Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Mozambique Conservation Areas for Biodiversity and Development Project – Phase 2. MOZBIO – P166802 Updated Resettlement Policy Framework MozBio 2 Project (P166802) and GEF 7 Additional Financing (AF) (P172777) May July 2020 2 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 27 2 BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 27 2.1 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE ...................................................................................................27 2.1.1 Communities in and around Conservation Areas............................................................... 28 3 MOZBIO2 PROJECT ............................................................................................................. 28 3.1 GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................................28 3.2 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE .....................................................................................29 3.3 PROJECT COMPONENTS ........................................................................................................30 3.4 INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PROJECT ............................................................33 4 RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK ................................................................................. 34 4.1 PREPARATION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK..................34 4.1.1 Potential impacts ............................................................................................................... 34 4.2 METHOD USED FOR PREPARING THE RESETTLEMENT POLICY FRAMEWORK.......................36 4.3 IMPACT MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT INSTRUMENTS ..................................................37 4.3.1 Planning to avoid involuntary resettlement and mitigate impacts that may cause it....... 37 4.3.2 Principles governing involuntary resettlement and the preparation of management instruments 40 4.4 LEGAL FRAMEWORK ..............................................................................................................43 4.4.1 National legislation, regulatory and policy framework on resettlement and compensation in conservation areas ......................................................................................................................... 43 4.5 WORLD BANK POLICIES..........................................................................................................46 4.5.1 Comparison between the Laws of the Republic of Mozambique and World Bank OP4.12 on land tenure, involuntary resettlement and compensation ............................................................ 47 5 RESETTLEMENT INSTRUMENTS ........................................................................................... 50 5.1 ABBREVIATED RESETTLEMENT PLAN / COMPENSATION PLAN .............................................51 5.2 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR DEFINING CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT .51 5.2.1 Cut off date ........................................................................................................................ 51 5.2.2 Categories of displaced people .......................................................................................... 52 5.2.3 Land Acquisition and Likely Categories of Impact.............................................................. 53 5.2.4 Eligibility for Community Compensation............................................................................ 54 5.2.5 Procedures for Assessing Entitlement ................................................................................ 54 5.2.6 The need for livelihoods restoration .................................................................................. 55 5.2.7 Entitlement Matrix ............................................................................................................. 56 5.3 VALUATION OF AFFECTED ASSETS AND COMPENSATION.....................................................59 5.3.1 Institutional responsibilities in the preparation and implementation of compensation plans 61 5.3.2 Approval and disclosure of compensation plans................................................................ 63 3 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing 5.3.3 Procedures for the payment of compensation ................................................................... 63 5.3.4 Awareness raising .............................................................................................................. 64 5.3.5 Compensation delivery verification ................................................................................... 64 5.3.6 Post- site clearance ............................................................................................................ 65 5.4 CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION OF PEOPLE AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT ....................65 5.5 GRIEVANCE RESOLUTION.......................................................................................................67 5.6 MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..........................................................................................69 5.7 ESTIMATED COSTS .................................................................................................................69 6 APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 71 6.1 APPENDIX 1 POPULATION DATA ...........................................................................................71 6.2 APPENDIX 2: PUBLIC CONSULTATION SUMMARIES ..............................................................71 6.3 APPENDIX 3: COMPENSATION PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES ........73 4 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing List of Abbreviations AC Conservation Area / Área de Conservação ACTF Transfrontier Conservation Area / Área de Conservação Transfronteiriça ANAC National Conservation Areas Administration / Administração Nacional das Áreas de Conservação BIOFUND Foundation for Biodiversity Conservation BM Banco Mundial CA Conservation Area CBNRM Community Based Natural Resources Management CC Compensation Committee CCG Co-management Committee CCP Fisheries Co-management Committee / Comité de Co-gestão Pesqueira CERC Contingency Emergency Response Component CGAC Conservation Area Management Council / Conselho de Gestão da Área de Conservação CGRN Natural Resources Management Committee / Conselho de Gestão dos Recursos Naturais COGEP Local Participatory Management Council / Conselho de Gestão participativa CONDES National Council for Sustainable Development / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Sustentável CP Compensation Plan DA District Administrator DINAF National Directorate of Forestry / Direcção Nacional de Florestas DINAT National Directorate of Land / Direcção Nacional de Terra DINATUR National Directorate of Tourism / Direcção Nacional de Turismo DINOTR National Directorate for Territorial Planning and Resettlement / Direcção Nacional de Ordenamento Territorial e Reassentamento DNA National Directorate for the Environment / Direcção Nacional de Ambiente DNAS National Directorate for Water and Sanitation / Direcção Nacional de Água e Saneamento DNDR National Directorate of Rural Development / Direcção Nacional de Desenvolvimento Rural DNEA National Directorate of Agricultural Extension / Direcção Nacional de Extensão Agrária DNGRH National Directorate of Water Resources Management / Direcção Nacional de Gestão de Recursos Hídricos DPASA Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Food Security / Direcção Provincial de Agricultura e Segurança Alimentar DPCULTUR Provincial Directorate of Culture and Tourism / Direcção Provincial de Cultura e Turismo DPP Provincial Directorate of Fisheries / Direcção Provincial de Pesca DPPF Provincial Directorate of Planning and Finance / Direcção Provincial de Plano e Finanças DPTADER Provincial Directorate of Land, Environment and Rural Development / Direcção Provincial de Terra, Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Rural DUAT Right to Use and Benefit from the Land / Direito de Uso e Aproveitamento da Terra ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment 5 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework ESA Environmental (and Social) Assessment 6 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing FNDS National Sustainable Development Fund / Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento Sustentável GD District Government / Governo do Distrito GEF Global Environment Facility GoM Government of Mozambique HWC Human-wildlife conflict IDA International Development Association – World bank ILM Integrated Landscape Management INGC National Institute for Disaster Management / Instituto Nacional para a Gestão de Calamidades LAA Land Acquisition Assessment M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MAEFP Ministry of State Administration and Public Service / Ministério de Administração Estatal e Função Pública MCT Ministry of Culture and Tourism / Ministério de Cultura e Turísmo MDR Dialogue and Grievance Mechanism / Mecanismo de diálogo e reclamação MEF Ministry of the Economy and Finance / Ministério de Economia e Finanças MICAIA-F Micaia Foundation an Environmental NGO MISAU Ministry of Health / Ministério de Saúde MITADER Ministry of Land, Environment and Rural Development / Ministério de Terra, Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Rural MTA Ministry of Land and Environment / Ministério de Terra e Ambiente MADER Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development / Ministério da Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural MMAIP Ministry of the Sea, Interior Waters and Fisheries / Ministério do Mar, Águas Interiores e Pescas MOPHRH Ministry of Public Works, Housing and Water Resources / Ministério de Obras Públicas, Habitação e Recursos Hídricos Mozbio2 Mozambique Conservation Areas for Biodiversity and Development - Phase 2 MSLF Multi-Stakeholder Landscape Forum MTA Ministerio da Terra Ambiente NGO Non-governmental organization NP National Park NR National Reserve ONG Non-governmental organisation / Organização não governamental OP Operational Policy (of the World Bank) PDO Project Development Objective PDUT District Land Use Plan / Plano Distrital de Uso de Terra PEOT Strategic Spatial Plan / Plano Estratégico de Ordenamento Territorial PF Process Framework PIU Project Implementation Unit PO/PB Operational Policy / Bank Policy (of the World Bank) / Política Operacional / Política do Banco (Mundial) PPF Peace Parks Foundation PPMR Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve PRPT Land Tenure Regularization Protocol / Protocolo de Regularização de Posse de Terra PUT Land use plan / Plano de Uso da Terra QP Process Framework / Quadro de Processos QPR Resettlement Policy Framework / Quadro de Política de Reassentamento 7 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing RAP Resettlement Action Plan REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries REM Maputo Special Reserve / Reserva Especial de Maputo RNC Chimanimani National Reserve / Reserva Nacional de Chimanimani RNN Niassa National Reserve / Reserva Nacional de Niassa RP Resettlement Plan RPF Resettlement Policy Framework SDAE District Service for Economic Activities / Serviço Distrital de Actividades Económicas SDEJT District Service for Education, Youth and Technology / Serviço Distrital de Educação, Juventude e Tecnologia SDPI District Service for Planning and Infrastructure / Serviço Distrital de Planeamento e Infraestruturas SDSMAS District Service for Health, Women and Social Action / Serviço Distrital de Saúde, Mulher e Acção Social SESS Social and Environmental Safeguards Specialists SPFB Provincial Services for Forests and Wildlife / Serviços Provinciais de Floresta a Fauna Bravia SPGC Provincial Services for Geography and Cadastre / Serviços Provinciais de Geografia e Cadastro SSA Social Safeguards Assistant TFCA Transfrontier Conservation Area TOR Terms of Reference TTL Task Team Leader (World Bank) UN United Nations UNAPROC National Civil Protection Unit / Unidade Nacional de Protecção Civil WB World Bank WWF Worldwide Fund for Nature 8 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Sumário Executivo Introdução e Contextualização Este Quadro de Política de Reassentamento foi preparado para o Projecto de Biodiversidade e Desenvolvimento das Áreas de Conservação em Moçambique - Fase 2 (Mozbio2) e foi actualizado para attender o MozBio 2 e GEF 7 Fundos Adicionais (FA). O documento constitui um instrumento de salvaguarda do Banco Mundial accionado pela Política Operacional (PO)4.12. O documento foi elaborado durante o desenho do Projecto com base nos riscos sociais identificados e na avaliação de possíveis factores desencadeadores da política. Apos aprovação o documento fará parte dos acordos de financiamento do projecto devendo ser monitorado e auditado quando aplicavel. O documento foi produzido com base na consulta aos Administradores e membros das equipes das Áreas de Conservação e (AC) de todas as ACs alvo e respectivas Paisagens, juntamente com uma ampla gama de entrevistas realizadas com vários interessados. Entrevistas e diálogos em curso com o pessoal da Mozbio-1 a nível nacional e outros envolvidos na concepção do Mozbio2 e GEF 7 FA foram conduzidos ao longo do período de trabalho. Mozbio2 Descrição do Projecto Objectivo. O Projecto para Biodiversidade e Desenvolvimento das Áreas de Conservação em Moçambique - Fase 2, faz parte de uma série de projectos que visam contribuir para a conservação e desenvolvimento. O Objectivo de Desenvolvimento do Projecto é melhorar a gestão das Paisagens de ACs alvo e melhorar as condições de vida das comunidades dentro e a volta das referidas ACs. Como Mozbio (1), o Mozbio2 foi classificado como um projecto de categoria B, uma vez que os potenciais impactos ambientais e sociais negativos serão menores, específicos para cada local, reversíveis e gerenciáveis. Componentes. O Mozbio2 é um projecto de cinco anos com três componentes: 1) Fortalecimento das Instituições de Conservação da Biodiversidade; 2) Melhoramento da Gestão de Áreas de Conservação em paisagens alvo; e 3) Promoção de desenvolvimento rural compatível com a conservação e o maneio sustentável da paisagem nas paisagens alvo. Cada componente compreende um conjunto de actividades que devem resultar na obtenção de um conjunto de resultados (produtos e resultados). Foi aidicionada a componente de atendimento a emergências designada “Contingency Emergency Response Component- CERC”. A mesma esta projetada para fornecer uma resposta rápida em caso de crise ou emergência qualificada por meio de uma parte dos fundos não desembolsados do projeto para atender às necessidades imediatas de financiamento pós-crise e emergência. O CERC pode ser usado após desastres naturais, epidemias globais ou outras crises e emergências, permitindo que os fundos sejam realocados de outros componentes do projeto. Grupos-alvo. O Projecto terá como alvo as pessoas que vivem dentro e ao redor de ACs específicas que podem ser potencialmente afectadas pelo acesso e uso limitado de recursos naturais para sua subsistência. Cobertura geográfica. Embora se concentre em três Áreas de Conservação (ACs), o Projecto terá a abordagem de paisagem adoptada pelo extinto Ministério da Terra, Ambiente e Desenvolvimento Rural (MITADER) e apoiada pelo Banco Mundial (BM). O Mozbio2 irá neste contexto visar as seguintes paisagens: 9 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Paisagem da Costa dos Elefantes (Reserva Especial de Maputo e Reserva Parcial Marinha da Ponta do Ouro, Ilha de Inhaca e a Reserva Florestal de Licuáti) Paisagem de Chimanimami (Reserva Nacional de Chimanimani e as reservas florestas de Moribane, Zomba e Maronga) Paisagem de Complexo de Marromeu (inclui a Reserva Nacional de Marromeu, as coutadas 10,11 e 14) Todas as três ACs alvo e paisagens mais amplas têm características ecológicas, geográficas, demográficas e sociais únicas, o que exige respostas operacionais específicas ao contexto com base em instrumentos de políticas do Projecto. Grupos sociais que exigem atenção especial. As mulheres enfrentam múltiplas barreiras a caminho de igualdade de gênero, incluindo menor escolaridade, renda e poder de decisão do que os homens, são mais atingidas pelas mudanças domésticas ou climáticas e também são as principais vítimas da violência baseada em gênero. As mulheres desempenham um papel de liderança na gestão de suas casas e na alimentação de suas famílias. Os jovens também requerem atenção especial; sem ser especificamente visados, os jovens rurais têm poucas oportunidades fora da agricultura e têm baixa participação nos principais programas de agricultura ou desenvolvimento. Idosos e pessoas com deficiência são também um grupo vulnerável que exige atenção especial. Devido a sua situação são normalmente descriminados incluindo na participação de programas de auscultação no seio das comunidades. Arranjos gerais de gestão. Várias instituições de diferentes sectores estarão envolvidas na implementação do Projecto sob a liderança da Unidade de Implementação do Projecto de Mozbio2 (Mozbio2 UIP) e GEF 7 FA, dentro do Fundo Nacional para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável (FNDS) abrigado no Ministério da Agricultura e Desenvolvimento Rural. Quadro de Política de Reassentamento Este Quadro de Política de Reassentamento (QPR) é um dos instrumentos de Salvaguarda Social produzido para o Projecto MozBio 2 e GEF 7 FA prescrito pelo Banco Mundial. O Projecto não prevê nem apoia qualquer deslocamento físico de famílias como resultado de suas operações, mas a aquisição de terras e a preparação do local atendendo aos requisitos para construção provavelmente causará impactos de deslocamento económico. em pessoas que possam ter activos productivos ou não- productivos nesses locais. Casos de possíveis deslocamentos económicos serão atendidos conforme procedimentos do presente QPR, especificamente no capitulo 5. A tabela 1 do presente documento descreve os riscos inerentes as actividades do MozBio e GEF 7 que possam activar a OP 4.12 O objectivo do QPR é de estabelecer os princípios e procedimentos para triagem e rejeição de sub- projectos de infraestruturas incluindo concessões turisticas que causem impactos de reassentamento economico e identificar respostas aos impactos sociais e econômicos preparando Planos de Reassentamento Abreviados. Como estes apenas atenderão às necessidades de compensação por deslocamento econômico, para maior clareza, eles também serão chamados de Planos de Compensação1 1 Como a legislação de Moçambique não distingue a escala de impacto que correlaciona impactos menores com instrumentos de reassentamento mais simples, para esclarecer que não haverá reassentamento físico, o uso do termo 'Plano de Compensação' indica a diferença e como não é legislado e portanto, não tem de cumprir estritamente os requisitos do Plano de Acção de Reassentamento de 10 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing neste QPR. O QPR fornece orientações sobre como identificar quando esses planos são necessários e sobre seu conteúdo. Ele fornece uma estrutura de referência para as medidas que devem ser tomadas para evitar e minimizar os impactos que causam o reassentamento involuntário, juntamente com as políticas e os princípios que orientam as compensações quando necessário e os custos indicativos do processo. Também descreve os arranjos institucionais associados a planificação e implementação do reassentamento involuntário no âmbito do MozBio 2 e GEF 7 FA. O conteúdo deste documento está alinhado com as políticas nacionais e as políticas do Banco Mundial. Importa mencionar que os potencias subprojectos de infraestruturas ou concessões turísticas serão implementados nas AC’s alvo e nas suas zonas tampão, definidas no projecto com paisagens das respectivas AC’s. Estas áreas tem um risco potencial para existência de conflitos homem fauna bravia (H-FB) e o MozBio ira contribuir com o desenvolvimento de uma estrategia de mitigação deste conflito atraves de um serviço de consultoria que inclui identificação de hots pots de conflitos e estrategias especificas de mitigação traduzidas em planos de acção a serem executados pelas AC’s. A metodologia SAPA- Social Assessment for Protect Areas - vem sendo implementada pelo MozBio e e pode ser considerada como um elemento adicional na mitigação do conflito H-FB uma vez que a mesma assegura a participação das principais partes interessadas na tomada de decisão sobre os impactos positivos e negativos das actividades das AC’s. A mitigação do conflito H-FB é amplamente discutida entre as partes afectadas e interessadas e vai ser desenhado e implementado um plano de acção com apoio do projecto MozBio. O QPR foi preparado após ampla consulta aos principais interessados e com o apoio das especialistas em salvaguardas e comunitárias do Mozbio e da FNDS, para auxiliar no acesso a dados técnicos e informações organizacionais e institucionais. As partes interessadas foram consultadas. nas três paisagens durante visitas de recolha de informação. As consultas envolveram encontros com instituições chave, governo local e comunidades na paisagem e particularmente na zona tampão, coutadas e interior das AC’s. (síntese de consultas disponíveis nos anexos 12 e 13 do ESMF) As principais lições aprendidas das ACs alvo e suas paisagens durante a preparação deste QPR incluem ainda a gestão insatisfatória de conflictos entre humanos e animais bravios dentro e fora das das ACs, e lições extraídas de experiências anteriores de reassentamento dentro e fora das ACs em todas as paisagens alvo. Estes apontam para o papel chave do Governo Distrital em liderar processos de acolhimento de reassentamento fora das AC’s; a necessidade de o Governo Distrital reconhecer as Coutadas como áreas parcialmente protegidas com um propósito de conservação para que elas não sejam usadas para localizar o reassentamento em escala grande ou média. Expectativas não correspondidas resultantes da experiência passada de reassentamento e níveis de compensação podem ser expressas pelas comunidades durante o MozBio 2 e GEF 7 FA . É importante que informações suficientes sejam disseminadas por meio de uma estratégia de comunicação abrangente e que todos os processos de compensação do MozBio 2 e GEF 7 FA sejam altamente participativos, ou seja, que efectivamente envolvam homens, mulheres, jovens e grupos vulneráveis em todas as etapas do ciclo de planificação e implementação Quando os detalhes da aquisição de direitos de terra e reassentamento não são totalmente conhecidos , acordo com a legislação moçambicana, em conformidade com as normas do Banco Mundial, o seu nível de detalhe reflectirá a magnitude e o nível de complexidade dos deslocamentos económicos causados pelo Projecto. 11 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing como um princípio de precaução, é necessária um QPR para estabelecer a princípios de política para informação pública e discussão no caso de qualquer reassentamento que deve ocorrer devido directa ou indirectamente ao Projecto MozBio 2 e GEF 7 FA. Os princípios delineados na Política Operacional do Banco Mundial OP / BP 4.12 são usados na preparação do QPR. Estes princípios e as medidas de reassentamento deles decorrentes aplicar-se-ão a todos os subprojectos e actividades do MozBio 2 e GEF 7 FA, quer ou não a escala e complexidade das questões de compensação e de reassentamento requeiram a preparação de um Plano de Reassentamento (PR). A política do Banco Mundial aplica-se a todos os componentes do Projecto que resultem em perda involuntária de propriedade. Contudo, se uma actividade não financiada pelo Banco Mundial que cause o reassentamento faz parte do desenho ou desempenho do projecto financiado pelo Banco, ou se o sequenciamento de actividades resultar no reassentamento que ocorre ao mesmo tempo que a implementação do Projecto, a PO 4.12 será accionada. Uma abordagem de devida diligência será necessária se quaisquer atividades associadas e não financiadas pelo Banco Mundial, mas relevantes para o desempenho da MozBio 2 e GEF 7 FA, causarem reassentamento ou compensação durante o período de implementação do Projecto. Serão identificados e capacitados pontos focais de salvaguardas a nível da ANAC e Biofund para em colaboração com a equipa de salvaguardas do FNDS assegurar-se a observância dos aspectos de salvaguardas em outras actividades a serem implementadas nas AC’s O reassentamento abrange o deslocamento físico e o deslocamento económico. Assim, a necessidade de reassentamento e compensação refere-se ao impacto do empreendimento que causa a perda ou a perda de acesso a quaisquer bens que crescem ou estão permanentemente afixados à terra, como abrigos, edifícios e culturas e também ao impacto que causa perda, ou acesso a uma base de recursos econômicos ou meios de subsistência das comunidades locais. Perdas podem ser totais ou parciais. A ausência de título legal para uso e usufruto da terra não limita os direitos à compensação. Deve ser dada preferência a estratégias de reassentamento baseadas em terra para pessoas deslocadas cujos meios de subsistência são baseados em terra. Se a terra alternativa suficiente não estiver disponível, opções sustentaveis não baseadas na terra criadas em torno de oportunidades de emprego ou trabalho por conta própria devem ser fornecidas em adição à compensação em dinheiro pela terra e outros activos perdidos. As pessoas afectadas pelas ACs devem ser assistidas para melhorar ou restaurar seus meios de subsistência de uma maneira que mantenha a sustentabilidade das reservas e áreas protegidas. Actividades de monitoria serão incluídas no processo para garantir uma correcta assitencia técnica. Onde a comunidade que usa os recursos decide restringir o acesso a esses recursos como podia acontecer com a criação pelo Projecto de Áreas de Conservação Comunitárias regidas pela Lei da Protecção, Conservação e Uso Sustentável da Biodiversidade de Mocambique (Lei N. 5/2017), desde que o processo de tomada de decisões da comunidade seja considerado adequado pelo Banco, e que forneça a identificação de medidas apropriadas para mitigar quaisquer impactos adversos sobre os membros vulneráveis da comunidade, estas restrições não são consideradas involuntárias. A necessidade de envolver as comunidades na planificação e implementação de intervenções que resultam dessas políticas é indispensável. Deve-se dar atenção especial às necessidades dos grupos vulneráveis, especialmente aqueles que vivem abaixo da linha da pobreza, sem-terra, idosos, mulheres e crianças e minorias étnicas. As pessoas deslocadas e suas comunidades, e as comunidades anfitriãs que as recebem, devem receber informações oportunas e relevantes sobre direitos e opções, ser consultadas sobre opções de 12 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing reassentamento e oferecidas opções e alternativas de reassentamento técnica e economicamente viáveis, bem como oportunidades para participar na planificação, implementação e monitoria do reassentamento. Mecanismos de queixas apropriados e acessíveis devem ser estabelecidos para esses grupos. As medidas necessárias antes do deslocamento económico incluem provisão de compensação e de outra assistência necessária para a substituição, realocação e preparação e fornecimento de locais de reassentamento com instalações adequadas. A aquisição de terrenos e activos relacionados só pode ser realizada após o pagamento da compensação. A compensação em dinheiro por activos perdidos pode ser paga para fontes de subsistência que não sejam baseadas em terra. Os níveis de compensação devem ser suficientes para substituir os activos pelo custo total de reposição nos mercados locais. A compensação em dinheiro por activos perdidos é apropriada quando os meios de subsistência são baseados em terra mas a terra adquirida para o Projecto é uma pequena fracção do activo afectado e o que resta é economicamente viável, garantindo que os níveis de compensação sejam suficientes para a substituição de terras e outros activos a taxas de mercado local. O projecto prevê apoiar com oportunidades para melhorar os meios de subsistência, como áreas de conservação comunitária, agricultura de conservação, uso sustentável de recursos naturais e identificação e implementação de actividades que tenham uma cadeia de valor sustentável na paisagem. No caso de compensação em dinheiro, o projecto vai assessorar as pessoas afectadas pelo projecto sobre o melhor uso da compensação para restaurar e melhorar os seus meios de vida. Conforme necessário, os locais agrícolas com potencial produtivo em locais convenientes devem ser fornecidos como compensação, quando necessário, assegurando que as condições sejam no mínimo equivalentes às vantagens do local antigo. Recursos alternativos ou semelhantes devem ser fornecidos para compensar a perda de acesso a recursos da comunidade, como áreas de pesca e áreas de recursos energéticos como lenha. Quando necessário e somente para um período de transição, as pessoas afectadas pelo Projecto devem receber apoio após o deslocamento, com base em uma estimativa razoável do tempo que será necessário para restaurar seu sustento e padrões de vida anteriores. Eles também devem receber assistência de desenvolvimento, além de compensação, como preparação de terras, facilidades de crédito, treinamento ou oportunidades de trabalho, conforme necessário. Em casos de actividades agricolas, as culturas não devem ser retiradas devendo se respeitar a colheita. Quando não for possível, as pessoas afectadas pelo projecto devem receber compensação ate ter a nova colheita. O Banco Mundial não cobrirá nenhum custo de reassentamento físico como parte do Projecto MozBio 2 e GEF 7 FA. Existem três tipos principais de impactos causados pelas actividades do Projecto que podem causar deslocamento e a necessidade de compensação ou reassentamento involuntário Esses são: • A construção e melhoria de vias de acesso existentes dentro de ACs, a localização de infraestruturas dentro e fora das ACs e a possibilidade de aquisição de direitos de uso da terra fora das ACs para actividades de desenvolvimento econômico relacionadas ao Projecto que resultam em pessoas perdendo acesso ou uso de terras nas quais eles tinham activos ou exerceram actividades económicas ou de subsistência. • Também é possível que durante a construção de vias de acesso em particular, mas também outras infraestruturas e edifícios, que os construtores inadvertidamente causem danos aos bens das pessoas, como culturas e estruturas de abrigos ou outras, por exemplo. • Concessões para gestão de recursos naturais ou turismo podem ser criadas como parte do 13 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Projecto e se os esforços para garantir a posse envolvem a aquisição de títulos de direitos de uso de terra (DUAT), então existe a possibilidade de pessoas perderem acesso ou uso de terra em que eles tinham activos ou exerciam actividades económicas ou de subsistência. A mitigação de impacto está sendo abordada no nível do Projecto, através de várias acções que irão mitigar a maioria dos impactos e, em muitos casos, evitá-los completamente. Um Quadro de Processos de participação foi desenvolvido para o Projecto para indicar as maneiras pelas quais as pessoas afectadas pelo Projecto participarão na tomada de decisões sobre acções de mitigação e gestão que irão afectá-las. O objectivo de sua participação é de garantir que as medidas sejam planificadas de maneira adequada para garantir a melhoria ou a restauração dos meios de subsistência e dos padrões de vida. As salvaguardas ambientais do Projecto utilizarão um processo de triagem de actividades de construção e subprojectos propostos que podem resultar em uma Avaliação Ambiental (e Social) (EAS) simplificada. A triagem envolverá uso duma ferramenta para identificar os riscos de potencialmente afectar os direitos individuais ou comunitários de uso da terra, a ocupação ou o nos locais especificados pelos proponentes. O EAS simplificado deve recomendar medidas de prevenção e mitigação para minimizar os impactos. Quaisquer perdas de acesso, uso e direitos à terra devem ser compensadas e, portanto, serão tratadas de acordo com este QPR. Se a magnitude do impacto envolver mais de 40 famílias ou aproximadamente 200 pessoas, a avaliação ambiental e social incluiria, então, a colecta de dados básicos socioeconômicos e uma análise de impacto. Como se espera apenas ter impactos menores das actividades do MozBio 2 e GEF 7 FA envolvendo a aquisição de direitos de uso da terra, a avaliação da aquisição de terras normalmente seria um exercício de baixo custo e curta duração. Um Protocolo de Regularização de Posse de Terra (PRPT) foi elaborado para orientar o diálogo e a consulta para verificação e consolidação de posse dos direitos de uso da terra pelos participantes directos do Projecto nas paisagens alvo dos projectos da FNDS. O Protocolo define que a alocação de terras para actividades produtivas, seja ela apontada por beneficiários (individuais ou grupos) ou por entidades do governo através de concessões, deve passar pelo processo de avaliação da posse da terra e resolução de potenciais conflitos potenciais assegurando que os subprojectos: (i) contam com documentação ou evidência suficiente dos direitos de uso e aproveitamento da terra por parte dos beneficiários, seja como detentores de DUAT ou através de acordos formais com detentores de DUATs; (ii) não estão sujeitos a conflitos de direitos ou uso da terra; (iii) não causam impactos adversos não mitigáveis a indivuduo ou grupos vulneráveis. Como tal, este Protocolo também será aplicado a MozBio 2 e GEF 7 FA para orientar a ferramenta de triagem que será usada para avaliar a situação de posse de direitos de uso de terra como linha de base de qualquer subprojecto proposto ou local de construção. Contudo, no caso de actividades com impactos menores que não precisam de um EAS, o PRPT será usado para decidir se um Plano de Reassentamento (PR) abreviado ou um Plano de Compensação (PC) é necessário. É importante registar as atitudes e expectativas da comunidade nesse estágio, e o processo deve ser encerrado com um documento formalmente assinado, registando os resultados da Avaliação e o acordo sobre o caminho a seguir. Com base no PRPT, o Banco Mundial aconselhará o FNDS, a preparar um PR abreviado ou um PC, e tomar outras acções correctivas se necessário . Se um PR abreviado ou um Plano de Compensação for acordado, este será preparado de acordo com os requisitos deste QPR. Se um PAR completo for necessário, o subprojecto ou projecto de construção não será elegível para financiamento através da MozBio 2 e GEF 7 FA. 14 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Ilustração 1 Que instrumento de reassentamento deve ser usado? Para áreas onde possam ser estabelecidos subprojectos que envolvam a aquisição de títulos de direitos de uso da terra, espera-se que quaisquer detentores de direitos anteriores consultados durante o processo de aquisição do DUAT entrem em acordo sobre participação nos benefícios (isso pode ser registrado através do processo PRPT). Se este for o caso, não há necessidade de compensação e os acordos seriam guiados pela Quadro dos Processos de participação do Projecto. O zoneamento do nível macro é incluído como parte do desenho do Projecto, e envolve partes interessadas de níveis mais altos e locais que podem trazer várias questões para a discussão e terminarão com a chegada ao acordo sobre quais áreas devem ser usadas para quais finalidades. Medidas que evitam ou mitigam os impactos directos nos agregados familiares que causam danos ou perdas de propriedade serão requisitos importantes de zoneamento. Quando o zoneamento não protege a propriedade dos indivíduos, a compensação apropriada deve ser acordada e paga de acordo com as diretrizes deste QPR. O Quadro dos Processos participativos do Projecto deve ser usado para orientar a mitigação dos impactos e a gestão de todos os outros resultados de zoneamento dentro e ao redor das áreas protegidas, onde o uso de recursos pelas comunidades é restrito. A delimitação de terra comunitária envolve micro-zoneamento que identifica recursos e será usado para identificar claramente as expectativas da comunidade sobre benefícios, caso algum empreendimento promovido por um investidor seja realizado em partes específicas de sua área delimitada. O processo de delimitação basea-se na confirmação e consenso dos limites das comunidades vizinhas e outros ocupantes limítrofes da área. No geral, as motivações mais comuns para a delimitação de terras comunitárias são: (i) Confererir à comunidade a segurança de posse de terra atraves de certificados; (ii) Dispertar aos membros das comunidades o conhecimento real dos limites e do potencial de recursos incluindo seus direitos sobre os mesmos; (iii) Promover a organização da comunidade local e a consolidação da estrutura tradicional na tomada de decisões e (iv) Criar uma base para estabelecimento de parcerias com o sector privado. 