Comment Documen t General comment: The consultation and FPIC process needs to developed. What BENIC proposed during the General SESA consultation (REDD+ preparation phase) can serve as a basis but it should not be assumed as the process to automativally use during implementation. BENIC stands ready to engage in this process (thus, suggestion to modify MM4.10.2.a which refers to FPIC. See suggested text belowm and modify all this section in the IPPF.) General comment: The FPIC protocol being developed for southern Belize will not automatically be applicable General for Garifuna and Yucatec contexts. Again, it should serve as a basis but will need to be built upon to establish a national protocol (again this is related to MM4.10.2.a) General comment: The IP desk and the ITT served very important functions and many lessons can drawn in the General way they contributed to effective Indigenous participation in the preparation phase. Their role and character going forward should be reviewed and built upon lessons learnt . General comment: One of the major concerns of Indigenous peoples is that when it comes to Indigenous lands, General any discussion of forest governance and restrictions, the starting point must be recognition that they are OWNERS of lands. Establishing of Forest co-management councils for example could only make sense in these contexts if IPS grant FPIC. (related to PF, yet also modifies IPPF and ESMF) General comment: Participation of Indigenous peoples in the operation and monitoring of the IPPF (through General BENIC) something that would greatly ensure its effective working.. ALL COMMENTS FROM PF: The implementation of the 2015 CCJ court ruling on Maya land rights requires the development of law for the PF protection of Maya lands and would have a bearing on the question of resources. It should be mentioned here. On description of risk 4.12.1. "Earlier the document says that this PF applies to existing registered Pays but here PF it says that restrictions could also come about as a result of new protected areas. In this case, if it were in Indigenous lands it would not be only restriction but involuntary acquisition. The possible involuntary land acquisitions or restriction that may result from new protected areas would be a major concern to Indigenous peoples. The issue of respect for lands owned by Indigenous peoples is a top priority especially where rights have been legally recognized as in the case of the Maya and the CCJ 2015 court ruling." On impacts of risk 4.12.1. "If we are referring to restrictions on registered PA’s that may be the case but if we PF are referring to new Pas and these were on Indigenous Lands we would be talking about involuntary acquisitions and potentially physical displacement. Moreover, there may be areas in which Indigenous peoples have claims and rigts over lands in existing PAs" Foot number 3 points out that in the context of new Pas being established OP4.12 would be triggered but I don’t PF think there is anything else in the body of the document that addresses the question of physical displacement. How is displacement defined? Does it mean having to move from where one lives? That is, where IPs may lose PF lands where they hunt or farm but not where they have their homes, is that loss of access or physical displacement? Ok. The footnote speaks to new protected areas and result physical displacement being covered by OP on PF physical displacement. Is that part of the PF? Refering to point (ii) of section 3.2. "The sentence seems incomplete. I presume that the point refers that the OP PF 4.12 applies to people who are later found tot have formal legal rights" I am not sure what presence of person or presence of asset is defined. However Indigenous land use/presence PF on the land may sometimes be invisible to the untrained eye or mind. Sensibility to this is imperative. The indicators below do NOT measure welfare. They are measuring changes in livelihood strategies and PF activities. The only one that seems to have a closer relevance is the last one that measures perception of satisfaction. If it will measure welfare then relevant indicators need to be developed. In the context of indigenous peoples cultural elements are also necessary. On 1.3. Objectives of the process framework PF Comment: needs more from OP 4.12 about specific procedures to follow in the case of site specific impacts during implementation "According to OP 4. 12, involuntary restriction of access covers restrictions on the use of resources imposed on PF people living outside the park or protected area, or on those who continue living inside the park or protected area during and after project implementation" Comment: Is this a risk? That people living inside a protected area would lose their land / shelter? If so, there is a need to create a Resettlement Policy Framework that addresses the guidelines for dealing with physical displacement impacts of sub-projects. Another option is to say from the outset that any project that would require involuntary land acquisition or physical displacement would not be eligible for financing under REDD+ implementation. "Persons who lose shelter in existing parks and protected areas are also covered" PF Comment: By which instrument are they covered? If they are physically displaced or lose access to land they are occupying or own due to conversion of land to a PA, that would need to be covered by a Resettlement Policy Framework and would not be covered by the PF. "while there is a risk of economic displacement, there is no risk of physical displacement" PF Comment: Why is there a risk of economic displacement but no risk of physical displacement/land acquisition? This needs to be better explained in the introduction to justify why only a PF is being developed and not a PF and RPF. This section needs to describe not only how the cut off date is activated (seems to be the start of the SA) but PF also how people living/operating in the area of the PA will be informed by the cut-off date (like through demarcating the area to be converted through erecting signs that communicate this information and that have the R+CU contact information on them). Mitigation will also be achieved through co-management of the PAs with PAPs, no? Good to mention that here PF as well Name what those are here, or the instruments that establish consultation and disclosure procedures to be PF followed. "women will be able to apply for alternative livelihood assistance for those income generating activities they lead PF and manage" Comment: this needs additional explanation "Defining the training and capacity building needed to sustain PAPs’ affected livelihoods and way of transitions PF to alternative livelihoods" Comment: Why is this desirable if the point of an LRP is to transition PAPs to a new/alternative livelihood? Those affected by access restrictions are never referred to as beneficiaries but as project affected people, since PF the benefis they receive are to compensate them for losses suffered due to the project. Only economic discplacement impacts are addressed by a PF, not land acquisition. For that, an RPF would PF need to be developed. "(x). Implementation responsibilities (institutional arrangements) and budget" PF Comment: There is no section in this PF about the budget for implementing LRPs. Please mention this somewhere. "VII. .... by means of grant mechanisms or other financial instruments which can complemented with funds from PF existing government programs targeting poor communities." Comment: Not sure what this refers to. LRPs (and addressing all safeguards issues) is a responsibility of the government. Activities that begin from LRPs can be expanded through grant mechanisms or other financial instruments, but addressing impacts of a project is the responsibility of the government. "Furthermore, communities and individuals that permanently lose land ..." PF Comment: If this is a potential risk of ER