environmental Protection and Conservation Act there is an opportunity to use the framework set out in section 4 as a model for regulations outlining a dispute resolution mechanism that can be used for environmental issues and REDD+ issues. This would require an amendment to that act to ensure that any such regulations would have a broader scope. This highlights one advantage of a formal GRM system with a database. There is a robust, permanent record of the grievance that can be monitored over time to ensure eventual resolution. However legislative adoption of the GRM is not a requirement for successful implementation. One of the key issues that will arise for any FGRM will be the fact that there is a limited number of staff available to implement, communicate (both the existence of any FGRM and the decisions emanating from an FGRM) and to enforce decisions (to whatever limited degree anything involving landowners can be enforced). If the FGRM framework is made into a regulation (under the Environmental Protection and Conservation Act or some other act), it could provide tools for enforcing decisions made pursuant to any dispute resolution process. It will be clear in section 4 of this report that CSO REDD+ networks will play an important role in any FGRM. Because CSO’s have been established to support the REDD+ network on each island they will be crucial to the success of any FGRM. Therefore it is important to understand the CSO structure as it relates to REDD+. Note that all CSO’s REDD+ networks will act to coordinate issues at the local level on each island. The chart below uses Erromango as an example. The structure on other islands may vary slightly.

20

21

4. FGRM framework including a plan for building on strengths and closing the gaps. In considering a framework for the FGRM it is important to differentiate between the management of the complaint, and its resolution. Complaint management is the process by which complaints are received (in person, SMS, phone, email, etc.), recorded, and then allocated to the appropriate party to address and resolve. Once resolved, the original complainant is notified of the outcome. Best practices for GRM have complaint management operated independently of the resolution, and widely perceived as independent5. Complaint resolution is best carried out by assigning the complaint to an individual with the most appropriate skill and authority to ensure there is resolution. In some instances, CSOs may participate in the process. The FGRM framework set out below is suggested as the process that should be used to deal with REDD+ generated disputes. Table 1 outlines the FGRM framework. The framework is intended to be generic, i.e. it could be used for any type of grievance that might arise in Vanuatu, in any context, not just REDD+. The only thing that might change is the person or body receiving and registering the grievance under step 1, and the person or body to whom a grievance might be referred to under step 6 where there is no satisfactory resolution of the grievance. It is recommended that the grievance be tracked using a database system similar to the ‘Grievance and Complaints Logging System’ (GCLS), developed by the World Bank and already in use in Vanuatu for the VAIP project.

5 Evaluating a Grievance Redress Mechanism. The World Bank, 2014.

22

TABLE 1 – FGRM FRAMEWORK

The FGRM, as presented, although it could be generic in its application, is intended to focus on dealing with potential grievances that are likely to arise as a result REDD+ activities and implementation. The Regional Forest Officer (RFO) in coordination with the local REDD+ CSO network was chosen as the person to receive and register grievances and conduct the initial mediation. The consensus during various consultations and the workshops was that the RFO was the best person to be the focal point. The RFO was chosen for several reasons: The RFO is currently used to dealing and mediating informally with landowners and leaseholders on DoF issues, has technical expertise,

23

is knowledgeable about REDD+ activities and is present on each of the REDD+ islands (although it was recognized that the RFO’s may need to receive training to improve their mediation skills and be trained in using the database). The DoF was also of the view that the person entering information into the FGRM database as part of the intake process should be from the DoF. However one of the World Bank principles for evaluating a GRM is whether the GRM operates independently from the interested parties. Using the RFO as the person to receive and register grievances may create the perception that the process is not independent. The DoF should give some thought as to whether an NGO could provide the intake service while leaving the RFO as the person to initially mediate the grievance. This decision will have to take into account how accessible the NGO might be in remote areas. Other persons or bodies were rejected as not having either the technical expertise in REDD+, lacking in mediation skills or not having the required technical expertise to deal with the various strategic options that might be offered, The use of an NGO was rejected as the DoF wanted to ensure that the person or body conducting the intake would always be available on each REDD+ island during the life of the REDD+ program. This will have to be evaluated in light of the WB requirement for independence. The DoF did not feel that creating a new person or body to manage the FGRM was practical or cost effective since the RFO was well placed to carry out this function. However it was also pointed out that the RFO might not be easily accessible to all persons or bodies that might have a REDD+ grievance. It is for this reason that public opinion was that persons should be afforded the option to go first to the CSO REDD+ network to get assistance in bringing forth their grievances to the RFO (or an NGO, if an NGO manages the intake process). The consensus was that the CSO network was familiar with REDD+ issues, was easily accessible in the community, represented a broad range of stakeholders, i.e. landowners, women, youth, the church and vulnerable members of society. The CSO would therefore coordinate the various parties in bringing forth the grievance to the RFO. On the other hand persons would not be precluded from going to the RFO directly if they so chose. The RFO and REDD+ planning section will record each step of the FGRM administrative process into a central electronic database that will be overseen by a designated person in the REDD+ office. [Note: this might change if an NGO is used to log the initial complaint]. Although the RFO is tasked with administering the various steps of FGRM administrative process in regards to entering information in the database and keeping the complainant apprised of his or her rights and of the status of the

24

complaint, the local REDD+ CSO network on the island where the RFO is located will play a crucial role. Because the RFO may not be easily accessible to the complainant it is suggested that complainants use the CSO network as an intermediary to communicate with the RFO. It is envisioned that the CSO network will be the first place a complainant, or a complainant’s representative, will go with a dispute. The DoF will need to educate the public about the FGRM framework, how it will work and who to contact if a person has a grievance. The CSO will then be able to assist the complainant to gather together all the necessary information concerning the dispute and this will in turn be communicated to the RFO who will then receive and register the grievance in the system and perhaps work out a solution with the CSO on behalf of the complainant. Note that this does not prevent a complainant from going directly to the RFO to lodge a complaint if he or she wishes to do so. However, complainants also need to be advised that they shouldn’t rely on the RFO to solve the problem.

Steps to utilize the FGRM Framework6

1. RECEIVE GRIEVANCE Aggrieved stakeholders (“complainants”) should be able to communicate

grievances by a variety of methods (e.g. phone, SMS, letter, email, website,

meeting, etc.).

Vulnerable persons,, women and youth should be encouraged to use the CSO

network to air or raise grievances since the CSO network will be composed of

representatives from those groups and will be established in the community.

It is possible that a complaint might be made anonymously. The person

receiving the complaint will have to determine if the anonymous complainant

is acting for another party or not. Where the anonymous complainant is

acting for another party, the person will need to determine if the anonymous

complainant has authority to make decisions on the “true” complainants

behalf.

6 FCPF/UN-REDD Programme Guidance Note for REDD+ Countries: Establishing and Strengthening Grievance Redress Mechanisms. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, June 2015.

25

The purpose of the GRM is to provide an accessible, rapid, and effective response to concerned stakeholders, especially to vulnerable groups who often lack access to the formal legal system. The DoF needs to ensure that affected stakeholders understand what the GRM is for, the different options that they have for communicating a grievance and, where they can get help and advice about whether and how to communicate a grievance. Appropriate oral and written communication in local languages through the media (e.g. radio) and in higher-risk communities is essential, as is proactive, ongoing outreach and trust building with the full range of potentially affected stakeholder groups. It is also essential for the DoF to make use of a GCLS type of centralized database and to require that all grievances received be entered into that database using a common protocol and means of recording grievances received. [See Appendix 4 for information to be put in database].

Centralized entry into the database and tracking is important both for accountability and for enabling continuous learning. It can also contribute to national-level reporting on the social and environmental sustainability aspects of REDD+ activities. The person entering the data into the database needs to ensure that all complainant information is kept confidential as it is being tracked and moved through the GRM process. Since many complaints may be resolved “on the spot” (i.e. direct action) and informally by the Regional Forest Officer with help from the local REDD+ CSO network these informal resolutions still need to be entered into a GRM database to encourage responsiveness; and to ensure that repeated or low-level grievances are being noted in the system.

2. REGISTER GRIEVANCE AND ACKNOWLEDGE

Acknowledging receipt Upon receiving a complaint, the Regional Forest Officer should log the complaint into the database. The RFO should immediately acknowledge receipt and logging of the complaint to the complainant in writing or by email, as the case requires, and inform the complainant of the procedure for assessing eligibility and generating an initial response.

26

The RFO should clearly identify a point of contact in the DoF to the complainant, provide a brief description of the process that will be followed, and a reference name or number for the complaint.