15 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing As restrições e/ou cedências de direito de uso de terra não são aplicadas no processo de delimitação comunitária sendo o processo caracterizado como um reforço do uso de terra pelas normas costumeiras existentes na comunidade. O Projecto vai apoiar o processo de delimitação comunitária incluindo a elaboraçao da agenda comunitária, o plano de uso de terra e o reforço da estrutura de governação comunitária atraves da preparação social e capacitação especifica a ser orientada para melhoria da governação comunitária. Em circunstâncias gerais esses resultados irão referir ao Quadro de Processos Participativos do Projecto, quando um Acordo Comunitário acompanhará a cessão de qualquer terreno da comunidade para actividades de desenvolvimento econômico promovidas pelo Projecto e estipulará as condições acordadas. Se a terra cedida pela comunidade contiver propriedades de indivíduos que involuntariamente perderão o uso delas, assim dando-os o direito a uma compensação individual; isso será guiado pelos princípios e procedimentos deste QPR. Contudo é pouco provável que a construção de infraestruturas dentro das ACs afecte a propriedade das pessoas devido ao baixo número de residentes. Elegibilidade para compensação Para evitar reclamações de pessoas que chegam após a data limite, um censo de pessoas deslocadas e seus bens deve ser realizado no momento da declaração da data limite para identificar aqueles que são elegíveis para compensação. Isso identificará os ocupantes elegíveis e estabelecerá o tamanho e a qualidade das estruturas existentes, o uso actual da terra e outras informações relevantes. Reclamaões posteriores a data limite deverão ser investigadas e encaminhadas para compensação ou não conforme resultado da referida investigação. Os prováveis deslocados (economicamente) podem ser categorizados em três grupos; (1) Indivíduos Afectados, (2) Agregados Familiares Afectados e (3) Grupos Vulneráveis (que podem incluir pessoas afectadas pelo HIV / SIDA, órfãos, idosos, mulheres chefe por agregados familiares, etc.). Grupos (2) e (3) merecem atenção especial, identificando suas necessidades do estudo socioeconômico e de linha de base da EAS, para que (i) sejam individualmente consultados e tenham a oportunidade (isto é, não deixem) de participar nas actividades do Projecto, (ii) que sua compensação é desenhada para melhorar seu sustento da situação pré-projecto (iii) é dada especial atenção para monitorá-los para garantir que seus meios de subsistência antes do projecto sejam efectivamente melhorados, (iv) receberão assistência técnica e financeira, se assim o desejarem para fazer uso dos mecanismos de reclamação do Projecto, e (v) as decisões concernentes a eles são tomadas no menor tempo possível. O banco de dados de inventário de bens será usado para identificar todas as propriedades que precisarão de compensação ao nível individual e da comunidade. A decisão sobre os direitos a compensação será tomada pela FNDS/UGP após a análise de todos os casos. Cada família elegível a compensação ou outra assistência deve então ser informada sobre a base da decisão e as opções de assistência que ela tem. Esse processo deve ser documentado para o Plano de Reassentamento / Plano de Compensação (PR / PC), incluindo as decisões tomadas e suas razões em cada etapa do caminho. Caso sejam apresentadas queixas contra decisões sobre elegibilidade, estas devem ser tratadas através do Mecanismo de Dialogo e Reclamações –MDR, instrumento desenvolvido pelo FNDS para apresentar duvidas, reclamações e sugestões sobre as actividades do projecto e que contribui para transparência dos processos. (Veja: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qJ6SgclpBP9n7gVs6hiwchUqWyqE37LL/view) 16 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Os princípios para cálculo de compensação do Banco Mundial serão utilizados para assegurar que as normas nacionais cumprem com os requisitos do Banco Mundial. Eles são: a) o uso de custos de substituição para estruturas afectadas; (calculado com base nos preços actualizados de materiais e mão- de-obra no mercado local), b) a inclusão de custos de transacção no valor de compensação e, c) o custo de reposição sem considerar a depreciação. Portanto, as últimas tabelas do Governo de compensação vigentes no momento do cálculo da compensação necessária devem ser utilizadas, levando em conta a inflação acumulada entre a data de emissão e a data de avaliação. As taxas oficiais documentadas de inflação serão usadas para este propósito. Caso o valor resultante seja menor do que os preços resultantes de uma avaliação objectiva dos preços a um valor de plena substituição dos mesmos produtos no mercado local, será adoptado um preço justo e do lado mais alto da média encontrada para cada activo no local similar e em locais próximos. Caso os bens não estejam listados em tabelas oficiais de compensação e / ou bens de substituição iguais não estejam disponíveis no mercado local, especialistas técnicos devem ser contratados para avaliar o valor do mercado actual, o que determinaria o valor final da compensação por unidade. Como o cálculo da compensação pela perda (temporária) de outros meios de subsistência (cessação temporária da actividade económica) não é mencionado na legislação, estes serão estimados com base nos princípios do Banco Mundial. Os acordos de compensação individual e comunitária serão formalmente documentados e assinados com cópias entregues aos beneficiários da compensação e o GoD/ FNDS manterá os registros por um período mínimo de cinco anos depois da compensação ter sido completamente pago. Os acordos de compensação individual são passiveis de consultas por terceiros sempre que a contraparte necessite. Os beneficiários serão informados das opões de consulta (governo distrital, paralegais ou outro) sobre os acordos para que o façam informados e conscientes. Responsabilidades institucionais O Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento Sustentavel é responsável pelas operações do Projecto, incluindo a planificação e a implementação de Planos de Reassentamento abreviados/Planos de Compensação. Especialistas de salvaguardas anivel central do FNDS apoiam de forma transversal aos projectos do FNDS no geral incluindo o MozBIO 2. A nível central o FNDS conta com um coordenador do projecto e 1 especialista de salvaguardas dedicados estritamente ao projecto. O FNDS estabeleceu Unidades de Gestão de Paisagem (UGPs) nos distritos de Sussundenga, Marromeu, e Matutuine, a paisagem de Matutuine recebera também o apoio virá da UIP central. No nível de paisagem da AC, as UGPs coordenarão e monitorarão o progresso da implementação do Projecto e interagirão com as autoridades do Distrito. A UGP terá um coordenador, um técnico de Salvaguardas e terá especialistas técnicos (infraestruturas e áreas de cadeias de valor e um especialista em desenvolvimento sustentável) e apoio administrativo (contabilista). Eles reportam ao Coordenador do projecto a nível central e aos Directores Provinciais de Terra e Ambiente. A UIP de MozBio 2 e GEF 7 FA liderará a preparação e implementação de PR / PC através de serviços prestados pelas UGPs. A preparação e implementação do PR / PC será feita em coordenação com o Governo Distrital, a Administração da AC e a UGP. O processo de compensação requer a conscientização da comunidade sobre os procedimentos e prazos para a implementação da compensação, bem como o desenvolvimento de todo o Projecto. Esta actividade de sensibilização é de responsabilidade da UIP e as 17 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing UGPs. A assistência técnica da Equipa Transversal de Apoio aos Projectos do FNDS será necessária para garantir que todos os procedimentos sejam compreendidos pelos homens e mulheres envolvidos na implementação. Eles também podem precisar da ajuda de um especialista em comunicação, possivelmente do Gabinete de Imagem e Comunicação da FNDS ou contratado, que também será responsável pela comunicação externa. A UIP do MozBio 2 e GEF 7 FA, assegurará que as famílias a quem a compensação foi paga pela perda de ativos produtivos recebam parcelas de terra para agricultura com título sempre que possível, e que a parcela de terra não seja vendida curto tempo depois de ser recebida. O FNDS garantirá que os contratados sejam instruídos para que não comecem a trabalhar nos locais do Projecto ocupados ou utilizados até que os bens sejam compensados e as áreas fisicamente desocupadas. Onde foram criados a nível comunitária (vê em baixo), Comités Comunitárias precisarão de fornecer à FNDS um relatório com informações suficientes para garantir que essa conformidade possa ser registada. O Pelouro de Gestão de Projectos da FNDS será responsável por supervisionar a coordenação intra- e interdepartamental e por garantir o cumprimento da divulgação pública, participação e consulta. A nível distrital, o SDAE e o SDPI apoiarão a avaliação de bens produtivos e de bens não produtivos, quando necessário, e podem participar no rastreio de subprojectos para identificar a magnitude dos impactos em colaboração com o assistente técnico de salvaguardas. A comunicação entre estes Serviços e os gestores da AC e UGPs será importante para contribuir para o redesenho de actividades, locais ou acordos com os PAPs para reduzir ou evitar impactos sempre que forem detectados através de PRPTs. Duas ACs já possuem equipes de Desenvolvimento Comunitário que podem estar envolvidas na realização de estudos de referência e no monitoramento da implementação de PRs / CPs. Em Marromeu, nenhuma das ACs tem oficiais de Desenvolvimento Comunitário. Dois Facilitadores de Desenvolvimento Comunitário por cada Paisagem são recomendados no Quadro de Processos participativos do MozBio 2 e GEF 7 FA, e serão essas pessoas que serão responsável por auxiliar na colecta de informações, planificação e implementação da compensação. Durante a preparação do PR / PC pelo assistente de Salvaguardas na paisagem, esta pessoa irá treinar e supervisionar um Facilitador de Desenvolvimento Comunitário na paisagem, Extensionistas da Paisagem para que eles possam posteriormente apoiar a implementação de PR / PC e o pagamento de compensação. O assistente de Salvaguardas da Paisagem coordenará o envolvimento do SDAE, do SDPI e do SDSMAS, do Gestor da CA, dos Facilitadores do Desenvolvimento Comunitário e outros relevantes para a implementação do processo. A equipe de salvaguardas é responsável por assegurar a participação da comunidade na implementação do PR/PC incluindo supervisão e monitoria. Esta actividade será desenvolvida em colaboração com os governos distritais.. A equipe da UGP coordenará as actividades nos distritos e fornecerá informações ao Coordenador da UIP. A UGP deve garantir que uma cópia de todas as informações sociais colectadas localmente seja mantida nos escritórios da UIP da FNDS. É improvável que a escala de actividades precisará de qualquer organização de nível comunitário - como Comitês de Compensação (CCs), entretanto, onde interações sejam feitas directamente com as comunidades, estas devem ser feitas através das autoridades locais, líderes locais e somente depois destes, directamente com as pessoas afectadas. No início do processo de implementação, se o número de famílias afectadas por uma actividade ou subprojecto for igual a 40 ou mais, um Comitê de Compensação (CC) de subprojecto será estabelecido para representar e defender os interesses desses grupos. O CC incluirá representantes das várias áreas afectadas 18 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing de acordo com suas divisões administrativas. Os CCs devem ser treinados em questões sociais e de gestão e devem ser apoiados por Facilitadores de Desenvolvimento Comunitário. Os membros do Comitê devem incluir pelo menos 40% de mulheres e, de preferência, uma percentagem ainda maior, para que sua representação seja adequada. Os Facilitadores de Desenvolvimento Comunitário organizarão a criação e o desenvolvimento da capacidade dos comitês. Esses comitês serão pontos focais importantes para a implementação e resolução de questões de compensação, e serão mecanismos para ligação aos Facilitadores de Desenvolvimento Comunitário, aos contratados, autoridades locais, município, governo distrital, pessoal de salvaguardas da UGP e UIP de Mozbio2. Todos os Planos abreviados de Reassentamento / Planos de Compensação (PR / CP) serão submetidos à UIP da FNDS e ao Banco Mundial para revisão e aprovação antes que a compensação seja concedida e subsequentemente implementados antes do início dos trabalhos de construção ou outras actividades do sub-projecto. A seguinte tabela resume as principais respnsabilidades institucionais: UIP Sensibilização sobre os procedimentos e prazos para a implementação da compensação Assegurar que as famílias quem recebem compensação pela perda de ativos produtivos recebam parcelas de terra para agricultura com título e que a parcela de terra não seja transpassada no curto tempo depois de ser recebida. Garantir que os contratados sejam instruídos para que só iniciem os trabalhos ate que os bens sejam compensados Nível central e as áreas fisicamente desocupadas Coordenar as actividades nos distritos e fornecer informações ao Coordenador da UIP. Garantir que uma cópia de todas as informações sociais FNDS colectadas localmente seja mantida nos escritórios da UIP da FNDS. Garantir o cumprimento da divulgação pública, participação e Oficial salvaguardas consulta Apoiar e orientar ao técnico assistente de salvaguardas da UGP ao longo de todo o processo UGP Liderar a preparação e implementação de PR / PC em coordenação com a UGP, o Governo Distrital e a Administração da AC e a UGP Paisagem Criar um Comitê de Compensação (CC) se o grupo de pessoas afectadas é superior a 40 para representar e defender os interesses do grupo Sensibilizar sobre os procedimentos e prazos para a 19 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing implementação da compensação Submeter os PR / CP à UIP da FNDS e ao Banco Mundial para revisão e aprovação antes que a compensação seja concedida Treinar e supervisionar os oficiais de desenvolvimento Técnico assistente salvaguardas comunitário das ACs e os extensionistas da UGP para apoiar a implementação de PR / PC e o pagamento de compensação Coordenar o envolvimento do SDAE, SDPI, SDSMAS, Administrador e Oficiais comunitários da AC na implementação do processo Assegurar a participação da comunidade na implementação do PR/PC incluindo supervisão e monitoria Governo Apoiar a avaliação de bens produtivos e de bens não produtivos das famílias afectadas local (SDAE SDPI Participar no rastreio de subprojectos para identificar a magnitude dos impactos em SDSMAS) colaboração com o assistente técnico de salvaguardas Participar na implementação do PR/PC AC Participar na realização de estudos de referência e no monitoramento da implementação de PRs / CPs (oficial Treinar aos membros do Comité de Compensação em questões sociais e de gestao comunitário) Comunidade Participar na implementação do PR/PC incluindo supervisão e monitoria Consulta, Queixas e Monitoramento O processo de preparação do PR / PC é participativo e através de consultas durante os estudos socioeconômicos e avaliações de impacto, os potenciais conflitos e canais de comunicação para as reclamações devem ser identificados. O processo de consulta deve envolver todas as pessoas potencialmente afectadas. Durante e após a implementação, as consultas individuais e em grupo devem continuar a verificar o progresso dos acetados em assumir novas actividades de subsistência e em restaurar as suas vidas aos níveis anteriores aos impactos do Projecto. O MozBio 2 e GEF 7 FA, contará com o Mecanismo de Reclamações e Diálogo que foi estabelecido para todos os projectos incluídos na Carteira Integrada de Gestão da Paisagem do Banco Mundial em Moçambique - denominado “Mecanismo de Diálogo e Reclamações (MDR)2”. Um esboço disto é mostrado abaixo: 20 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing O processo de resolução de reclamações de acordo com o MDR Todas as reclamações são registadas na plataforma existente. As reclamações são feitas directamente aos destinatários do primeiro nível ao nível da comunidade, onde eles podem ser resolvidos imediatamente, se possível. Caso necessitem de apoio técnico dos Especialistas em Salvaguardas Sociais da FNDS ou decisões da gestão do FNDS, estes podem ser solicitados como um recurso de segundo nível. Finalmente, se um caso não puder ser resolvido internamente, ele pode ser encaminhado pelo FNDS (com a concordância do reclamante) para um mediador independente para resolução. Espera-se que as reclamações sejam, na medida do possível, resolvidas de maneira amigável e a nível local. Contudo o MDR foi desenvolvido assegurando três níveis de resolução incluindo mediador independente e o reclamante será sempre informado que existe a opção judicial caso não queira resolver pelo sistema disponibilizado através do MDR. Se para a resolução do caso for necessário considerar compensações adicionais significativas, medidas correctivas complexas ou a imposição de sanções, estas devem estar em linha com as regras operativas do Projecto, o quadro legal nacional, e as politicas do Banco Mundial (particularmente as salvaguardas sócio ambientais). Decisões sobre resolução e comunicação ao reclamante devem ser tomadas em tempo hábil em todos os níveis. Se as pessoas afectadas não ficarem satisfeitas com o processo informal do MDR, ou porque a natureza da queixa requer um apelo a um nível mais alto, a legislação nacional prevê a apresentação de queixas em vários sectores nos níveis mais altos do Governo, como Directores Nacionais e Ministros. Além disso, caso uma das partes esteja insatisfeita, a parte afetada pode levar a queixa ao tribunal, onde será tratada de acordo com a lei moçambicana. Em princípio, uma comunidade pode levar uma empresa a tribunal por não cumprir os termos de um plano de gestão ambiental. Todos os cidadãos têm o direito de apresentar denúncias ao Ministério Público, que é responsável por assegurar a correcta aplicação da lei, particularmente no desenvolvimento de instrumentos de gestão territorial e sua implementação. O FNDS garantirá que um "Registo de Reclamações" seja mantido no nível da paisagem. Em todos os casos em que são feitas reclamações sobre a implementação das actividades do Projecto, o FNDS é obrigado a investigar a reclamação e resolvê-la internamente, aplicando o Quadro do Processo e o MDR em uso no 21 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Projecto e retornando a resposta dentro de um período inferior a 15 dias. A gestão do MDR é de responsabilidade do FNDS que deve assegurar a implementação com apoio de parceiros e o Governo a nível provincial e local. A equipa de maneio comunitário a nível do DPTADER são os pontos focais do MDR e portanto, responsáveis de receber, tramitar, investigar e acompanhar o processo de resolução das reclamações. Para reclamações que não possam ser resolvidas informalmente, os oficiais de salvaguardas e oficiais comunitários serão responsáveis por canaliza-las a outras instancias de decisão (de acordo com o definido no Passo 4 do Procedimento no Manual de MDR) e manter informados aos reclamantes. O FNDS é responsável pelo monitoramento através do sistema do MDR alojado no Sistema de Informação de Salvaguardas (SIS) para realizar a monitoria das reclamações. Os sistemas de monitoria e avaliação do Projecto devem incluir indicadores para medir a eficiência da monitoria e resolução das reclamações e incorporá-la no Quadro de Resultados do Projecto. Ao nível da comunidade, os comitês de co-gestão serão os principais fóruns envolvidos no monitoramento participativo. Serão identificados pontos focais a nível dos comités que devem colaborar com a equipa de salvaguardas para o registo das reclamações através de formulários disponibilizados para efeito. Cabendo ao assistente técnico de salvaguardas da UGP recolher os formulários, registar no sistema e dar seguimento na resolução da mesma. Todas as estruturas de gestão da comunidade ligadas às autoridades locais e ao Conselho de Administração da AC devem ouvir, verificar e responder a queixas à medida que os direitos são compreendidos e aceites ou mudam com o tempo. Caso a escala de compensação tenha requerido a criação de CCs, e a Comissão Distrital de Reassentamento estiver envolvida, então estes, os oficiais da UGP e da AC serão responsáveis pela coordenação de seus membros para monitorar e supervisionar a preparação e implementação de PR / PC. As equipes técnicas monitorarão regularmente a situação dos grupos vulneráveis por meio de consultas e, quando necessário, o trabalho de acompanhamento com comunidades e indivíduos identificará atividades e fontes de renda que podem melhorar seu bem-estar. Por fim, as comunidades e indivíduos afectados pelo Projecto podem enviar reclamações relacionadas com o Projeto e as politicas do Banco para atendimento do Serviço de Reparação de Reclamações do Banco Mundial ou ao seu Painel de Inspecção Independente que determina se o dano ocorreu ou poderia ocorrer como resultado do descumprimento de políticas e procedimentos do Banco. Para obter informações sobre como enviar reclamações ao Serviço de Reparação de Reclamações corporativo do Banco Mundial, visite http://www.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/products-and- services/grievance-redress- service. Para obter informações sobre como enviar reclamações ao Painel de Inspeção do Banco Mundial, visite www.inspectionpanel.org. Os custos do MozBio-2 estimados das actividades de compensação e mitigação são de aproximadamente US$300,000. Os custos estimados apresentados neste QPR serão actualizados durante a implementação do Projecto. Os custos estimados para implementação de salvaguardas e das actividades de compensação e mitigação para do GEF-7 Fundos Adicionais estão previstos nos custos Operacionais de cada paisagem. Estima-se que 10% do valor total de cada paisagem seja para custos operacionais incluindo actividades de Salvaguardas. 22 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Executive Summary Introduction and Background This Resettlement Policy Framework was prepared for the Mozambique Conservation Areas for Biodiversity and Development Project - Phase 2 (Mozbio2). The document constitutes a World Bank (WB) safeguard instrument triggered by OP 4.12. The document was prepared during project MozBio- 2 design and updated to GEF 7 Aditional Fund (AF) on the basis of identified social risks and assessment of potential policy triggers. After approval the document will be part of the Project Financing Agreement, if applicable should be monitored and audited. The document was produced on the basis of consultation with the Administrators and Conservation Area (CA) team members in all target ACs and CA’s Landscape, along with a wide range of interviews carried out with various stakeholders. Interviews and on-going dialogue with Mozbio-1 staff at national level and others involved in the design of Mozbio2 were conducted throughout the working period. Mozbio2 and GEF 7 AF Project description Objective. The Mozambique Conservation Areas for Biodiversity and Development Project - Phase 2, is part of a series of projects aiming to contribute to conservation and development. The Project Development Objective is to improve management of targeted Conservation Areas Landscapes and enhance the living conditions of communities in and around these Conservation Areas. Like Mozbio (1), Mozbio2 has been classified as a category B project since potential negative environmental and social impacts will be minor, specific to each site, reversible and manageable. Components. Mozbio2 is a five-year project with three components: 1) Strengthening Biodiversity Conservation Institutions; 2) Improving Conservation Areas Management in target landscapes; and 3) Promoting conservation-compatible rural development and sustainable landscape management in target landscapes. The emergency response component called "Contingency Emergency Response Component- CERC" has been added. It is designed to provide a rapid response in the event of a crisis or qualified emergency through a portion of the funds not disbursed from the project to meet the immediate needs of post-crisis and emergency financing. CERC can be used after natural disasters, global epidemics or other crises and emergencies, allowing funds to be relocated from other components of the project. Target groups: The project will target people living in and around target CAs who may be potentially affected by constrained access and use of natural resources for their livelihoods. Geographic coverage: The Mozbio2 and GEF 7 AF project is being prepared for 3 Conservation Areas Landscapes. These landscapes are made up of different land uses, with one or more conservation areas as a key land use, which is heavily impacted by land uses around it. They are the following: The Elephant Coast Landscape (Maputo Special Reserve and Ponta Do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve, Inhaca island and Licuáti Forest Reserve) Chimanimami Landscape (Chimanimani National Reserve and and Moribane, Zomba and Maronga Forest Reserves) Marromeu Complex Landscape (Marromeu National Reserve, and Coutadas 10, 11 and 14) All three targeted CAs landscapes have unique ecological, geographic, demographic and social characteristics, which calls for context specific operational responses based on project policy instruments. 23 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Social groups requiring special attention . Women face multiple barriers towards gender equality, including lower education, income and decision-making power than men, are harder hit by household or climatic changes and are also the prime victims of gender based violence. Women play a leading role in managing their homes and feeding their families. Youth also require special attention; without being specifically targeted rural youth have few opportunities outside of agriculture and have low participation in mainstream agriculture or development programmes. The elderly and people with disabilities are also a vulnerable group that requires special attention. Due to their situation, they are usually discriminated, including in the participation of auscultation programs within the communities General management arrangements . Several institutions from different sectors will be involved in the implementation of the project under the leadership of the Mozbio2 Project Implementation Unit (Mozbio2 and GEF 7 AF Project Coordination office), within the National Fund for Sustainable Development (FNDS) housed in Ministry of Agriculture and Rural development. Resettlement Policy Framework This Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) is one of the Social Safeguard instruments produced for the Mozbio2 and GEF 7 AF Project required by the World Bank (WB). MozBio 2 and GEF 7 AF Project design does not anticipate causing any physical displacement of households as a result of its operations, but its land acquisition and site preparation for construction requirements will probably cause economic displacement impacts on people who may have productive or non-productive assets on these sites. Cases of possible economic displacements will be met according to the procedures of this RPF, specifically in chapter 5. Table 1 of this document describes the risks integrated in the MozBio and GEF 7 activities which may activate OP 4.12.The objective of the RPF is to lay out the principles and procedures for screening and rejecting any sub-projects infrastructure included turism concessions that would cause economic resettlement impacts and responding to the remaining limited social and economic impacts by preparing Abbreviated Resettlement Plans. As these will only address the needs for compensation for economic displacement, for clarity, they will also be called Compensation Plans2 in this RPF. The RPF provides guidance on how to identify when these plans are necessary and on their contents. It provides a reference framework for the measures that should be taken to avoid and minimize impacts causing involuntary resettlement, along with the policies and principles guiding compensation where required and indicative costs of the process. It also describes the institutional arrangements associated with involuntary resettlement planning and implementation under Mozbio2. The contents of this document align with national policies and World Bank policies. It should be mentioned that the potential infrastructure subprojects or tourist concessions will be implemented in and around the target CA's defined in the project as part of the landscapes of the respective AC's. These areas are potential for the appearance of Human-Wildlife conflict, and MozBIO will contribute to the development of a strategy for mitigation through a consulting service that includes identification of conflict’s hot-spots and specific mitigation strategies translated into action plans to be implemented by the CA's.The SAPA- Social Assessment for Protect Areas methodology has been implemented by MozBIO and is 2 As Mozambique legislation does not distinguish the scale of impact correlating minor impacts with simpler resettlement instruments, in order to clarify that no physical resettlement will take place, the use of the term ‘Compensation Plan’ indicates the difference and as it is not legislated and therefore does not strictly have to meet the full Resettlement Action Plan requirements under Mozambican law, in line with World Bank norms its level of detail will reflect the magnitude and level of complexity of the economic displacements caused by the Project. 