Cadre ProcÃƒÂ©dural de RÃƒÂ©installation - Dr. Kai Schmidt-Soltau

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ICCN Cadre procédural de Réinstallation du Projet GEF-BM Executive Summary In the context of state restructuring and rehabilitation, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has put in place a comprehensive reform agenda in the area of natural resource management. The New Vision for the conservation of protected areas in the DRC (2003) foresees “an effective and well coordinated management of a network of protected areas to make sure that biodiversity conservation is an integral part of the National Forest and Biodiversity Programme and the national Poverty Reduction Strategy”. For the implementation of this new vision the government of DRC has requested financial assistance from the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) through the World Bank (WB). The GEF-WB Project consists of three components: Component 1: Support to ICCN institutional rehabilitation (national level); Component 2: Support to selected key national parks (site level); Component 3: Evaluation and expansion of the protected areas network (national level). The GEF-WB Project might impact on rural populations through the identification of new protected areas with a total surface area of 10 Million ha, through the establishment of new protected areas with a total surface area of 2 Million ha and the enhancement of management in two national parks (Virunga and Garamba), which have a total surface area of 1.3 Million ha. Overall, the GEF-WB Project might impact on 15.8 Million people. One direct impact of the GEF-WB project on the people living inside and outside the existing and proposed protected areas will be the physical and economic displacement despite the fact, that the GEF-WB Project will not finance any resettlement-related activity. This impact arises from the enhancement of the protection status, the enforcement of laws and regulation in protected areas and their buffer zones and the conversion of unprotected forests into protected areas. All this certainly reduces the access of the rural population to the natural resources in these areas and causes a loss of benefits, which arises from more economic forms of land use (forestry exploitations, plantations, mines etc.). In line with the best practice (the Operational Policy on Involuntary Resettlement of the World Bank; OP 4.12) the GEF-WB Project has to address these problems and find mutual and timely solutions before implementation. Those categories of project affected people (PAP) marked green in the table are those addressed in the context of this Resettlement Process Framework (RPrF). National Park (NP) & other protected area (PA) Buffer zones (50 km outside PA) Site Surface (km²) PAP Density Surface (km²) PAP Density Virunga NP (PNVi) 7.900 150.000 19 31.510 9.453.000 300 Garamba NP (PNG) 4.920 0 0 7.527 170.054 22,6 Total 12.820 150.000 39.037 9.623.054 New PA 20.000 460.000 23 52.922 1.217.206 23 Identification of PA 100.000 2.300.000 23 163.886 3.769.378 23 Total 112.820 2.450.000 202.923 13.392.432 This study has been carried out by the Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN) with the assistance of an international consultant. Within the preparation cycle of the GEF-WB Project, it verifies whether the project fulfils the social safeguard standards of the World Bank in view of a possible financial engagement and prescribes mitigation measures to ensure compliance. The report presents the findings of a short term consultancy carried out in a participatory manner and in close cooperation with all stakeholders (ICCN, rural populations, NGOs, governmental services, donors etc.).The report has been discussed on three workshops (Nagero 18/12/2006, Kinshasa 10/1/2007 & Beni 13/1/2007) and consequently adopted by all stakeholders. The OP 4.12 foresees the elaboration of a Resettlement Process Framework (RPrF) to mitigate the economic displacement – the involuntary restriction of access to land and resources – of those people who live in the buffer zones of the PNVi and PNG - marked green in the table - and those who continue to live inside the parks during and after project implementation. For now it is to early to specify how many people will be able to continue to live officially in the national parks as the management plans, which might allow this in view to avoid the physical displacement, are not yet available. The RPrF is prepared in accordance with the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPoF) of the GEF-WB Project, which provides the guiding principles and outlines measures to compensate the other categories of people in the table. The two reports ensure that all people affected by the GEF-WB Project are assisted in their efforts to improve their livelihoods and standards of living or at least to restore them to pre-displacement levels. The impacts of the GEF-WB Project on lands and livelihoods are treated in line with the 2006 Constitution and relevant laws of the DRC and the OP 4.12. As the conservation laws of the DRC are outdated and presently in a revision process, the later should be applied in cases where there are differences between the national and international standards. Rapport Final Février 2007 8