3. ASSESS, ASSIGN AND DEVELOP A PROPOSED RESPONSE

Assessing eligibility for the GRM This step is necessary to ensure that the issue being raised by the complainant is relevant to the REDD+ activities. For example, the issue may relate to land ownership, an issue that is not covered by the GRM. There should be a relatively low barrier to entry with a quick turn-around rather than preventing users from having their issues considered. A decision on eligibility is only meant to trigger an initial assessment and response. It is not an admission that a REDD+ activity has caused an impact, or a commitment to provide the complainant with any specific form of redress. The Regional Forest Officer who is responsible for the initial response will need to follow clear guidelines on what kinds of issues are eligible to be handled through the GRM, what issues should be referred to other mechanisms (such as internal audit departments, internal and external anti-corruption offices, police, etc.), and what issues or contexts may not be eligible for a DoF response. The RFO will need to decide whether the complaint should be directed to a different office within the DoF, or to a different organization altogether. For example, complaints alleging economic impact as a result of corrupt procurement procedures may need to be referred immediately the DoF’s own internal audit department, if one exists, or to an external anti-corruption office. The RFO should advise the complainant how long the process is likely to take based on predetermined service standards. For example, a high priority complaint might be dealt with in 5 days, a medium priority complaint in 10 day and a low priority complaint in 20 days. Eligibility may be determined on the basis of four broad criteria:

1. Does the complaint indicate that a REDD+ activity has caused a negative economic, social, or environmental impact on the complainant, or has the potential to cause such an impact? 2. Does the complaint specify what kind of impact has occurred or may occur, and how a REDD+ activity has caused or may cause that impact?

27

3. Does the complaint indicate that those filing the complaint are the ones who have been impacted, or are at risk of being impacted; or that those filing the complaint are representing the impacted or potentially impacted stakeholders at their request? [Note: If there is a representative, the RFO will have to determine if the representative can make a final decision of behalf of the claimants(s)]. 4. Does the complaint provide enough information for the RFO to make a determination on the first three questions?

ASSIGNING RESPONSIBILITY Where direct action by the RFO does not satisfactorily resolve the complaint, the RFO will need to determine which conflict scenario applies and refer the complaint to the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism according to Table 2. When multiple partners are implementing REDD+ activities (it could be any of forestry, agriculture, livestock or fisheries) clarity on roles and responsibilities for GRM implementation and response to particular complaints is essential.

A REDD+ GRM will typically generate three primary types of response to complaints:

1. Direct action to resolve the complaint. 2. Referring the complaint to the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism according to Table 2. 3. Determination that the complaint is not eligible for the GRM, either because it does not meet the basic eligibility criteria, or because another mechanism (within the organization or outside it) is the appropriate place for the complaint to go.

The RFO needs to determine whether the grievance can be addressed simply through direct action or whether the grievance is complex enough that it should be referred to the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism according to Table 2. The RFO may determine that direct action may need to involve another stakeholder, e.g. Ministry of Environment and/or the Rural Water Supply Unit of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, where REDD+ initiative involves a water catchment area.

28

Many complaints can be resolved through direct and relatively straightforward action on the part of the RFO, e.g. changing the time and location of a consultation or making public information more accessible in a community.

4. COMMUNICATE PROPOSED RESPONSE TO COMPLAINANT AND SEEK AGREEMENT

ON THE RESPONSE. The RFO is responsible for communicating the proposed response back to the complainant in a timely fashion, in writing using language that is easily accessible to the complainant (i.e. Bislama, English, French, as the case requires). The RFO may also contact the complainant by telephone or set up a meeting to review and discuss the initial approach with the complainant. The response should include a clear explanation of why the response is being proposed, what the response would be, and what the complainant’s choices are, given the proposed response. Those choices may include agreement to proceed with direct action, request for a review of an eligibility decision, a referral decision to the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism or further dialogue on direct action. In addition, the response should note any other organizational, judicial or non-judicial but official government avenues for redress that the complainant may wish to consider. Though practice varies, communication of the proposed response should normally occur within 14-20 days from receipt of a complaint, but could be sooner if possible. The complainant may or may not agree with the proposed response. If there is agreement, then the RFO can proceed with the proposed response, whether direct action or referring the complaint to the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism according to Table 2 or further dialogue on direct action. If the complainant challenges a finding of ineligibility, rejects direct action or does not want to participate in a referral process, the RFO needs to clarify the reasons why the complainant does not accept the proposed response, provide additional information, and, where possible, revise the proposed approach. If there is still no agreement, the RFO needs to make sure the complainant understands what other recourse may be available, whether through the judicial system or other administrative channels, and to document the outcome of the discussions with the complainant in a way that makes clear

29

what options were offered and why the complainant chose not to pursue them.

Where the complainant is a vulnerable person, woman or youth, the proposed response should be made through the CSO network to ensure that the complainant understands both the response and the process going forward.

5. IMPLEMENT THE RESPONSE TO RESOLVE THE GRIEVANCE. When there is agreement between a complainant and the RFO to move forward with direct action or referral to the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism according to Table 2, then the response should be implemented. In either case, i.e. direct action or referral, the RFO should endeavor to assess and clarify the following matters and communicate them to the complainant and other stakeholders:

• the issues and events that have led to the complaint • the stakeholders involved in those issues and events • the stakeholders͛ views, interests, and concerns on the relevant issues • whether key stakeholders are willing and able to engage in direct

action with the RFO to resolve the issues • how the stakeholders will be represented, and what their decision

making authority will be • what work plan and time frame the stakeholders could use to work

through the issues • what resources they will need, and who will contribute them.

If direct action or the referral process produces agreement on actions to resolve the complaint, then the RFO is responsible for overseeing implementation of those actions. In a multi-stakeholder context, several actors may be involved in the solution. It is important for the RFO and the stakeholders to monitor implementation jointly, and to “come back to the table” when needed to deal with challenges during implementation. Where the complainant is a vulnerable person, woman or youth, the implementation of the response should be made through the CSO network to ensure that the complainant understands what is taking place.

6. REVIEW THE RESPONSE IF UNSUCCESSFUL AND REFER TO APPROPRIATE PARTY FOR

MEDIATION. As noted above, in some cases it may not be possible to reach a satisfactory agreement with the complainant on the proposed response. In a multi-stakeholder dispute, direct action or a referral may lead to the conclusion that a collaborative approach is not feasible and that good faith efforts may not succeed in resolving key issues.

30

In any of these situations, the RFO should review the situation with the complainant, and see whether any modification of the response might meet the concerns of the complainant, the DoF, and other stakeholders (see step 4 above). If not, the RFO should inform the complainant about other alternatives that may be available, including the use of judicial or other administrative mechanisms for recourse. Whatever alternative the complainant chooses, it is important for the RFO to document their discussion with the complainant and the complainant’s informed choice among alternatives.

Where the complainant is a vulnerable person, woman or youth, the review of the situation should be made through the CSO network to ensure that the complainant understands what is taking place.

7. CLOSE OUT THE GRIEVANCE. The final step is to close out the grievance. If the response has been successful, the RFO should document the satisfactory resolution. In cases where there have been major risks, impacts or negative publicity, it may be appropriate to include written documentation from the complainant indicating satisfaction with the response. In others, it will be sufficient for the RFO to note the action taken and that the response was satisfactory to the complainant and the organization. In more complex and unusual grievance situations, it may be useful to document key lessons learned as well. If the grievance has not been resolved satisfactorily, the RFO should document the steps taken, all communication with the complainant and other stakeholders, and the decisions made by the DoF and the complainant about referral or recourse to other alternatives, including legal alternatives. In general, GRM documentation on particular cases should maintain confidentiality about details, while making public aggregate statistics on the number and type of complaints received, actions taken and outcomes reached. It may be appropriate in some cases to make basic information about the identity of complainants publicly available, with the consent of the complainant. Accurate case documentation using an electronic database is essential for public accountability, organizational learning, and resource planning. In the context of REDD+, it also contributes to the maintenance of the benefit sharing and safeguards aspects of the country’s monitoring activities. Therefore, closing a case is both a formal way to account for the response to a particular grievance, and a critically important moment for ensuring that key information and lessons are captured.

31

Monitoring, Evaluation, Feedback and Analysis The purpose of keeping a centralized electronic database is to understand patterns of grievances related to REDD+ activities and how effective the processes are that are used to resolve those grievances. It is therefore important to review patterns of grievances, their frequency, profile of complainants, types of issues raised, responses used, their effectiveness and efficiency, and perceptions of their legitimacy and fairness. It is also important to identify and characterize grievances generated by REDD+ activities that could in principal be handled through the FGRM process, but in practice are being resolved using formal mechanisms such as the courts. This baseline information should inform further assessment of the FGRM͛s performance, and the main factors affecting performance. The FGRM process and data should be reviewed regularly to make the following determinations:

are grievances being resolved?

if they are not resolved, why are they not resolved

would more grievances be resolved if a different process were used to

mediate disputes, i.e. how successful is the GRM?

would more grievances be resolved if there was a change to REDD+ policy,

e.g. a different choice of strategic options?

is there a consistent and complete application of the FGRM process

are the correct dispute resolution options being offered where grievances are

not satisfactorily resolved.

Is the FGRM being operated in accordance with the framework set out in

section 4.