24 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing an additional in the mitigation of Human-Wildlife conflicts since it ensures the participation of the main stakeholders in decision-making on the positive and negative impacts of the CA's activities. The mitigation of the Human-Wildlife conflict is widely discussed between the affected and interested parties and an action plan will be drawn and implemented with support of the MozBio project. The RPF was prepared after wide consultation with key stakeholders and with support from Mozbio and FNDS safeguards and community specialists, to assist with access to technical data and organizational and institutional information. Stakeholders were met in the three landscapes during information gathering visits. The consultations were based on meetings with key institutions, local government and communities located in the landscape, particularly in the buffer zone, Hunting Concession Areas (Coutadas) and within the CA's. (summary of consultations available in Annexes 12 and 13 of the ESMF) Key lessons learnt from the target CAs and their landscapes during the preparation of this RPF include as yet unsatisfactory management of human-animal conflicts in and outside of core areas of CAs, and lessons drawn from prior experiences of resettlement in and out of CAs in all the targeted landscapes. These point to the key role of the District Government in leading resettlement hosting processes outside of CAs; the need for District Government recognition of Coutadas as partially protected areas with a conservation purpose so that they are not used for siting large or medium scale resettlement. Unmet expectations resulting from past experience of resettlement and compensation levels may be expressed by communities during MozBio 2 and GEF 7 AF. It is important that sufficient information be disseminated through a comprehensive communication strategy and that all compensation processes under MozBio 2 and GEF 7 AF be highly participatory, that is, that they effectively engage men, women, youth and vulnerable groups at all stages of the planning and implementation cycle. When the details of land rights acquisition and resettlement are not fully known or, as in the case of the Project at present, when physical resettlement is not foreseen in the Project design, as a precautionary principle, a Resettlement Policy Framework is necessary to establish the policy principles for public information and discussion in the event any resettlement must take place due directly or indirectly to the Project The principles outlined in the World Bank's Operational Policy OP 4.12 are used in preparing the Resettlement Policy Framework. These principles and the resettlement measures stemming from them will apply to all sub projects and activities of MozBio2, whether or not the scale and complexity of compensation and resettlement issues require preparation of a Resettlement Plan (RP). The World Bank policy applies to all components of the Project that result in involuntary loss of property,. However, if a non-World Bank–financed activity that causes resettlement is part of the design or performance of the project financed by the Bank, (or if the sequencing of activities results in resettlement occurring at the same time as implementation of the Project), the OP 4.12 will be suggested. The Safeguards focal points at ANAC and Biofund will be identified and trained and in collaboration with the FNDS safeguards team will ensure compliance with safeguard aspects to be implemented in the CA's.Resettlement covers physical displacement and economic displacement. Thus the need for resettlement and compensation refers to the impact of the development activity causing the loss of, or loss of access to, any assets growing on or permanently affixed to the land, such as shelters, buildings and crops and also to the impact causing loss of or access to an economic resource base or local communities’ means of livelihood. Losses may be total or partial. The absence of legal title to use and usufruct of the land does not limit rights to compensation. Preference should be given to land based resettlement strategies for displaced people whose livelihoods are land-based. If sufficient alternative land is not available, non- 25 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing land-based on sustainable options built around opportunities for employment or self-employment should be provided in addition to cash compensation for land and other assets lost. People affected by CAs should be assisted to improve or restore their livelihoods in a manner that maintains the sustainability of reserves and protected areas. Where the community using the resources decides to restrict access to these resources as would be the case in any Community Conservation areas created by the Project, according with Law of Protection, Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in Mocambique (Law No. 5/2017), provided the community decision-making process is deemed adequate by the Bank, and that it provides for identification of appropriate measures to mitigate any adverse impacts on the vulnerable members of the community these restrictions are not considered involuntary. The need to involve communities in the planning and implementation of interventions that result from these policies is indispensable. Particular attention must be paid to the needs of vulnerable groups, especially those living below the poverty line, the landless, the elderly, women and children and ethnic minorities. Displaced people and their communities, and host communities receiving them, should be provided timely and relevant information on rights and options, consulted on resettlement options, and offered choices and provided with technically and economically feasible resettlement alternatives as well as opportunities to participate in planning, implementing, and monitoring resettlement. Appropriate and accessible grievance mechanisms must be established for these groups. Measures required prior to displacement include provision of compensation and of other assistance required for replacement, relocation, and preparation and provision of resettlement sites with adequate facilities. The taking of land and related assets may be carried out only after compensation has been paid. Cash compensation for lost assets can be paid for livelihood sources that are not land-based. Compensation levels should be sufficient to replace the assets at full replacement cost in local markets. Cash compensation for lost assets is appropriate when livelihoods are land-based but the land taken for the project is a small fraction of the affected asset and the residual is economically viable, ensuring that compensation levels are enough for replacement of land and other assets at local market rates. The project foresees supporting opportunities to improve livelihoods with community conservation areas, conservation agriculture, sustainable use of natural resources and identification and implementation of activities that have a sustainable value chain in the landscape. As required, agricultural sites with productive potential in convenient locations should be provided as compensation where necessary, ensuring that conditions are at a minimum equivalent to the advantages of the old site. Alternative or similar resources should be provided to compensate for the loss of access to community resources such as fishing areas and fuel resource areas. Figure 1-1 What resettlement instrument should be used? 26 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing For areas where sub-projects may be established that involve the acquisition of land use rights title, it is expected that most prior rights holders consulted during the DUAT acquisition process will enter into an agreement on benefit sharing (this may be registered via the PRPT process). If this is the case there is no need for compensation and the agreements would be guided by the Project’s participation Process Framework. The land tenure regularization protocol (PRPT) defines that the allocation of land for productive activities, whether pointed out by beneficiaries (individual or groups) or by government entities, through concessions, must go through the process of assessing land tenure and resolving potential conflicts, ensuring that subprojects have: (i) sufficient documentation or evidence of the land use rights by beneficiaries , either as DUAT title holders or through formal agreements with DUAT title holders; (ii) beneficiaries who do not present conflicts of land use rights; and (iii) that do not cause non-mitigated adverse impacts on individuals or vulnerable groups. Macrozoning is included as part of the project design. It involves high and local level stakeholders who can bring various issues to the discussion that will end with agreement on which areas are to be used for what purposes. The delimitation process is based on the confirmation and consensus of the boundaries of neighboring communities and other occupants bordering the area. In general, the most common motivations for the delimitation of community lands are: (i) to give the community the security of right to use and use land through community certificate; (ii) to awaken to community members real knowledge of the limits and potential of resources, including their rights over them; (iii) promote the organization of the local community and the consolidation of the traditional structure in decision-making and (iv) create a basis for establishing partnerships with the private sector. The restrictions and/or concessions of land use and use are not applied in the community delimitation 27 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing process, and the process is characterized as a strengthening of the right to use land by the usual norms existing in the community. The community delimitation process is consolidated with a Community agenda, a land use plan and strengthening the community governance structure, through social preparation and specific training to be focused towards improving Community governance. Avoidance or mitigation measures to minimize direct impacts on households of property damage or loss that cause households to lose property or access to it, will be important zoning requirements. Where zoning exposes individuals’ property to risks of damage or loss due to construction activities, concession applying for new land rights acquisition, or risks of severe conflicts with wildlife requiring involuntary resettlement, appropriate compensation must be agreed on and paid according to the guidelines in this RPF. The Project’s participatory Processes Framework should be used to guide impact mitigation and management of all other zoning outcomes in and around protected areas where communities’ resource use is constrained. Construction of infrastructure inside CAs is unlikely to affect people’s property due to the low numbers of residents. Eligibility for compensation To prevent claims from people arriving after the cut-off date, a census of displaced people and their property must be carried out at the declaration time to identify those who are eligible for compensation. This will identify eligible occupants and establish the size and quality of structures, current land use, and other relevant information. Complaints after the deadline should be investigated and forwarded for follow- up with support from the MDR (See the link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qJ6SgclpBP9n7gVs6hiwchUqWyqE37LL/view) The likely (economically) displaced persons can be categorized into three groups; Affected Individual, Affected Household and Vulnerable Groups (which may include, HIV/AIDS affected persons, orphans, the elderly, women headed households, etc). Particularly vulnerable groups will have special attention paid to them by identifying their needs from the ESA socio-economic and baseline study so that (i) they are individually consulted and given the opportunity (i.e. not left out) to participate in the project activities, (ii) that their compensation is designed to improve their pre-project livelihood (iii) special attention is paid to monitor them to ensure that their pre-project livelihood is indeed improved upon, (iv) they are given technical and financial assistance if they wish to make use of the grievance mechanisms of the project, and (v) decisions concerning them are made in the shortest possible time. The asset inventory database will be used to identify all property requiring compensation at individual and community level. The decision about entitlement will be made by FNDS / LMU following analysis of all claims. Each family eligible for compensation or other assistance must then be informed of the basis of the decision and the options for assistance they have. This process must be fully documented for the RP / CP, including the decisions taken and their reasons at every step of the way. Should complaints be lodged against decisions about eligibility, these must be dealt with through the established procedures for communicating and resolving grievances. 28 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing World Bank principles for the calculation of compensation will be used to ensure national norms meet World Bank requirements. These are: a) the use of substitution costs for affected structures (calculated on the basis of up-to-date prices of materials and labour in the local market), b) the inclusion of transaction costs in the compensation value, and c) full replacement cost without considering depreciation. Thus the latest compensation tables in vigour at the time of required compensation calculation will be used, taking into account cumulative inflation between the date of issuance and the valuation date. Official government documented inflation rates will be used for this purpose. Should the resulting value be lower that the prices resulting from an objective assessment of prices at full replacement value for the same products in the local market, a fair high end price for each asset in the local market and similar settings in nearby locations, will be adopted. In the event that assets are not listed in official compensation tables and / or equal replacement assets are not available in the local market, technical specialists should be engaged to assess current market value, which would determine the final compensation value per unit. Since the calculation for compensation for the (temporary) loss of other livelihoods (temporary cessation of economic activity) is not mentioned in the legislation, these will be estimated on the basis of the World Bank’s principles. Community and individual compensation agreements will be formally documented and signed with copies delivered to the recipients of compensation and MITADER /FNDS shall keep the records for a minimum period of five years after compensation is fully paid. Individual compensation agreements are subject to consultation by third parties where needed by the counterparty. Beneficiaries will be informed of the consultation parties (district government, paralegal or otherwise) about the agreements to make them informed and aware. 29 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Institutional responsibilities MozBio 2 and GEF 7 AF Project Coordination office - National Sustainable Development Fund (FNDS) is responsible for Project operations including planning and implementation of abbreviated Resettlement Plans / Compensation Plans. A safeguards team for all FNDS projects is based in FNDS’ Transversal Projects Support Team at central level. Under head of the Projects Management Sector is a Project Coordinator for MozBio 2 GEF 7 AF Project. FNDS established Landscape Management Units (LMUs) in Sussundenga, Marromeu and Matutuine district. The Matuine LMU will also recive the support from the central PIU. At the CA landscape level, the LMUs will coordinate and monitor Project implementation progress and interface with the District authorities. The LMUs will have one coordinator and will be staffed with technical specialists (infrastructures and value chain areas and a sustainable development specialist who will be responsible for the safeguards activities) and administrative support (accountant). They report to the national FNDS/ Projects Management Sector Administrator and to the DPTADER Provincial Directors. The MozBio 2 and GEF 7 AF Project Coordination office will lead the preparation and implementation of RP/CP through services provided by the LMUs. RP/CP preparation and implementation will be made in coordination with the District Government, CA Management and LMU. The compensation process requires community awareness of the procedures and time frames for implementing the compensation as well as the development of the entire Project. This awareness-raising activity is the responsibility of the Mozbio2 Project Coordination office and LMUs. Technical assistance from the safeguards specialists from the FNDS Transversal Project Support Team will be required to ensure that all procedures are understood by the men and women implementing them. They may also need the help of a communication specialist, possibly from the FNDS Office of Image and Communication or outsourced, who will also be responsible for external communication. The MozBio 2 and GEF 7 AF Project Coordination office through the LMU and the CA management will ensure that the families to whom compensation has been paid for loss of productive assets are provided parcels of land for agriculture with title whenever possible and that the parcel of land is not sold soon after hand-over. FNDS will ensure that contractors are instructed so that they do not begin work on Project sites that are occupied or used until the assets are fully compensated, and then cleared and areas physically unoccupied. Where created at community level (see below), Compensation Committees will need to provide FNDS with a report with sufficient information to ensure such compliance can be registered. The Projects Management Sector of FNDS will be responsible for supervising intra- and inter- departmental coordination, and for ensuring compliance with public disclosure, participation and consultation. At district level SDAE and SDPI will collaborate with the safeguards team in order to support productive assets and non-productive assets valuation where necessary includedsupport sub-project screening to identify the magnitude of impacts. Communication between these Services and the CA management and LMUs will be important in contributing to re-design of activities, sites or arrangements with PAPs to reduce or avoid impacts every time they are detected via PRPTs. Two CAs already have Community Development staff who may be involved in carrying out baseline studies and monitoring the implementation of RPs / CPs. In Marromeu, none of the CAs has Community Development staff. Two Community Officers per Landscape have been recommended in the participatory Process Framework for Mozbio2, and it will be these people who will be responsible for assisting with 30 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing information collection, compensation planning and implementation. During the preparation of the PR / PC by the landscape Social Safeguards assistant this person will train and supervise a Community Officer in the landscape so that they can later support PR / PC implementation and the payment of compensation. The Social Safeguards assistant will coordinate the involvement of SDAE, SDPI and SDSMAS and the CA Managers, Community Officers and others relevant to implementing the process. The LMU safeguards staff delegated to work on the Project, environmental staff from Marromeu Municipality and the District Governments, and local authorities will coordinate, monitor and oversee community consultation and participation in the implementation of the PR / PC, at the local level. The LMU team will coordinate activities in the districts and provide information to the Project PIU Coordinator. The LMU should ensure that a copy of all locally collected social information is kept at the Mozbio2 Project Coordination office offices. It is unlikely that the scale of activities will require any community level organization set up – such as Compensation Committees (CCs), however, wherever interactions are made directly with communities, these should be made through the local authorities, local leaders and then the directly affected people. At the beginning of the implementation process, if the number of families affected per activity or subproject area is equal to 40 or more, a subproject Compensation Committee (CC) will be established to represent and defend the interests of these groups. The CC will include representatives of the various affected areas according to their administrative divisions. CCs should be trained in social and management issues and should be supported by Community Officers. Members of the Committee should include at least 40% women, and preferably an even higher percentage, in order for their representation to be adequate. The Community Officers will organize the creation and development of the capacity of the committees. These committees will be important focal points for implementing and resolving compensation issues, and will be mechanisms for linking with Community Officers, contractors, local authorities, municipalities, the District Government, LMU safeguards staff, and the central PIU. All draft abbreviated Resettlement Plans / Compensation Plans (RP / CP) will be submitted to FNDS’ Projects Management Sector and the World Bank for review and approval before compensation is awarded and subsequent commencement of construction work or other sub-project activities. The following table summarizes the main institutional responsibilities. Raising awareness of procedures and deadlines for implementing compensation, Safeguard Ensure that families who receive compensation for loss of Central specialist productive assets receive plots of land for agriculture with DUATs FNDS Level (Right of Use and Land Utilization) and that the parcel of land is not pierced in the short time after being received, Ensure that contractors are instructed to only start work until goods are cleared and areas are physically available, 31 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Coordinate activities in the districts and provide information to the UIP Coordinator, Ensure that a copy of all social information collected locally is kept at the FNDS IPU offices. Ensure compliance with public disclosure, participation and consultation, Support and guide the UGP safeguards assistant throughout the process. Lead the preparation and implementation of PR / PC in coordination with the UGP, the District Government and the CA Administration and the UGP, Create a Compensation Committee (CC) if the group of affected people is over 40 to represent and defend the group's interests Raising awareness of the procedures and deadlines for implementing compensation, UGP Submit the PR / CP to the FNDS UIP and the World Bank for review Landscape Safeguard and approval before compensation is granted. assistant Train and supervise CAs community development officers and UGP extension workers to support the implementation of PR / PC and the payment of compensation, Coordinate the involvement of SDAE, SDPI, SDSMAS, Administrator and community CA officials in the implementation of the process, Ensure community participation in the implementation of PR / PC including supervision and monitoring. Support the assessment of productive and non-productive assets of affected families, Local government Participate in subproject screening to identify the magnitude of impacts in collaboration with (SDAE SDPI the safeguards technical assistant, SDSMAS) Participate in the implementation of PR / PC. Participate in conducting reference studies and monitoring the implementation of PRs / CPs, Community officer Train members of the Compensation Committee on social and management issues. community Participate in the implementation of PR / PC including supervision and monitoring 32 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Consultation, Grievances and Monitoring The RP / CP preparation process is participatory and through consultation during the socio-economic studies and impact assessments, potential conflicts and communication channels for grievances should be identified. The consultation process must involve all potentially affected people. During and after implementation individual and group consultation should continue to verify progress in taking up new livelihoods activities and in restoring their lives to the levels they were prior to the Project impacts. MozBio 2 and GEF 7 AF will rely on the common Grievance and Redress Mechanism that has been established for all projects included in the World Bank’s Integrated Landscape Management Portfolio in Mozambique – called the “Dialogue and Grievance Mechanism (MDR)”4. An outline of this is shown below: Grievance resolution process outline according to the MDR Complaints are made directly to first level recipients at community level where these may be resolved immediately if possible However, the MDR was developed, ensuring three levels of resolution, including independent mediator and the complainant will always be informed that there is a judicial option, if he does not want to solve by the system made available through the existing mechanism.Should they require technical support from FNDS Social Safeguards Specialists or decisions for FNDS management these may be sought as a second level recourse. Finally, should a case not be resolvable internally it may be referred by FNDS (in agreement with the complainant) to an independent mediator for resolution. 33 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Complaints should, as far as possible, be resolved in a friendly manner and at local level in accordance with the regulations and criteria of the Project Implementation Manual. If it is necessary to consider significant additional compensation, complex corrective measures or sanctions, it should be in line with the Project's operational rules, national legal framework, and World Bank policies (particularly social and environmental safeguards). Decisions on resolution and communication to the complainant must be made in a timely fashion at all levels. Should affected people not be satisfied by the informal process of the MDR, or because the nature of the complaint requires higher level appeal, national legislation provides for making complaints in various sectors at the highest levels of Government such as National Directors and Ministers. In addition, should either party be dissatisfied, the affected party may bring the complaint to court, where it will be treated in accordance with Mozambican law. In principle, a community may take a Company to court for failing to comply with the terms of an environmental management plan. All citizens have the right to submit complaints to the Public Prosecutor's Office, which is responsible for ensuring the correct application of the law, particularly in the development of territorial management instruments and their implementation. FNDS will ensure that a "Complaints Register" is maintained at landscape level. In all cases where complaints are made about the implementation of Project activities, FNDS is obliged to investigate the complaint and resolve it internally by applying the Resettlement Policy Framework and MDR manual in use in the Project and returning the response within a period of less than 15 days. MDR management is the responsibility of MITADER / FNDS which should ensure implementation with support from partners and the Government at provincial and local level. LMU specialists, Community Officers, CA Community Officers and DPTADER community managers are the focal points of the MDR and responsible for receiving, processing, investigating and monitoring the complaint resolution process. For complaints that cannot be settled informally, safeguards officers and community officials will be responsible for channelling them to other decision-making bodies (as defined in Step 4 of the MDR Manual Procedure) and keep complainants informed. FNDS is responsible for monitoring through the MDR system housed in the Safeguards Information System (SIS) of the measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) REDD+ platform to monitor complaints. Project monitoring and evaluation systems should include indicators to measure the effectiveness of monitoring and resolution of complaints and incorporate them into the Project Results Framework. At community level, the co-management committees will be the main forums involved in participatory monitoring. All community management structures linked to local authorities and the CA Management Council should listen to, verify and respond to grievances as entitlements are understood and taken up or as they change over time. Should the scale of compensation have required the creation of CCs, and the District Resettlement Commission is involved, then these, the LMU and CA Management will be responsible for coordinating their members for monitoring and supervising RP / CP preparation and implementation. Technical teams will regularly monitor status of vulnerable groups through consultation, and where necessary follow-up work with communities and individuals will identify activities and sources of income that can improve their well- 34 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing being. Finally, communities and individuals affected by the Project may submit complaints for review to the World Bank Grievance Redress Service (GRS) or to its independent Inspection Panel which determines whether harm occurred, or could occur, as a result of non-compliance with its policies and procedures. For information on how to submit complaints to the World Bank’s corporate GRS, please visit http://www.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/products-and-services/grievance-redress- service. For information on how to submit complaints to the World Bank Inspection Panel, please visit www.inspectionpanel.org. The MozBio 2 Estimated Costs of compensation and mitigation activities are approximately US $ 300,000 Estimated costs presented in this RPF will be updated during Project implementation. The Costs of compensation and mitigation activities under the GEF 7 AF will be covered by operational costs of each Landscape. It has been estimated that 10% of the value of each landscape will be for operational costs including safeguard activities. 35 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing 1 Introduction This Resettlement Policy Framework was prepared for the Mozambique Conservation Areas for Biodiversity and Development Project - Phase 2 (Mozbio2) . The document constitutes a World Bank (WB) safeguard instrument triggered by OP 4.12. The document was prepared during the preparation of MozBio- 2 project in November 2018 and updated for GEF 7 Aditional Financing (AF) in May 2020 on the basis of identified social risks and assessment of potential policy triggers. The Resettlement Policy Framework has been prepared to address the risks of people’s losses of use and occupation of land due to the Project’s potential for land use rights acquisition in the buffer zones of targeted Conservation Areas (CAs) and their surrounding landscapes for the need to build and develop access infrastructure and buildings inside CAs to improve operations and tourism revenue. The project will consider compensation for economic losses. Activities that require physical resettlement won’t be included This document was produced on the basis of consultation with the Administrators and Conservation Area (CA) team members in all target CAs, along with a wide range of interviews carried out with numerous stakeholders in the target landscapes. Interviews and on-going dialogue with Mozbio-1 staff at national level and others involved in the design of Mozbio2 were conducted throughout the working period to assist in understanding institutional arrangements of the Project.. The present document was consulted with key stakeholders (communities in de CAs and their buffer zones , private sector and government institutions) in March 2020. The consultation process aimed at exploring issues around the safeguard instruments and the new activities than can be supported by GEF7 Aditional Financing. 