ICCN Cadre procédural de Réinstallation du Projet GEF-BM The first and guiding principle is that restricted access to resources should be avoided as much as possible. In that vein does the ICCN not restrict any access to resources as long as not all other options (reducing the protection status of lands which are used by rural populations and/or legalizing human land use patterns within the management plans and laws etc.) have been evaluated and found not suitable, as long as sufficient funds for mutually agreed compensation and mitigation measures are not available and as long as the measures are not yet put in place. In line with the OP 4.12 and the relevant Congolese laws, the following three categories of people are the beneficiaries of the resettlement process framework of ICCN and the GEF-WB Project: a) those who have formal legal rights to land (including customary and traditional rights recognized under the laws of the country); b) those who do not have formal legal rights to land but have a claim to such land or assets (agriculture, local forestry, hunting, gathering and fishing); c) those who have no recognizable legal right or claim to the land they are occupying. Persons covered under a) and (b) are provided with a land-based compensation to offset the restricted access to their resources (local forestry, hunting, gathering fishing and local mining). This means that for instance the restricted utilization (for example no hunting) of 5 ha of land will be compensated by providing legal access to hunt on 5 ha of land of similar quality in a different location. Persons covered under c) are provided with assistance in lieu of a compensation for their reduced access to resources. The basic principal is that persons, who face a reduced access to resources, 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. Preference should be given to land-based resettlement strategies for people whose livelihoods are land-based and seriously affected by the GEF-WB Project. The RPrF focus especially on “economically displaced people” – those people, who face a loss of income sources or means of livelihood but not necessarily their land – for example hunter/gatherer and fisherfolk, which use informally areas for their professional hunting, gathering and fishing. In this context, the ICCN is in charge of the resettlement of project affected people. In general one can identify the following categories of project affected people: a) those living during and after project implementation permanently or temporarily in the PNVi; b) those living outside the PNVi and PNG, but whose livelihood depend on the resources in the parks; c) those living in the buffer zones of the PNVi and PNG and whose livelihood depends on the resources in the buffer zones; d) those living outside the areas, but who have traditional rights to these resources; and e) indigenous peoples, who depend partly or entirely on the resources in and outside the parks. In view of group a, the conservation laws do neither allow settlement nor human activities (agriculture, logging, hunting, gathering, fishing and mining) in the PNVi, but this might be legalized in the management plans in view to minimize the impacts of the GEF-WB Project and to reduce costs. If some or all populations presently living inside the PNVi are allowed to stay there, their rights and interests are addressed through this CPrR. In any case, ICCN has to guarantee that the living conditions of these people are at least equal to the living conditions prior to the implementation of the GEF-WB Project and above the poverty line. Those people, whose livelihood are based on the resources in the national parks - category a & b -, will most likely face a situation in which their entire livelihood will have to change due to the intervention of the GEF-WB Project. Due to that, the ICCN will need to provide them with new income opportunities equal or higher to their former standard of living. In line with the principles of pro-poor conservation and the objectives of ICCN, the national parks could offer them a permanent employment or provide them with other income opportunities. This option will be offered to all affected people of category a & b and has to guarantee them at least the incomes they had in the pre-park situation. In case that an individual is unable or unwilling to work, the salary should remain above the poverty line. To restore the livelihoods of people of category c is a bit easier. The provision of capacities and infrastructure to increase the marketing of their products might be sufficient to guarantee that their standard of living is not adversely affected by the GEF-WB Project. They could for instance receive long term contract to supply products to tourism facilities and park management structures and or receive grants to facilitate the transport of their products to the next markets. In any case the ICCN is in charge to guarantee that in a reasonable time frame (5-10 years) they face no negative impact from the national parks. This includes the establishment and maintenance of protection measures against the growing animal population in the park, which might cross to their plantations and destroy crops. A Rapport Final Février 2007 9
Page 1 and 2: République Démocratique du Congo
Page 3 and 4: ICCN Cadre procédural de Réinstal
Page 7: ICCN Cadre procédural de Réinstal
Page 59 and 60:
ICCN Cadre procédural de Réinstal
Page 61:
ICCN Cadre procédural de Réinstal
show all

Cadre ProcÃƒÂ©dural de RÃƒÂ©installation - Dr. Kai Schmidt-Soltau

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?