China - Guangxi Integrated Forestry Development and Conservation Project : environmental assessment (Vol. 2 of 2) : Process framework to abate adverse livelihoods impacts

E1392 China: Guangxi Integrated Forestry Development and Conservation Project v 2 Process Framework for Mitigating Potentially Adverse Livelihood Impact November 2005 A. Project Description The Guangxi Integrated Forestry Development and Conservation Project (GIFDC) plans to (a) develop and implement management plans in 5 nature reserves under the "Strengthening Nature Reserve Management" component, and (b) close access for rehabilitation of vegetation cover on 100,000 hectares of degraded hills under the "Increasing Ecological Forest Cover" component. It will also develop (c) around 200,000 ha of commercial timber plantations under the "Expanding Timber Plantation" component, and (d) around 18,000 hectares of ecological plantations, including 4000 ha of pilot carbon fund plantations under the "Increasing Ecological Forest Cover" component. In the "Strengthening Nature Reserve Management" component, the project would fund the preparation and implementation in each nature reserve of an improved management plan for the conservation of biodiversity of global significance. It would also undertake biodiversity surveys and research, strengthen collaboration between local communities and nature reserves, and build capacity among staff including for participatory monitoring and evaluation. In the hill closure activity, the project would fund the establishment of multipurpose tree plantations on foothills and the management of closed access on hill slopes including the establishment of village regulations and the supervision of closed forests by forest guards. Subsidies for methane pits as an alternative to fuelwood collection would be linked to the activity. Some of the hill closure activity would be located within 5 kilometers from the nature reserves in order to enhance the biodiversity conservation impact of the project. B. Overview of Process Framework World Bank assisted projects ask final borrowers or component sponsors to take all necessary measures to mitigate adverse social impacts, especially on vulnerable groups. Under OP (operational policy) 4.12 on involuntary resettlement, a process framework is set up in projects involving involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas. A full social assessment was carried out during preparation of GIFDC. The social assessment examined whether strengthened management of the project nature reserves would generate any involuntary restriction of access of local people to natural resources, and evaluated as well the potential impacts of the likely restriction of access to natural resources in proposed nature reserves on people's livelihoods as a result of the component. It was found that the project could successfully improve nature reserve management with minimal restrictions of local residents to resource access provided appropriate measures are taken. Should these measures fail to be taken, strengthened nature reserve management would restrict access to fuelwood, NTFP collection, grazing land and other natural resources in and around the nature reserves. It was also found that access of local residents to natural resources would be restricted under the hill closure activity even though land for hill closure is outside of designated protected areas. Similarly with the "strengthening nature reserve management component" of GIFDC, the project can successfully implement hill closure with minimized access  restrictions provided appropriate measures are taken. In communities undertaking hill closure, dependency on the slopes that would be closed tends to decrease for the same reasons as in nature reserves. This decreased pressure is the rationale underlying the hill closure program in Guangxi. However poorer villages and poor households, especially in karst hills, are still dependent on the slopes and would be affected by hill closure. Should appropriate measures fail to be taken the livelihoods of these communities and households, among the poorest in Guangxi, would be critically affected. It was therefore suggested that the process framework also covers the hill closure activity. During project preparation, the social assessment has identified through consultation with local communities in and around the nature reserves and in karst hills a series of measures that would minimize restriction of resource access and compensate potential impact on livelihoods. These measures have been largely already incorporated into project design. The measures of this process framework are therefore, whenever possible, not specific to this document but are a selection of critical steps from the overall implementation plan. The process framework underlines the importance of these critical steps and provides additional detail on how to optimize resource access through them. C. "Strengthening Nature Reserve Management" Component Identification of eligible impacted persons A small number of people live inside the 5 nature reserves. None of the five nature reserves have communities living inside the core zone. Two of the five nature reserves have communities living inside the experimental zone: 2 natural villages with 295 people in Mulun nature reserve and 21 villages with 3067 people in Longshan nature reserve. Altogether the 5 nature reserves are surrounded by 21 townships. The nature reserves have listed a total of 420 natural villages with close to 425,000 people1 as closely related to their protected areas. None of the 5 project nature reserves have put forward official plans for relocation of residents. It is therefore concluded that no resettlement of local residents will take place during the project for the purpose of improved biodiversity conservation and that none of the management plans of the nature reserves is expected to include any subsequent proposal for resettlement. In communities in and around nature reserves, dependency on natural resources tends to decrease due to overall economic development and increasing migration for off-farm work. Some dependency on these resources however still exists for resources that include fuelwood, common NTFPs and fodder grass. All communities with a strong linkage to the nature reserve because they currently create threats to biodiversity, or are currently or potentially affected by closed access are therefore considered as potentially impacted persons (called "displaced persons" in the World Bank safeguard policy although their residence and farmland is not displaced). The exact number of eligible impacted communities will be determined during the preparation of the management plans. The GEF implementation plan specifies that a social consultant will assist the nature reserves staff with ranking natural villages with regard to their reliance on resources in and around nature reserves. All households in these natural villages will be considered eligible impacted persons. Approach The consultation process during the social assessment has led to conclude that, in addition to specific measures to (a) assist the impacted persons in their efforts to improve their 1 This figure may be overstated since 310,000 people were accounted for around Damingshan nature reserve alone. The number of communities actually dependent on Damingshan and other nature reserves will be clarified during the early stages of the project.  