2 Background 2.1 Socio-economic Profile Mozambique´s economy enjoyed positive and stable economic growth between 1993-2014 averaging 7.9% per year. However, the contribution of economic growth to poverty reduction is half of that in other Sub-Saharan Africa countries3 as such, poverty remains widespread with 46.1% of Mozambicans still living under the poverty line, affecting 50.1% of the population in rural areas (versus 37.4% in urban areas). Poverty is also more pronounced in the northern region of the country 4. Evidence shows that poverty is greater in isolated areas as it limits household capacity to generate returns on assets such as land or education5. Multidimensional poverty, that is, poverty characterised by inadequate living standards, access to basic services and human development is also widespread in Mozambique 6. In 2015 Mozambique 3 http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/opinion/2016/12/21/picking-up-the-pace-of-poverty-reduction-in-mozambique 4 Ministério de Economia e Finanças, October 2016. Pobreza e Bem-Estar em Moçambique. Quarta Avaliação Nacional, Inquérito ao Orçamento Familiar (IOF) 2014/15 5 WB, 2016. Accelerating Poverty Reduction in Mozambique: Challenges and Opportunities 6 Ministério de Economia e Finanças, October 2016. Pobreza e Bem-Estar em Moçambique. Quarta Avaliação Nacional, Inquérito ao Orçamento Familiar (IOF) 2014/15. 1 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing ranked 181/188 in the Human Development Index 7. A large proportion of the population in rural areas depends on natural resources for their livelihoods and practice subsistence agriculture or fishing. Low production and productivity levels, poor access to markets, low access to financial services and adverse weather conditions are some of the barriers locking people in poverty8. Women in Mozambique are poorer, have less space to participate in decision making processes, are more greatly affected by HIV and AIDS due to higher prevalence rates and assumption of caring roles and are the prime victims of gender based violence. Women´s participation in employment and self- employment mostly takes place in the informal market; women earn less than men. In Mozambique, women are largely responsible for day-to-day management of their households, agricultural fields and feeding their families. As a result of these disparities, women are less able to engage and reduce the impacts of household level changes or in times of crisis9, for example, human-wildlife conflict and involuntary displacement for whatever reason, tend to affect women more. Monitoring impacts on women and men must be disaggregated, and interventions promote gender equality and empowerment of men and women. 2.1.1 Communities in and around Conservation Areas Communities living in and around Conservation Areas (CAs) are among the poorest, most isolated groups, dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods. Without viable economic alternatives households have little incentive to consistently support environmental protection in the short and medium term. Without targeted investments in education and entrepreneurship in areas where conservation is promoted, the youth, who constitute a large proportion of the population, have few alternative avenues in the future. 3 Mozbio2 and GEF 7 AF Project 3.1 General Project Description The Government of Mozambique has made considerable investments to date to develop CAs. Mozambique’s system of conservation areas is currently made up of seven National Parks, six National Reserves and eleven controlled hunting concessions (or coutadas). The use of natural resources by communities living inside and around these areas is threatening the conservation of biodiversity. Commercially oriented illegal exploration of resources like timber, ivory and marine species including sharks, further exacerbate this trend. The first phase of Mozbio initiated in 2015 targeted 15 CAs and aimed to further strengthen the effective management of the CAs and enhance their contribution to the diversification of economic opportunities of the populations living in and around them. Design of the second phase of the 7 UNDP, 2016. Human Development Report 2016. Human Development for Everyone: Briefing Notes for Countries on the 2016 Human Development Report, Mozambique. 8 WB, 2016. Accelerating Poverty Reduction in Mozambique: Challenges and Opportunities 9INGC, 2016. Plano Estratégico de Género do Instituto Nacional de Gestão das Calamidades 2016 – 2020. INGC a Caminho das Mudanças nas Relações de Género. 2 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Mozambique Conservation Areas for Biodiversity and Development Project MozBio 2 and GEF 7 AF, is based on four pillars: a) policies, legislation and institutions; b) financial sustainability; c) biodiversity conservation management; and d) community development. MozBio 2 and GEF 7 AF, is a follow up in a series of investment projects implemented in Mozambique over the past two decades. The project intends to build on Mozbio1 results, integrate lessons learned from previous projects and other projects implemented in the country in relevant areas such as those using a landscape approach. The landscape approach adopted for Mozbio2 and GE7 Additional Fund is based on the Integrated Landscape Management (ILM) approach of the extinguished Ministry of Land Entovoment and Rural Development (MITADER). The approach brings together rural development interventions within the administrative boundaries of a province, adapted to the relevant landscape boundaries of target CAs, their buffers and influence areas. The Mozbio2 and GE7 AF project is being prepared for 3 Conservation Areas Landscapes. These landscapes are made up of different land uses, with one or more conservation areas as a key land use, which is heavily impacted by land uses around it. The following three landscapes have been selected: (i) The Elephant Coast Landscape includes two CAs (Maputo Special Reserve [MSR] and Ponta do Ouro Partial Marine Reserve [POPMR], including Inhaca Island, (ii) the Chimanimani Landscape includes the Chimanimani National Reserve [CNR], its buffer zone, three Forest Reserves (Maronga, Moribane and Zomba) and the adjacent land areas in the Sussundenga District, and (iii) the Marromeu Complex Landscape comprises the Marromeu National Reserve, Coutadas 10, 11, and 14, and adjacent land areas in Marromeu, Cheringoma, and Muanza Districts. Two of the CAs, Chimanimani National Reserve and Maputo Special Reserve were also included in the first phase of Mozbio. Albeit to different degrees, all the buffer zones in the three landscapes need investments in livelihood associated infrastructure and in basic social services. Landscape level macro-zoning will enable CA and landscape stakeholders to define areas destined for different uses. Community level planning through micro-zoning will address sensitive areas where there may be higher risks of human-wildlife conflicts or degradation of the landscape as well as identifying areas for community development opportunities. Communities living in and outside CAs may then become involved in taking responsibility for the stewardship of wildlife and forest resources as well as becoming involved in livelihoods development activities. The results of macro zoning will be integrated in CA Management Plan updates and District Level Land Use Plans (PDUTs) and an Environmental Protection Area (EPA) in Matutuíne Landscape which define the areas of preferential use, occupation norms and use of land and natural resources. Like the first phase of Mozbio, Mozbio2 and GE7 AF has been classified as a category B project since potential negative environmental and social impacts will be minor, specific to each site, reversible and manageable. Mozbio2 and GE7 AF, will provide enhanced and systematic support to the development of sustainable local livelihoods in and outside of the CAs. International and national experience indicates that when household and community needs are not met and future prospects are not sizeable, communities have limited incentives to actively engage in the protection of natural resources and contribute to overall conservation efforts in protected areas, as their livelihoods largely depend on the natural resources around them. In addition, conservation efforts at times coexist with illegal activities such as gold-mining (as is the case in Chimanimani National Reserve), poaching (which 3 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing constitutes an important challenge anywhere where there are elephants and other large mammals hunted for their tusks illegally sold in the global world market), or indiscriminate fishing activities linked to illegal sale of protected species to foreign traders (which has been indicated to be occurring on the coastal stretch of Marromeu National Reserve). For communities to engage in conservation, alternative livelihood opportunities need to be offered to them. All livelihood development activities supported under Mozbio2 and GEF 7 will be encouraged to take into account the divergent needs and aspirations of men and women of different ages in each of the target areas. 3.2 Project Development Objective There will be no changes to the PDO with the GEF7 AF. It remains the same as the MozBIO2 Project – to improve management of target conservation area landscapes and enhance the living conditions of communities in and around these conservation areas. 3.3 Project Components Component 1: Strengthening Capacity and Financial Sustainability of National Conservation Institutions (Original amount: US$15.0 million equivalent from IDA, Additional Financing: US$13,825,000 million equivalent from GEF). IDA Grant: This component aims to improve the capacity of the three main national conservation institutions (ANAC, BIOFUND, and FNDS); create a cohort of conservation professionals; and foster nature-based tourism at the national level. These activities contribute to two pillars of the MozBio Program: (a) ensuring an enabling policy and institutional environment (governance) and (b) ensuring financial sustainability for the CA system. GEF Grant: The AF would allow the Project to engage in following activities: Strengthening of ANAC (US$1,1 million). The AF will support ANAC in i) developing guidelines and standards of procedures on key management and operations issues including community governance, benefit sharing and biodiversity monitoring focused on drylands; ii) support ANAC, in coordination with the National Directorate of Environment (DINAB) to review the regulation on Access and Benefit Sharing from Genetic and Biological Resources and associated traditional knowledge, to facilitate sustainable commercialization of biological resources, including from dryland ecosystems, and gain better access to international markets and partners 10 iii) support the design and installation of an electronic permit system for CITES (Convention on Trade of Endangered Species) to improve transparency and efficiency in permits issuance and allow the exchange of information across borders, increasing transparency in wildlife trade, and iv) strengthen the capacity of ANAC’s existing database 10Mozambique had developed and approved in 2007 a Regulation on Access and Benefit Sharing resulting from Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (Decree 19/2007 of 9 August). With the global adoption of Nagoya Protocol in 2010, and its ratification by Mozambique in 2014, there is the need to adapt the instrument to respond fully to the Nagoya Protocol, and improve its desired impact. The revision of the regulation intends to include the development of a mechanism for access and benefit sharing, taking into account the targets 14 and 15 on the payment for environmental services, and should help to promote and empower local communities and the private sector to participate in compensation mechanisms from biodiversity. 4 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing to capture, store and utilize biodiversity data for decision-making and management, including on topics of common interest with neighboring countries to ensure improved management of transboundary ecosystems. Since two of the Project areas are part of TFCAs (Lubombo and Chimanimani TFCAs), this activity under the AF will help support ANAC in further engaging and developing joint activities for these areas on topics that expand from law enforcement, to biodiversity management, and tourism and community development. The AF will also support ANAC’s participation in region al and international coordination events and institutions related to dryland management. Strengthening of Biofund (US$12,4 million) . The AF will capitalize BIOFUND’s Endowment Fund (US$ 12 million) for three specific windows that promote financing for addressing drivers of dryland degradation in selected CAs and strengthens of the overall CA system in Mozambique 11. The three specific windows will; i) finance investments for the protection and restoration of dryland forests in selected CAs that are either already degraded, or at high risk of becoming so; ii) create a basket fund that aims to increase retainment and attraction of new skills needed for the efficiency of ANAC and the CA system; and iii) implement a new private sector collaboration program in support of sustainable and equitable dryland management and that provide continued funding to Mozbio 2 targeted interventions for a period of 10 years. The principle objective of the third window is to attract private sector investments that contribute to LDN and SFM targets, i.e. that alter current land use practices from low-value and ecologically unsustainable activities to higher-value ones that are based directly on sustainable use of natural resources, such as game farming, sustainable wildlife use, non-timber forest products (NTFPs) extraction. The revenue stream from the third window (estimated at about US$100,000 year) will also be used to support execution of activities in the target landscapes that have longer implementation periods than what the MozBio project can accommodate. This is an innovative way of using the specific feature of the Endowment Fund to align the needs of dryland management on the ground with funding time frames. Hence, the specific GEF funds´ revenues will be used for this purpose immediately following the MozBio Project closure, for a period no less than 10 years, contributing to financial sustainability of GEF investments. The results framework will include a new indicator measuring the amount of revenues generated by the endowment fund and re-invested in sustainable dryland management in CAs. The Project will also support institutional capacity of BIOFUND (US$0.4 million) to improve diversification of their revenue streams and for BIOFUND’s participation in regional and international coordination events and institutions related to dryland management. An indicator will be added to track BIOFUND’s ability to leverage additional financing other than GEF to the endowment fund. Strengthening of FNDS (US$0.3 million) . The AF will support project coordination, monitoring of results, regional cooperation on drylands, including using the Miombo Network and Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), and other bodies as deemed relevant by the Global DSL IP. It will also support participation of relevant stakeholders from Mozambique in global forums, which will allow to prioritize, coordinate and collaborate on efforts with other dryland countries in order to maximize relevance, impact and cost-effectiveness of interventions in transboundary ecosystems. It will also support participation in coordinating grant events and regional meetings with GEF and FAO, as well as production, dissemination and knowledge sharing derived from the project. Project management activities of FNDS also includes leading the fiduciary, procurement and safeguards implementation. The AF will also strengthen the existing capacity of FNDS’ Monitoring Reporting and 11 The Endowment Fund is operational and performing well and has currently achieved capitalization of US$35 million. 5 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Verification (MRV) Unit, by providing resources for training, equipment and operational costs, to ensure robust monitoring of degradation and deforestation of dryland forests within the project target areas. Component 2: Improving Conservation Areas Management in Target Landscapes (Original amount: US$17 million equivalent from IDA, Additional Financing US$2,575,000 million equivalent from GEF). IDA Project: This component aims to improve biodiversity conservation management of target CAs, particularly the governance of CAs (including its relationship with surrounding stakeholders), human resources management, infrastructure establishment and maintenance, human-wildlife coexistence, research, resources control and patrolling, and promoting of environmental awareness and strengthening of community-based organizations (CBOs) among local communities. These activities contribute to two of the pillars of the Mozbio Program i) biodiversity conservation management and ii) community development. GEF Grant: The AF would allow the Project to engage in following activities: Enhancing CA’s human resources and fixed assets (US$1.2 million) . The AF will finance i) the installation of the EarthRanger system, a powerful easy-to-use software tool built to collect, integrate and display historical and real-time data available from a CA which will empower CAs to take immediate, proactive actions to prevent and mitigate threat incidents to biodiversity and wildlife while also allowing CAs to communicate data to neighbor countries CAs and organize joint actions such as joint enforcement and patrolling, sharing and streamlining of research and management practices in regard to dryland and other endemic biodiversity; ii) conduct awareness campaigns of legislation and rules of the CA Management Plans (to stakeholders in the landscape, including through the multi-stakeholder CA Management Councils; iii) support to transboundary collaboration with neighboring countries, specifically South Africa, Zimbabwe and eSwatini through the Lubombo and Chimanimani TFCAs, including joint aerial surveys, species monitoring with a view to better understand population dynamics and distribution of key species in the TFCAs and joint law enforcement programs that aim to reduce illegal activities within the target landscapes, participation in TFCA coordination meetings and sharing and streamlining of research and management practices in regard to dryland and other endemic biodiversity. Supporting CA’s operations (U S$1.3 million). The AF will focus on strengthening community governance for sustainable dryland and natural resource management in the three CAs, following the national CBNRM governance model, including support to i) identification and training of community facilitators; ii) establishment or strengthening of Community Governance Committees; iii) participatory identification and assessment on the degradation of dryland and critical habitats; iv) mapping and production of land and natural resource use plans to support dryland management and community development, including reducing uncertainty over land tenure and uses; v) implementation of the Gender Action Learning System (GALS) to address systemic gender inequality at household and community level; vi) expand Environmental Education in schools and vii) implement measures identified under the original project to reduce the levels of human wildlife conflicts, by supporting additional equipment and materials, training and operational costs. An indicator on the implementation of local community plans will be included to measure progress related to strengthening community governance around dryland and natural resource management. This component will be implemented via BIOFUND’s Designated Account. 6 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Component 3: Promoting Conservation-compatible Rural Development and Integrated Landscape Management in Target Landscapes (Original Project: US$13 million equivalent from IDA, Additional Financing US$ 6,719,266 from GEF) IDA Grant: This component aims to promote conservation-compatible rural development in target landscapes through support to sustainable value chains and Integrated Landscape Management (ILM), by financing land use planning, establishment of Landscape Management Units (LMUs), and capacity strengthening of targeted districts to reduce pressure on CAs. These activities contribute to all pillars of the MozBio Program and require addressing several constraints, including limited access to credit, TA and inputs, and insufficient market access and employment opportunities. GEF Grant: The AF would allow the Project to engage in following activities: Matching Grants and ILM: The AF will scale up the component by: i) increasing the number of business plans supported by the Matching Grant Scheme (US$1.7 million) targeting local entrepreneurs, micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and local community associations, to promote sustainable dryland value chains, including for non-timber forest products and for sustainable agriculture and livestock management that aim to reduce the degradation of farm and pasture lands, and help to intensify and stabilize production thereby reducing processes of expansion and encroachment into natural ecosystems and fragile areas (such as from agroforestry systems); ii) support financial literacy of local communities (US$0,2 million) through expanding Saving and Credit Groups (PCRs), which primarily comprise women, iii) support restoration activities, mainly led by communities and identified through assessments such as ROAM (Restoration Opportunities Assessment Methodology), (US$3 million), including to forest reserves, grassland and rangeland, including Assisted Natural Regeneration to accelerate natural successional process by removing or reducing barriers to natural forest regeneration, mainly targeting areas for restoring the protective functions of the ecosystem (e.g. watersheds) and Active Restoration to support the planting of specific species that can either be native species or commercial species compatible with forest and grasslands (e.g. coffee, cashew nuts, etc); iv) support to the elaboration and implementation of the first Management and Business Plan for the Elephant Coast EPA (US$1.6 million), which will help clarify land uses and tenures; and v) support to mainstream land restoration in the integrated district development plans (US$0,2 million) to improve sustainable management of production landscapes, addressing the complex nexus of local livelihoods, land degradation, climate change, and environmental security. Four indicators will be added to this component to track progress related to i) area of land restored, ii) area under improved management, iii) reduced emissions from deforestation and iv) number of beneficiaries in aforementioned activities, disaggregated by gender. Component 4: Contingency Emergency Response Component (Original Project: US$0 million equivalent from IDA, Additional Financing US$ 0 from GEF) The component is included to support the recipient in case of a potential disaster-recovery need by providing immediate response to an eligible crisis or emergency. The component would channel IDA funds and an annex reflecting key agreements for CERC activation and implementation and summary of fiduciary and E&S requirements will be included in the revised Project Implementation Manual (PIM). 7 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing CERC reflecting the strategic approach taken in Mozambique across the Bank’s portfolio. The CERC will provide immediate response to an eligible emergency. As such, in the event of such eligible emergency (as defined in the CERC Operational Manual already prepared and adopted by the government), and at the request of the government, the Component would finance emergency activities and expenditures through the reallocation of funds from the Project. The CERC may be used following natural disasters, global epidemics or other crises and emergencies, allowing funds to be reallocated from other components of the project. In the event of an emergency event, it is not anticipated that a reallocation of project funds will cause serious disruption to project implementation. The FNDS will be the implementing agency for the CERC. Activities under CERC will be governed by the World Bank Directive Contingent Emergency Response Components (CERC) (October, 2017). Disbursement of emergency financing under the CERC will be contingent upon: a) the recipient establishing a nexus between the disaster event and the need to access funds to support recovery and reconstruction activities (an “eligible event”); and b) submission to and no objection granted by the World Bank of an Emergency Action Plan (EAP). The EAP will include a list of activities, procurement methodology and safeguards procedures. Changes to component costs: A summary of the allocations under the parent project and the AF for each component are presented in the table below. Parent Government Revised Project AF (GEF) project cost Component Counterpart (IDA) US$m (IDA+GEF) US$m US$m US$m Component 1: 15,000,000 13,825,00012 1,000,000 28,825,000 Strengthening Capacity and Financial Sustainability of National Conservation Institutions Component 2: 17,000,000 2,575,000 1,000,000 19,575,000 Improving Conservation Areas Management in Target Landscapes Component 3: 13,000,000 6,719,266 1,000,000 19,719,266 Promoting 12Of which approximately 1,2 million will go to Project Management Costs and coordination, collaboration, and promotion of knowledge sharing on drylands. 8 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Conservation- compatible Rural Development and Integrated Landscape Management in Target Landscapes Component 4: 0 0 0 0 Contingency Emergency Response Total 45,000,000 23,119,266 3,000,000 71,119,266 4 Resettlement Policy Framework 4.1 Preparation and Objectives of the Resettlement Policy Framework This Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) is one of the Social Safeguard instruments produced for the Mozbio2 and GE7 AF project. The objective of the RPF is to lay out the policies, procedural guidelines and institutional arrangement for the implementation of any involuntary resettlement interventions that could be required under Mozbio2 and GE7 AF. The contents of this document align with national policies and WB requirements. The project will consider compensation for economic losses. Specific risks of displacement impacts in the Mozbio2 and GE7 AF landscapes can be seen in Table 1 . 4.1.1 Potential impacts The RPF was prepared on the basis of anticipated social impacts, which could trigger involuntary resettlement requiring compensation for losses of property and access to sources of livelihoods. This may occur when: The construction and improvement of existing access roads inside CAs, infrastructure siting in and outside of CAs and the possibility of land-use rights acquisition outside of CAs for project related economic development activities that result in people losing access or use of land on which they had assets or exercised economic or subsistence activities. It is also possible that during construction of access roads in particular, but also other infrastructure and buildings that constructors inadvertently cause damage to people’s assets such as crops, livestock and shelter or other structures for example. Concessions for natural resource management or tourism may be created as part of the Project and should efforts to secure tenure involve formal land rights (DUAT) title acquisition, then there is a possibility of people losing access or use of land on which they had assets or exercised economic or subsistence activities. There is also a remote possibility of conflicts with wildlife becoming such a high risk that people 9 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing have to be involuntarily resettled away from the high risk area but this is foreseen to be unlikely to occur and limited to isolated cases. The risk of climate change related disasters Disaster Management Institute (INGC) charged with this responsibility, it will be executed according to the international standards the INGC complies with, and is not covered by this RPF. Specific risks of displacement impacts in the landscapes where Mozbio2 and GE7 AF will be implemented can be seen in Table 1 below. Table 1: Risks in Mozbio2 and GE7 AF that could trigger World Bank OP 4.12 Risky Activities by Landscape That Could Trigger OP 4.12 Loss of assets due to Human / wildlife acquisition of rights to DUAT acquisition Target Area conflicts pressurizing sites for infrastructure outside of CAs for sub- people to leave their construction and any projects homes damage caused by constructors to people’s property Elephant Coast Possible: road Highly probable for HWC has taken place Landscape construction, CA tourism investments with elephants and entrance buildings, and conservation or requests made for rehabilitation of a livestock & fisheries assistance to leave the training centre and value chain CA. Pilot voluntary tourism investor development. relocation by Peace activities. Parks Foundation due to start in 2018. This activity is not part of the Mozbio2 Project. Chimanimani Possible: CA Highly probable In the buffer zone HWC Landscape administration tourism investments needs improved infrastructure roads, and conservation or management. housing, drifts and an livestock, fisheries and education centre. agriculture value chain Nature based tourism development, buildings. Marromeu Possible: Highly probable Frequent fatal HWC Landscape administration tourism & sport with crocodiles and infrastructure roads, hunting investments damages by buffalo housing, nature based and conservation or and elephant. Needs tourism fisheries and improved developments. agriculture value chain management. development. 10 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing A Land Tenure Regularization screening process13 will precede any land use acquisition planning, and a social assessment will be carried out as part of a simplified ESA wherever construction is foreseen. These studies will guide the design of specific interventions in each area and the application of relevant WB safeguard instruments, including Resettlement Plans.The RPF is a safeguard instrument to be used in the case of anticipated impacts that could cause economic losses or, the remote possibility of physical displacement being caused. It must be understood however, that physical resettlement activities are not deemed to be required nor have been planned under Mozbio2 and GEF 7 AF and activities that might cause them will be screened out as describe in this RPF. Consistent with the vision of the Government of Mozambique (GoM) and the World Bank, the document takes into account gender aspects to ensure that both men and women are fairly treated and receive equal benefits for losses compensated using this RPF. The gender aspects will receive special attention. The safeguards assistant and the CA community development officer will monitor this activity, ensuring that women and other vulnerable groups are not discriminated against and can have the same opportunities in terms of access to information, opportunities and benefits. Reports must be submitted monthly to the central FNDS safeguards team. 4.2 Method used for preparing the Resettlement Policy Framework Collection of as much data as available in Maputo and the internet and review of this was made to prepare for field visits to each one of the target Landscapes. Field visits were made to meet with key stakeholders and for the social safeguards team comprised of the consultant and Mozbio and FNDS safeguards and community specialists, to update basic socio- economic and organizational and institutional information. Thus aside from the Conservation Area Administrator and where available, community development staff (from Chimanimani and Maputo Reserves), the District Administrators of Marromeu, Sussundenga and the Permanent Secretary of Matutuine and key informants from the District Government services for agriculture, construction and planning and development were met, in the case of Marromeu the President of the municipal Council was also met. The main objective was to learn of the evolution of sector developments, constraints and resettlement experience and outcomes in the area. Private sector stakeholders of importance were also interviewed and visited at their operations including two Coutada operators, a representative of Companhia de Sena the large sugar production concessionaire in the Zambezi Delta and conservation NGOs including the Micaia Foundation, Peace Parks Foundation and Worldwide Fund for Nature. Since the situation in Marromeu Complex was the least well understood, three communities living in the Marromeu National Reserve were also met, and interviews held with traditional community leaders, local leaders and household members to discuss key events, issues and concerns, involvement in resettlement, and expectations for the future. The findings of these meetings include the key role of the District Government in leading the resettlement processe outside of CAs; the need of the This is one of the implementation tools currently being developed for the Landsacpe Portfolio which is also financed by the 13 World Bank, that will be used in Component 3 of Mozbio2. 