strategy implementation, need to develop an RPF. "... in kind compensation (e.g. land for land compensation, asset for asset)" PF Comment: Again, land-based compensation implies involuntary acquisition of land, which requires a Resettlement Policy Framework. "The workshop had 15 participants from..." PF Comment: Was this the only FGRM consultation held? Were there not also consultations with IP representatives to develop the FGRM? Any description of how the FGRM operates (here, in the ESMR or IPPF) should also describe the channels by PF/ which PAPs and the public can access the FGRM (online, in person, by calling, etc.) general Ensuring consultations cover measures to make it possible for groups to access the event (e.g. accessible PF venue, time, etc.) are the responsibility of the R+CU and not of BENIC. On section 6.2. Development of national administrative and institutional framework for local co-management PF Comment: This section leaves a lot of questions. What is the role of the FCC in relation to screening for and identifying economic displacement impacts, development and implemenation of an LRP? What exactly will the FCC do and how will it function / make decisions? Who funds the FCCs? "... the discussion of mitigation measures and alternative livelihood options will be conducted under a co- PF management model through the creation of Forest Co-Management Councils (FCC)" Comment: How will this work exactly? When are FCCs formed? Will there be one formed for every single subproject? Why do each of these stakeholder groups need to be represented on all FCCs? ALL COMMENTS FROM ESMF: Please ensure that the latest version of the ESMF reflects the latest edits to the REDD+ Strategy and SESA ESMF Report, where applicable and relevant? To be removed in the final version of the ESMF according to what happens with SLs 3.2/3.3. ESMF Is this meant to say “Organizational�? Original connotes that the institutional framework has changed from what ESMF is represented in this figure. "There are no domestic EA laws in Belize which treat with regional impacts" ESMF Comment: Not sure what this means. Please clarify. Indigenous issues? ESMF " and a benefit-sharing mechanism will be soon developed by PACT. " ESMF Comment: What about the BSM being developed for this project? "can help guide the way expanding rural populations affect land use change." ESMF Comment: Not sure what this means. Please clarify text. 3.1 Food Security ESMF Comment: The description of this category of benefit does not clearly link to food security. ESMF 3.2. Intrinsic value of forest: conservation of natural beauty and environmental appreciationComment: Please clarify how this benefit re 4.3. Sustainable livelihoods Comment: Unclear how this benefit relates to OP 4.12 ESMF "While the GRM in the ESMF will help monitor and mediate conflict in general, it should be noted that IPs have ESMF systems of governance such as the Alcalde system which plays a central role in conflict resolution within communities" Comment: What is the intention of pointing this out – to say that the GRM should be sure to work in conjunction with pre-existing systems of conflict resolution? Please list any others conventions Belize is a party to that are relevant to this category of risk. ESMF "...increased migration from rural youth to urban areas due to lack of economic opportunities but also the ESMF possibility to engage in decision-making processes" Comment: Meaning there is more opportunity for youth to engage in decisionmaking processes in urban areas? Please indicate the source this comment comes from. Consultation with Mayas? Literature? ESMF "through a tailored Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework" ESMF/ general Comment: Should apply to all IP groups and not emphasize one over another. Specify if this Plan will be developed as part of the ESMF, or during project implementation. ESMF "RISK 4.10.1 Disregard of IP rights and knowledge when developing or updating legal instruments leads to ESMF/ adverse impacts to their lives and livelihoods, i.e.: access restrictions" general Comment: The development of legal instruments that will affect Ips should be guided by FPIC principles: timely information is provided; in an accessible manner or support is provided to generate full understanding; support for generating technical input where this may be necessary and possible; space for IP dialogue, analysis and decision making MM (RISK 4.10.1) should include reference to the procedures established in the IPPF ESMF Add a MM in risk 4.10.1. "MM4.10.1.d provide access to legal support where necessary and possible" All Suggestion to modify MM4.10.2a to "Finalize and adopt the FPIC protocol being developed for southern Maya All and build on this to develop a national FPIC protocol with the participation of BENIC…." and add something like while ensuring that the FPIC protocol covers all of Belize's IP constituencies and respects and responds to the diversity of contexts. Finalize and adopt the FPIC protocol being developed for southern Maya and build on this to develop a national ESMF FPIC protocol with the participation of BENIC "Finalize and adopt the FPIC protocol currently under development..." ESMF Comment: Under development by the GoB? Please specify. This cannot be a MM if it is a process happening outside the scope of the project. MM4.10.2b and MM4.10.2c are basically the same and can be collapsed into one MM. ESMF Distinction is important to be made when it comes to lands owned by indigenous peoples in which case actions ESMF/ must depart from that fact and what may be needed is to strengthen IPs land and forest governance systems. general This does not disregard the possibility of co-management but that would be the prerogative of the concerned Indigenous community. Comment to risk 4.12.1 on access restrictions "It should be noted here that restrictions to land and/or resources ESMF where indigenous land rights exist, and especially where these have been affirmed by the court such as the 2015 CCJ ruling, restriction would be a violation. I don’t presume this risk is referring to restricting Indigenous peoples from the full enjoyment of their rights to land. Somehow this needs to be stated more clearly,. Perhaps, having a mitigation measure that speaks to upholding court rulings and respecting land rights would be necessary here for clarity" "MM4.12.1b) For all subprojects with a risk related to economic displacement identified in the screening, leading ESMF to a safeguards categorization of B" Comment: The existence of risk of economic displacement alone does not automatically lead to a B risk classification. Please clarify this sentence. Comment to MM4.12.1d "In the case of Indigenous lands, relocation would implying taking their lands away in ESMF which case it would be a more complex matter triggering FPIC and requiring compensation" Clear criteria is necessary for categorization. Will there be a review committee of sorts. The categorization ESMF process could benefit from the input of IP. (General comment on table) ESMF This needs a bit more explanation. If Yes is answered to several questions, then what happens or if yes is answered to significant conversion of natural habitats, how will the categorization decision be made. It can be clarified that the subprojects get the higher ratings when responses cover different categories. i.e. if Yes is answered to even one Category A question then the subproject will be category A. (Does the project involve the acquisition of Indigenous lands?) ESMF Comment: The ESIA should also include identification of all risks and impacts and mitigation measures ESMF "Check that National Forest Monitoring System (NFMS) for forest and land monitoring using techniques such as ESMF remote sensing, and/or field-based forest inventory and a national greenhouse gas inventories captures aspects of importance for the identified risks and impacts" Comment: This is