livelihoods, or at least to restore them, in real terms, while maintaining the sustainability of the protected area, and (b) resolve potential conflicts, a comprehensive set of measures was needed to avoid or minimize unnecessary restriction to resource access. Unnecessary restriction is defined as restriction other than elements necessary to fulfill the immediate environmental objective of the component. This objective is conservation of animal and vegetal biodiversity of global significance in accordance with the regulations of the donor agency, the Global Environment Fund. Consultation and participation Participatory approaches have the potential to identify best options to minimize impact and to ensure their successful implementation. Informal consultation with potentially impacted communities has taken place during the social assessment and will continue during project implementation. Formal and informal consultation with local government and communities is at the core of most measures below. Guidelines for a step-by-step participatory process will be available to the nature reserve staff, as well as training on participatory approaches. Measure 1. Stakeholder Coordination Lack of coordination between nature reserve management and local governments could lead to unnecessary restriction of local communities to access and develop resources outside of the nature reserve. The establishment of stakeholder coordination committees will be one of the first steps in the implementation of the nature reserve management component. Stakeholders whose participation is critical for the purpose of this process framework include (a) county forestry bureaus and (b) township governments. Measure 2. Community Participation in the Resource Surveys Lack of community participation during the resource inventory could lead to identify some resources as being threatened by local users whether this might not be the case. It might lead to overestimate biodiversity of global relevance whereas such biodiversity resources might not be present in some of the villages that surround the nature reserve. The nature reserves would invite communities (administrative village committee members, natural village heads) to identify villagers who have a fair level of knowledge on local resources. These villagers would be invited to join survey activities. Appropriate means are likely to include group discussions, individual interviews, and joint field surveys with nature reserve staff. Measure 3. Community Participation in the Management Plans Lack of community participation when the nature reserves prepare their management plans would not be compatible with the principle of co-management that applies to all national-level nature reserves in China. Lack of participation could lead nature reserve management to make zoning decisions that create unnecessary access restriction for local villagers. It could also lead to decide full closure of access to some natural resources, whereas partial access in the experimental zone or in villages around the nature reserve might still not negatively affect biodiversity resources, or might even have a positive effect on biodiversity, for instance by maintaining some more open landscapes. All communities with impacted persons would be invited to participate in the preparation of the management plan. The GEF implementation plan includes the following actions: a) Communities strongly linked to the nature reserves will be further identified in each project nature reserve.  b) Selected communities will work more closely with the technical staff and experts preparing the management plan. These communities would be representative of diverse levels of linkage (from strong to light) and of diverse categories of threats to biodiversity (fuelwood collection, other). Villager representatives, including both village cadres and ordinary households, will take part in discussion and fieldwork regarding zoning. Discussions and interviews with villagers will be organized to assess current levels of uptake of natural resources and other impact. Measure 4. Deciding Natural Resource Management Regimes Lack of a clear decision-making process in natural resource management regimes might lead nature reserves to prefer full closure to all natural resources in the experimental zone or around the nature reserve, and to continue to strongly encourage reduced resource uptake around the nature reserve. It might lead to fail to use alternative legal solutions such as partial access, or zoning of areas where sustainable harvesting of local resources with no biodiversity conservation value can be allowed. The following actions are likely to be required: a) When a natural village is located inside the nature reserve, the management plan would decide whether it is feasible, from a biodiversity conservation point of view, to zone a "livelihood area" around houses, where harvest of unthreatened natural resources would be allowed. This decision would be made in close coordination with the village committee. b) Should the zoning of such a livelihood area not be feasible, alternative options would be reviewed. One option is likely to be light harvest levels of unthreatened resources within a larger radius (e.g. bamboo or some fuelwood species). Organizing access to resources in other natural villages within the administrative village would also be considered. c) When a village is located around the nature reserve, fuelwood harvest regimes would clearly differentiate between cases where collection is mostly for home consumption and cases where it is a cash income generating activity. In the first case, since energy saving programs