11 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing District Government´s recognition of the Coutadas as partially protected areas with a conservation purpose so that they are cannot be used for large or medium scale resettlement; the need for encouraging communities living inside the Coutadas to remain in these areas by offering them to participate in the benefit sharing activities (i.e value chains through a matching grant scheme) and also by establishing social and economic facilities so that they contribute more actively to the conservation effort. Key lessons learnt from the target CAs and their landscapes during the preparation of this RPF include the management of human-animal conflicts in and outside of core areas of CAs, which involves locally specific strategies and to date has not been satisfactory for most of those involved. This RPF recognises the lack of guidance on the subject, and the remote possibility that involuntary resettlement might be caused. All the targeted landscapes have experiences of resettlement in and out of CAs and points of interest include the District Government’s role has been minimal only providing property valuation for compensation, and agreeing to proposals and plans made by CA operators or managers. • The District Government needs to not only to be involved but lead all resettlement hosting processes outside of the CAs as recommended in this RPF. o Experience with INGC-led flood-caused resettlement in the Zambeze River valley resulted in a large resettlement village being located inside Coutada 11 with significant negative impacts on the Coutada’s natural resources. ▪ Land use planning processes need to be participatory and recognise the partially protected status of Coutadas as well as their conservation purpose. o Further resettlement in seven or eight years later carried out by the operator of Coutada 11 with assistance from the District Government to ensure compensation was calculated appropriately, resettled part of a community to another area around five kilometres away inside the core area of the Coutada and provided families with social service infrastructure built with permanent building materials and the traditional leader with his own house. ▪ Although coutadas may legally contain people, the incentives to stay inside them are already high due to benefit-sharing including meat from hunted game, and creating further socioeconomic attractions inside the CAs may not contribute positively to the long term conservation objectives of the areas, unless these communities contribute more actively to the conservation effort. ▪ The importance of a structured, participatory, spatial planning process to develop an agreed-upon common framework for the many different actors and interests is well institutionalised in the Territorial Planning legislation but the leadership, knowledge about conservation, resettlement and development together with resource allocations to implement the various plans are often lacking. This should be taken into account in any resettlement operation needed under Mozbio2. ▪ Resource allocation responsibility for implementing District Development Plans and District Land Use Plans in buffer zones with reference to conservation related practices and projects involving communities varies by location and whether the buffer zone is legally part of a CA or not, the latter generally needs much greater efforts at collaboration. This should be taken into account should involuntary resettlement and livelihoods restoration activities be carried out in buffer zones. It is possible that unrealistic or unmet expectations resulting from past experience of resettlement and compensation levels are expressed by communities during Mozbio2 and GE7 AF. It is important that sufficient information be disseminated through a comprehensive communication strategy that 12 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing will be required by this RPF so that men, women, youth and vulnerable groups are engaged and understand the Project’s compensation and involuntary resettlement principles. 4.3 Impact Mitigation and Management Instruments 4.3.1 Planning to avoid involuntary resettlement and mitigate impacts that may cause it Mitigating potential social impacts is being addressed at the level of Project design through a number of actions that will mitigate most impacts and in many cases, avoid them altogether. A Process Framework has been developed for the Project to indicate the ways in which Project affected people will participate in taking decisions about mitigation and management of socioeconomic impacts that will affect them. The objective of their participation is to ensure that measures are designed to ensure Project affected people can improve or at least restore their livelihoods and standards of living. Project design includes various mechanisms to protect the interests of the people negatively affected by it, also thereby, reducing the risk of displacement impacts. All mitigation efforts will be made by the Project not to cause any involuntary resettlement whatever. It is important to note that subproject of infrastructure or investment in tourism concessions that involves economic loss above 20% will not be eligible. Construction projects and turism concessions sub-project proposals that are detected by the screening process to cause involuntary physical displacement will not be financed by Mozbio2 and GE7 AF. The location of infrastructure to be financed under the Project that is not only driven by technical considerations and spatial development plans, but various participatory processes that will allow stakeholders to understand, negotiate and take decisions concerning siting and consequences of this. These include: Construction in CAs, buffer zones and outside of these will be preceded by a screening process associated with the Environmental (and Social) Assessment (ESA) which can flag the risks of potentially affecting people’s property. Environmental and social screening process and instruments are described in the ESMF (See ESMF Chapter 10. Guidelines for ESMF Implementation and its Annex 3. Environmental and Social Screening Checklist and Annex 4. Preliminary Environmental Information Sheet) and this RPF. ESA mitigation plans will outline the procedures used to minimize the negative impacts on the community as whole or on part of it or on single households. Where these require resettlement, these procedures will be defined in detail in a Resettlement Action Plan (RAP). When the details of economic development or conservation activities that require land use rights acquisition that cannot avoid compensation or as a last resort, physical displacement, are fully known, an Abbreviated Resettlement Plan (RP) or Compensation Plan (CP) as it would be known as in Mozambique 14 , or a RAP may therefore be identified to provide the implementation guide for the respective compensatory activities. 14As Mozambique legislation does not distinguish the scale of impact correlating minor impacts with simpler resettlement instruments, in order to clarify that no physical resettlement will take place, the use of the term ‘Compensation Plan’ indicates the difference and as it is not legislated and therefore does not strictly have to meet the 13 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing OP 4.12 specifies that a full Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) is required if over 200 people must be relocated or these people are not physically displaced but lose enough of their assets due to the project that the remainder are unviable as livelihoods sources. If the impact is less than this an abbreviated resettlement plan should be prepared instead. A full RAP will not be required for Mozbio2 and GE7 AF. Figure 4-1 Decision flow diagram of which resettlement instruments to use A social impact assessment with a socio-economic baseline study and detailed inventory of assets (with photographic records, maps and coordinates) would also be required for the preparation of an abbreviated RP elaborated when extraordinary circumstances of vulnerability including high risks of conflicts with wildlife require limited involuntary resettlement. If there is a risk of land being acquired possibly displacing people or their property a as a result of Component 3 subprojects as well as construction activities and concessions planned inside CAs in Component 2, the screening process in the ESMF will be used and consultation with the communities will be held to guide whether an ARAP is needed or the sub-project could not be financed because it exceeds the threshold of 20% of loss requirement 15 full Resettlement Action Plan requirements under Mozambican law, in line with World Bank norms its level of detail will reflect the magnitude and level of 15To complement the screening process a Land Tenure Regularization Protocol - which is in process of being finalized – will be used in the Landscape portfolio to guide the projects to evaluate tenure in specific subprojects and identify situations of conflict over the process of community delimitation and regularization of DUATs in the target landscapes of FNDS projects. This Protocol and associated checklists will also be applied in Mozbio2 to verify the land use and occupation situation deriving from constructions or concessions (Component 2) or from sub- projects (Component 3). 14 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing complexity of the economic displacements caused by the Project. Construction projects and sub-project proposals that are detected by the screening process to cause involuntary physical displacement will not be financed by Mozbio2 and GE7 AF. The PRPT tool will be used for screening by Landscape level Community Officers or CA Community Officers with support from the LMU specialists. The LMU would need to seek approval of exceptions from the Mozbio2 Project Coordination office, especially if physical resettlement is required. They would also seek technical support to prepare more complex RP/CP plans from the FNDS safeguards team in the FNDS Projects Management Sector. At district level SDAE and SDPI will support sub-project screening to identify the magnitude of impacts. Communication between these Services and the CA management and LMUs will be important in contributing to re-design of activities, sites or arrangements with PAPs to reduce or avoid impacts every time they are detected. This may be through reduction of site size, a change in location or configuration, alteration of activities and relations with the affected parties. Time must be made during preparation of these activities to make these alterations to avoid displacement whenever possible. If local community members are or were among the users of the land, then it is important to record the following: i. The attitude of communities vis-à-vis the DUAT acquisition or concession and record whether they have been consulted and informed about it; and ii. Whether affected community members agree to the use of the land for the purposes of the sub- project activity and why they do so, and how they expect to formalize their consent. iii. If they agree to the use of the land, their expectations, their perceptions of their roles in the development and the conditions which they see as pre-requisites to their continuing or improved livelihood status as a result of the concession must be included in the formal consent document. If the communities do not agree to the sub- project, then it will be necessary to redefine the sub- project boundaries and/or objectives with relation to the land area, or close the sub-project proposal with a signed refusal. It will be necessary that the PRPT form is signed by all parties involved in a concession or sub-project proposal including representatives of the communities (as defined in the draft PRPT) – whether they have agreed or not to the sub-project proposed. On the basis of the PRPT the Bank will also advise Ministry of Land and Environmental if a full or abbreviated RAP needs be prepared, and if other remedial actions need to be taken. If, an abbreviated RAP or Compensation Plan is required, this will be prepared according to the requirements of this RPF. Macro zoning is included as part of the project design. It involves high and local level stakeholders who can bring various issues to the discussion that will end with agreement on which areas are to be used for what purposes. Avoidance or mitigation measures to minimize direct impacts on households of property damage or loss that cause households to lose property or access to it will be important zoning requirements. Where zoning exposes individuals’ property to risks of damage or loss due to construction activities, concession applying for new land rights acquisition, or risks of severe conflicts with wildlife requiring involuntary resettlement, appropriate compensation must be agreed on and 15 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing paid according to the guidelines in this RPF. The Project’s participatory Processes Framework should be used to guide impact mitigation and management of all other zoning outcomes in and around protected areas where communities’ resource use is constrained. For areas where sub-projects may be established that involve the acquisition of land use rights title, it is expected that any prior rights holders consulted during the DUAT acquisition process will enter into an agreement on voluntary land contribution and benefit sharing (this will be registered via the PRPT process) with the investor in private and community partnerships. If this is the case there is no need for compensation or any further safeguards instrument application. In practice it is highly likely that following community awareness-raising on rights and procedures, if they have not already done so, that prior to DUAT acquisition, the community requests to delimit its land. Delimitation involves a micro-zoning exercise that identifies resources and will be used to clearly identify the communitie s’ expectations about benefits if development is carried out in specific parts of their delimited area. These results will provide the basis for a Community Agreement (see the Process Framework for details) that will accompany the ceding of any community land and stipulate the conditions agreed on. Construction of infrastructure inside CAs is unlikely to affect people’s property due to the low numbers of residents. 4.3.2 Principles governing involuntary resettlement and the preparation of management instruments When the details of land rights acquisition and resettlement are not fully known or, as in the case of the Project at present, when physical resettlement is not foreseen in the Project design, as a precautionary principle, a Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF) is considered necessary to establish the policy principles for public information and discussion in the event any resettlement must take place due directly or indirectly to the Project. The principles outlined in the World Bank's Operational Policy OP 4.12 are used in preparing the Policy Framework. These principles and the resettlement measures stemming from them will apply to all sub projects and activities of Mozbio2 and GE7 AF, whether or not the scale and complexity of compensation and resettlement issues require preparation of a RP. The World Bank policy applies to all components of the Project that result in involuntary economic losses of property caused by the activities financed with MozBio and GEF 7 funds.16 Mozambique is prone to disaster risks due to its geographic location which is likely to occur extreme wheather events (tropical cyclones, drought, flooding) and because of the country low capacity to respond and mitigate these impacts. Moreover, Mozambique is also facing the COVID-19 which is a global pandemic and led the country to declare a State of Emergency. Marromeu landscape is prone to flood frequently. The Contingent Emergency Response Component (CERC) is designed to provide swift response in the event of an Eligible Crisis or Emergency through a portion of the undisbursed project funds to address immediate post-crisis and emergency financing 16 Displacement caused by a sub-project not financed with MozBio and GEF 7 funds will follow the resettlement process of the national legislation; in this case the financial cost being charged to the investor and the resettlement process being assisted by the government. The resettlement process in Mozambique is governed by Decree 31/2012 of 8 August - Regulation on the Resettlement Process Resulting from Economic Activities, and Ministerial Diploma No. 155/2014 of 19 September - Internal Regulation for the Operation of the Technical Commission of Resettlement Monitoring and Supervision 16 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing needs. Emergency activities financed under the CERC are expected to involve financing provision of critical goods or emergency recovery and reconstruction works and it is likely these will fall into Category B or C. In that cases due diligence concerning resettlement would involve obtaining information on the procedures to identify and address adverse impacts, the applicable standards, the outcomes that are expected, and any significant issues. Due diligence would refer to and be guided by the principles and standards outlined in this RPF as well as legislation. Preparation of the Emergency Action Plan (EAP) will consider this RPF and safeguard instruments will require World Bank approval prior to commencement of activities. Importantly, the EAP will need to include procedures for: • Consultation and disclosure; • Integration of mitigation measures and performance standards into contracts; and • Supervision/monitoring and reporting measures to ensure compliance. IT is Importante to observe that, the WB policy OP 4.12 highlights the following key principles: • Involuntary resettlement and land use rights acquisition should be minimized or avoided where possible exploring all viable alternative project designs. Where land rights acquisition is unavoidable, the project will be designed to minimize adverse impacts. • Resettlement activities should be conceived and executed as sustainable development programmes. Sufficient investment resources should be provided to enable the persons displaced by the project to share in project benefits. • Displaced people (including women, the disabled, youth and elderly people) should be meaningfully consulted and should have opportunities to participate in planning and implementing resettlement programs. • Displaced persons should be assisted in their efforts to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or at least to restore them, in real terms, to pre-displacement levels or to levels prevailing prior to the beginning of project implementation, whichever is higher. The OP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement ensures that the population displaced by a project receives benefits from it. This covers those with usufruct or customary rights to the land or other resources taken for the project. The OP is inclusive, ensuring that all those affected both directly and indirectly by project developments are compensated as part of the project. Resettlement covers physical displacement and economic displacement. The need for resettlement and compensation refers to the impact of the development causing the loss of, or loss of access to, any assets growing on or permanently affixed to the land, such as shelters, buildings and crops and also to the impact causing loss of or access to an economic resource base or local communities’ means of livelihood. Losses may be total or partial. The absence of legal title to use and usufruct of the land does not limit rights to compensation. Preference should be given to land based resettlement strategies for displaced people whose livelihoods are land-based. If sufficient alternative land is not available, non- 17 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing land-based options built around opportunities for employment or self-employment should be provided in addition to cash compensation for land and other assets lost. The lack of adequate land must be demonstrated and documented. The policy is specific about resettlement in the case of the involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced persons. These include restrictions on the use of resources imposed on 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. It is one of the main aims of Mozbio2, in line with the legal statute of people living in Conservation Areas, to assist people whose use of resources is restricted by the CAs to improve or restore their livelihoods in a manner that maintains the sustainability of the CAs. It should be noted that OP 4.12 does not apply to restrictions of access to natural resources under community-based projects. Where the community using the resources decides to restrict access to these resources, provided the documented community decision-making process is deemed adequate by the Bank, and that it provides for identification of appropriate measures to mitigate any adverse impacts on the vulnerable members of the community these restrictions are not considered involuntary. The need to involve communities in the planning and implementation of interventions that result from these policies is indispensable. Conflict resolution mechanisms must be identified as part of the above planning and implementation. Particular attention must be paid to the needs of vulnerable groups, especially those living below the poverty line, the landless, the elderly, women and children, indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities. Implementation of resettlement activities must be linked to the implementation of the investment component of the project to ensure that displacement or restriction of access does not occur before necessary measures for compensation or resettlement are in place. Measures required prior to displacement include provision of compensation and of other assistance required for replacement, relocation, and preparation and provision of resettlement sites with adequate facilities. The taking of land and related assets may be carried out only after compensation has been paid. Cash compensation for lost assets should be paid for livelihood sources that are not land-based. Compensation levels should be sufficient to replace the assets at full replacement cost in local markets. OP 4.12 affirms that cash compensation for lost assets is appropriate in the following circumstances, ensuring that compensation levels are enough for replacement of land and other assets at local market rates: 1. “Livelihoods are land-based but the land taken for the project is a small fraction of the affected asset and the residual is economically viable; 2. Active markets for land, housing, and labour exist, displaced persons use such markets, and there is sufficient supply of land and housing; or 3. Livelihoods are not land-based.” Displaced persons and their communities, and host communities receiving them, should be provided timely and relevant information on rights and options, consulted on resettlement options, and offered choices and provided with technically and economically feasible resettlement alternatives as well as 18 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing opportunities to participate in planning, implementing, and monitoring resettlement. Appropriate and accessible grievance mechanisms must be established for these groups. As required, agricultural sites with productive potential in convenient locations should be provided as compensation where necessary, ensuring that conditions are at a minimum equivalent to the advantages of the old site. Alternative or similar resources should be provided to compensate for the loss of access to community resources such as fishing areas and fuel resource areas. When necessary and only for a transition period, project affected people should be offered support after displacement based on a reasonable estimate of time likely to be needed to restore their livelihood and previous standards of living. They should also be provided with development assistance, in addition to compensation such as land preparation, credit facilities, training, or job opportunities, as necessary. The policy identifies that land based resettlement should be the preferential option offered when the livelihoods of affected people are land based. Resettlement programs will include adequate institutional arrangements to ensure effective and timely design, planning and implementation of rehabilitation measures. Adequate arrangements for effective and timely internal and external monitoring will be made on implementation of all rehabilitation measures. The World Bank will not cover any costs of physical resettlement as part of the Mozbio2 and GEF 7 AF Project. Given gender inequality issues prevailing in the country and since women and youth are often the ones marginalized from development processes and are unable to access and enjoy the benefits of development interventions, the RPF requires that any resettlement operations conducted under the Project: • Ensure that dissemination of information target men and women equally, through the channels most used by men and women. • Promote active participation of men, women and youth in all consultation and decision- making processes and access to opportunities conferred by programme. • Provision of adequate training and support to implementers. • All data collected by the Project in relation to this RPF should be disaggregated by gender. • Payment procedures should ensure that where appropriate women should be identified and required to sign off on compensation received individually or with their husbands. 4.4 Legal Framework The ESMF provides a comprehensive listing and description of the overall legal, policy and regulatory framework for Mozbio2 and GE7 AF. This section looks at relevant national laws, policies and regulations and WB safeguard principles applicable for Mozbio2 and GE7 AF in the context of resettlement interventions. Any involuntary resettlement activities carried out in the context of Mozbio2 will align to the Mozambican legal and policy framework and international best practices included in World Bank safeguards. 4.4.1 National legislation, regulatory and policy framework on resettlement and compensation in conservation areas 19 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Mozambique has made important progress in terms of legal and policy development relevant for the context of conservation, promotion of development, participatory processes and resettlement. Table 2 lists some of the key laws and policies guiding Mozbio2 and GE7 AF . Table 2: Key Mozambican laws and policies underpinning Mozbio2 and GEF7 design. Area Legal / Regulatory / Policy Instrument The Constitution of the Republic of Mozambique, Enacted in 2004 Land, The Land Law No. 17 / 1997 of 1st October Territorial The Land Law Regulations, Decree No. 66 / 1998 Planning and Heritage The Territorial Planning Law No. 19 / 2007 of 18 th July The Territorial Planning Policy, Resolution No. 18 / 2007 The National Heritage Protection Law of 1998 Resettlement The Regulation of Resettlement Processes Resulting from Economic Activities Decree No. 31 / 2012 of 8th August, and Directives No. 155/2014 and 156/2014 Consultation Decree on Local Authorities No. 15 / 2000 and The environmental sector directive for Public Participation Processes, Participation Ministerial Diploma No. 130 / 2006 The Public Consultation Process Decree No. 54 / 2015 Forest and The Forest and Wildlife Policy, Resolution No. 8 / 1997 of 1st April Wildlife Forestry and Wildlife Law No. 10 / 1999 Coutada Regulations, Legal Diploma No. 2629 / 1965 of August 7th The Regulations for Forestry and Wildlife, Decree No. 12 / 2002 Tourism The National Tourism Policy and Implementation Strategy, Resolution No. 14 / 2003 of 4th April The Tourism Law No. 4 / 2004 State Law on Local State Administration No. 8/2003, 19th May provides for Administration community participation through “integrated administration” focusing on District governance and budget decisions Decree No. 15/2000 describes the articulation of local state authorities and community leadership in conflict resolution, representing community opinions on applications for land, and identifying and delimiting community land. Area Legal / Regulatory / Policy Instrument 20 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Fisheries Fisheries Law No. 3/1990 endorses involvement of communities in management of artisanal fisheries and a participatory approach to conservation and appropriate use of aquatic biologic resources and ecosystems Environment The National Environment Policy, Resolution No. 5 / 1995 of 3rd August and The Environment Law No. 20 / 1997 conservation The Environmental Impact Evaluation Regulations, Decree No. 45 / 2004 Burial Regulations Decree No. 42/1990 of 29 December The Conservation Policy 2010 – 2015 Resolution No. 63 / 2009 The Conservation Areas Law No. 16 / 2014 Law on Protection, Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity No. 5/2017 altering and republishing the Conservation Areas Law of 2014. Mozambique´s Constitution warrants equal rights, duties and freedom to all its citizens. In the context of conservation, development or resettlement activities this includes freedom of expression by all community members and project affected people (PAP). The Constitution also introduces the notion of fair compensation. Land ownership and natural resources are governed by the Mozambican Land Law, which defines land use rights based on customary claims. The Law sets the procedures to be followed by individuals and communities to acquire land use titles (DUATs). It also establishes that land use rights can be revoked to public interests with the payment of fair compensation. The regulations under this law define areas designated as “Total Protection Zones” and “Partial Protection Zones”. The Total Protection Zones includes areas designated for nature conservation activities. The Law specifies that no land use and benefit rights can be acquired in total and partial protection zones, which are considered public domain, however special licences for specific activities may be issued. DUATs are allowed and local communities may legally reside inside game farms, controlled hunting areas and community conservation areas managed as conservation and sustainable use areas. This also applies to forest concessions according to Article 25 of the Forest and Wildlife Law. Territorial planning is mandatory in rural Mozambique. Territorial planning supports the rational and sustainable use of natural resources and the preservation of the environment through providing instruments for area planning to promote quality of life, improve housing, infrastructure and urban service systems, public safety and reduce vulnerability to natural disasters or accidents. Where damage or degradation occurs in a territorial area that may affect environmental sustainability, the entity identified as responsible for causing the damage is required to repair such damage and pay compensation for damage to the quality of life of affected citizens. Transfer of property by expropriation must be preceded by payment of compensation. The Law specifies that fair compensation has to be paid for: Loss of tangible or intangible goods; disruption of social cohesion; and loss of productive assets. The regulations of the Territorial Planning Law state that “fair compensation” is understood to not only cover the actual and real value of the expropriated assets at the time of payment, but