The review should be carried out by the DoF with oversight by an external consultant or NGO with the required expertise or carried out entirely by an external consultant or NGO, to ensure that the review is independent. In order to get a complete picture of the success of the GRM process, the REDD+ unit will need to develop a survey to get feedback from each complainant who utilizes the process to determine if they were satisfied with the process and if they found the process effective. The results of such surveys shall be made available to the public in the form of aggregate statistics. The following is an example of the standard reporting from a GCLS type of database in use in the VAIP and that is published at www.vaip.vu.

32

Potential gaps

It is not clear who will engage the Government at the National level to promote the need to develop a clear land use management policy and who, if the National government is engaged, will be the person to mediate with PTAC at the provincial level. Developing best practices for land use is crucial to the success of REDD+ and the development of strategic options that will eliminate potential grievances with landowners and leaseholders.

Even if a land use policy is developed, it will take time to evolve since some

farmers have already invested money into the present system.

Because landowners and leaseholders have the final say as to what activities take place on their land there is the possibility that initially there may not be satisfactory resolution of an issue. A landowner or leaseholder can at any time change their mind on the results of any mediated outcome.

Setting a timetable for how long mediation might take may be impossible. The length of time to resolve a dispute depends on many factors such as the nature of the dispute, the venue to resolve the dispute and the island on which the dispute takes place.

At present PTAC is a collection of individuals representing separate departments of government who will need organizational training so they can learn to put aside their own department interest in order to develop land use management policies that adopt best practices.

There is a question as to whether there is the institutional capacity in the DoF REDD+ Unit to manage any FGRM in a way that ensures all the necessary aspects of a dispute resolution mechanism are respected.

Communication to stakeholders and consistency in application of the FGRM administrative process has the potential to be a major gap in implementing any FGRM.

33

Lack of proper staff training in mediation skills, operating the FGRM administrative process and how and when to communicate to complainants could be a stumbling block to the success of the FGRM (i.e. entering information in the database and keeping track of the grievance as it works its way through the dispute resolution mechanism)

It is not clear who will provide the incentives to whatever group is ultimately chosen to provide the intake, tracking, record keeping, reporting and analysis of any FGRM to ensure that the FRGM process continues.

5. Using the customary approach [dispute resolution mechanisms] to support the FGRM Framework. To the extent possible the current customary mechanisms that exist in Vanuatu have been identified as being the most likely to ensure successful resolution of grievance issues that are not resolved satisfactorily using the FGRM framework set out in section 4 and that are referred to a dispute resolution mechanism set out in this section. In some cases the customary approaches have been modified to fit the particular situation. In no case is the person with the grievance forced to go to court although, as has been stated at the outset, no one is precluded from using the court system if they wish to do so. The following dispute resolution mechanisms were identified during the April 4th, 2017 workshop [with the DoF and REDD+ staff] and the April 21st workshop [with island stakeholders and others] as being the best approaches to the grievance scenarios that were identified during the 5 island consultations [See Appendix 1 for list of grievances and options identified]. Note that these mechanisms will only be used where mediation by the Regional Forest Officer in coordination with the local REDD+ CSO network cannot resolve the complaint to the satisfaction of the parties. Note that the consultations identified 4 different possible parties to a dispute involving REDD+ activities: the government, landowners, leaseholders and migrants or any combination of those. The dispute resolution mechanisms to deal with the various parties are set out in Table 2. However, another person or body might act on behalf of one of these parties. For example, a grievance might be brought by an NGO, a chief or by some other body on behalf of a group of landowners or leaseholders, or even anonymously etc. Although the intention is that the majority of grievances will be resolved using the FGRM framework set out in section 4, stakeholders agreed it was necessary to identify how conflicts could be resolved where the FRGM framework was not able to result in initial satisfactory resolution of a grievance.

34

All stakeholders agreed that the dispute resolution mechanisms should utilize customary or variations of customary solutions to resolve the various conflicts that were identified (and that were not satisfactorily resolved under the FGRM framework set out in section 4). Since the customary methods of dealing with grievances may not adequately address the needs of the vulnerable, women and youth, the local CSO network should be consulted in each of the conflict scenarios to ensure that those persons are adequately represented in each of the dispute resolution mechanisms in Table 2.

TABLE 2 – Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Parties to Conflicts Dispute Resolution Mechanisms 1. Between landowner & Government

Landowner and community should try to resolve issue through a Nakamal and then go back to Gov’t. If there is no resolution the matter should be referred to a panel to try to reach some accommodation. The panel should be made up of the appropriate chief, area secretary and appropriate PTAC members depending on the sectors involved (e.g. forest officer, customary land representative, community representative, etc.).[need to also ensure that there are PTAC members who own land on the island where the dispute is located] If parties agree on a solution formalize it in an MOU. Note that the panel would only have the power to come to a final binding decision if the process is enshrined in legislation. Legislation should be considered only if this becomes a common occurrence and final resolution consistently cannot be achieved at the local level.

2. Between landowners If the dispute is between family members use the chief (only if after discussion among the family, the dispute cannot be resolved). If not a family dispute use the customary route on that particular island, e.g. Chief – Nakamal-ward council-area council-island court. Use customary route on the particular island if the chief is involved in the dispute or the dispute is between 2 chiefs. Consideration should be given to involving the local CSO REDD+ network where situation warrants its participation.

35

3. Between landowner & a leaseholder (most likely to be an issue on Efate and Santo)(not likely to be an issue on Tanna, Malekula or Erromango)*

If the subject matter of dispute is not covered in the lease, use the Lease Execution Office at the Department of Lands to mediate, recognizing that the leaseholder has full control over the land during the term of the lease and can refuse to go to mediation with Lands Department and may want to choose another mediator. If necessary involve forest officer or other officer, e.g. agriculture, livestock, etc. to provide technical expertise. Get parties to enter into an MOU if dispute is resolved. May need to involve the Ministry of Environment and/or the Rural Water Supply Unit of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, if the issue involves a water catchment area.

4. Between Government & a leaseholder (most likely to be an issue on Efate and Santo)(not likely to be an issue on Tanna, Malekula or Erromango)*

Same solution as #4 above.

5. Between landowner & informal renter (most likely to be an issue on Efate, Santo and Malekula)(not likely to be an issue on Tanna or Erromango)**

REDD+ should require an MOU between the landowner and renter before providing planting material. See Planted Forest Bill which requires a written agreement re benefit sharing. Until Bill comes into force, use forest officer to ensure there is an MOU.

6. Between leaseholder & informal renter (most likely to be an issue on Efate and Santo) (not likely to be an issue on Tanna, Malekula)(won’t be an issue on Erromango)***

REDD+ to Require MOU between landowner and renter before providing planting material. See Planted Forest Bill which requires a written agreement re benefit sharing. Until Bill comes into force, use forest officer to ensure there is an MOU. Need to inform the landowner if an issue arises with the leaseholder.

7. Between Government and a concession holder (may only be an issue on Erromango as it is the only place with concessions)

Future issues can be resolved by ensuring that any new concession agreements provide that the person logging has to replant and also grant government access over the concession to reach other land adjacent or near the land that is the subject of the concession.

8. Between a landowner and leaseholder involving access to coastal areas.

Not a mediation issue. The solution is enforcement of the law by the National government.

36

9. Between a leaseholder and a leaseholder.

Use the Lease Execution Office at the Department of Lands to mediate, recognizing that the leaseholder has full control over the land during the term of the lease and can refuse to go to mediation with Lands Department and may want to choose another mediator. If necessary involve forest officer or other officer, e.g. agriculture, livestock, etc. to provide technical expertise. Get parties to enter into an MOU if dispute is resolved. May need to involve Environment & Rural H2O supply if the issue involves a water catchment area.

* The most leases are on Efate and Santo with only a few on Tanna and Malekula and none at this writing on Erromango. ** Most renters are on Efate, Santo and Malekula and only a few on Tanna and Erromango. *** Won’t be an issue on Erromango as there are no leases. NOTE: If there is proper land use planning at the provincial level with input not only from government departments but from the local level and, landowners are offered several clear strategic options as a result of this planning then there should be no grievances between government and landowners. Issues involving leaseholders (conflicts 3 and 4) are likely to be few unless the lease is coming to an end. Otherwise the leaseholder has ownership and control during the term of the lease. The only other time an issue might arise is if the lease is not clear on who benefits from the implementation of a strategic option. A leaseholder could be an individual or a company. Conflicts 3, 4 and 9: There was a suggestion that s. 39 of the Land Leases Act could be used to open a lease to address a dispute, however that section, which provides for a 5 year review, only applies to the amount being paid for rent and does not provide for the ability to address other issues. There is also a provision in s. 38A of the Act that provides for forfeiture of a rural agricultural lease if there is no such development on the land within 5 years of the signing of the lease, however it is felt the right have the land revert to the original owner is not likely to assist in addressing disputes as a result of REDD+ activities. There is the need to recognize that from island to island each Nakamal has its own rules and procedures and that a chief in some instances may not have the final say and that the customary process may not bring a quick resolution to the issue.