not a mitigation measure for a subproject. "Belize's REDD+ Benefit Sharing Mechanism must be designed to ensure equitable access to REDD+ benefits, ESMF whether these are financial or not financial, including for vulnerable stakeholders" Comment: Same as above OP 4.12: Involuntary Resettlement ESMF Comment: These are not mitigation measures but rather things that needs to be done. These bullets are not separate mitigation measures but together they describe the process of developing a LRP. OP 4.36: Forests ESMF Comment: Same comment as above. Several points are not mitigation measures for subprojects Clear criteria and process is necessary as well as some sort committee responsible for carrying out the review. ESMF The CU could seek input from relevant parties such as BENIC Include a paragraph to explain covid 19 precautionary measures ESMF "The workshop had 15 participants from the Department of Rural Development, the Forest Department, the ESMF Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre." Comments: Were there not additional consultations undertaken for the development of the FGRM that included IP representatives? Please mention those as well. In describing the FGRM, please also mention other complaint intake mechanisms (not only the online form but ESMF how, for example, communities without access to internet access the FGRM). There is a need for Indigenous involvement in monitoring of IPPF application ESMF/ general Risk categorization as Low or medium is not described in the ESMF. Subprojects will be categorized as A, B and ESMF C MM4.01.3a ESMF/ Comment: The question of Benefit sharing is of much concern to Ips. Related to this is the fact that there is general intention of developing a carbon rights policy connected to the REDD+. The process of developing the policy as well as the content is of much concern to Ips and perhaps presents the greatest threat. Not including the participation of Ips in the process or not respecting Indigenous peoples rights through this policy would derail Indigenous support and participation MM4.01.3b ESMF Comment: will IPPs be necessary here? T4.01.3d ESMF Comment: Indicator would need to include a beneficiary feedback survey to assess these aspects. T4.01.3e ESMF Comment: It does not make sense to add a number for how many grievances should be received since, in most cases, when few grievances are received, it means the uptake system for grievances is not adequate. Please only focus on the target on proportion of received grievances that are satisfactorily concluded. MM4.10.1b ESMF Comment: support for legal advice should be included? I4.10.1c ESMF Comment: Shouldn’t this refer only to development of legal instruments that have implications for IPs? MM4.10.2a ESMF Comment: The protocol being developed for the south addresses the specicitie of that context and while it can serve as the basis for a national protocol will need expansion. This could be done through BENIC I4.10.2a ESMF Comment: This cannot be a MM or indicator unless this FPIC protocol has been developed during REDD+ Readiness and in the context of the project. MM4.10.2c and MM4.10.2dComment: This is very important. See comments made to the IPPF ESMF/ general I4.10.2e ESMF Comment: What are cultural mediators? This should refer to culturally appropriate mechanisms for information disclosure and translation of documents when needed. RISK 4.10.3 ESMF Comment: These indicators and targets do not make sense – benefits received from REDD+ depend on extent to which stakeholders own/occupy forests, no? So IP groups with more forest involvement will benefit more and benefits/participation in REDD+ therefore cannot be evenly distributed based on size of IP constituency. T4.10.3a ESMF/ Comment: While the importance of proportionality based on population may make sense, it is not adequate. It is general not only a matter of numbers but also a matter of being responsive to different indigenous contexts and realities. It is important to consider that there are differences between indigenous peoples in terms of their dependency on forests and also the extension of forested lands they own and steward. In the case of Toledo for example where there are higher levels of forests there may need to be greater support in sustaining them MM4.10.4b ESMF/ Comment: Forest co-management councils may apply when it may come to lands that are not subject to general Indigenous land rights. In instances where land is owned by Indigenous peoples, co-management, that is where land acquisition is involved it would be a more complex. It should also be noted that participation in FCCs is not a substitute for FPIC MM4.12.1d ESMF Comment: In the case of Indigenous lands, relocation would implying taking their lands away in which case it would be a more complex matter triggering FPIC and requiring compensation What is the DOE’s GRM? Include the DoE GRM as an attachment for easy reference. ESMF Is this in addition to the REDD+ FGRM? ESMF "Implementation of the Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework and Process Framework" ESMF/IPP Comment: Consider the potetial role of BENIC F/PF "Progress monitoring of the implementation of the Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework and Process ESMF/IPP Framework" F/PF Comment: The participation of BENIC in monitoring could be considered here. MM4.013b) private land owners and private protected area managers also need to be fully included. ESMF Note Belize has an Association of Private Protected Areas currently chaired by Christina Garcia of Ya'axche Conservation Trust Can we strengthen awareness raising and capacity building for community leaders through an MM in the ESMF ESMF? (he also mention the need for school education on environmental conservation) Can we strengthen mentioning of Mennonite involvement ESMF ALL COMMENTS FROM ANNEX 1 (IPPF): Include a reference section IPPF Concern, what are the implications given that REDD+ would not be implemented through the WB? IPPF After this section and before Section 1.3 there needs to be a section that describes the process of free, prior and IPPF informed consultation (or consent) that was undertaken to develop this IPPF, and the process for providing evidence of broad community support for the ER strategy (project overall) and for this safeguards instrument. This section needs to lay out the land and forest resource tenure situation for each of the IP groups of Belize. IPPF For each group, describe the type of land tenure they practice - collective, private, etc. And if they have customary / other kinds of rights to forest resources. This section should start with some introductory text to summarize the results of the table and to identify which IPPF of the IP groups are most dependent on forest resources and therefore which are most likely to experience benefits or adverse impacts from the implementation of Belize's ER strategy. (On Risk 4.10.1) This risk is basically the same as risk OP 4.10.2. Why not just speficy that this risk applies to IPPF the entire ER strategy, and that the development of IPPs for any activities/sub-projects (even development of new laws) that have implications for IPs' ability to access/use their own lands and resoures would apply a process of FPIC (consent)? (on impact of risk 4.10.2) IPPF This impact seems more related to the implementation of the strategy overall and not just to a certain part of it Comment to risk 4.10.3. "Mentioning the CCJ court ruling is NOT a matter of emphasis, it is a matter of a legally IPPF mandated obligaction. The CCJ ruling is a legal binding obligation of the state beyond REDD+ that SPECIFICALLY requires the state to resolve the land tenure of the Maya people in Southern Belize. Any activity in Maya lands in southern Belize is legally required to abide by the ruling. I think UTMOST care needs to be take here to ensure that REDD+ or and especially a World Bank Project is not suggesting that a legally binding court ruling should NOT be complied with. I think this needs to framed very carefully. - There is a legally binding court ruling by the CCJ that the state is mandated to comply with. - That the implementation of this court ruling is beyond REDD+. but tht REDD+ implementation in the areas where the judgement applies it MUST comply with it. This is NOT a choice. It is a legal obligation. The risks seem to me to be 1. that there may be disputes between one Indigenous People and another that may arise with regards boundaries as in the case of Barranco a Garifuna community. However this is beyond the scope of REDD+. In this regard the implemenation of the ruling has court sanctioned and Government accepted protocols for dealing with these – see the Delimitation Principles and limitations.. 