also the damage and loss of profits to the owner as a result of the expropriation of his property. The, Guidelines for the Expropriation Process due to 21 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Territorial Planning (Ministerial Diploma No. 181/2010) sets the rules for calculation of compensation for assets, goods and productive assets. Principles orienting local community participation in sustainable natural resources management in and outside of protected areas are established in the Forestry and Wildlife Legislation. The legislation defines national parks, reserves and areas of historical or cultural value as Protected Zones. These protected areas are allocated buffer zones for multiple resource use around them by the Council of Ministers and their use is regulated by the protected area management plan. The Forestry and Wildlife Law points out that agriculture and livestock rearing are prohibited in national parks unless otherwise stipulated in a management plan. Regulations in this domain determine that communities have an inalienable right to draw benefit from conservation that uses land and resources over which they have tenure or hold rights of access and use. Further: (i) 20% of concession fees should go to local communities resident in the concession area; (ii) communities have the right to participate in decision making; and (iii) multistakeholder groups, namely, Local Participatory Management Councils (COGEPs) should be created to articulate and defend interests over the use of natural resources. As legislated in relation to sport hunted wildlife the meat from these activities is distributed to the local population after trophies are removed by the hunters. Conservation legislation presents new categories for the classification of protected areas into a) total conservation areas and b) sustainable use conservation areas. The interests and involvement of communities legally inside CAs and their buffer zones, in income generating activities that promote biodiversity conservation will be considered in new CA Strategic Development Plans. Community conservation areas with land use rights provide communities with area management options of partnerships and concessions to third parties. Of special interest to this RPF is that the legislation determines that the State can resettle people to outside of a CA if their presence is incompatible with the legal status of the CA or if their presence impedes good management of the CA. Provisions are made for the legal establishment of Conservation Area Management Councils (CGAC), advisory bodies covering one or more CA composed of representatives of local communities, the private sector, associations and local state bodies for the protection, conservation and promotion of sustainable development and use of biological diversity. In turn, the legislative framework on environmental issues prohibits activities that may threaten conservation, reproduction, quality and quantity of biological resources. It also warrants community participation in the management of environmentally protected areas. Resettlement operations in the context of economic activity in Mozambique need to uphold the following individual rights: Re-establishment of income to the same levels or higher as before; Restoration of living standards equal or higher than before; Provision of support for the transfer of goods and assets to new location of residence; To live in a physical environment with infrastructure and social services; Having access to space in which to practice livelihood activities; To share opinion at all times during the resettlement process. The proponent of the activity is responsible for developing and implementing the resettlement plan, as well as bearing the costs of the process. The approval of resettlement plans is the responsibility of 22 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing the District Government and is preceded by the issuance of a favourable technical opinion of the sector in charge of territorial planning, after hearing the sectors of agriculture, local administration and public works and housing. The approval of the resettlement plan precedes the issuance of the environmental license. The Technical Directive for the Process of Elaborating Resettlement Plans (Ministerial Diploma No. 156/2014 of 19 September) defines the procedures and steps to be followed in drawing up the resettlement plan which involves three stages, with corresponding deliverables: ▪ Phase 1. The preparation of a Physical and Socio-economic Survey Report; ▪ Phase 2. The preparation of the Resettlement Plan; and ▪ Phase 3. The preparation of a Resettlement Implementation Action Plan. A robust process of public consultation during the resettlement process is also prescribed by both Decree No. 31/2012 and Ministerial Diploma No. 156/2014. The public consultation system should create conditions for resettled and host communities to actively participate during all phases of the decision-making process in terms of resettlement, and to have access to all information regarding the content of studies and the process of resettlement. Consistent with the rest of the legislation, the resettlement framework in Mozambique is underpinned by principles of consultation / participation, adequate planning, implementation and monitoring. Resettlement in the context of emergencies, such as floods, is not governed by the resettlement legislation. The National Civil Protection Unit (UNAPROC), a multisectorial unit, is responsible for rescue and relocation operations of civilians on the ground in the context of natural disasters including floods. Further, the National Institute for Disaster management (INGC) is responsible for preventing, reducing and operating in the context of natural disasters in Mozambique. In light of this, it assumes a lead role in promoting the voluntary relocation of populations facing important risks of floods, and when needed, the involuntary resettlement of affected populations. The principles of community and broader stakeholder participation are upheld across relevant legislation. In addition, the Environment sector’s specific directive for Public Participation Processes provides detailed guidelines on participation to be integrated in ESAs, as well as for permanent or temporary relocation of people or communities, and the displacement of goods or assets or restrictions on the use of or access to natural resources. 4.5 World Bank Policies Overview of World Bank Safeguard Policies Thus no new environmental safeguards policies are expected to be triggered other than the already identified in the parent project: OP 4.01 Environmental Impact, OP 4.04 Natural Habitats, OP 4.09 Pest Management OP 4.36 Forests, OP 4.11 Physical Cultural Resources and OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement The most relevant policies for this RPF are described below. 23 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing World Bank Safeguard Policy Triggered OP 4.01 Environmental Assessment Yes. Category B - potential direct adverse The objective of this policy is to ensure that Bank-financed impacts on human populations or projects are environmentally sound and sustainable, and that environmentally important areas including decision-making is improved through appropriate analysis of protected and partially protected areas, actions and of their likely environmental impacts. This policy is wetlands, grasslands, and other natural habitats triggered if a project is likely to have potential (adverse) will be minor, site specific, reversible and easily environmental risks and impacts on its area of influence. OP 4.01 manageable. covers impacts on the natural environment (air, water and land); Project social impacts will largely result from human health and safety; physical cultural resources; and trans- construction of civil works for essential and boundary and global environment concerns. necessary facilities, which will include administrative buildings, small bridges and access roads in selected conservation areas. The construction of these facilities is expected to produce localized adverse environmental and social impacts that are low to moderate while also minimizing impacts of physical displacement. OP 4.11 Cultural Property Possibly Yes. It is possible that the project The objective of this policy is to assist countries to avoid will affect or involve physical cultural or mitigate adverse impacts of development projects on resources due to civil works that may imply physical cultural resources. These may be located in urban some excavations of earth movements. The or rural settings, and may be above ground, underground, ESMF and national requirements or underwater. The cultural interest may be at local, pertaining to chance finds procedures will provincial or national level, or within the international be followed in compliance with community. Trigger: This policy applies to all projects requirements of this policy. requiring a Category A or B Environmental Assessment under OP 4.01. OP 4.12 Involuntary Resettlement Yes. This Resettlement Policy Framework The objective of this policy is to (i) avoid or minimize presents the mitigation instruments to be involuntary resettlement where feasible, exploring all used for involuntary resettlement. viable alternative project designs; (ii) assist displaced The Resettlement Policy Framework persons in improving their former living standards, describes the Resettlement Plans that income earning capacity, and production levels, or at least would mitigate displacement impacts. The in restoring them; (iii) encourage community participation Process Framework is a key mitigation in planning and implementing resettlement; and (iv) instrument for inside and directly adjacent provide assistance to affected people regardless of the to CAs. legality of land tenure. This policy is triggered by not only physical relocation, but any loss of land or other assets resulting in: (i) relocation or loss of shelter; (ii) loss of assets or access to assets; (iii) loss of income sources or means of livelihood, whether or not the affected people must move to another location. This policy also applies to the involuntary restriction of 24 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing access to legally designated parks and protected areas resulting in adverse impacts on the livelihoods of the displaced people. 4.5.1 Comparison between the Laws of the Republic of Mozambique and World Bank OP4.12 on land tenure, involuntary resettlement and compensation Entitlements for payment of compensation are based on the right to use of and benefit from the land which in Mozambique is the property of the State as defined under statutory law. On the other hand, the World Bank’s OP 4.12 states that all project affected people are entitled to some form of compensation whether or not they have legal title if they occupy the land up to a cut-off date. The Bank’s focus is to mitigate the adverse impacts of poverty as part of a project where any adverse impacts occurring are directly or indirectly attributable to activities funded by the project or, if other financers cause, plan and implement resettlement concurrently with the project that has significant contributions to the outcomes of the project. For Mozbio2 and GE7 AF the Mozambican Law would provide the starting point to the extent that it recognizes rights of tenure. In cases where project affected people have no rights of tenure according to the law; the provisions of the Bank OP 4.12 would apply and they would maintain rights to compensation, consultation, and grievance mechanisms. Where there is conflict between laws of Mozambique and the World Bank OP4.12, the latter must take precedence to be compliant with the Bank’s due diligence process and policy standards. In cases of development projects that may involve involuntary resettlement, even where the exact scale of impacts and numbers of project affected people is not known, the Project implementing agency must screen sub-projects through the submission of a Resettlement Policy Framework prior to appraisal that conforms to OP 4.12. The framework estimates, to the extent feasible, the approximate total population to be affected and the likely overall resettlement costs. If activities financed by other agencies or financial intermediaries involve involuntary resettlement a RPF must also be submitted prior to appraisal. If resettlement is not foreseen prior to appraisal, but during design or implementation is found to be necessary, the financial intermediaries must ensure a resettlement plan is prepared and implemented by the Project proponent consistent with OP 4.12. People may lose their ownership, occupancy, or use rights, because of land use rights acquisition or restriction of access in the creation of legally designated parks and protected areas. Restriction of traditional access to resources in legally designated parks and protected areas is an OP 4.12 issue 25 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing addressed through the Mozbio Process Framework. Mozambican decentralization and deconcentration policies advocate greater involvement of citizens and local level government, more transparent governance, participatory planning processes and consultation with communities as clients. This is endorsed completely by OP 4.12 which emphasises the need for meaningful and participatory consultation and joint planning in the resettlement process, as a fundamental means of encouraging trust and sustainable outcomes. Mozambican legislation concerning resettlement requires resettlement planning for the substitution of lost residences and property; it also requires payment of compensation for losses and damages caused by any public or private economic development activity. Mozambican legislation underlines that potential displacement automatically triggers the realization of an ESIA and the production of an environmental management plan. Environmental licensing according to resettlement legislation is now conditional on the production and approval of a Resettlement Plan. The planning process is covered in the Regulation on Resettlement and its directives that guide implementation. The Regulation covers planning aspects in detail but has important gaps relating to social impact assessment and livelihoods restoration and is limited in its application. The Directive on the Expropriation Process provides guidance on compensation calculation, but not at full replacement value. For all projects the principles and procedures stipulated in the Bank’s OP 4.12 will prevail and will supplement all gaps where requirements of local legislation are less. Table 3 provides a detailed comparison of Mozambican Legislation and WB OP 4.12 in relation to specific issues pertaining to resettlement and compensation in which differences have been identified. In addition, the table offers mitigation measures for each of these cases for Mozbio2. 26 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Category of Project Affected People / Type of Mozambican Law World Bank OP4.12 Mitigation Measures Lost Assets Land Users Entitled to consultation and Policy does not distinguish Whatever the legal agreement on benefits or between land rights holders recognition of their compensation at a fair rate with or without title. All are occupancy land users will for improvements on the entitled to some form of be entitled to land based on rights gained compensation whatever the compensation so that by occupation for over 10 legal recognition of their they may maintain or years. occupancy and rights. raise their levels of well- Land users occupying for Preference given to land being / income. less than 10 years and land based resettlement strategies Land-for-land users and occupants of for displaced people whose compensation will be partially or totally protected livelihoods are land-based. prioritized. Other areas are not entitled to Other compensation is valued compensation (including compensation for loss of at full replacement cost, and for land if not rights. income must be restored to compensated in kind) is pre-project levels at least. at full replacement cost. Occupants of Replacement with Entitled to in-kind Entitlement to minimal residential minimum three bedroom compensation or cash housing and services buildings made permanent houses of a compensation at full standards according to of ‘permanent or stipulated size and within a replacement cost including Mozambican law and non-permanent’ minimum size land area. labour and relocation coverage of relocation materials Emphasis on formal expenses, prior to project expenses all carried out urbanization and land-use impact. prior to project impact. planning, and construction of social and public facilities at resettlement sites. Entitlement recognises buildings on land with community or individual land rights; no need for title. 27 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Owners of non- Cash compensation based Entitled to cash compensation Entitlement to in-kind residential on the market value at full replacement cost compensation or cash buildings made including depreciation. including labour and compensation at full of ‘permanent’ relocation expenses, prior to replacement cost and ‘non project impact. including labour and permanent’ relocation expenses, prior materials to project impact. Users suffering Legally due benefits from All negative impacts on the Sustainability will loss of tourism and hunting livelihoods of people affected require Community traditional access concession fees and taxes to by a CA should be addressed Agreements on to or restricted ‘local communities’ resident and treated as ‘resettlement’. livelihoods alternatives use of resources in CAs. Should participate Negative impacts should be and annexed Action inside fully or in the creation of CA avoided or mitigated wherever Plans for implementation. partially management plans and possible through Project Mostly addressed by protected areas definition of uses of design and a Process design provisions in as a result of the resources in CAs. Framework describing PAP Community Agreement Project Resettlement only when CA participation in decisions on and Action Planning statutes prohibit settlement how to avoid or mitigate process under the PF. or good CA management is impacts. If there are residual impeded. The losses are sufficient impacts Project affected entitlement for compensation people will be treated and where necessary, according to this RPF. resettlement as a development- oriented activity. Table 3: Comparison of Mozambican Law and World Bank OP4.12 regarding resettlement and compensation Category of Project Affected People / Type of Lost Assets Mozambican Law World Bank OP4.12 Mitigation Measures Land Use and Benefit Entitled to consultation and Gives preference to land based Land-for-land Title Owners agreement on compensation resettlement strategies for compensation will be at a fair rate for improvements displaced persons whose prioritized. Other on the land during acquisition livelihoods are land-based as compensation (including for of title process. compared tomonetary land if not compensated in compensation. kind) is at full replacement Other compensation is cost. valued at full replacement cost. Category of Project Affected People / Type of Lost Assets Mozambican Law World Bank OP4.12 Mitigation Measures 28 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Owners of Cash compensation based Cash compensation at full As per section 5.2 of this Perennial and annual upon rates calculated as an replacement cost is paid for all RPF and disclosed in crops average net agricultural assets on land with or without Maputo, the CAs and the income. Tree crops cover formal legal rights at the time World Bank Infoshop productivity, age and of the census, providing the prior to approval. market price factors, annual claim can be validated by crops include a factor (up to national law or through a 1) to cover intangible value. process identified in the resettlement plan. Livelihoods Resettlement sites must Assistance to displaced people WB policy will apply and restoration have access to the means of to improve or at least restore should economic losses subsistence. their livelihoods and standards leave affected people of living to pre-project levels with unviable land- or pre- resettlement levels based whichever is higher. options, alternative This is especially focused on livelihoods should be land- based livelihoods for used to meet the World people leaving CAs. Bank requirements. Entitlement assessments should in all areas not mentioned by Mozambican law be guided by the World Bank’s OP 4.12. For all activities required for Mozbio2 and GE7 AF outcomes involving resettlement financed by agencies other than the World Bank, a draft RAP must be provided to the World Bank for due diligence, and gap filling measures may be required. In the case of floods-induced resettlement occurring in any of the target areas, INGC will coordinate all resettlement operations. While these interventions are not regulated by resettlement legislation, due diligence will be necessary to ensure that dialogue with INGC verifies compliance with disaster management legislation of plans and actions in resettlement interventions supported by them as well as international good practice and human rights and settlement standards. [Particularly, people should be resettled permanently within a reasonable time frame and not to a location where their rights would have a precarious status, such as within a CA.] 5 Resettlement instruments When a Mozbio2 and GE7 AF component investment, or a third party financed investment unavoidably entails land rights acquisition or change in land use that results in adverse effects on residents or users with impacts on the Project, the Mozbio2 and GE7 AF Project Coordination office or its LMUs will develop for public information, discussion and agreement, a draft full or abbreviated RP/CP to guide implementation of the resettlement operation. Each RP/CP will accord with the principles and procedures of this Resettlement Policy Framework. A full RAP would be required only if over 200 people or 40 families have to be relocated or if these people are not physically displaced but lose enough of their assets due to the project that the remainder are unviable as livelihoods sources. Since any sub-project presented with these characteristics would not be approved for financing nor would any CA infrastructure proposal be approved that caused such displacement, no physical resettlement of this scale is expected and the procedures for elaborating a full RAP are not included in the RPF. 29 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing If another financing agency external to the Project supports a resettlement activity that it contributes to the outcome of Mozbio2 and GE7 AF and is implemented at the same time as the Project, the instruments used will be submitted to the World Bank for due diligence and gap filling measures may be required. 5.1 Abbreviated Resettlement Plan / Compensation Plan On the occasions that construction in or outside of CAs requires sites that have community members’ productive or other assets or economic activities on them, or sub-projects that require acquisition of land use rights that are being used by community members with assets on the sites and have not agreed to participate in the sub-project, an abbreviated RP will be required to describe the procedures, institutional organization and costs of the process to be presented for approval by the World Bank, before compensation may be paid and Project activities advance in these areas. An abbreviated RP or Compensation Plan would require: • A description of the project activity and actions to minimise resettlement; • An officially certified survey of displaced persons (census), asset inventory and valuation and, [if appropriate,] socio-economic survey; • A detailed description of compensation and other resettlement assistance including entitlement to participation in alternative livelihoods development activities to be provided; • Valuation methodology for assessing losses and description of compensation for losses • Results of consultations with displaced people about acceptable alternatives; • A description of institutional responsibility for implementation and procedures for grievance redress; • Arrangements for implementation and monitoring; and a timetable and budget detailing all costs, including relocation, compensation, administrative costs and monitoring fees. Should displaced people lose more than 10% of their productive assets the plan must include the socio-economic survey and the measures that are proposed for restoring affected families’ living conditions and income. If physical relocation is required, such as might occur if wildlife conflicts escalate in a particular area, then a full RAP / RP must include the socio-economic survey and the measures that are proposed for restoring affected families’ living conditions and income (and see Figure 4-1). Study results should present the socio-economic and cultural characteristics, livelihoods sources and quantified income from formal as well as informal activities and health of at least 25% of displaced households according to Mozambican legislation. In settlement clusters of over 40 families this is deemed enough to provide enough data to monitor livelihoods restoration of the affected parties. In cases of isolated households, 100% of them must be surveyed to obtain useful results. Of particular interest are people’s land tenure and transfer systems and any issues raised by different tenure systems in the Project area. Patterns of social interaction in the affected communities, including social networks and social support systems, and how they will be affected by the project should be shown, and the formal and informal institutions that may be relevant to the consultation and resettlement strategies. Details of the scale and extent of partial and total physical and economic losses expected for all affected people must be presented and for vulnerable groups in particular. 30 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing 5.2 Eligibility Criteria for Defining Categories of People Affected by the Project 5.2.1 Cut off date If should be declared by FNDS through the District Administrator. Establishing a cut-off date as early as possible in the planning process will prevent people who encroach on the area after it from obtaining compensation or any other form of resettlement assistance to which they are not eligible. The cut-off date for each site should be chosen by the LMU/Mozbio2 Project Coordination office in close consultation with the Local Authorities and SDAE with advice from DINAT/Ministry of Land and Environmental, together with the traditional and local influence leaders, when the affected people are identified though a full census. This date must be communicated effectively to the potential project affected people and surrounding local communities. The local communities and traditional leaders will play a key role in identifying eligible land users. Since declaration of the cut-off date prohibits people being eligible for making claims after a specified date, the conditions of the cut-off date, the availability of the grievance response mechanism and how to gain access to it, as well as organising for enforcement of the moratorium against further construction or planting tree crops for example need to be widely disseminated. A strategy for implementing the cut-off date must be prepared as part of an RP/CP. If, as is likely, sub-project sites requiring land use rights acquisition or sites that will be used for public infrastructure, contain the assets of less than 200 people, it may not be necessary to carry out the formal declaration of a cut-off date, instead evidence of agreement on the cut-off date with communities and affected individuals, may be enough, provided that the Borrower assumes the risk of having to include any new comers in resettlement planning. These would be the agreement terms of affected individuals’ or households’ a) eligibility agreement and b) agreement from community leaders responsible for the area to manage any encroachment. Dissemination of the conditions of eligibility would always have to be widely disseminated however, as there is always a risk of non- eligible outsiders wanting access to compensation. To prevent claims from people arriving after the cut-off date, the census of displaced people and their property must be carried out at the declaration time to identify those who are eligible for compensation. This will identify eligible occupants and establish the size and quality of structures, current land use, and other relevant information. The census should be carried out in the initial stages of project identification and as soon as tentative location and physical boundaries of the sub-project or construction site can be established. The census must be accompanied by a photographic record and GPS coordinates of inventoried items which can assist in later verifications of the land-use and livelihoods activities at that time, and form part of the baseline records of displaced people. Arrangements should be agreed for cropping and other non-permanent uses to continue. 5.2.2 Categories of displaced people Implantation of new subprojects, construction activities or concessions may involve people’s loss of productive assets and structures, and access to these. These are families affected by economic displacement. This displacement is the result of actions which interrupt or eliminate their access to 31 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing productive assets and natural resources in or outside protected areas, although they themselves will not be physically relocated. FNDS will ensure that Project resettlement planners include the provision of means of restoring livelihoods so that affected families may become better off than they were before the Project. Categories of people who lose assets are indicated in Table 4 below, however others may be identified during the development of RP / CPs. Households in which single members are affected by a sub- project or construction site are considered members of affected families. The exact numbers of displaced people, the degree of impact on the families’ livelihoods (their losses, ownership status, tenancy status etc.) will be determined during the process of developing the RP / CP. Table 4: Criteria for assessment of potentially affected families 32 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing Impact Type Description I. Families who practice agriculture or use natural resources in the CA on a development site. Partial economic Families that will lose part of their farm plots and produce, and/or lose displacement use and access to natural resources used for their livelihoods. II. Families who practice agriculture or use natural resources on a development site outside the CA. Partial economic Families that will lose houses and part of their farm plots and produce displacement. and use of natural resources. III. Families who carry out small businesses (with permanent or temporary structures) on a development site in or outside of a CA. Partial economic Families that will lose income from closure of business and who lose displacement. structures erected for this activity. IV Families who own ancillary structures that are located in a development site in or outside of a CA. Partial economic Families that will lose domestic ancillary structures such as field displacement shelters, currals, or other non-residential structures. V Families living or working in rented houses in the CA or development site on a seasonal or occasional basis related to livelihood resources Partial economic Families that will lose the house they rent and occasionally occupy as displacement shelter or to carry out business. VI Families renting houses seasonally used by others located in the development site Partial economic Families that will lose the house they rent to others short or longer displacement term. VII Families or communities with cultural property on the development site Partial cultural losses Families or communities that may lose access to physical cultural assets (sacred sites, cemeteries etc.) All other partial displacement related to loss of access and use to resources in CAs is covered in the Mozbio2 and GE7 AF Process Framework for mitigation without involuntary resettlement planning. The Process Framework describes the measures to mitigate the risks of living in CAs that will avoid the need for any ‘extraordinary physical displacement’ caused by the Project. 