37

6. Plan for improving, on an ongoing basis, the FGRM and communicating the final FGRM to stakeholders. The issue of communication and education is a key one to the success of any FGRM. The VAIP project developed a two-page brochure, shown below, that not only explains how to make complaints but also points to the World Bank official GRM. This type of communication together with radio coverage would ensure that stakeholders are informed about the FGRM.

There are several matters that will require detailed communication strategies and the budget and personnel to carry them out. First: Stakeholders (this includes landowners, leaseholders, government, NGO’s and other interested persons or organizations) will have to be informed that the government will be establishing an FGRM (or utilizing an existing FGRM) to solve possible disputes that might arise as a result of REDD+ activities. Second: Stakeholders will have to be informed on how to avail oneself of an FGRM i.e. where to go and how to lodge a complaint that might arise as a result of a REDD+ activity, how the various FGRM’s might work and what sort of results they might expect if they engage in a FGRM process.

38

Third: Stakeholders who have been identified as being part of the FGRM mediation process will have to be educated on REDD+, what will be expected of them as part of the mediation process and the various REDD+ activities that might trigger a dispute. Fourth: Once the FGRM process has been in operation for a year the DoF should analyze the success of the program from data obtained from its database and survey feedback and, if necessary, enter into a consultation process with the public to determine the publics view on the success of the FGRM program. Several stakeholders also pointed out the need to ensure that any FGRM that was developed had the ability to evolve if new grievance scenarios arose and that part of the REDD+ roll out should include information as to who a person should speak to if a new dispute arise that is not part of the original roll out information package. The FGRM framework, and the architecture of the database supporting it, needs to be flexible enough to account for new scenarios that might arise (whether it utilizes a GCLS type of database or some other database). As grievances come in and are addressed, the REDD+ planning unit should gather data and discuss progress with users and external stakeholders as part of a commitment to joint learning and continuous improvement. Lessons learned and patterns identified should result in ongoing refinement of the FGRM administrative process, a refinement of the FGRM dispute resolution mechanisms and accountability mechanisms keeping in mind, budgets and human resources devoted to the FGRM. Note that Appendix 5 sets out a detailed the list of things that will need to be done to implement the FGRM framework and to ensure its success.

39

Appendix 1 - Overview of Consultations on Five REDD+ Islands

Meetings on Efate, assorted dates February, March and April, 2017 The consultant met with the following key stakeholders in Port Vila, Brian Phillips, Secretary National Advisory Body on Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction (formerly NACCC) and member of Designated National Authority, Tom Simon, lawyer, State Law Office, Elizabeth Tari, lawyer, State Law Office, Paul Gambatta, Acting Director, Department of Lands, Jay Hinge, Lease Execution Officer, Department of Lands, Ben Tabi, Decentralization Unit, Department of Local Authorities, Jim Batty, plantation owner, Mattia De Biasi, Sector analyst for Land and Agriculture, Department of Strategic Sector Planning & Aid Coordination (DSSPAC) of the Prime Ministers Office, Russell Nari, Former Director General of Lands, Education and Justice and former Deputy Director of the Vanuatu Land Program, members of PTAC on Efate and members of the VANGO Secretariat. Several stakeholders pointed out that the potential conflicts between programs offered by donors such as the European Development Fund (over $35M being offered to Vanuatu to plant coconut trees, expand livestock and to plant fruit trees) may make it difficult to develop unified strategic options that involve best practices as they relate to REDD+ in coordination with other departments in the Ministry of Agriculture. The fact that the departments of Agriculture and Livestock have their budgets cut if they don’t meet their goals for coconuts and kava planting and livestock also exacerbates the situation. Any issues involving migrants and landowners or leaseholders not likely to develop on Efate where plots are to small to support subsistence farming and the planting of trees however there are sufficient woodlots of a ½ hectare or more that the planting of trees by migrants could lead to disputes over who derives the benefit from tree planting. There are a large number of leaseholds on Efate that could lead to disputes involving leaseholders, especially when lease are near the end of their term. Several persons suggested that although PTAC had the technical expertise to assist with a FGRM that it lacked organizational skills such that it might make it difficult for the PTAC members to reach decisions on the strategic options that utilize best practices and not just fight for the interests of their own Ministry or Department. On March 1, 2017, the consultant presented his inception report to the REDD+ team and the Department of Forestry (DoF). The report contained the background for the consultancy, the purpose of the consultancy, matters to be identified during the

40

consultancy the methodology for the project and the consultant’s work-plan. [See Appendix 2 for list of participants]. On March 28, 2107, the consultant presented an update report to the REDD+ team and the DoF. The main focus of the report was to highlight the various grievances that likely to arise during the REDD+ implementation. On Aril 4, 2017, the consultant held a workshop with the DoF and REDD+ staff to review the results of the consultations on the five REDD+ islands and to select the best FGRM options as solutions for the possible conflict scenarios that were identified to date. On Aril 21, 2017, the consultant held a workshop with the DoF and REDD+ staff, plus 2 representatives from each of the 5 REDD+ islands, to review the FGRM options that were identified to date to confirm the selections that were chosen at the April 4th workshop. On April 27, 2017, the consultant presented his draft final report to the DoF, REDD+ staff and the REDD+ Technical Committee. The Table below sets out the various options offered as possible solutions for resolving the conflict scenarios that might arise as a result of REDD+ activities on Efate.

Summary of Efate Consultations

Possible parties to Conflicts

Resolution Options Intake, tracking,

record keeping & reporting

1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Between REDD+ policy & another government program

National level to promote a land use management policy to be developed by PTAC with strategic options to be offered to landowners Should PTAC liaise with CSO to get views at local level?

New body to develop land use policy

Land Management Unit, Department of Lands

Use Area Secretary to act as conduit to PTAC? Finalize with MOU? Put in legislation?

-PTAC -CSO REDD+ Island network Reports to CSO coordinator -forest officer -NGO

41

2. Between landowner & Government on strategic options

Use a panel (Nakamal) made up of chief, area secretary and appropriate PTAC member(s) (e.g. forest officer, etc.)

Community should try to resolve issue thru Nakamal and then go back to Gov’t. PTAC to provide technical expertise. Involve forest officer? Involve Area Secretary?

PTAC to mediate (however they are only in Vila) with advice from chiefs

Use Area Secretary to act as conduit to PTAC? Finalize with MOU? Put in legislation? CSO to organize & represent landowner interest?

3. Between landowners

Chief – Nakamal-ward council-island court Involve Area Secretary?

Use Custom area Land Tribunal as mediator

Involve forest officer? Involve PTAC?

Involve CSO?

4. Between landowner & a leaseholder

If subject matter of dispute is not covered in lease, negotiation between Nat’l. & Prov. Gov’ts. & leaseholder, parties to agree on mediator

Use Lands Dep’t. to mediate? Use forest officer or secretary General to mediate?

Put in legislation? Involve Area Secretary?

May need to involve Environment & Rural H2O supply

5. Between Government & a leaseholder

Same solution as #4 above

6. Between landowner & informal renter

REDD+ to Require MOU between landowner and renter before providing planting material

See Planted Forest Bill which requires a written agreement re benefit sharing

Until Bill comes into force, use forest officer to ensure there is an MOU

7. Between leaseholder & informal renter

REDD+ to Require MOU between leaseholder and renter before

See Planted Forest Bill which requires a written agreement

Until Bill comes into force, use forest officer to ensure there is an

Need to inform Landowner if issue arises

42

providing planting material

MOU re benefit sharing

Rationale for using particular parties in dispute resolution: Chief – has local knowledge Area secretary – has area knowledge, knowledge of available resources, reports to province for all sectors, i.e. DoF, Agriculture, Livestock, fisheries, environment, water resources, etc. Forest officer – has technical expertise PTAC – has technical expertise representing government departments and community CSO REDD+ network – represents local interests

Yellow – Statements that relate to a particular scenario(s). Blue – Questions to be answered during the workshop.

Meetings on Erromango, March 16 to March 21, 2017 It was noted that there are few leaseholders on Erromango other than the airport and a local supply plantation, rather there are timber concessions that are facilitated by the government (Schedule 2 agreement between landowner and company doing the logging and setting up the sawmill) and therefore the issues between landowners and leaseholders are likely to be few. There are also very few migrants on Erromango. Participants advocated using the present traditional system of resolving disputes wherever possible. [See Appendix 2 for list of persons interviewed on Erromango] All participants agreed that the type of FGRM was dependent on the type of REDD+ issue that was being dealt with and that land ownership issues were outside of the FGRM process. The general feeling was that the CSO REDD+ network should play a strong role since they are familiar with local issues and can conduct outreach and provide education, but may require more training on communication skills, strategic planning, operational guidelines, administrative skills, mediation, report writing, proposal writing, etc. The consensus was that the church should be part of the CSO REDD+ network if they weren’t already involved since they are tuned to the community. The prevailing view on Erromango was that the CSO REDD+ network needed to be strengthened across Vanuatu and that the CSO networks needed to have a forum to exchange ideas across the 5 target islands and to be able to offer a consistent approach to issues that may arise.