in Guangxi support the shift from traditional stoves to fuelsaving stoves or methane pits, the nature reserve would choose, if the community is willing to do so, to encourage reduction of fuelwood collection. In the second case, options to quickly reduce fuelwood sales and shift to alternative, more sustainable income sources would be identified. d) In villages located around the nature reserve, restriction to other types of resources would be limited to cases where there is potential impact on biodiversity. These include cases where (a) the species is preserved inside the nature reserve, so that its harvest around the nature reserve would create confusion around illegal sales, or (b) the presence of the resource around the nature reserve creates better conditions for biodiversity preservation, either because it increases population of one or several species, or it gives additional ground for the activity of the species. Measure 5. Formal Approval and Dissemination of the Management Plan Should the management plan remain an internal working document inside the nature reserve, local governments might not be well informed of its contents and might fail to plan appropriate development programs for communities inside and around the nature reserve. Local communities might also fail to be informed of specific measures and zoning limits regarding their rights to access natural resources. When the draft nature reserve management plan is completed, this draft version would be communicated to local governments (county and township). Their comments would be  invited and incorporation of these comments into the management plan would be considered wherever this would improve biodiversity conservation. When the final nature reserve management plan has been completed, relevant sections would be copied and made available to (a) local government, and (b) relevant administrative villages. Measure 6. Community Activities While the above measures are expected to minimize impact on local residents, some residual impacts are still expected to be generated by the new management plans. This measure would ensure improvement of livelihoods through the following means. First, the component includes a set of small community grants. Wherever the community agrees to do so, these grants would serve to fund alternatives to fuelwood collection in and around the nature reserve (see measure 4). The grants would have both a direct impact on livelihoods by reducing the need to invest into the devices and to buy alternative fuel, and an indirect impact by allowing women to reduce their workload or reallocated part of the time spent for fuelwood collection to other activities. The grants could also be used for small- scale community infrastructure that would have a similar positive impact on livelihoods. Second, coordination with local government stakeholders would help attract national and provincial funds, especially for poverty reduction, to support villages in and around the nature reserves. Third, nature reserve staff would provide or organize training courses and would encourage communities to try new species and new income-generation activities. The purpose of the grants, local programs and training courses will be decided through the component participatory process. The administrative village committee will receive the grant and be responsible for disbursing it to individual households and reporting on its use to the community and the nature reserve. D. Hill Closure under the "Increasing Ecological forest Cover" Component Identification of eligible impacted persons Hill closure will take place in villages where the hills to be closed are currently being used, generally by local residents. The activity will mainly take place in the karst region. In this region, poorer households grow maize up the slopes. A number of households graze animals, mostly goats. And most households collect firewood and other forest products. In poorer villages, the degree of dependency on karst hills is substantially higher. Since all communities are likely to have at least a few households dependent on natural resources on the hills, all communities are considered to include impacted persons (called "displaced persons" in the World Bank safeguard policy although their residence and farmland is not displaced). The hill closure activity is essentially a community-based activity. While poorer households are generally more dependent on natural resources on slopes, solutions are more comprehensive and community-based than individual. Therefore the process framework measures cover all households in the administrative villages except for measure 5. Approach The consultation process during the social assessment has led to conclude that a comprehensive set of measures was needed to avoid or minimize unnecessary restriction to resource access in addition to specific measures to (a) assist the impacted persons in their  efforts to improve their livelihoods, or at least to restore them, in real terms, while maintaining the sustainability of the protected area, and (b) resolve potential conflicts. Unnecessary restriction is defined as restriction other than elements necessary to fulfill the immediate environmental objective of the component. This objective is rehabilitation of vegetation cover in accordance with China's national technical specifications for hill closure. These specifications allow full closure, half closure and rotational closure. Consultation and participation Participatory approaches have the potential to identify best options to minimize impact and to ensure their successful implementation. Informal consultation with potentially impacted communities has taken place during the social assessment. Formal and informal consultation with the communities is at the core of most measures below. Guidelines for a step-by-step participatory process will be available to the forestry bureau staff, as well as training on participatory approaches. Measure 1. Phasing of Activity Start in Project Villages Should hill closure take place in very poor villages, a high proportion of households, who still rely on using karst slopes for their daily livelihood activities, would be affected by hill closure. This might be very poor administrative villages, or very poor natural villages within overall less poor administrative villages. In order to avoid this problem, administrative villages would apply to the county PMO to participate in the activity on a fully voluntary basis. They would fill in an application form. The application form would