33 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing 5.2.3 Land Acquisition and Likely Categories of Impact The likely (economically) displaced persons can be categorized into three groups, namely; Affected Individual, Affected Household and Vulnerable Groups. Rachel Waterhouse (2009) has clearly identified vulnerability as both a cause and a symptom of poverty in Mozambique. Vulnerability describes people’s capacity to withstand or succumb to external shocks and risks, in order to maintain their livelihoods and well-being (Abbot & Waterhouse 2007, DFID-DRC). The idea of resilience in this context, sees people with the capacity to retain their assets and maintain their well-being and livelihoods in the face of adversity. People’s poverty is therefore intricately related their vulnerability to losing their tangible and intangible assets. Waterhouse argues that understanding more about vulnerability can help to explain why some people are more likely to be poor. She identifies three key dimensions of vulnerability: a) Lack of internal defences: Demographic or life-cycle factors such as infancy, chronic illness, old age, or social factors such as being orphaned or widowed, and little human and social capital. b) Exposure to external risks and shocks: Sudden events such as natural disasters, violent conflict and long-term processes such as climate change, market trends, currency devaluation. c) Social exclusion and discrimination: Exclusion of people from society, the economy and political participation. Vulnerable groups in terms of the Project may include people at high risk of severe wildlife conflicts, HIV/AIDS affected persons without access to support or treatment inside CAs, orphans who as numbers increase are not always easily absorbed into extended families, the elderly – especially those living alone, who are also frail, chronically sick and partially incapacitated, women headed households, etc. These groups are being identified as particularly vulnerable so that special attention would be paid to them by identifying their needs from the socio-economic and baseline study so that (i) they are individually consulted and given the opportunity (i.e. not left out) to participate in the Project community development activities, (ii) that their compensation is designed to improve their pre- project livelihood (iii) special attention is paid to monitor them to ensure that their pre-project livelihood is indeed improved upon, (iv) they are given technical and financial assistance if they wish to make use of the grievance mechanisms of the Project, and (v) decisions concerning them are made in the shortest possible time. Residually addressing involuntary resettlement caused by HWC or other extreme restrictions or unintended consequences of the project that cannot be managed through partial compensation or under the PF will be attended. Case-by-case will be analyzed and Special attention shall be considered according to the procedures designed to identified other vulnerable groups above. 5.2.4 Eligibility for Community Compensation Communities permanently losing use of land and/or access to assets and or natural resources inside protected areas under statutory rights will be eligible for compensation. Examples of community compensation could be for use of community land areas, culturally significant sites related to community well-being, marketplaces and schools. The rationale for this is to ensure that the pre- project socio-economic status of communities where adversely impacted, is restored at the collective level. 34 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing 5.2.5 Procedures for Assessing Entitlement Procedures for assessing entitlement to compensation and other forms of assistance should be organised along the following lines: ▪ A census of all people who will be affected by the specific Project activity will be carried out in the early planning stages of the sub-project by a Landscape Community Officer or CA Community Officer. This will identify those eligible for assistance and discourage an inflow of people ineligible for assistance. Names of all family members and their relationship to the head of the household, details of resource use and location and household location must be registered and maintained at the LMU. ▪ Together with the local authority (community or locality head or similar), local influence leaders and a representative from the Local Government the CA Administration or activity developer, the Community Officer/CA Community Officer must investigate the basis of each claim of the identified families. Information should be cross-checked through initial interviews with the local leaders on their own, followed up with visits to each affected family to make a detailed register of all affected assets. ▪ The inventory should record numbers of houses, the area they occupy, age, and condition, as well as the types of crops, their age, productivity and quantity and size of land areas taken and all other non-farm livelihoods sources. Assessment of the families with partial economic displacement claims should be sensitive to the complexity of obtaining access to and using livelihoods resources, so that it may be established which families will genuinely lose use of, or income from these as a result of displacement.\ ▪ The decision about entitlement will be made by FNDS Safeguards or LMU following analysis of all claims. Each family eligible for compensation or other assistance must then be informed by the Community Officers or CA Community Officers of the basis of the decision and the options for assistance they have. ▪ This process must be fully documented for the RP / CP by the Community Officers or CA Community Officers, including the decisions taken and their reasons at every step of the way. Should complaints be lodged against decisions about eligibility, these must be dealt with through the established procedures for communicating grievances described in section 67 below. ▪ Agreements on compensation types, location for resettlement and amounts must be drafted by the LMU with support where needed from the Mozbio2 and GE7 Additional Fund Project Coordination office and the Community Officers or CA Community Officers will ensure they are signed by each family and witnessed by a local leader and government officer. The document will serve to clarify the rights of affected families and defend the CA or activity developer in the case of any claims against it. ▪ The entitlement matrix, eligibility of people affected by the Project and agreements presented in the RP /CP will require a No Objection from the World Bank prior to implementation. 5.2.6 The need for livelihoods restoration If small pieces of productive land are taken for an activity and in a fertile area where the land pieces are small, a person loses their entire livelihood source, they could be made vulnerable if the benefits 35 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 and GEF 7 Additional Financing from the Project are not adequately shared and delivered to this person. The baseline assessment should include information on total productive assets held, so that a position of vulnerability can be seen from the data. Following on from this, assistance will be provided for comparative agricultural development on land replaced by the District Government out of the CA, incorporation in community benefits and development activities in a CA or alternative livelihoods sources of choice in or outside of the CA. 36 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) 5.2.7 Entitlement Matrix A summary matrix that shows probable categories of displaced people and the respective entitlements to various types of compensation and other benefits from the Project can be seen below. Category of Project Affected People Type of Loss Compensation Compensation for loss of Assets Other assistance for loss of Structures Families who practice agriculture Loss of standing crops - Cash compensation for lost standing crops at full Tree seedlings to replace lost productive on a development site in the CA replacement price. tree crops. Livelihoods and income generation development support if the losses represent more than 20% of family livelihoods source. Families who use natural resources Loss of access and use of - Provision of alternative land for cultivation, If alternative land is not provided with time on a development site in the CA. natural resources including provided in time for the next agricultural cycle. to guarantee the next harvest & if the land subsequent losses represent more than 20% of family livelihoods source, a food subsidy may be necessary until production is re- established or the next harvest, whichever occurs first. Livelihoods and income generation development support as per the Process Framework providing alternative income and benefits to replace those lost from NR use, such as wood lots, plant nurseries, savings and credit schemes, or participation in matching grant schemes. Other benefits needing replacement might include clean water supplies, or access to health services. Families who use the natural Loss of physical assets and Cash or Cash compensation for loss of crops and Livelihoods and income generation resources on a development site loss of access / use of natural (construction) provision of alternative land for cultivation and development support as per the Process outside the CA. resources + land material plus transitional assistance. Framework. labour compensation for lost structures 56 Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) Individuals or families with a house / Loss of structure Replacement of Cash compensation for loss of property Cash compensation for period of market stall / shop on a and interruption of structure, according to undepreciated full replacement interrupted trade. Assistance to develop development site as livelihoods income construction costs. alternative comparable income generating source. materials plus activity. labour or cash compensation 57 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) Category of Project Affected People Compensation for loss of Type of Loss Structures Compensation for loss of Assets Other assistance Families who own domestic ancillary Loss of property Replacement of structure, Cash compensation for loss of property - structures on a development site construction materials plus labour according to undepreciated full or cash compensation replacement costs. Families or communities that may Loss of cultural and social well- - - Based on agreement with those lose access to physical cultural being directly affected, assistance to assets (sacred sites, cemeteries etc.) transfer physical property to another site and support for appropriate ceremonies/rituals to be performed. Identification of alternative site were appropriate. Families or individuals at risk of Loss of shelter, physical Replacement housing the meets Cash compensation for loss of crops and Moving allowance, assistance to major wildlife conflicts productive and non- productive national legal requirements in a provision of alternative land for cultivation transport good and chattels to extraordinarily requiring their assets and loss of access / use hosting hub or with family outside and transitional assistance. new residential site (temporary resettlement of natural resources + land of the CA. Replacement of and permanent). Transport of structure, construction materials construction materials of the old plus labour or cash compensation. house, livestock and other productive goods to the new site. Tree seedlings to replace lost productive tree crops. If alternative land is not provided with time to guarantee the next harvest & if the subsequent losses represent more than 20% of family livelihoods source, a food subsidy may be necessary until production is re- established or the next harvest, whichever occurs first. I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) Vulnerability created by - - Registration with and support household family member from DSMAS to address impacts injured or killed by wildlife. of vulnerability. Loss of capacity to subsist due Livelihoods and income to fragilization of social support generation development support as a result of contextual from the Project as per the changes caused by the project Process Framework providing alternative income and benefits to replace those lost from NR use, such as wood lots, plant nurseries, savings and credit schemes. Other benefits needing replacement might include clean water supplies, or access to health services. Families living adjacent to areas Damage to physical assets Compensation [paid by the Cash compensation [paid by contractor None. where construction will take place. anloss of livelihood contractor] at undepreciated full ] for lost standing crops, livestock, sources (agricultural or replacement costs. damages to property and lost profits at full other resources) replacement cost. I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) 5.3 Valuation of Affected Assets and Compensation Adequate compensation must be received by those affected by project interventions, so that they can gain access to assets and livelihoods that benefit them to the same level or better than prior to Project effects being caused. Adequate compensation means ensuring that affected populations are provided access to replacement land or other lost assets of at least the same quality and locational advantages in order to restore or improve their living conditions and their livelihoods source. In order to ensure fair compensation to affected people as well as avoid unnecessary claims from affected persons, objective and transparent procedures will be put in place by the FNDS / LMU and elaborated in the RP / CP for asset valuation, compensation delivery and monitoring following the general guidelines in this section. Asset valuation Compensation calculations may include for individual and community land rights, infrastructure, agricultural land, crops in fields, trees and other assets owned by affected people. The principles of OP 4.12 require a) the use of substitution costs for affected assets (including land if not replaced in-kind) and structures (calculated on the basis of up-to-date prices of materials and labour in the local market), b) the inclusion of transaction costs in the compensation value, and c) replacement cost without considering depreciation. • The asset inventory database will be prepared by the Community Officer / CA Community Officer and will be used to identify all property requiring compensation at individual and community level. • In the absence of a representative market sample and historical data which is the case in almost all CAs and many buffer areas, the Community Officer / CA Community Officer with support from the LMU should base their calculations on the following: • The terms for calculating the value of a non-residential asset should take into account the location, size, typology and cost of construction. In order to meet World Bank requirements, the valuation should be calculated using the full replacement costs, not depreciated. Monetary compensation for this subsidiary structure, will correspond to the total value, without depreciation, of replacing the original structure. • When possible, using updated tables, compensation of crops and fruit trees can be calculated taking into account the tables issued by the Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Rural Development (MADER) and, a) by verifying this information with the results of calculations based on Ministerial Diploma nº 181/2010 and b) selecting the highest version ensuring that the compensation is for the total amount of production lost during the interrupted period and its replacement at the current market price. • In Maputo, where Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Rural Development does not produce this table, but the formulae for the calculation of the compensation, it will be necessary to seek Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Rural Development support to carry out the evaluation or request the Agricultural and Natural Resources Management Centre (CEAGRE) to carry out a study of the specific conditions in the Elephant Coast Landscape and recommend compensation rates, or update existing relevant tables for the areas concerned. • The legislation guiding the calculations on which the Provincial Directorate of Agriculture and Rural Development tables are based requires that annual sale price of the fruit and other derivatives (MZN / kg), multiplied by the discretionary factor or social / special local conditions weighting (factor of 0- 1). 61 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) • OP 4.12 recommends a) the use of replacement costs for affected structures (calculated on the basis of up-to-date prices of materials and labour in the local market), b) the inclusion of transaction costs in the compensation value, and c) replacement cost without considering depreciation. • In addition to agricultural production, calculation of the (temporary) loss of other livelihoods (temporary cessation of economic activity) is not mentioned in the expropriation legislation. Thus, the (temporary) loss of livelihoods will be estimated on the basis of World Bank principles in agreement with the affected parties. Valuation should be guided by a thorough community consultation process and a household level participatory process involving affected asset owners. In the case of households, it is recommended that women and men both be consulted in establishing inventories of productive and non-productive assets and income flows that will be lost due to the Project. In the extraordinary case of a very limited number of vulnerable households being involuntarily resettled out of a CA, the Mozambican legislation is very specific about the replacement of affected houses in which affected families live: Compensation in kind should minimally be a house with three bedrooms, with a total floor area of 70 m2, built in a plot of 800 m2 in urban areas and 5,000 m2 in rural areas. Housing and basic services access should be equivalent but preferably better than in the CA, and should a family have a larger house than the minimum replacement size prescribed by law, in agreement with the householder the replacement house may have more sleeping compartments, or other appropriate arrangements. In terms of planning to reach and implement compensation agreements with people affected by the Project, it is important that the following be taken into account: • An information sheet explaining eligibility, compensation rates and other entitlements, a timetable for implementation, and information about grievance procedures should be presented in a clear easy to understand format to the Project affected people. • Valuation should take place as early as possible in the context of the RP / CP planning process. • In all cases, compensation shall be made within established timelines and shall be delivered to affected people prior to clearance of a site for a development activity. • The location of individual replacement agricultural land should be selected in consultation and agreement with the host and compensated people, which shall be informed as well by technical considerations. • Assistance shall be provided to ensure that agricultural land is handed over in a timely fashion and all land related requirements will be fulfilled (demarcation, where possible, registration, preparation) in time for the next agricultural season. • In the extraordinary case of the involuntary resettlement of households vulnerable to severe wildlife or social and subsistence risks, these may be assisted with transferring their goods and chattels to temporary housing provided by the Project and approved by them, should there not be enough time for definitive alternative housing to be built for them. They have the right to assistance to take their building materials with them, a moving allowance and support to transport them, their livestock and any food stocks they may have. They must be assisted both to temporary housing and, within the shortest period possible, to the definitive house at a site of their selection and agreement with host community and local leaders and authorities. Follow-up to verify compensation procedures and dues with each family will focus on any with high proportions of land / crops / livelihoods sources lost or otherwise vulnerable households. In principle, all compensation to couples including de facto unions should be paid jointly. Objections 62 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) should be handled on a case by case basis. The safety and security of the recipients of compensation should be a primary concern of the Project at all times. The LMU must take measures to avoid risks of theft or other forms of crime by planning transfers to individual or couples’ accounts. If it is necessary that to obtain a bank account, people need identity cards, the Project should assist them with this. Community and individual compensation agreements will be formally documented by the Community Officer / CA Community Officer and signed with copies delivered to the recipients of compensation. FNDS shall keep the records for a minimum period of five years after all compensation has been provided. 5.3.1 Institutional responsibilities in the preparation and implementation of compensation plans Supervision, planning and Implementing Agencies Mozbio2 and GE7 AF Project Coordination office at the National Sustainable Development Fund (FNDS) is responsible for Project operations including approval and oversight of planning and implementation of abbreviated RP/CPs. A safeguards team for all FNDS projects are based in FNDS’ Projects Management Sector at central level. Under this Sector Administrator is a Project Coordinator for the Mozbio2 and GE7 AF. The Project Coordinator of the Mozbio2 Project Coordination office is responsible for planning and implementation of abbreviated RP/CPs. FNDS will establish Landscape Management Units (LMUs) in Sussundenga and Marromeu districts, and Matutuíne district. At the CA landscape level, the LMUs will coordinate and monitor Project implementation progress and interface with the District authorities (District Service of Economic Activity (SDAE) and the District Service for Infrastructure and Planning (SDPI)) in the target districts. The LMUs will have one coordinator, safeguard assistant, 4 extensionist and will be staffed with technical specialists (infrastructures and value chain areas and a sustainable development specialist who will be responsible for the safeguards activities) and administrative support (accountant). They report to the national FNDS/Projects Management Sector and to the MADER Provincial Directors and have regular meetings with the Provincial Governors. The CA Co-Management structure will be also directly involved Mozbio2 and GE7 AF implementation, mainly in the implementation of activities for strengthening conservation areas development in targeted landscapes, as well as in facilitating conservation-compatible rural development within the buffer zones. These already have Community Officers who may be involved in carrying out baseline studies and monitoring the implementation of RPs / CPs.These people who will be responsible for assisting with information collection, supervision and monitoring of compensation planning and implementation. CA Community Officers are responsible for screening out ineligible resettlement activities and for working with Mozbio2 and GE7 AF Project Coordination office to seek approval for exceptions from FNDS’ Projects Management Sector and the World Bank. These key field officers will require technical support to develop their competencies and to prepare more complex RP /CPs when necessary. At district level SDAE and SDPI will support productive assets and non-productive assets valuation where necessary and will support sub-project screening to identify the magnitude of impacts. Communication between these Services and the CA management and LMUs will be necessary to re- design activities, sites or arrangements with PAPs to reduce or avoid impacts every time they are detected. The District Service of Women, Health and Social Action (SDSMAS) supports women’s community organizations and vulnerable people and will be involved to ensure that women receive equal compensation to men for lost assets, and to ensure no-one is made vulnerable by Project resettlement or compensation activities. 63 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) It is unlikely that for the scale of impact foreseen, that a District Resettlement Commission would be established. If it is already established for other resettlement activities in the district, it will not be formally required to review or approve abbreviated Resettlement or Compensation Plans. It is however recommended that since the District Government will be involved in valuation of assets for compensation, receiving complaints about entitlements or compensation that takes place, and ensuring that the Project creates no additional vulnerabilities, that the District Administrator, who is also the head of the Commission, is maintained informed about the process and procedures planned and underway. If the District Resettlement Commission is active and expresses a need to become involved, its functions and membership are legislated, and operations should follow those requirements. A summary of the Commission’s functions can be seen below: • Mobilize and raise awareness among the population in regards to the resettlement process; • Be involved in the entire resettlement process, including related supervision and quality assurance; • Raise awareness as to the rights and obligations of affected households in the resettlement process and ensure observance of these rights; • Whenever necessary notify the proponent to provide information about the progress of the resettlement process and provide an opinion on public consultation reports concerning resettlement; • Where complaints cannot be dealt with at local level, receive and forward them to the competent authorities; • Inform the competent authorities as to any irregularity identified during relocation; • Prepare monitoring and evaluation reports of resettlement taking into account the previously approved plans; • Submit reports to the Technical Commission for the Monitoring and Supervision of the Process of Resettlement. It is unlikely that the scale of compensation activities caused by the Project will require any community level organization set up – such as Compensation Committees (CCs). Even so, whenever interactions are made directly with communities, these should be made through the local authorities, local leaders and then the directly affected people. For RP/CPs not involving and environmental and social assessment (usually less than 40 families displaced) plan preparation and implementation will be made by the Community Officers or CA Community Officers in coordination with the District Government, CA Management and LMU as necessary. Whenever an Environmental and Social Assessment is necessary for a project, and especially if involuntary physical resettlement is extraordinarily necessary, the assessment Consultant will also carry out resettlement and compensation planning, and if necessary, implementation. Since all social safeguards specialists at central level are located in the FNDS Projects Management Sector, they should provide capacity building support to the Community Officers, CA Community Officers and the Mozbio2 and GE7 AF PIU Communities staff early on in Project implementation. This will ensure that the FNDS Projects Management Sector is not directly responsible for RP/CP preparation and implementation as the competency for this will be created at Project LMU and CA levels under the Mozbio2 and GE7 AF Project Coordination office. At the beginning of the implementation process, if the number of families affected per activity or subproject area is equal to 40 or more, a subproject Compensation Committee (CC) will be established to 64 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) represent and defend the interests of these subprojects. The CC will include representatives of the various affected areas according to their administrative divisions. Measures will be taken to ensure in decision- making. Members of the Committee should include at least 40% women, and preferably an even higher percentage, in order for their representation to be adequate. The Community Officers will organize the creation and development of the capacity of the committees. These committees will be important focal points for implementing and resolving compensation issues, and will be mechanisms for linking Community Officers to contractors, local authorities, municipalities, the District Government, LMU safeguards staff, and the central PIU. If the number of families directly impacted and due for compensation is over 100 families the multi- sectoral District Resettlement Commission should be involved in supervision and monitoring of implementation according to its scope of work. Representatives from the CC or community leaders as preferred by the community, should be members of the Commission to ensure that affected people’s interests are adequately taken into consideration in decisions taken by the Commission that affect the affected parties. 5.3.2 Approval and disclosure of compensation plans All draft abbreviated Resettlement Plans / Compensation Plans (RP / CP) will be submitted by the Mozbio2 and GE7 AF Project Coordination office to the FNDS Projects Management Sector and the World Bank for review and approval before compensation is awarded and subsequent commencement of construction work or other sub-project activities. Once an acceptable draft version has been prepared, it must be presented in a summary format or full format as appropriate for the consultation location and made available for wider public consultation involving ensuring those directly affected and involved are included. For example, copies of the document will be prepared in Portuguese, and will be made available in easily accessible locations in affected areas. Comments obtained from the public consultation will be incorporated into the final document. It should be reiterated that the RAP / CP is a dynamic working document and when there is any change in the situation on the ground, it may be necessary to make corrections to reflect the reality of the terrain. These corrections will follow the same principles and methods and may be attached to the original plan following a similar public disclosure and consultation process. All ARAP/PCs/RAPs must be approved by the WB before subproject approval or construction bidding, and implemented satisfactorily before any respective construction activity starts. 5.3.3 Procedures for the payment of compensation The Mozbio2 and GE7 AF Project Coordination office will lead the implementation of RP / CP through services provided by the LMUs. Technical assistance from the central FNDS Safeguards members of the Transversal Project Support Team will be required to provide training to ensure that all compensation procedures are understood by the men and women involved and the competency for implementation transmitted to them. FNDS social safeguards specialists from the Transversal Projects Support Team will train the landscape Community Officers, CA Community Officers and the specialist member of the LMU responsible for Sustainable Development and Safeguards on-the-job during the preparation of the first RP / CP so that they can later facilitate abbreviated PR and PC preparation and implementation (when this is not being carried out by an ESA consultant), including the payment of compensation. The specialist member of the LMU responsible for Sustainable Development and Safeguards will coordinate the involvement of SDAE, SDPI 65 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) and SDSMAS and the CA Managers and Community Officer and others relevant to implementing the process. The LMU will transfer monetary compensation directly into the PAP accounts or issue cheques to the PAPs. The delivery of the cheques will be done by the LMU in coordination with the CA management in the presence of witnesses. Community Officers or CA Community Officers should be used for direct contact with PAPs. They should be provided with the necessary means to realize the social and organizational aspects of implementing compensation at the Project sites. CCs should be trained in social guards staff delegated to work on the Project, environmental staff from Marromeu Municipality and the District Governments, and local authorities as members of the District Resettlement Commission or in its absence, as key stakeholders in the informal district working groups will coordinate, monitor and oversee community consultation and participation in the implementation of the PR / PC, at the local level. The LMU team will coordinate activities in the districts and provide information to the Mozbio2 and GE7 AF Project Coordination office Coordinator. The LMU should ensure that a copy of all locally collected social information is kept at the Mozbio2 and GE7 AF Project Coordination office offices. Community Officers and CA Community Officers will focus on developing community capacity and supporting families during and after compensation where necessary. Efforts will be made to keep the number of structures set up for the management of compensation to a minimum. The Community Officers and CA Community Officers in conjunction with the LMU safeguards staff should meet specialist technicians, local government officials, and representatives of other communities with experience in compensation and resettlement locally, to learn from them so that lessons can be used to help achieve smooth implementation of the any resettlement or compensation interventions carried out as part of the Project. The Compensation Committees will contribute to an objective assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation of the RPs / CPs. In addition to monitoring during implementation, CCs will participate in the internal audits and evaluations and should contribute to reports, including a final evaluation of the compensation activities. In the absence of CCs these responsibilities will lie with local leaders. 