43

Participants wanted to make sure that the REDD+ program would offer financial support, training and education to CSO network members. The Table below sets out the various options offered as possible solutions for resolving the conflict scenarios that might arise as a result of REDD+ activities on Erromango.

Summary of Erromango Consultations

Possible parties to Conflicts

Resolution Options Intake, tracking,

record keeping & reporting

1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Between REDD+ policy & another government program

Unlikely to be any issue as DoF is main program driver.

If an issue does arise use process developed for Efate and Santo.

-PTAC -CSO REDD+ Island network Reporting to CSO coordinator -forest officer -NGO

2. Between landowner & Government on strategic options

Use process established for Efate and Santo

Use CSO to coordinate landowner proposal & PTAC to report proposal to DoF

If no agreement use PTAC to mediate

Chief to offer advice

3. Between landowners

Use CSO to mediate with chief offering advice and if no resolution go to chief.

Chief –Nakamal-ward council-island court

If several landowners then majority view decides

Involve forest officer? Advice from PTAC?

4. Between landowner & a leaseholder

Leaseholder issues unlikely as there are few leaseholders other than airport and local supply plantation

If an issue does arise use process developed for Efate and Santo.

5. Between Government & a leaseholder

Leaseholder issues unlikely as there are few leaseholders

If an issue does arise use process

44

other than airport and local supply plantation

developed for Efate and Santo.

6. Between landowner & informal renter

N/A

7. Between leaseholder & informal renter

N/A

Rationale for using particular parties in dispute resolution: Chief – has local knowledge Area secretary – has area knowledge, knowledge of available resources, reports to province for all sectors, i.e. DoF, Agriculture, Livestock, fisheries, environment, water resources, etc. Forest officer – has technical expertise PTAC – has technical expertise representing government departments and community CSO REDD+ network – represents local interests Yellow – Statements that relate to a particular scenario(s). Blue – Questions to be answered during the workshop.

Presentation of Inception Report and Roundtable discussion of Scenarios, March 1, 2017

After presenting the Inception Report the balance of the discussion was spent discussing various REDD+ related grievance issues and possible FGRMs. Views ranged from going to the Chief for everything to using the local CSO REDD+ network to co-ordinate and mediate disputes on each island. After the discussion it was recognized that more than 1 mechanism would have to be used depending on the grievance scenario. Most agreed that, where possible and where appropriate, issues should be mediated by the local chief. It was also recognized that using customary methods (village chief, etc.) would not work in certain scenarios that involved conflicts with DoF policy. On the other hand where the CSO was involved it was recognized that the chief may still play a mediating role in certain situations. It was also suggested that PTAC be used to mediate between the CSO and DoF.

45

There was some discussion about using the Custom Area Land Tribunal to mediate disputes as they had some expertise in mediation, however at least one participant pointed out that the public perception of this body was somewhat negative and this would remove some trust the public might have in using it to mediate. One participant suggested using the local Forest Officer to operate the FGRM. This might present problems if the person did not possess training and skills in mediation.

Meetings on Tanna, March 6 to 8, 2017 The consultant met with Kitty Napat, Secretary General (CEO), Tafea Province, and with the Tanna CSO Network and PTAC. The consultant also met with Rex Iapen, a former sawmill owner and Dickson Gray, a peanut/coffee grower. [See Appendix 2 for list of additional persons interviewed on Tanna] Note: There are few leasehold arrangements on Tanna, mainly the coffee plantation and in and around Lenakil and therefore the issues between landowners and leaseholders are likely to be few. The peanut/coffee grower did not see any conflicts with different government departments as being an issue since their operation ensured that there were always trees planted as a buffer between plots of land. It was also noted that migrants (i.e. renters) were not yet an issue on Tanna but there was the suspicion that this would be an issue in the future. Where the resolution of a grievance used a chief to help solve the dispute it was suggested that a chief of a nearby village could be used if the chief had a conflict and was part of the dispute. The Table below sets out the various options offered as possible solutions for resolving the conflict scenarios that might arise as a result of REDD+ activities on Tanna.

46

Summary of Tanna Consultations

Possible parties to Conflicts

Resolution Options Intake, tracking,

record keeping & reporting

1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Between REDD+ policy & another government program

PTAC to develop land use policy & strategic options

New body to develop land use policy

Land Management Unit, Department of Lands

Involve CSO? Area Council to facilitate with PTAC? Finalize with MOU?

-PTAC -CSO REDD+ Island network Reporting to CSO coordinator -forest officer -NGO

2. Between landowner & Government on strategic options

Community should try to resolve issue thru Nakamal and then go back to Gov’t.

PTAC to mediate with assistance of area counsel if Nakamal unsuccessful

In case of road issues & Chinese contractor on Tanna – used PTAC to mediate as chief had conflict

Involve CSO to represent landowner interest? Should area secretary be involved before going to PTAC?

3. Between landowners

Chief – Nakamal-ward council-island court

Use Custom area Land Tribunal as mediator

Involve forest officer? Involve PTAC?

Involve CSO?

4. Between landowner & a leaseholder

Leaseholder issues unlikely as there are few leaseholders

If an issue does arise use process developed for Efate and Santo.

5. Between Government & a leaseholder

Leaseholder issues unlikely as there are few leaseholders

If an issue does arise use process developed for Efate and Santo.

6. Between landowner & informal renter

Not yet an issue on Tanna

REDD+ to Require MOU between landowner and renter before providing planting material

See Planted Forest Bill which requires a written agreement

Until Bill comes into force, use forest officer to ensure there is an MOU

47

7. Between leaseholder & informal renter

Not yet an issue on Tanna. Need to inform Landowner if issue arises

REDD+ to Require MOU between leaseholder and renter before providing planting material

See Planted Forest Bill which requires a written agreement

Until Bill comes into force, use forest officer to ensure there is an MOU

Rationale for using particular parties in dispute resolution: Chief – has local knowledge Area secretary – has area knowledge, knowledge of available resources, reports to province for all sectors, i.e. DoF, Agriculture, Livestock, fisheries, environment, water resources, etc. Forest officer – has technical expertise PTAC – has technical expertise representing government departments and community CSO REDD+ network – represents local interests

Yellow – Statements that relate to a particular scenario(s). Blue – Questions to be answered during the workshop.

Meetings on Santo, March 11, 2017 to March 14, 2017 Discussions were held on Santo with Malakai, who operated a demonstration project, Bill Tavue, chair of the CSO in Santo, Italio Borora, coconut officer, Department of Agriculture, Charley Johnson, Ombudsman’s Office, Prosper Buletare, Samna Provincial Planner, Sero Isiah, Forestry Officer, Allan Vira, Forestry Officer, Jay Hinge, Lease Execution Officer, Department of Lands and Manses Fatdal, Lands Officer. [See Appendix 2 for list of additional persons interviewed on Santo] The view was expressed that the DoF needs to work with individual landowners directly or through the CSO network on each island to get them on board. It was suggested that PTAC or the forest officer could provide expert advice when bringing landowners into the REDD+ program. All of these initiatives would eliminate or reduce conflicts. PTAC view is that the use of CSOs is limited at the outset: rather DoF needs to work with individual farmers. CSOs might be more useful once things are up and running. In order to make best use of the CSO network on each island there needs to be more communication with REDD+ in Vila. There was mention that communication has been lacking. There is presently no venue to resolve land use planning conflicts and to encourage best practices across the various departments in the Ministry of Agriculture. At present each farmer is left to his own devices to decide which policy or practice is in

48

his best interest. The Government does not speak “with one voice” which will eventually lead to conflicts in trying to apply REDD+ initiatives. Because the drivers of deforestation are different on each island a different land use policy with varying strategic options will have to be developed for each island. Even if a land use policy is developed it will take time to evolve since some farmers have already invested money into the present system. Presently there is a Land Management Unit (Department of Lands) in Santo that is involved mainly in physical planning, town planning (zoning) in Luganville, provincial planning and in lease management in rural areas. It does not have the mandate or the expertise to tell farmers how to use their land and does not appear to be the logical body to resolve land use management issues for the island. One interviewee suggested that the Land Leases Act should be changed to reduce the length of leases from 75 years since the present term basically replaces the landowner with the leaseholder who then effectively becomes the owner of the land. The Table below sets out the various options offered as possible solutions for resolving the conflict scenarios that might arise as a result of REDD+ activities on Santo.

Summary of Santo Consultations

Possible parties to Conflicts

Resolution Options Intake, tracking,

record keeping & reporting

1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Between REDD+ policy & another government program

National level to promote a land use management policy to be developed by PTAC with strategic options to be offered to landowners Should PTAC liaise with CSO to get views at local level?

New body to develop land use policy

Land Management Unit, Department of Lands

Use Area Secretary to act as conduit to PTAC? Finalize with MOU? Put in legislation?