indicate reliance on karst slopes of individual natural villages. The PMO would review application forms and advise those villages that are still highly dependant on karst slopes to join the project at a later stage. Measure 2. Selection of Hill Closure Regimes Should the villages fail to discuss options for hill closure regimes, full closure might be decided even where this is not the optimal solution. This would not be consistent with the national technical specifications. Hill closure regimes are expected to be an important topic during the participatory design. The communities would choose options among full closure, half closure and rotational closure. Other mixed closure regimes would also be offered. The township forestry station would prepare a detailed topography map showing areas closed, and the village committee would receive a copy of this map. Measure 3. Village Hill Closure Regulations Should village regulations fail to reflect the agreements reached about hill closure regimes, some villages might simply implement full closure and this would unnecessary affect villagers, especially the more vulnerable ones who are still dependent on karst slopes for their livelihoods. In accordance with current practice, the township forestry station staff would help local village committees design village regulations or improve existing ones. These regulations would clearly specify the hill closure regulations in terms of time, location and types of resources with restricted access.  Measure 4. Options for Poorer Natural Villages and Poorer Households Should the hill closure regime take place in the whole village at the same time, those natural villages or households with more dependence on karst slopes for fuelwood collection, animal grazing and extensive crop cultivation might be disproportionately affected from hill closure. During the participatory design of hill closure, options would be discussed for the participation of these natural villages and households. These options are likely to include (a) joining the hill closure activity one or a few years later, as is currently practiced by villages in the project area, (b) having priority access to the methane pit program and subsidies, (c) having priority to be hired as forest guard, or (d) other options to reduce dependence on karst slopes. E. Implementation & Monitoring Institutional Arrangements The Guangxi Forestry Bureau, as overall sponsor of the project, is responsible for ensuring that the nature reserves and the county forestry bureaus state their acceptance of this process framework. It is also responsible, through its Guangxi Project Management Office, for supervision and reporting to the World Bank of related information. Under supervision of the Guangxi regional PMO, local PMOs and the five project nature reserves' management bureaus have responsibility for the PAM component design and implementation in their respective protected areas. They will make sure that a) this process approach is included in the Management Plans of the Nature Reserves, b) related local village communities and all relevant line agencies are consulted with and approve the management plans, c) the management plans are implemented together with the community co-management approach, and d) financial responsibility for the process framework approach is incorporated in the management plans and put into effect in the nature reserves under the project. In particular, the Guangxi Forestry Bureau and all PMOs are responsible for confirming to the World Bank absence of any resettlement in relation to biodiversity conservation in and around the 5 project nature reserves throughout the project duration. Funding Arrangements No specific cost is foreseen in the application of this process framework other than the participatory design of activities which is integrated in project implementation costs. Monitoring & Evaluation Supervision of the actual implementation of the measures through the participatory processes will be incorporated in the routine supervision work programs of the Guangxi PMO and of the World Bank. Baseline data are collected through project SA and PRA exercises during project preparation and will be updated through participatory co-management activities. These data are used as the basis for determining the eligibility of villages and households for assistance under the process framework, as well as for designing measures to assist the affected persons in their efforts to improve or restore their livelihoods. Relevant specific monitoring indicators will be outlined in the nature reserve management plans produced under the project. Possible indicators include: numbers of eligible villages and households, the potential livelihood impacts to these villages and households of new or more strictly enforced restrictions on use of resources in the nature reserves, funds provided to the villages and households assisted and the number change of the assisted during project implementation, and livelihood benefits of measures to assist the affected persons,  Evaluation will consist in assessing awareness about the process framework among local managers, and in evaluating the actual outcome of the process framework. In order to avoid duplication of tasks, this evaluation is integrated in external monitoring & evaluation under the Ethnic Minority Development Plan. F. Conflict Resolution Mechanism The possibility of conflicts arising between communities or among nature reserves, villages and households during implementation of this process framework needs to be addressed. At grassroot level, the community co-management approach will help disseminate project perceptions and common understanding to clarify the criteria of eligibility for assistance under the process framework, explain the responsibilities and duties of all stakeholders under the process framework, and coordinate mutual relationships between the nature reserve and local communities, as well as among communities themselves. Villages and nature reserves can also seek advice from the county-level project leading groups on any issues of conflict and grievances arising from the project context. Moreover, the legal framework in place in the project counties is sufficient to deal with potential conflicts regarding restrictions to resource access. Should any conflict occur, the project would play a facilitation role through its provincial and county PMOs to help the individuals or communities involved access the government agency (cies) legally in charge of resolving conflicts in a given county.