2. In terms for REDD+ implementation the risk is that attention is paid only to areas where rights are legally recognized while areas where no rights are legally recognized are ignored. " "However, absent legislation, it is not known if it will apply to other IPs (like Garifuna)" IPPF/ general Comment: What the reader is left wondering is if the Garifuna or other IP groups have land tenure disputes with the gov't or if any of them are involved in trying to get their customary land rights recognized. Need more context on this for all IP groups above in section 1.3 Somewhere (in the introductory section or in the section to be added that describes the social assessment IPPF process with IPs undertaken as part of the SESA) this IPPF needs to address the issue of FPIC and whether REDD+ Readiness applied a process of FPIC (consent) or FPIC (consultation), and what this IPPF is suggesting be applied in the case of IPP development (On risk 4.10.2) IPPF Is this FPIC protocol being developed as part of REDD+ Readiness? Or is this a separate process? If the latter, it can't be used as a mitigation measure since the timeline for developing that process might be too long to be useful for REDD+ implementation. Instead could state that development of IPPs for any and all project activities that have direct implications for IP territories/resources would apply FPIC (consent) procedures MM4.10.4b: IPPF/ Comment: Distinction is necessary to recognize that there areas where Indigenous peoples are land owners in general which integration into forest governance is much more complex than could be captured by FCCs. Forest governance in Indigenous peoples lands must depart from the recognition of their ownership" (IPPF). On the ESMF the comment was similar to MM4.10.4b. Distinction is important to be made when it comes to lands owned by indigenous peoples in which case actions must depart from that fact and what may be needed is to strengthen IPs land and forest governance systems. This does not disregard the possibility of co- management but that would be the prerogative of the concerned Indigenous community." MM4.10.4b: "...the development of LRP and the discussion of mitigation measures and sustainable livelihood IPPF/ options will be conducted under a co-management model." general Comment: This does not make sense for the development of a safeguards instrument like an LRP, where consultation and decisionmaking on mitigation measures should happen directly with affected parties. There is no need to involve other stakeholders in decision-making - perhaps as technical advisors on the feasibility of one alternative livelihood over another - but not as decisionmakers. It is the R+CU's responsibility to identify risks and to undertake a SA, develop and implement an IPP, etc. Other IPPF/ bodies can be involved, but R+CU is ultimately responsible for applying safeguards instruments. general What would be the mechanism? That is, how will BENIC know of the subprojects. I think the proposal for the IPPF categorization of level of risk will be done by REDD+CU. Will there be participation of IPS in that process? "BENIC will engage the Indigenous Technical Team (ITT) to carry out this assessment" IPPF Comment: Does this mean to say that all social assessments will be undertaken by the ITT? (On FPIC): IPPF/ The FPIC process that Belize will use also needs to be described in this IPPF. Another point of clarification general would be if this means that all REDD+ activities/subprojects will seek FPIC (consent) from IPs? Or only those activities that have implications for IPs? "Detailed minutes and video footage, as well as other forms of documentation will be acceptable forms of IPPF/ evidence of the level of understanding and support by the communities." general Comment: These can be evidence that there was a consultation process, but more importantly, there will need to be evidence at the end of the consultation process that it resulted in the broad community support (or consent) of the affected community for the sub-project/activity. That can be in the form of a document signed by the PAP representatives and annexed to the sub-project document / IPP, for example. Comment to FPIC section: "This submission was in connection to the SESA process and will need to be IPPF reviewed and further developed going forward" (and they suggest some clarifications) "In this instance as already indicated above IPs will be providing input and not consent" IPPF/ general Comment: What does this mean in relation to the ER Strategy for Belize, and for the ESMF/IPPF/PF? There needs to be some evidence that SESA consultations resulted in broad community support of IPs for REDD+ and for the instruments that detail how risks and impacts to them will be managed during implementation. This does not suffice for sub-projects either, which will also need to document and disclose some evidence of broad community support (or consent) for specific sub-projects / activities Is this the proposed process going forward or a description of what was used during preparation? The process IPPF proposed by BENIC for the SESA process is a useful starting point but will need to be reviewed for REDD+ implementation. In the Case of Toledo there is a locally established protocol "Each BENIC member will then determine if, in principle, they give their consent to the final draft or not." IPPF/ general Comment: We need to go through this same process for the ER Strategy, SESA, ESMF/IPPF/PF The role and character of the IP Desk as well as the ITT should be reviewed for the implementation phase IPPF based on the lessons from the preparation phase. This should be done by BENIC in collaboration with REDD+CU. Drawing on the lessons during preparation phase the nature and function of the REDD+ desk should be IPPF reviewed for the implementation phase "The role of the BENIC is to support its constituent members and by extension their respective communities; IPPF provide a space for dialogue, analysis..." Comment: None of the responsibilities or costs of undertaking consultations should fall to BENIC. They, rather, are supporting the IP consultation process. It is the R+CU's sole responsibiity to ensure this IPPF is carried out in relation to specific sub-projects / activities. "The role of BENIC ITT in the REDD+ Project Activities can be summarized as follows" IPPF Comment: Should be clarified if the list refers to how ITT helped REDD+ Readiness and/or if this refers to how they will support REDD+ implementation the role and character of the ITT in the preparation phase should also be reviewed based on lessons learnt for IPPF the implementation phase "Level of support to the initiatives to be implemented within the framework of the National REDD+ Strategy, in IPPF accordance with existing records and meeting minutes." Comment: This is only sufficient evidence that consultations happened. See earlier comment on this. Section Who Answer BENIC Text on the topic of FPIC has been adjusted throughut the documents in line with agreements reached in the conversation between AAE and the BENIC that took place on 9 December. Section 1.2 now desribes the