-PTAC -CSO REDD+ Island network Reports to CSO coordinator -forest officer -NGO

49

2. Between landowner & Government on strategic options

Use a panel (Nakamal) made up of chief, area secretary and appropriate PTAC member(s) (e.g. forest officer, etc.)

Community should try to resolve issue thru Nakamal and then go back to Gov’t. PTAC to provide technical expertise. Involve forest officer? Involve Area Secretary?

PTAC to mediate (however they are only in Luganville) with advice from chiefs

Use Area Secretary to act as conduit to PTAC? Finalize with MOU? Put in legislation? CSO to organize & represent landowner interest?

3. Between landowners

Chief – Nakamal-ward council-island court Involve Area Secretary?

Use Custom area Land Tribunal as mediator

Involve forest officer? Involve PTAC?

Involve CSO?

4. Between landowner & a leaseholder

If subject matter of dispute is not covered in lease, negotiation between Nat’l. & Prov. Gov’ts. & leaseholder, parties to agree on mediator

Use Lands Dep’t. to mediate? Use forest officer or secretary General to mediate?

Put in legislation? Involve Area Secretary?

May need to involve Environment & Rural H2O supply

5. Between Government & a leaseholder

Same solution as #4 above

6. Between landowner & informal renter

REDD+ to Require MOU between landowner and renter before providing planting material

See Planted Forest Bill which requires a written agreement re benefit sharing

Until Bill comes into force, use forest officer to ensure there is an MOU

7. Between leaseholder & informal renter

REDD+ to Require MOU between leaseholder and renter before

See Planted Forest Bill which requires a written agreement

Until Bill comes into force, use forest officer to ensure there is an

Need to inform Landowner if issue arises

50

providing planting material

MOU re benefit sharing

Rationale for using particular parties in dispute resolution: Chief – has local knowledge Area secretary – has area knowledge, knowledge of available resources, reports to province for all sectors, i.e. DoF, Agriculture, Livestock, fisheries, environment, water resources, etc. Forest officer – has technical expertise PTAC – has technical expertise representing government departments and community CSO REDD+ network – represents local interests Yellow – Statements that relate to a particular scenario(s). Blue – Questions to be answered during the workshop.

Meetings on Malekula, March 14 to March 16, 2017 Discussions were held with Charles Tari, Livestock Officer, Daniel Laeyang, Forest Officer and Job Havo, Forest Officer. The Unique Team and this consultant also met briefly with Ben Tabi, Secretary General to advise him of our plans to consult on the island. The consultant also met with 2 CSO members, Spethly Jonah, Farmer, Secretary of Amal Crab Bay, CSO Network and Kalen Abbie, Farmer, CSO Chairman of Amal Crab Bay CSO Network. The consultant also met with PTAC [See Appendix 2 for list of additional persons interviewed on Malekula]. It was noted that there are only 4 leaseholders on Malekula and therefore the issues between landowners and leaseholders are likely to be few. On the other hand there are over 100 migrants on Malekula with plots of 1 hectare or more. This means the plots are big enough to support both subsistence farming and tree planting. The issue could arise as to who would get the benefit from tree planting as a result of REDD+ activities if migrants were encouraged to plant trees. It was pointed out that although there are potential conflicts between landowners and migrants that most informal arrangements provide that the migrant is allowed to benefit from whatever is planted on the land. The Table below sets out the various options offered as possible solutions for resolving the conflict scenarios that might arise as a result of REDD+ activities on Malekula.

51

Summary of Malekula Consultations

Possible parties to Conflicts

Resolution Options Intake, tracking,

record keeping & reporting

1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Between REDD+ policy & another government program

PTAC to develop land use policy & strategic options

New body to develop land use policy

Land Management Unit, Department of Lands

Involve CSO? Area Council to facilitate with PTAC? Finalize with MOU?

-PTAC -CSO REDD+ Island network Reporting to CSO coordinator -forest officer -NGO

2. Between landowner & Government on strategic options

Community should try to resolve issue thru Nakamal and then go back to Gov’t.

PTAC to mediate with assistance of area counsel if Nakamal unsuccessful

Involve CSO to represent landowner interest? Should area secretary be involved before going to PTAC?

3. Between landowners

Chief – Nakamal-ward council-island court

Use Custom area Land Tribunal as mediator

Involve forest officer? Involve PTAC?

Involve CSO?

4. Between landowner & a leaseholder

Leaseholder issues unlikely as there are few leaseholders

If an issue does arise use process developed for Efate and Santo.

5. Between Government & a leaseholder

Leaseholder issues unlikely as there are few leaseholders

If an issue does arise use process developed for Efate and Santo.

6. Between landowner & informal renter

REDD+ to Require MOU between landowner and renter before providing planting material

See Planted Forest Bill which requires a written agreement

Until Bill comes into force, use forest officer to ensure there is an MOU

52

7. Between leaseholder & informal renter

REDD+ to Require MOU between leaseholder and renter before providing planting material

See Planted Forest Bill which requires a written agreement

Until Bill comes into force, use forest officer to ensure there is an MOU

Need to inform Landowner if issue arises

Rationale for using particular parties in dispute resolution: Chief – has local knowledge Area secretary – has area knowledge, knowledge of available resources, reports to province for all sectors, i.e. DoF, Agriculture, Livestock, fisheries, environment, water resources, etc. Forest officer – has technical expertise PTAC – has technical expertise representing government departments and community CSO REDD+ network – represents local interests

Yellow – Statements that relate to a particular scenario(s). Blue – Questions to be answered during the workshop.

Meeting with DoF and REDD+ staff, March 28, 2017 The consultant met with the DoF and REDD+ staff to provide everyone with an overview of the work conducted by the consultant to date. This included a review of the consultations on Efate, Erromango, Tanna, Santo and Malekula and a review of the possible grievance scenarios that might develop as a result of REDD+ activities.

Workshop with DoF and REDD+ staff, April 4, 2017 The consultant conducted a workshop on April 4, 2017 with the DoF and REDD+ staff to get feedback on the various options that were offered to the consultant during consultations on Efate, Erromango, Tanna, Santo and Malekula. The staff was divided up into teams with each team reviewing a possible dispute scenario and determining what they thought was the preferred FRGM to address that scenario. The teams then reported back to the entire group. The entire group then discussed the team report until consensus was reached on the most desirable FGRM to address the particular scenario. This was repeated with each scenario. The results of the workshop are reflected in Table 2.

53

Appendix 2 - List of Attendees at Meetings

Persons interviewed on Erromango February 17, 2017

Name Title or organization phone email 1. Hellen Stela

Naupa Part of National Platform, Woman Activist, Erromango CSO coordinator

774-6658

helennaupa@gmail.com

2. Mike Tompu Landowner 3. Jocelyn Usua

Namaka Wash officer, Care International, Lenakel Tanna

730-8067 734-2879 545-1889

Jusua87@gmail.com

4. Tano Lapi Care International, Port Vila

733-529 5657-424

tanolapi@gmail.com

5. Joe James Rungu

Chief, Port Narvin, NE Erromango

776-4018

6. Charlie Narvua

Chief, CSO rep. National Platform, Port Narvin

773-6918

7. Russell Louvo

Forest Officer, Sandal wood farmer, Bongkil

8. Pauline Narwa

Cooks Bay, Woman rep. and CSO rep.

9. Toure Nambong

Chief, CSO rep. South River

10. Jean Silas Antioch 11. Reihap

Tompu Woman’s rep., Dillon’s Bay

12. Tom Namelpau

Sandalwood farmer, Ipota

13. Mase Jimmy Chairman, Kauri Conservation Committee

Participants - Inception Report and Scenario Discussions March 1, 2107

Name Title or Organization

Phone Email

54

1. Anne-Marie Sarisets

DoF 23171 asarisets@vanuatu.gov.vu

2. Watson Lui DoF 7792796 5365401

wlui@vanuatu.gov.vu

3. Ann Carlo Vango 7794089 4. Taman W.

Omesmas Shefa 7790374 tamanomesmas@vanuatu.gov.vu

5. Ioan Viji REDD+ 7742680 Vutilol03@gmail.com 6. Johnny

Alberts Presbyterian Church

5416500 ce@pvc.vu

7. Jill Horry REDD+ 7116062 Jill.horry@gmail.com 8. Godfrey

Bome DoF 7336269 gbome@vanuatu.gov.vu

9. Dhan Dhital REDD+ 7311893 Dhan_dhital@yahoo.com 10. Samson Lulu REDD+ 7316819 Lulusamson31@gmail.com 11. Tate

Harrington DoF 5466607 htate@vanuatu.gov.vu

Persons interviewed on Tanna March 7, 2017

Name Organisation Telephone Number

1. Willie K. Immigration 7112468 2. Charley. I Cmcket officer 7353033 3. David Kiel TPGC 7309544 4. Remi Kali C.S.O rep 7785313 5. Joseph Joel Dept of Water 7799660 6. Sylvain Nako Education 7714188 7. Wendy Tomasi Dept of Women’s Affairs 7347563 8. Makawa Kaka Red Cross Society 7712659 9. David Tovovur TPGC 7730605 10. Stephen Kaveng TPGC 7739416 11. Joseph Nok Police commander 7318770 12. Kaloka Wilfred Ministry of Justice & C.