5.3.4 Awareness raising The compensation process requires community awareness of the procedures and time frames for implementing the compensation as well as the development of the entire Project. This awareness- raising activity is the responsibility of the PIU and LMUs. Technical assistance from the central FNDS Safeguards members of the Transversal Project Support Team will be required to provide training to ensure that all procedures are understood by the men and women involved, and the competency for compensation implementation transmitted to them. They may also need the help of a communication specialist, possibly from the FNDS Office of Image and Communication, who will also be responsible for external communication. Male and female Community Officers and CA Community Officers will work with people affected by the Project to ensure they are aware of their rights and responsibilities, their entitlements and the role of compensation agreements, the grievance redress mechanism and how to access it as well as details of implementation procedures and schedule. They may do this through small group meetings, meetings with community leaders and if necessary through local community radio for example. When over 100 families are involved in receiving compensation, a brief communication plan prepared as part of the RP/CP will identify the media and messages to communicate during implementation. 66 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) 5.3.5 Compensation delivery verification Project Facilitators and Community Officers and CCs will verify that the cash compensation paid by FNDS is carried out transparently and reaches affected men and women as committed to, before the affected people are displaced and construction or other activities are initiated in the area to be cleared. Project Facilitators and Community Officers will inform the Mozbio2 and GE7 AF Project Coordination office and LMU specialist/safeguards supervisors as well as CA management about progress made with preparation and implementation of compensation activities. Community Officers and CA Community Officers will support CCs by carrying out verification activities and working with Project affected people to ensure that they select appropriate replacement areas for cultivating or trading and where relevant, they choose socially acceptable subsistence activities. The Mozbio2 and GE7 AF Project Coordination office through the LMU and the CA management will ensure that the families to whom compensation has been paid for loss of productive assets are provided replacement parcels of land for agriculture with title and that the parcel of land is not sold to outsiders until after livelihoods have been re-established and/or alternative viable sources of subsistence identified by the compensated parties are taken up. This commitment would be included in the messages communicated to affected people and their communities and be reflected in individual household compensation agreements. The Mozbio2 and GE7 AF Project Coordination office through the LMU and CA management is also responsible for organizing adequate assistance to displaced persons who lose most of their source of income, specifically during the adjustment period prior to restoration of their livelihoods. Such assistance may include agricultural inputs for continuation of the practice elsewhere or guidelines on alternative livelihood strategies. This assistance can be provided by the local Government or the Municipality. FNDS through Mozbio2 and GE7 AF Project Coordination office will ensure that contractors are instructed so that they do not begin work on Project sites that are occupied or used until the assets are cleared and areas physically unoccupied. The CC or local leaders will need to provide the Project with a report with sufficient information to ensure such compliance can be registered. This will be facilitated by the Community Development staff responsible for implementation at the site. An LMU specialist must occupy at least 33% of his/her time in supervision of preparation of CPs and supervision of compensation implementation at Project sites. Depending on the scale of compensation, the Safeguards specialists from the FNDS Transversal Projects Support Team may be called upon to assist the LMU to ensure the Community Officers and CA Community Officers are able to effectively implement social processes and CCs can monitor impacts. Obtaining timely monitoring information can help local process managers avoid negative results. 5.3.6 Post- site clearance After payment of compensation, if situations are detected where people may not be adapting or are unable to take advantage of opportunities to ensure they achieve adequate living standards, Community Officers will accompany and support these people. Consultation and participation of Project affected people is an ongoing activity throughout the compensation planning and implementation process and Community Officers and CA Community Officers will maintain communication with them. The LMU specialists supervising the implementation of the RPs / CPs will have to ensure coordination of livelihoods rehabilitation of the most negatively affected people and ensure services are provided through agreements with local government entities. Extension workers in the municipal department responsible 67 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) for agriculture and the SDAE already participating in the Project will be called upon to also, assist Project affected people in agricultural development. The central FNDS Projects Management Sector will be responsible for supervising intra- and inter-departmental coordination, and for ensuring compliance with public disclosure, participation and consultation. It is also responsible for post- resettlement monitoring and implementation of remedial measures where livelihood restoration is not yet attained and where resettlement has created vulnerability. 5.4 Consultation and Participation of People Affected by the Project The preparation of the RPF has initiated the public consultation process. The RPF was prepared after wide consultation with key stakeholders and with support from Mozbio2 and GE7 AF and FNDS safeguards and community specialists, to assist with access to technical data and organizational and institutional information. The RPF preparation process involved visits to the Mozbio2 and GE7 AF implementation sites and assessments of potential likely social impacts to the types of development planned at the Project's potential sites in March 2020 (see Annex 12 and 13 of ESMF). Stakeholders were met in the three landscapes during information gathering visits that covered Conservation (CA) staff, the District Administrators of Marromeu, Sussundenga and Matutuine and key informants from the District Government services for agriculture, construction, planning and development, and Marromeu Municipal Council. The main objective was to learn of the evolution of sector developments, constraints and resettlement experience and outcomes in the area. Private sector stakeholders of importance were also interviewed and visited at their operations including two Coutada operators, a representative of Companhia de Sena the large sugar production concessionaire in the Zambezi Delta and conservation NGOs including the Micaia Foundation, Peace Parks Foundation and Worldwide Fund for Nature. Since the situation in Marromeu Complex was the least well understood, three communities living in CAs in Marromeu were also met, and interviews held with traditional community leaders, local leaders and household members to discuss key events, issues and concerns, involvement in resettlement, and expectations for the future. These included meetings with the Secretaries of Bairro Salone Hermoque (Coutada 11) and Sacassi Mulico (Coutada 14) and with the Régulo of Ngaze Community in Coutada 11. Key lessons learnt from the target CAs and their landscapes during the preparation of this RPF include as yet unsatisfactory management of human-animal conflicts in and outside of core areas of CAs, and lessons drawn from prior experiences of resettlement in and out of CAs in all the targeted landscapes. These point to the key role of the District Government in leading resettlement hosting processes outside of CAs; the need for District Government recognition of Coutadas as partially protected areas with a conservation purpose so that they are not used for siting large or medium scale resettlement; the maintenance of people inside Coutadas can be encouraged by the benefit sharing activities linked to Value Chain- Maching Grant (MG) and installation of social and economic facilities that may not contribute positively to the long term conservation objectives of the areas, unless these communities contribute more actively to the conservation effort. Where economic displacement risks were identified consultations were held with local entities with involvement in land management and assets, namely SDAE, SDPI and the municipality of Marromeu. The purpose of the consultations was to understand the experience of the resettlement and compensation process at the local level. Also, consultations were held to develop feasible options for the management of the implementation of the compensation of people with the Mozbio staff. 68 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) The content of the RPF was taken to public discussion at public consultation meetings organized jointly with the FNDS safeguards team, held on (04, 10 and 11)th of March, in Matutuine, Sussundenga, and Marromeu districts. These meetings were convened through addressed invitations to a restricted group of institutions identified as concerned and potentially affected by the Project including the consultative councils and local leaders. A summary of the public meetings can be seen in Appendix 2. Stakeholder engagement for RP / CP preparation It is possible that unrealistic or unmet expectations resulting from past experience of resettlement and compensation levels are expressed by communities during Mozbio2 and GE7 AF. It is important that sufficient information be disseminated through a comprehensive communication strategy in each RP/CP and that all compensation processes under Mozbio2 and GE7 AF be highly participatory, that is, that they effectively engage men, women, youth and vulnerable groups at all stages of the planning and implementation cycle. The LMU will options, risks and benefits are disclosed allowing affected people to take fully informed decisions. It will also include disclosure of the grievances resolution process and channels for placing complaints. The planning and implementation process must be presented to the whole community once the plan has been drafted so that they are aware of the process and can contribute with their opinions and ideas. The consultation process must involve all potentially affected people. During and after implementation individual and group consultation should continue to be carried out by the Community Officers and CA Community Officers together with an informal working group created for the purpose comprised of District Government technicians, to verify progress in taking up new livelihoods activities and in restoring their lives to the levels they were prior to the Project impacts. 5.5 Grievance resolution Mozbio2 and GE7 AF will rely on the common Grievance and Redress Mechanism that has been established for all projects included in the World Bank’s Integrated Landscape Management Portfolio in Mozambique – called the “Dialogue and Grievance Mechanism (MDR)” 17 . A manual of procedures and a communication strategy were prepared and an IT platform was designed to register and monitor the reported cases. This mechanism has been discussed with key stakeholders, including local communities, and is being used in all FNDS World Bank financed Projects. The MDR is in the process of being implemented and will be operationalized in all Project areas either as part of Mozbio1 or at the inception of Mozbio2 and GE7 AF. This can be seen in the outline below: Figure 5-1. Grievance resolution process outline according to the MDR \ Independent Mediator External mediation FNDS Social safeguards Technical level Community court SDAE NGO / CA Co-manager 17 See: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qJ6SgclpBP9n7gVs6hiwchUqWyqE37LL/view Complainant + involved parties + Community Officer 69 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) Community level Complaints are made directly to first level recipients at community level through locally identified and trusted communication channels. These local receptors will be site specific and identified via the stakeholder analyses that will constitute part of the Project’s communication strategies. Should community level interfaces require technical support from FNDS Safeguards Specialists or decisions from FNDS management these may be sought as a second level recourse. Finally, should a case not be resolvable internally it may be referred by FNDS (in agreement with the complainant) to an independent mediator for resolution. Complaints should, as far as possible, be resolved in a friendly manner and at local level in accordance with the regulations and criteria of the Project Implementation Manual. If it is necessary to consider significant additional compensation, complex corrective measures or sanctions, it should be in line with the Project's operational rules, national legal framework, and World Bank policies (particularly social and environmental safeguards). Decisions on resolution and communication to the complainant must be made in a timely fashion at all levels. Should affected people not be satisfied by the informal process of the MDR, or because the nature of the complaint requires higher level appeal, national legislation provides for making complaints in various sectors at the highest levels of Government such as National Directors and Ministers. In addition, should either party be dissatisfied, the affected party may bring the complaint to court, where it will be treated in accordance with Mozambican law. In principle, a community may take a Company to court for failing to comply with the terms of an environmental management plan. All citizens have the right to submit complaints to the Public Prosecutor's Office, which is responsible for ensuring the correct application of the law, particularly in the development of territorial management instruments and their implementation. FNDS will ensure that a "Complaints Register" is maintained at landscape level. In all cases where complaints are made about the implementation of Project activities, FNDS is obliged to investigate the complaint and resolve it internally by applying the Resettlement Policy Framework and MDR manual in use in the Project and returning the response within a period of less than 15 days. MDR management is the responsibility of FNDS which should ensure implementation with support from partners and the Government at provincial and local level. LMU specialists, Community Officers, CA Community Officers and Governant Institutions as SDAE, SDPI, community managers are the focal points of the MDR and responsible for receiving, processing, investigating and monitoring the complaint resolution process. For complaints that cannot be settled informally, safeguards officers and community officials will be responsible for channelling them to other decision-making bodies (as defined in Step 4 of the MDR Manual Procedure) and keep complainants informed. FNDS is responsible for monitoring through the MDR system housed in the Safeguards Information System (SIS) of the measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) REDD+ platform to monitor complaints. Project monitoring and evaluation systems should include indicators to measure the effectiveness of monitoring and resolution of complaints and incorporate them into the Project Results Framework. At community level, the co-management committees will be the main forums involved in participatory monitoring. All community management structures linked to local authorities and the CA Management 70 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) Council should listen to, verify and respond to grievances as entitlements are understood and taken up or as they change over time. Should the scale of compensation have required the creation of CCs, and the District Resettlement Commission is involved, then these, the LMU and CA Management will be responsible for coordinating their members for monitoring and supervising RP / CP preparation and implementation. Technical teams will regularly monitor status of vulnerable groups through consultation, and where necessary follow-up work with communities and individuals will identify activities and sources of income that can improve their well- being. Finally, communities directly to the World Bank's attention, and Bank Management has been given an opportunity to respond. For information on how to submit complaints to the World Bank Inspection Panel, please visit www.inspectionpanel.org. 5.6 Monitoring and Evaluation Ministry of Land and Environmental is responsible for external monitoring for environmental management, resettlement plans and land use plans compliance. LMUs will coordinate and monitor RP/CP implementation progress and interface with the District authorities SDAE, SDPI and SDSMAS in the target districts. Monitoring will include a checklist with information on census, meetings held, follow-up actions, etc. Preparation of the checklist and logistical support for monitoring activities are the responsibility of the FNDS led by the safeguards team. Informal working groups will be made for monitoring visits made from district level. They will include relevant government services and representatives of the LMU and CA management. In addition to verifying progress, they will also be charged with the responsibility for consulting with affected parties and others, and producing a report on the conclusion of compensation for presentation to Provincial Directorate of Ministry of Land and Environmental and FNDS for approval so that project activities may begin on the site. Should the scale of compensation have required the creation of the District Resettlement Commission is involved, then its RP/CP planning and implementation monitoring responsibilities will be supported by the District Government and other stakeholders involved including affected party representatives. Project monitoring of RP/CP implementation progress will be carried out by site visits by LMU technical teams. These teams will ensure that Community Officers and CA Community Officers regularly monitor and record the status of vulnerable groups through meetings with communities and individuals involved. The LMU’s landscape level monitoring of RP/CP implementation activities will be report to the Mozbio2 and GE7 AF Project Coordination office. Safeguards related issues will be reported by the LMU to the FNDS Safeguards specialists of the Projects Support Team in parallel. Written agreements between FNDS via the LMU and community or household representatives will be jointly monitored and community organizations will be responsible for ensuring the compliance of community members. Participatory and other monitoring tools will be developed for each RP/CP. If the scale of interventions merits, an audit will be carried out one year after all compensation has been paid to verify its use and outcomes of any livelihoods restoration activities undertaken. Community consultation and participation in the compensation planning process will identify impact 71 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) indicators. These will be used to formulate the RP/CP, for participatory monitoring and providing feedback to external monitors during the implementation of the RP/CP. Communities will participate in verifying the impact of resettlement and alternative livelihoods activities on affected communities and individuals. They will also participate in external evaluation of outcomes of resettlement. Community co-management committees such as the CGRN and Community Fisheries Councils (CCP) will be the main forums involved in participatory monitoring of impacts of RP/CP implementation. They will identify indicators for RP/CPs developed with their participation, and will be trained on how to manage monitoring information for the Project’s and committee/council’s use. All community management structures are linked to local authorities, the CA Management and the LMUs who must organise themselves to regularly listen to, verify and respond to issues raised by them. 5.7 Estimated Costs Project funds will be used to cover preparation, management and supervision costs. They will also cover the costs of facilitators of implementation, monitoring and all compensation and mitigation measures. The items are covered in the following way: 1. Four abbreviated RPs or Compensation Plans are budgeted for an average of 10 affected people per plan. 2. The cost of management and supervision of compensation by FNDS and the LMUs. 3. Compensation plan implementation includes community Committee creation, awareness raising publicity about how to access the grievances resolutions system and how it works, as well as community capacity building to monitor and report on progress and issues. 4. Cash compensation assumes loss of crops and possibly a few structures at an average of $250 per family, the equivalent of around five trees or around an eighth of a hectare of cassava plus the value of lost land rights. 5. Livelihood restoration includes costs of preparing replacement land for 50% of those resettled outside of the CA and seeds, tools and agricultural technical support for the next agricultural cycle. 6. This line covers all costs of an estimated six families being physically resettled - as a conflict resolution measure. The line covers the costs of planning and executing their resettlement including livelihoods restoration. 7. Monitoring and evaluation costs include an ex-post audit if necessary, on compensation that also required significant livelihoods restoration support. Below are the items to be considered for preparing and implementing four RP / CPs, including monitoring, evaluation, auditing and capacity building. 72 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) Table 5: Estimated budget for MozBio -2 and items Activity Description Total in USD Preparation of RP/CPs $ 30,000.00 Management organization, supervision and technical assistance $ 15,000.00 Mitigation including community awareness and organization $ 75,000.00 Cash compensation $ 15,000.00 Livelihoods restoration $ 90,000.00 Conflict resolution resulting in physical resettlement $ 60,000.00 Monitoring and evaluation $ 15,000.00 Total Resettlement Policy Framework $ 300,000.00 The costs for preparing (compensation and resettlement plans) for gef 7additional financing (af) activities will be covered by operational costs of each landscape (10% of operational total budget). 73 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) 7 APPENDICES: 7.1 Appendix 1 Population data Precise census data is not available for Mozbio target CAs. Recent census data point to target districts being home to over 670,000 people, however local estimates indicate that it is probable that only about 16% of these live in the project target area. Table 6: Population data per district covered by target landscapes Conservation Area Province District Population Projections 201818 Maputo Special Reserve & Ponta 42,136 Maputo Matutuine D´Ouro Marine Reserve Chimanimani Natural 178,125 Manica Sussundenga Reserve Marromeu 189,562 Sofala Cheringoma 77,443 Marromeu Special Reserve and Muanza 41,944 Adjacent coutadas Zambézia 140,843 (Zambezi River Chinde Delta) Source: http://www.ine.gov.mz/estatisticas/estatisticas-demograficas-e-indicadores- Sociais/projeccoes-da-populacao Communities living in buffer zones are also potentially affected as they will also be governed by CA management plans, be subject to zoning and development plans for sustainable resource use which may include creation of community-based CAs. 18 District level census data from the 2017 population census is not yet available; population projections produced by the National Statistics Institute (INE, Instituto Nacional de Estatística) have been used to provide an indication of population trends in target districts. 74 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) 7.2 Appendix 2: Public consultation summaries Consultation meetings on the Mozbio2 and GE7 AF Safeguards were held in the three landscapes, with the participation of members of the district consultative council, including representatives of district government, local authorities, civil society and private sector (See annex 13 – ESMF). Table 7. Consultations meetings to present Drafts of the Safeguards Instruments The minutes of these meetings and the lists of attendees are included in Annex 12 of the ESMF. In all meetings Mozbio2 and GE7 Additional Fund was welcomed and seen as an opportunity for socioeconomic development and for minimization of conflicts with conservation. Meetings held in the Elephant Coast and Chimanimani landscapes a clear understanding of the conservation objectives was evident and they understood that tourism opportunities could benefit the communities. The development of value chains activities outside the buffer zone was welcomed and additional products were proposed. In Chimanimani some concern was raised on the possible provision of DUATs and establishment of development activities within the buffer zone, as this is the area that has wildlife. In Marromeu the conflicts due to encroachment of public and private activities and installations into Coutadas 11 and 14 are causing an important desire for new zoning and land use planning to clearly define the land use boundaries. In addition, the opportunities of the large community in Malingapansi Administrative Post in Marromeu Reserve to assist the district develop economically due to its highly marketable sweet potatoes and freshwater fish have established a very strong linkage of this location with markets in Marromeu and beyond. However, access roads, to Malingapanse and to the Marromeu Reserve were identified as great constraints to their development and tourism. Education in schools and awareness raising among adults and rangers was raised as a priority given that almost all of Marromeu District is covered with protected areas and conflicts between community members and rangers are frequent19. In addition, support to livelihoods development was strongly supported and ideas raised ranged from sugarcane outgrowing to honey production as income generating activities. These ideas will be followed up during Project implementation, through the initial Social Assessment and the process for identifying and supporting sub-projects in Component 3. The zoning process is included in Project design and will be supported by participatory methods identified in the Process Framework that endorse stakeholder identification and trade-off facilitation to reach agreements on the alternatives that 75 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) are legally possible and that are favoured by those affected by them. 7.3 Appendix 2: Public consultation summaries GEF 7AF The update of the MozBio 2 and GEF 7 AF included a consultation process with key stakeholders. The consultation process was used to explore issues around the safeguard instruments (ESMF, RPF, PF and PMP) and new activities that can be supported by GEF 7 Aditional Financing. The consultation included other instruments developed by FNDS (protocol to land conflicts, protocol to prevent the conversion of critical habitats and Grievance Mechanism). In total, 410 participants were involved.The consultation meetings were held in the three landscapes, with the participation of members of the district consultative councils, including representatives of district government, local authorities, civil society and private sector. Table 1. Consultation meetings to update the MozBio 2 Safeguard Instruments Landscape Date Location Nr. of Participants Elephant Coast 02.03.2020 Madjedjane 84 03.03.2020 Phuza, 32 Muvukuza 24 Maphanga 90 04.03.2020 Bela Vista 57 Chimanimani 11.03.2020 Sussundenga 45 Marromeu Complex 12.03.2020 Marromeu 78 Overall, in all meetings participants appreciated the opportunity and possibility for their communities to benefit from GEF7 financing, requesting however that the project facilitates access to the poorest people in the communities as most of the fundings usually do not reach the people who needs more. Elephant Coast Landscape: 5 consultation meetings were held, and the main challenge presented was the development of projects focused on agriculture in an area marked by many humans-wildlife conflicts, with some participants suggesting that the project should invest only in a strong electric fence, so the community can grow their crops. On the other hand, the participants also showed their appreciation, as the project includes a component of sustainable charcoal production, which for some communities is the main economic activity. 76 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) Chimanimani Landscape: The main issue discussed was human wildlife conflit, artisanal mining and restauration activities. Complaints were raised about job opportunities in the protected areas and financing GEF 7 activities. Communities want to be given priority in access to such opportunities in the protected areas, for positions such as rangers to supplement income while protecting their traditional land. Combined with other measures this has the potential to bring positive elements in the way of improving the sense of community ownership. The participants also showed their appreciation, as the project includes a restauration activities and capacity building program.The landscape has erosion problems that worsened by the recent cyclone Idai. Marromeu Complex Landscape: The discussion focused on main challenge, human wildlife conflict, acess to natural resources for the communities around Marromeu National Reserve and hunting blocks (coutada), environment education to school, communities’ governance, revenue from forest and wildlife management and develop economic actitivies. The participants suggested including construction of borehole, fencing of agriculture area, dissemination and signalization of the dangerous zones. Invest on environment education and gender program including schorlaship girls and rehabilitation of school. All landscapes suggest the reinforce the fencing of AC’s. The MozBio 2 will finance the development of a conflict human wildlife strategy where proposals for solutions from affected communities will be incorporated. Currently, the social assessment for the 3 landscapes that is being carried out using the Social Assessment for Protect Areas (SAPA) methodology is ongoing, where one of the problems verified was the human wildlife conflict. The GEF 7 funds will support to implement the strategy. The minute of these meetings are included in Annex 13 of the ESMF. 77 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) 7.4 Appendix 3: Compensation Planning and Implementation Responsibilities The following institutional responsibilities by phase were presented in the public consultation meetings to the stakeholders for validation. 78 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) 79 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) 80 I Resettlement Policy Framework- MozBio 2 Additional Financing (AF) 81