FPIC framework which was applied during this redd+ readiness phase and section 5 describes the FPIC to be applied for REDD+ implementation. BENIC Same answer as above. Text on the topic of FPIC has been adjusted throughut the documents in line with agreements reached in the conversation between AAE and the BENIC that took place on 9 December. In particular, the topic is explained in section 5. BENIC BENIC, we included this in chapter 10 which refers to implementation and who will be responsible of what. It now states " In some cases, such as implementation and monitoring of the IPPF, the REDD+CU should explore the possibility of including BENIC as a responsible party of some of the tasks. This could be done through the IP Desk and/or ITT based on lessons learned from the preparation process". Moreover, in the table in this section, we made specific suggestions to were we think it should be relevant to include BENIC. We also specifically refer to the issue on in Figure 3 (section 2.4) which included the original institutional framework for redd+. It should be noted that this will be revised as suggested and agreed on in the strategy, and the role of the IP Desk and BENIC should be assesed based on lessns learned from the process so far. Lastly we pick on this issue in the IPPF. BENIC The PF now includes much stronger language on this point and in different places refers to the fact that, where IPs are affected by access restrictions, the IPPF and respective FPIC provisions apply. As an example, please see the new red box in chapter 6.b of the PF. BENIC Chapter 11 (institutional arrangements for implementation) now mentions in Table 14 under "Responsibility" that a role for the BENIC to support implementation of the IPPF and PF should be explored. 1.2.2. National BENIC Mention of the 2015 CCJ ruling and its implications on the legal protection of Maya land rights Law has been added to the text 2.2. Component BENIC It is correct that restrictions could also happen where a new PA is created, as is possible under activities that strategic line 3.6 of the national strategy. However, where the creation of a PA would be may involve planned in or near an area inhabited by IPs, this would require FPIC, which means that IPs restrictions. have the possibility to not give consent to the envisaged intervention and thus implementation could not go ahead. In addition, the creation of a new PA may not lead to physical displacement as such an activity would not be eligible under REDD+ in Belize, as explained in the ESMF. Please see the red box at the beginning of the PF, which makes this point clear. 2.2. Component BENIC Wherever a REDD+ activity is planned in land that is inhabited by IPs or near areas inhabited activities that by IPs, FPIC would have to be sought and IPs can decide, based on information received and may involve consultation conducted, to not give consent; which means that the activity could not be restrictions. implemented. Moreover, as explained above the creation of a new PA may never lead to physical displacement as such asctivity would not be eligible under REDD+. We have tried to make this clearer in the document. 3.1. General BENIC This paragraph just explains the terms of OP.12 with regards to the different impact typologies elegibility rules and entitlements and those include physical displacement as an impact. Right after that sentence it is clearly stated that SESA does not contemplate physical displacement. We have tried to make it clearer throughout the ESMF and PF that activities with a risk of physical displacement are not eligible under REDD+. 3.1. General BENIC The term "economic displacement" is not defined in OP4.12 but is covered in the new WB elegibility rules ES5. It refers to loss of assets or access to assets, including those that lead to loss of income sources or other means of livelihood. We have included a definition in the PF to make this clearer. 3.2 land tenure BENIC No, the PF does not cover physical displacement. Risks of physical displacement would be elegibility criteria dealt with in a Resettlement Framework, however, this is not needed as no risk of physical displacement was identified and activities with such a risk would not be eligible under REDD+ in Belize. The footnote is no longer there but we have tried to make this point much clearer throughout the document. 3.2 land tenure BENIC Thank you for spotting this. The assumption is correct and the sentence was completed. elegibility criteria 3.4. process for BENIC For the presence of IP communities, their assets and land tenure status, the IPPF addresses specific eligibility the requirements and the process of Social Assessment, including the involvement of qualified criteria personnel for this task. A cross reference to the IPPF has been added to the PF. 7. Monitoring and BENIC Indicators have been adjusted, however, it should be noted that they are still general.Specific evaluation indicators capturing welfare measurement will need to be defined later in the process for each arrengements subproject, either in the LRP or in the IPP. Nonetheless, it is possible that not all Community Livelihood Indicators will be able to capture welfare or specific socioeconomic dimensions (e.g. food security, income, etc.), but rather aggregate measurements in livelihood diversification and/or adoption of mitigation measures. The paragraph has been reworked to show that while aggregate indicators need to be addressed at program level, the LRP will define more specific socioeconomic measurements within their own M&E system. 1.3 WB We checked OP 4.12 again and added a bit more text here, but we are not sure whether this is exactly what you mean with "procedures to follow in the case of site-specific impacts". 3.1 WB This was indeed a mistake and shouldn’t be there. This is not a risk, it is clearly stated at the end of the paragraph and it is clearly explained now at the beginning of the PF. That the only possible risk is involuntary restrictions on access to resources, but not loss of shelter, physical displacement or land acquisition. Moreover, as soon as an activity happens on land inhabited by IPs FPIC is required and they can refuse to give consent. 3.1 WB This was a mistake. Under NO circumstance would anyone lose shelter in existing parks and protected areas. There could be access restrictions but NOT displacement or loss of shelter. This has been clarified. 3.1 WB This is a conclusion from the SESA and it is clearly explained there (specifically in the excel matrix sent as an annex to WB in which all OPs were analysed against possible risks and explanations/answers provided). The ESMF and its annexes are tools developed based on the results of the SESA but do not include all the details about the analyses conducted as part of the SESA once more. However, we have made language clearer throughout the document that the only possible risk of REDD+ implementation under OP 4.12 is economic displacement, not phyiscal displacement, and that therefore there there is only the need of a PF. 3.2 WB The suggestion has been integrated into the main text with additional guidance on how the cut- off date is to be implemented and communicated 3.4 WB The suggestion has been integrated into the main text with specific mention to the co- management approach and a cross-reference. It is for this reason that the creation of FCCs is suggested. 3.5 WB Suggestion added to the text, with specific consultation provisions for vulnerable groups. 3.5 WB The section has been enriched with further explanation and justification for gender targeted livelihood support activities. 4.1.2 WB Sustaining existing livelihood strategies might be a feasible strategy for livelihood restoration by for example introducing new sustainable management methods that, without changing the nature of the livelihood activity, enhance its productivity while preserving natural resources (e.g. agroferstry or sustanable collection of forest products). In other words, LRP may contain measures not only aimed at substituting or diversifying livelihoods, but also at making existing ones more sustainable. 