Services 7799036

13. Lesbeth Jimmy USP 7115587 14. Joseph Wambyu TPGC 7785241 15. Sam Naiu DARD 7763689 16. Daniel Samson NDMO 7742766 17. Ps Andrew Iawak CSO 7715364 18. Rene PTAC- Forestry 7339711 19. Jema Iawma CSO Rep 5621173 20. Flora Iapen CSO Rep –Chairlady

Central Tanna 5731221

55

21. Katty Napuat TPG 7782558 22. Simon Naupa PTAC-Forestry 7319471

Persons Interviewed on Santo March 12 and 13, 2017

Name Organisation Telephone Number

1. Sero Isaiah PTAC- Forestry 5687557 2. Prosper Buletare Sanma Province 7754532 3. Alsen Obed Fisheries Dept 7745499 4. Charley Johnson Ombudsman office 5641411 5. Darryl Maseng Livestock Dept 7374919

Persons interviewed on Malekula March 14, 2017

Name Organisation Telephone Number

1. Numa Fred Cultural Centre 7301822 2. Basil Malili CGA 7720955 3. Abelson Abel NDMO 5499545 4. David Sailas Forestry Officer 5424397 5. Joses Lingi Ministers Ferternal 7305737 6. Katen Abbie CSO 5391592 7. Louisiano Malapa Forestry 5720349 8. Edna Paulo Tourism Dept 5423690 9. John Mael Industry 7304579 10. Charles Tan Livestock 5449806/7734051 11. Eric Tuman Province 5268727 12. Job Havo Forestry Dept 5358580 13. Daniel Layang Forestry Dept 5499223 14. Nickles Lingtamat DARD 5362628

Participants – Overview of Work done To Date - March 28, 2017

Name Title or Organization

Phone Email

1. Keney Balu DoF 5723598 Kenub17@gmail.com 2. Watson Lui DoF 7792796

5365401 wlui@vanuatu.gov.vu

3. Ruth Nalau DoF 7742681 ruthnalau@gmail.com

56

4. Toufau Kalsakau

DoF 7751685 tkalsakau@vanuatu.gov.vu

5. Ioan Viji REDD+ 7742680 Vutilol03@gmail.com 6. Thomas

Junior Paro DoF 5406716 parothomasjunior@gmail.co

7. Jill Horry REDD+ 7116062 Jill.horry@gmail.com 8. Godfrey

Bome DoF 7336269 gbome@vanuatu.gov.vu

9. Dhan Dhital REDD+ 7311893 Dhan_dhital@yahoo.com 10. Samson Lulu REDD+ 7316819 Lulusamson31@gmail.com 11. Tate

Harrington DoF 5466607 htate@vanuatu.gov.vu

12. Ken Green USP greennest11@gmail.com 13. Isoa

Karovulah USP korovulavale@ups.ac.fi

14. Mala Movour USP 15. Jude Tabi DoF 23171

7776644 tjude@vanuatu.gov.vu

16. Sam Chanel DoF 23171 7744457

schanel@vanuatu.gov.vu

17. Frazer Alo DoF 23171 5728303

afrazer1993@gmail.com

18. Livo Mele private 5423301 livotavo@yahoo.com 19. Yuki Kosagi DoF 5742993 Sugi_real@yahoo.co.jp 20. Presley Dow DoF-FAO project

coordinator 5349920 dovopres@gmail.com

21. Joseph Tungon

DoF 7385452 jtungon@yahoo.com

22. Judy Kalotap DoF 23171 kalotapj@vanuatu.gov.vu

Participants - Workshop – April 4, 2017

Name Title or Organization

Phone Email

1. Anne-Marie Sarisets

DoF 23171 asarisets@vanuatu.gov.vu

2. Watson Lui DoF 7792796 5365401

wlui@vanuatu.gov.vu

3. Ruth Nalau DoF 7742681 ruthnalau@gmail.com 4. Toufau

Kalsakau DoF 7751685 tkalsakau@vanuatu.gov.vu

5. Ioan Viji REDD+ 7742680 Vutilol03@gmail.com 6. Thomas

Junior Paro DoF 5406716 parothomasjunior@gmail.co

57

7. Jill Horry REDD+ 7116062 Jill.horry@gmail.com 8. Godfrey

Bome DoF 7336269 gbome@vanuatu.gov.vu

9. Dhan Dhital REDD+ 7311893 Dhan_dhital@yahoo.com 10. Samson Lulu REDD+ 7316819 Lulusamson31@gmail.com 11. Tate

Harrington DoF 5466607 htate@vanuatu.gov.vu

12. Keney Balu DoF 5723598 Kenub17@gmail.com 13. Jude Tabi DoF 23171

7776644 tjude@vanuatu.gov.vu

15. Sam Chanel DoF 23171 7744457

schanel@vanuatu.gov.vu

16. Frazer Alo DoF 23171 5728303

afrazer1993@gmail.com

17. Livo Mele private 5423301 livotavo@yahoo.com 18. Yuki Kosagi DoF 5742993 Sugi_real@yahoo.co.jp 19. Presley Dow DoF-FAO project

coordinator 5349920 dovopres@gmail.com

20. Joseph Tungon

DoF 7385452 jtungon@yahoo.com

21. Judy Kalotap DoF 23171 kalotapj@vanuatu.gov.vu

Participants – Workshop April 21, 2017

NAME ORGANIZATION ISLAND REPRESENTED

Taman Willie Onesmas ELMA/Shefa Office Efate

Philip Iesul Tanna CSO Platform Network

Tanna

Jema Iauma Tanna CSO Platform Network

Tanna

Livo Mele Private Consultant Santo

Jefferey Vutilolo Santo CSO Member Santo

Sakariah Daniel Sanma Provincial Government Council

Santo

Kalen Abbie Malekula CSO Network Malekula

Russell Louvu Erromango PTC Erromango

Samson Lulu REDD+ Unit Efate

Godfrey Bome DoF Efate

58

Joseph Tungon DoF Efate

James Samuel DoF Efate

Toufau Kalsakau DoF Efate

Judy Kalotap DoF Efate

Vanessa Organo ELMA/Shefa Office Efate

Jill Horry CSO Network Desk/REDD+ Unit

Efate

Ann Carlo VANGO Efate

Litiana Carlo Kalsrap CSO REDD+ Platform Efate

Ioan Viji REDD+ Unit Santo

Hannington Tate DoF Efate

Dhan Dhital REDD+ Unit Efate

Jude Tabi DoF Efate

Mckensie Naupa DoF Erromango

Micheal Tabi DoF Efate

Charlie Harrison VANGO Efate

Helen Mansi DoF Efate

Taura Titus DoF Efate

Stephen Jonah DoF Efate

FGRM Validation/Final Presentation 27th April 2017

NAME ORGANIZATION

Ioan Viji REDD+ Unit

Watson Lui DoF (TC Member)

Jude Tabi DoF

Dhan Dhital REDD+ Unit

Rexon Vira DoF

Ruth Nalau DoF

Anne-Marie sarisets DoF

59

Samson Lulu REDD+ Unit

Mckensie Naupa DoF

Ephraim Songi Pacific Carbon Syndicate (TC Member)

Judy Kalotap DoF

Taman Willie Onesmas ELMA/Shefa Office

Salome Kalo Trades Dept.

Charlie Harrison VANGO

Philip Iesul Tanna CSO Rep

Stephen Jonah DoF

Appendix 3 - Documents Reviewed

1. Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) Oct. 2013

2. Supporting Rationale for LIWG (2014) Recommendations: Establishing an

Independent Grievance Mechanism.

3. Preparing and implementing a management plan for Megapodes on Tongoa,

Vanuatu- Social assessment to demonstrate how the project will comply with

CEPF’s safeguard policy in Indigenous Peoples.

4. Live and Learn Environmental Education, Vanuatu Extension and Outreach

Consulting Report. Anjali Nelson, A. Thomas and M. Nickllum.

5. Vanuatu- Legal Framework for REDD+, Aug. 2014, Lisa Ogle, SPC/GIZ

Regional Project.

6. Developing a FGRM for REDD+, Nepal 2014.

7. World Bank Grievance Redress Service.

8. Safeguards and REDD+ in Vanuatu.

9. FCPF/UN-REDD Programme Guidance Note for REDD+ Countries:

Establishing and Strengthening Grievance Redress Mechanisms, Ver. #3,

November 2013.

10. World Bank- Evaluating a Grievance Redress Mechanism.

11. The World Bank Approach to Grievance Redress in Projects.

12. Kenya – FCPF Workshop.

13. Mexico: Forest Carbon Partnership Fund (FCPF) & Forest Investment

Program.