4.1.2 WB The word beneficiary has been substituted by "PAP" 4.1.3 WB The text has been adjusted 4.1.3 WB This statement refers to the requirement of the LRPs to contain budget information for the implementation of mitigation measures. The PF does not contain a specific section on budget, since this is not a requirement of Annex A of OP4.12 (budget information is only required for the RAP). Nonetheless, the budget requirements in LRP have been further expanded in the text. 4.2 WB This paragraph does not imply by any means that the LRP is not the responsibility of the government. Here it is stated that the instruments proposed in the LRP (which needless to say are the responsibility of the government) can be complemented with existing government programs that can benefit PAPs of the project. 4.2 WB Paragraph deleted in order to avoid confusion. The isse on physical displacement has been clarified in previous comments 4.2 WB See comment above 5.1 WB This was a process done before the SESA and ESMF. We have now received and included latest information on this process. 5.1 WB Included how complaints can be received: via regular mail, phone, email or online. And addresses and numbers included. 6.1 WB The text was adjusted. . 6.2 WB The establishment of functioning of the FCC has been further expanded with additional principles and guidelines. Nevertheless, as stated previously in the PF, it will be the role of the REDD+ CU to define the specific functioning roles and competences of each FCC, as these may substantially vary across subprojects. Thus, depending on the activities and the specific area, the FCC could be rather oriented towards biodiversity conservation, production, protection of ecosystem services, etc., hence requiring different composition and operational rules. 6.2 WB See previous response. More detail has been added and the text now also states that in general for every subproject that may cause economic displacement an FCC should be created, however, where for instance several subprojects target the same area, e.g. a protected area, it may be useful to work with the same FCC for several subprojects. 1. Executive REDD+CU Indeed we have been pasting changes across summary 2.3. BOX 2 WB We cannot remove it as there is no final decision yet. This will be decided by the government eventually, but not in the coming weeks. 2.3. FIGURE 3 WV It means Original. This was requested in the country mission to Belize in Oct 2021. This was the original institutional framework proposed yet due to certain challenges (ex: Coronavirus pandemic, changes in staff, etc) some things have changed in practice and there are lessons learned. For implementation a final institutional structure will need to be agreed by the government. This is explained and discussed in the strategy, section 2.4.4, and it was presented in the country mission in which, in the final presentation, it was made clear that it was responsibility of the government to decide on a final one. The consultants provided an external document with suggestions, but they have not come to a official decision yet. For the time being, the original structure is to be kept. 4. (Table 3) WB Changed in text to make it clear 4. (Table 3) BENIC The legal expert confirmed that EA laws indeed do not require consideration of impacts of activities on IPs. However, instead of adding this as a new bullet point at the end, the issue was added to the second bullet point that already talks about shortcoming of the social impact assessment requirements of existing EA law. It now says at the end "For example, there is no specification that impacts of activities on Indigenous Peoples need to be considered." 5.1.1 (Table 4) WB Change in text made to clarify that we were refering to the REDD+ BSM. 5.1.1 (Table 4) WB Text modified 5.2 (Table 7) WB Text modified to make it clear 5.2 (Table 7) WB 4.12 taken out. 4.10 is IPs and they are the ones who most highlight the intrinsic value of forests, not economic, not for food, etc. But just the importance of healthy forests for the health of people and community. 5.2 (Table 7) WB Deleted 5.3 (Table 8) WB Yes excatly that. Change made to make it clear 5.3 (Table 8) WB Done 5.3 (Table 8) WB Yes, change made in text to make it more clear 5.3 (Table 8) WB Consultations. It is stated at the beginning of the sentences yet we clarified it better now. 5.3 (Table 8) WB The comment referred to a piece of text that read "with a special emphasis on those IP constituencies to which the CCJ rulings do not apply, through a tailored Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework". This part was replaced with "ensuring that efforts are made to support all IP constituencies equally, without emphasizing one over the other, through a tailored Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework." The mitigation measures were checked to ensure the statement was justified. 5.4 (Table 9) WB The Plan has not been developed yet but it is considered useful to, at an early stage of REDD+ implementation, develop a REDD+ Awareness Raising and Capacity Building Plan to address the identied lack of understanding. 5.4 (Table 9) BENIC The MM under this risk has been adjusted (as well as title of the risk). It is clear now that any change in the law or new law that affects IPs should be guided by FPIC. This is also reflected in section 5 where FPIC is explained. 5.4 (Table 9) WB This is done under risk 4.10.2. It states that procedures established in the IPPF should be implemented 5.4 (Table 9) BENIC Suggestion accepted, the MM was added to the list. MM4.10.2a BENIC Text on the topic of FPIC (and the MM) has been adjusted throughut the documents in line with agreements reached in the conversation between AAE and the BENIC that took place on 9 December. Section 1.2 now desribes the FPIC framework which was applied during this redd+ readiness phase and section 5 describes the FPIC to be applied for REDD+ implementation. All mitigation measures now refer to this agreement (Refer to section 5 of the IPPF and annex 1.1 and annex 1.2 of the IPPF) 5.4 (Table 9) BENIC Same answer as above. Text on the topic of FPIC (and the MM) has been adjusted throughut the documents in line with agreements reached in the conversation between AAE and the BENIC that took place on 9 December. 5.4 (Table 9) WB Text on the topic of FPIC (and the MM) has been adjusted throughut the documents in line with agreements reached in the conversation between AAE and the BENIC that took place on 9 December. Section 1.2 now desribes the FPIC framework which was applied during this redd+ readiness phase and section 5 describes the FPIC to be applied for REDD+ implementation. All mitigation measures now refer to this agreement between BENIC and AAE (Refer to section 5 of the IPPF and annex 1.1 and annex 1.2 of the IPPF) 5.4 (Table 9) WB True, we merged the MMs and updated all numbering, indicators, targets, etc. 5.4 (Table 9) BENIC The PF now includes much stronger language on this point and in different places refers to the fact that, where IPs are affected by access restrictions, the IPPF and respective FPIC provisions apply before any co-management could happen. So first you would have FPIC based on IPs decision making procedures and only then, if consent is given, co-management could happen for instance. As an example, please see the new red box in chapter 6.b of the PF. BENIC The risk description now includes the following additional sentence: "Moreover, where indigenous land rights exist, and especially where these have been affirmed by the court, such as through the 2015 CCJ ruling, restrictions to land and/or resources would be a violation of the law." In addition, a new MM was created, i.e. MM4.12.g) The CCJ court rulings will be upheld and land rights respected by all activities that fall under REDD+ implementation. 5.4 (Table 9) WB Text clarified MM4.12.1d BENIC Text modified. It is now clear that relocation could and would never happen as a result of a REDD+ activity. Livelihood Restoration Plans are only for the case of access restrictions, thus economic displacement, but not relocation. 6.2 BENIC The criteria are explained in further detail in the subsequent table but the suggestion to involve the BENIC has been taken on board and text amended accordingly. 6.2 (Table 10) WB A new paragraph has been added to provide further clarity. 6.2 (Table 10) BENIC Such projects are not eligible under REDD+ as stated in the last column. 6.4 WB The ESIA does not have to include mitigation measures but only risks and impacts. This is stated in point (iv). The mitigation measures are then included in the ESMP, which is here separately dealt with in chapter 6.5. 6.5 (Table 11) WB Ok, we removed this one. 6.5 (Table 11) WB Same here, it has been removed. 6.5 (Table 11) WB We have replaced the previous MMs included in the table with examples more suitable to subproject level. 6.5 (Table 11) WB We have replaced the previous MMs included in the table with examples more suitable to subproject level. 6.6 WB Further detail has been added as requested. 7.2 WB Done 8 WB Indeed multiple consultations took place. More information was incorporated. 8 WB We enquired for further detail from the REDD+ CU and have included this information now accordingly. Complaints can also be raised by usual mail or phone or through direct contact with a REDD+ staff member who registers the complaint and all necessary info. 9 BENIC This has been incorporated into the table 14 which includes responsibilities. 9 WB Changed. 9.1 (Table 13) WB Concern about benefit sharing was very clear from the SESA process, which is why the risk was included and two tailored mitigation measures have been identified. In line with the comment, a new MM (now MM4.10.3B) has now also been added to ensure IP participation in the process of developing Belize's Carbon Rights Policy. 9.1 (Table 13) BENIC Here we are refering to IPs, not to IPPs. IPPs will be needed yes for subprojects that have effects on IPs (as explained in the IPPF) and IPs will need to be meaningufly consulted (FPIC Process). This refers to just another general mitigation measure to ensure equal access to benefits of subprojects by ALL affected communities. 9.1 (Table 13) WB Agreed. Additions have been made to the Indicator. 9.1 (Table 13) WB Agreed and changed. 9.1 (Table 13) BENIC Agreed, the suggested measure was added at the end of MM4.10.1b). 9.1 (Table 13) WB As the risk already states that this refers to legal instruments affecting IPs we did not think it was necessary, but have now included it in I4.10.1c and T4.10.1c just in case. 9.1 (Table 13) BENIC This has been adjusted based on decisions taken with the BENIC in a conversation held on 9 December. 9.1 (Table 13) WB This has been adjusted based on decisions taken with the BENIC in a conversation held on 9 December. 9.1 (Table 13) BENIC All comments in the IPPF have been taken into account, see separate entries in the present table. 9.1 (Table 13) WB Text adjusted in line with suggestion 9.1 (Table 13) WB We agree, we have changed them now so to be: All IP constituencies are adequately represented in REDD+ activities, with "adequacy" defined by considering differences in dependency on forests and the extension of forested lands IP constituencies own and steward 9.1 (Table 13) BENIC Modified to: All IP constituencies are adequately represented in REDD+ activities, with "adequacy" defined by considering differences in dependency on forests and the extension of forested lands IP constituencies own and steward 9.1 (Table 13) BENIC FCC are not by any means a substitute of FPIC. On the contrary, FPIC will need to be integrated in the functioning of FCC, when IP safeguards are triggered. So for instance, before an FCC is formed in lands that might affect IPs and FPIC process will be carried out first. This has been madre stronger here and in the PF 9.1 (Table 13) BENIC REDD+ activities that could cause physical displacement are not eligible under REDD+ in Belize. LRPs are Livelihood Restoration Plans that are developed where activities entail access restrictions, thus economic displacement, but not physical displacement. We have clarified respective text throughout all documents. Moreover, even in case of economic displacement FPIC would be a requirement, if IPs may be affected. This is explained in the PF as well as in the IPPF 9.2 BENIC This was a mistake, the REDD+ FGRM was meant here. Now corrected. 9.2 WB This was a mistake, the REDD+ FGRM was meant here. Now corrected. 10 (Table 14) BENIC Additions were made to explore possibilities to include BENIC in this task 10 (Table 14) BENIC Additions were made to explore possibilities to include BENIC in this task 5.4 Dr Kay at Included in the MM final workshop David There is a Strategic Line in the Strategy that in part adresses this issue (SL 2.2: capacity Requena buiding and awareness raising for meaningful participation). We also expanded one of the MM, MM 4.01.5b to include this. Lucito We have strengthened language on the need to increase engagement of the Mennonite Ayuso communities from now onwards in section 7.3 on stakeholder engagement for REDD+ implementation. REDD+CU There is nothing to reference here, all references are in the ESMF. 1.1 BENIC The ESMF, IPPF and PF were developed using WB funding but it applies throughout REDD+ implementation, independently from the funding source for implementation. A sentence has been added at the end of the executive summary to make this point. 1.2 WB Section 1.2 ow explains in detail the process of FPIC that was undertaken to develop all REDD+ products (SESA, strategy, ESMF, IPPF). Following an exchange with the BENIC held on 9 December, they were drafting a letter to submit to the government and this will be proof of evidence for broad support of the consultation process as well as the outputs. This will be provided and annexed to the ESMF and IPPF. Text has been added accordingly in the newly added chapter 1.2 of the IPPF. 1.3 WB This information was included under chapter 3.3.3 and in chapter 3.7.5.8 of the SESA and according to the WB OPs and related guidance on producing an IPPF there was no requirement to repeat all that information in the IPPF. Nevertheless we did include some more information in this section. 2 WB Such introductory paragraph was added, no problem. However, we don't think we can identify priority IP depending on the potential impacts they might be subject to at this high level stage (remember we are still at programme level, not project level. There are no specific activities yet). Even if we were able to rank IPs by their level of dependence on natural resources or forests, this could be a misleading exercise during implementation, since the impact over IP may substantially vary across different subprojects. Hence, although one particular IP might be potentially more dependent or vulnerable, the type of subproject and activities may require more attention over another group. Thus, what we decided was better to include is a short introductory paragraph on summary of risks, brief mention to IPs and the most dependent on forests and references to the SESA were the issue is explained further. Also remember the IPPF is a tool for implementation not the analysis so here we should limit analysis and/or presentation of results and focus on implementation and mitigation measures. 