14. Notes on Chiefs in the Community.

15. World Bank Safeguard Policies.

60

16. Approved Area Councils in Vanuatu.

17. Vanuatu National Leasing Profile, May 2012.

18. Leasing on Tanna Island, Vanuatu, May 2012.

19. Leases in Vanuatu, World Bank.

20. Developing a FGRM for REDD+, Nepal, 2015.

21. Developing a Dispute Resolution Mechanism for REDD+, Ghana, 2014

22. Assessment of Cambodia Forest System REDD+, dispute Resolution April,

2014.

Appendix 4 - Check list for FGRM Framework

1. Assign a name or number to the complaint.

2. Name of complainant(s).

3. Complainant(s) contact information (address, phone, email, etc.)

4. Preferred language for communication, i.e. Bislama, English, French.

5. Acknowledge receipt of the complaint to the complainant or a representative

for the complainant. Check off when completed.

6. How was the complaint acknowledged? Letter or email.

7. Did the acknowledgment include the name or number of the complaint? Yes

or no.

8. Did the acknowledgment include contact information for the complainant in

order to track the process of the dispute? Yes or no. If yes, who or what was

the contact?

9. Who registered the complaint, the complainant or a representative for the

complainant?

10. Was the local REDD+ CSO network involved in communicating the complaint?

11. How was complaint communicated to RFO, i.e. phone, meeting, email,

website, CSO?

12. Nature of complainant. [check off 1 of the 10 possible scenarios]. The

following information about the grievance, if known, should be entered into

the database and communicated to all of the stakeholders [check off when

completed]:

the issues and events that have led to the complaint

the stakeholders involved in those issues and events

the stakeholders͛ views, interests, and concerns on the relevant issues

whether key stakeholders are willing and able to engage in direct action

with the RFO to resolve the issues

61

how the stakeholders will be represented, and what their decision

making authority will be

what work plan and time frame the stakeholders could use to work

through the issues

what resources stakeholders will need, and who will contribute them.

13. Does the complaint provide enough information for the RFO to make a

determination on eligibility and the nature of the complaint? Yes, no or

maybe.

14. Does complaint involve a REDD+ activity? Yes or no.

15. If the complaint involves a REDD+ activity how does it affect the

complainant?

16. Does the complaint relate to land ownership? Yes or no.

17. Is the complainant eligible for the FGRM process? If no, why.

18. If the complainant is found to be not eligible, advise the complainant that he

or she is not eligible. Check off when completed.

19. Did RFO inform the complainant of the procedure for assessing eligibility?

Yes or no.

20. If the complainant is not eligible, did the RFO advise the complainant where

they might go to get assistance? Yes or no. If yes, where was the complainant

directed to go for further help?

21. If the complainant was found to be not eligible, did complainant wish to

review the decision of eligibility? Check off yes or no.

22. Did RFO explain the FGRM process to complainant? Yes or no.

23. If complainant is eligible, is complainant willing to try and resolve the dispute

through direct action. Check off yes or no.

24. If the complainant is unwilling to try and resolve the dispute through direct

action, check off why not, if known.

25. Was RFO able to resolve dispute with direct action? If no, why not.

26. If dispute was resolved through direct action did the RFO need to involve

other stakeholders? If yes, who?

27. If the dispute was resolved through direct action what factors helped resolve

the issue? List factors.

28. What was the outcome of the resolution by direct action? Set out details of

resolution.

29. Advise all parties of the results of the resolution by direct action. Check off

when completed.

30. If there is resolution on direct action, implement the result. Check off when

completed.

31. If complainant is eligible and RFO is unable to resolve the dispute with direct

action or the complainant is unwilling to use direct action, which FGRM

62

dispute resolution process applies to the complaint? Check off the

appropriate mechanism based on the applicable scenario.

32. If the complainant is eligible and RFO is unable to resolve the dispute with

direct action, advise the complainant which FGRM dispute resolution process

applies to the complaint. Check off when completed.

33. If the complainant agrees to a referral, refer the complaint to appropriate

grievance mechanism based on the applicable scenario, and so advise the

complainant that the grievance has been referred. Check off when completed.

34. If the complaint is referred, track the process of the complaint and so advise

all the parties as to the status of the process on an on-going basis if the status

changes. Check off when completed at each step.

35. If the referral results in resolution, note the result, notify the stakeholders of

the result and implement the resolution. Check off when completed at each

step.

36. If there is no resolution on referral, note the result and notify the

stakeholders of the result. Check off when completed at each step.

37. Where there the resolution is not satisfactory to all the parties, discuss the

outcome with the complainant and other stakeholders to determine if a

modification of the approach might have produced a better resolution. Check

off when completed, noting any comments from the parties.

38. Where the parties are not satisfied with the resolution, advise the

complainant about other alternatives that may be available, including the use

of judicial or other administrative mechanisms for recourse. Check off when

completed.

39. If there is resolution, either by direct action or on referral, close out the

grievance noting the satisfactory result.

40. If there is resolution, but there have been major risks, impacts or negative

publicity, include written documentation from the complainant indicating

satisfaction with the response, noting the major risks, impacts or negative

publicity.

41. Where there is resolution but no major issues, note the action taken and that

the response was satisfactory to the complainant and the other stakeholders.

42. If there is resolution but the issues have been complex or unusual, document

key lessons learned.

43. If the grievance is not satisfactory to all the parties, document all the steps

taken, all communication with the complainant and other stakeholders, and

the decisions made by the DoF and the complainant about referral or

recourse to other alternatives, including legal alternatives.

63

44. Determine in every case whether the complainant consents to release of

information about the complaint? If the complainant consents, determine

what information may be released and under what circumstances.

Appendix 5 - Tasks to be implemented to get FGRM Framework up and running.

Communication and Education: 1. Educate potential stakeholders (this includes landowners, leaseholders,

government, NGO’s and other interested persons or organizations) on the FGRM Framework, ensuring that all stakeholders get messages in a consistent style in regards to FGRM issues and reporting of grievances. This could be carried out by the CSO network and/or by the REDD+ outreach officer and should be integrated into the REDD+ communications and outreach program.

2. Foster better coordination, communication and cooperation among some the

following government stakeholders in regards to strategic options so as to reduce disputes: forestry, agriculture, livestock, fisheries, environment, provincial government, customary chiefs and communities.

3. Develop a comprehensive communication plan in regards to REDD+ policy in

order to better educate to other government departments on REDD+, i.e. Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries, Environment, etc.

4. Foster better communication from REDD+ technical committee members

back to their own departments.

Training

1. Train RFO’s, the REDD+ planning department and CSO’s on how to recognize the various dispute scenarios and which dispute resolution mechanism applies to each scenario so that referrals are carried out in a consistent

64

manner. [Note: Training could be carried out by an NGO or outside consultant].

2. Train RFO’s, the REDD+ planning department and CSO’s on the management of the FGRM process, on how to input information into the FGRM database [i.e. a GCLS type of database system] and how to use and access the data from the database. [Note: Training could be carried out by an NGO or outside consultant or a person who is familiar operating a GRM framework and with inputting data into a GCLS type of database].

3. Train the REDD+ planning department and CSO’s on how to analyze data

from the database and surveys in order to determine whether the FGRM

process is working as intended. [Note: Training could be carried out by an

NGO or outside consultant or a person who is familiar with inputting data

into a GCLS type of system].

Mediation skills 1. Train RFO, PTAC, CSO and REDD+ technical committee in regards to

mediation skills and to how to reach consensus and adopt best practices in decision making. This could be handled best by trained professionals or NGO’s who able to provide training in mediation and reaching consensus.

Website 1. Develop a website to:

Educate persons on the FGRM process Enable persons to initiate a grievance online Disseminate information on past grievances and how they were dealt

with including whether or not they were resolved.[This would need to be generic information so as to protect the privacy of complainants.]

Enable persons who have undergone an FGRM process to fill out a survey online.

Survey 1. Develop a survey to get feedback from each complainant who utilizes the

process to determine if they were satisfied with the process and if they found the process effective. This could be online, by filling out a form or given verbally where the complainant is unable, for any reason, to fill out the form in person or online.

65

2. Enter into a consultation process with the public to determine the publics view on the success of the FGRM program.

3. Develop a program to analyze the data entered into the online survey so as to

get feedback from complainants and other person involved the FGRM process.

Other tasks 1. The DoF should conduct (with independent oversight), or ensure that there is

conducted, by an NGO or consultant with the relevant expertise, regular reviews of the FGRM to make the following determinations: are grievances being resolved? if they are not resolved, why are they not resolved would more grievances be resolved if a different process were used to

mediate disputes, i.e. how successful is the GRM? would more grievances be resolved if there was a change to REDD+

policy, e.g. a different choice of strategic options?

is there a consistent and complete application of the FGRM process

are the correct dispute resolution options being offered where

grievances are not satisfactorily resolved.

Is the FGRM being operated in accordance with the framework set out in

section 4.

2. The REDD+ unit needs to confirm the following before implementation: Who will conduct the initial logging into the database system (i.e. the

RFO/CSO or an independent person such as an NGO) Who will manage the database.