2 (Table 1) WB While the impacts and mitigation measures are somwehat equivalent we dont think the two risks are totally equivalent and they both came from different concerns IPs had during consultaitons to different sections of the strategy. Thus, we would not want to dismiss one of the risks at this stage of the process, this could have been done earlier on, during the SESA. 4.10.1 refers to the lack of observance of existing IP rights and knowledge in the preparation of legal reforms (or new laws), whereas 4.10.2 refers to the application of FPIC process within the strategy´s implementation. We would like to keep them separate, even though one of the mitigation measures for 4.10.1 will be to apply FPIC (same for 4.10.2), but there are also other mitigaiton measures such as provide legal support to IPs when necessary for 4.10.1 3 (Table 1) WB Ok, text modified. 4 (Table 1) BENIC We understand your point, but there was no intention to imply that the CCJ ruling is anything less than a legally binding obligation. This is also noted in the complete analysis of existing Policies, Laws and Regulations conducted as part of the assignment, which states on the topic that "Belize’s domestic law, judge-made law as it is, affirms that IPs’ customary and traditional legal rights to land and natural resources exist and are recognized in Belize. This recognition resides in the landmark decision in the case of The Maya Leaders Alliance and the Attorney General of Belize; (CCJ Appeal, 2015; available at Maya Leaders Alliance v. Atty. General of Belize, Judgment, [2015] CCJ 15 (A.J.) (CCJ, Oct. 30, 2015) (worldcourts.com)); which held that the Maya Peoples of Belize hold customary land rights over the land that they occupy, which is equal to any other form of land ownership in Belize and is constitutionally protected. The Consent Order of April 22, 2015, Order 4, negotiated by the Maya Leaders and the Government of Belize, which is part of the ratio decedendi of the judgment in The Maya Leaders Alliance and the Attorney General of Belize; provides the legal basis for the involuntary taking of land of indigenous peoples with traditional land-based modes of production. Order 4 provides that the Government undertakes, with the acceptance of the Court, ..., that it shall cease and abstain from any acts, whether by the agents of the government itself or third parties acting with its leave, acquiescence or tolerance, that might adversely affect the value, use or enjoyment of the lands that are used and occupied by the Maya villages, unless such acts are preceded by consultation with them in order to obtain their informed consent, and are in conformity with their hereby recognized property rights and the safeguards of the Belize Constitution." We will make sure that this is clearer in the outputs and we agree with you that, in terms of REDD+ implementation, the risk is that attention is paid only to areas where rights are legally recognized while areas where no rights are legally recognized are ignored. 2 (Table 2) WB This information was included under chapter 3.3.3 and in chapter 3.7.5.8 of the SESA and according to the WB OPs and related guidance on producing an IPPF there was no requirement to repeat all that information in the IPPF. Nevetheless some more info was added in section 1.3 and thw ext was modified to clarify that, there are no current disputes, what we are just stating is that Garifuna do not have their lands recognized, and while the CCJ court ruling set a precedent this is for Maya, not for Garifuna. If in the future, the Garifuna will engage in a similar process as the Maya, or if the GOB will decide to have the Garifuna customary rigths recognized, or if the situation will stay as it is, is still unknown. 2 (Table 2) WB See newly drafted chapter 1.2 in the IPPF which explains the FPIC process dor REDD+ Readiness Phase, and newly drafted chapter 5 which explains FPIC for REDD+ implementation (IPPs, etc) 3 (Table 3) WB The topic was discussed with the BENIC in a conversation held on 9 December and a way forward was identified which is now reflected in chapter 5 of the IPPF. The FPIC FRAMEWORK to be used is the 2014 Southern Maya FPIC Framework. Principles apply to all IP constituencies and were included in the chapter, however before end of march each IP constituency will need to adapt the 2014 Maya Framework to their own particularities. 3 (Table 3) BENIC Section 4.1.2 of the Process Framework has been reviewed to make explicit this distinction and to make more explicit the role of FCC in strengthening IPs land and forest governance systems. 3 (Table 3) WB It is not stakeholders other than PAP that would be part of these FCC, this is clearer now in the PF 4 WB The paragraph has been rephrased to better show REDD +CU responsibility on social assessment. 4 BENIC A sentence has been added to clarify that the subsequent subchapters provide further detail about the process, including on how different stakeholders should be involved. 4.2 WB Qualified consultants will be hired for this particular task (section 4.2) and the ITT will be engaged to supervise the approach and methodology (as stated in section 6). The paragraph in section 4.2 has been rephrased to better capture the ITTs role. 5.1 WB The topic was discussed with the BENIC in a conversation held on 9 December and the process is now reflected in the IPPF chapter 5. The FPIC framework principles and process to be used is there included. The IPPF also clarifies now for which kinds of activities FPIC needs to be sought. 5.2 WB The consent is a signature by an authorized body over a statement that reflects the consent of the community (section 5.4). However, this consent needs to be backed up by evidence collected during the consultation process, and this may include those mentioned means. Paragraph has been rephrased to better show this notion. 5.2. BENIC The topic was discussed with the BENIC in a conversation held on 9 December and the agreed way forward is now reflected in the IPPF chapter 5. The principles of the 2014 FPIC Framework of the Southern Maya of Belize will be the ones used. For the Southern Maya this will be the framework used, for the other IP constituencies, there will be a 3 month period to adapt it to their own particularities (this is all described in detail in section 5 and in a annex 1.2 of the IPPF) 5.2. WB The topic was discussed with the BENIC in a conversation held on 9 December and the new chapter 1.2 refers to the requested evidence (and see also respective annex in the ESMF). Moreover, this meant that for the redd+ rediness process and the Strategy, SESA etc only input was needed, not cosnent. Nonetheless, this broad community support is now included in the annex. 5.3 BENIC Text has been clarified and there is now a distinction between the process applied during readiness phase (section 1.2) and the process going forward from now (chapter 5 and both annexes in the ESMF), as discussed in the meeting between AAE and the BENIC held on 9 Dec. 5.3 WB Here we were only refering to documents moving forward (during implementation). Nonetheless please see new chapter 1.2 and respective annex in the ESMF on broad community support. . 6 BENIC Institutional arrangements for implementation stage will be reviewd and refined. This was also clarified in the strategy and in the in country workshop. This is the government responsability. We now included text to clarify that, and to explain that this was the role of the ITT and IP desk up to now, yet that this should be reviewed for implementation. Moreover, this can also be further refined under each IPP. 6 BENIC See answer above 6 WB This statement refers to the general mission of BENIC as an organization, whereas the following paragraphs spell out the specific role in REDD+. This role refers exclusively to "identifying who, when and how to consult", whereas the responsibility of REDD+ CU is clearly stated in the first paragraph of section 6. 6 WB The text was clarified. This indeed refered to responsabilities up to now. This might stay the same or more can be added. This is to be revised by the REDD+CU in collaboration with BENIC before implementation. This is stated in the strategy and in this chapter. 7 BENIC Same answer as previous ones. 7 WB See similar response above.