Approaching participation for HCV identification through monitoring

Approaching participation for HCV identification through monitoring

Underlying Public Concern about HCVs in the Oil Palm Sector

• Identification of High Conservation Values (HCVs) is mandatory for RSPO certification

• Identification of HCV is aimed at safeguarding biodiversity, important landscapes, rare and threatened ecosystems, critical environmental services, community needs and culturally important sites and values.

• However, there has been much public concern regarding continued social conflicts in the oil palm sector even after HCV identification that is meant to safeguard social and cultural needs

• In addition, mapping of HCVs has often been based on inaccurate information and base data.

• This situation has prompted some stakeholders to lobby for re-identification of HCVs

• Other agencies have developed protocols for HCV monitoring that improves HCV identification.

• HCVRN is working to improve the situation through the ALS.

• Here, Ekologika presents some thoughts and experience about the dynamicity of HCVs in the Oil Palm development sector and an approach for continuous HCV improvement through monitoring and adaptive management

Underlying Public Concern about HCVs in the Oil Palm Sector

Participatory Monitoring Process

Ekologika has operationalized the FPP protocol for HCV monitoring through multi-step process

TOR Development for Participative HCV

Monitoring

Secondary Data Collection

Desktop ReviewInitial Village

Meetings with Village leaders

Participatory identification of potential HCVs (especially HCV

5&6)

Formation of a Village / Community Monitoring Team

Pre-monitoring Report

HCV Monitoring – Pre-Monitoring

HCV Training for “Community

Monitoring Team”

Developing action plan for HCV Monitoring

FGD & community consultation for

existing HCVUpdating HCVs

Village consultation result HCV update

Updating HCV Management and

Monitoring

Workshop with Co. for HCV

Management and Monitoring

HCV re-identification

HCV Participatory Monitoring

Village FGD for HCV Monitoring by VMT

FGD with Co. about Management HCV

by VMT

Field Observation by VMT

Community Interviews for HCV Monitoring by VMT

Monitoring results report by VMT

Updated HCV Management and

Monitoring recommendations

(Ekologika)

Workshop with Co. about HCV

Management and Monitoring –

adaptive management

Delineation of HCVA and HCV Management

Areas

Strategies for HCV Management

Identification of HCV that are “incompatible” (e.g.

Biodiversity HCVs (1) with Community Needs (5); (2) HCV Management Area for

river buffers and HCV 5 needs for resources and land

Recommendation for HCV management

ready for consultation

Management Recommendations for

HCV 1-6 consulted with and agreed by

community

Harmonisation between HCVs

Village Consultation Meeting to Review VMT

Findings and HCV Management and

Monitoring Recommendations

Sub-village / farmer group consultations to Review

VMT Findings and develop Community HCV

Management and Monitoring

Recommendations

Meeting between community representatives and Co. for Community HCV

Management Action Plan

Community HCV Management Action Plan

developed

Forum for the formalization of the Community HCV

Management Action Plan

Dissemination of Result to community affected /

Impacted

Participatory HCV Management and Monitoring

HCV Monitoring/Re-Identification Report

Workshop with the Co. to disseminate

results and developed HCV management

plan

Public Summary – Report of HCV

Monitoring

Public / Stakeholder Consultation (Provinsional)

Post Monitoring

• Participatory monitoring of HCV has many challenges

• Time and financial resources needed are initially high

• Developing understanding about the process with communities needs a open and neutral approach

• Community appreciation and spirit for the Village Monitoring Team (VMT) achieved

• Benefits of opening dialogue and improving understanding and trust are great

Lessons learned

Discussion Points

• Past consensus (pre-HCVRN Common Guidance for the Identification of HCV, 2012) was that HCV 5 & 6 could not oppose HCV 1-4

• Often, there was a focus on socio-economic and cultural HCVs (5 and 6) that were “forest” based and that were used sustainably

• However, if we are to embrace the values that are to be maintained for sustainability this emphasis on values that are potentially skew towards forest, biodiversity and environmental service conservation (that cannot be impacted) cannot automatically be preferred

Discussion points –HCV Hierarchy?

Social

Ecological Economic

Sustainable

Bearable

Viable

Equitable

• The HCVRN charter itself provides “principles of application” that encourages meaningful participation of stakeholders and rights-holders. This covers

– Tenure and customary rights and consent– Demonstrated right to use the land / water – FPIC– Legality (national and international)

• This guidance applies for HCV users (practitioners) and therefore covers all lands assessed for potential oil palm development, conservation and community use

• In other words, HCV areas nor the Oil Palm development itself should not diminish the legal or customary rights to use land or water resources – without their free and prior informed consent.

• Where there are overlaps in conservation / socio-economic needs / plantation development aspirations – consultations to develop agreement by the stakeholders is needed.

Discussion points –HCV principles of application

• Here, we need to emphasize the issue of “informed” in FPIC

• Sustainability is founded on a balance between services that provide economic benefits, social values and ecological function in the landscape.

• Communities and the company alike should be informed (aware and cognizant) of the need to maintain a balance in the landscape as the fundamental basis of sustainability.

• Areas which contain multiple HCVs, and the use of those values, needs to be discussed to inform all stakeholders concerned.

• The consequences of the use or loss of these values must be understood and properly documented

• This is often reflected in the “paradox of the river buffer zone”

Discussion points –“Informed” consent

• Ekologika believes that HCVs are dynamic – especially those related to social-economic values or community needs

• Whilst all efforts should be spent on maintaining HCVs that are accurately identified, monitoring through participatory approaches can inform all stakeholders of HCV dynamicity and changes that occur over time (positive and negative)

• Participatory Monitoring can update initial HCV assessments and is the preferred path – rather than “re-assessment” – an approach advocated by FPP’s monitoring protocol for HCV 5 & 6

• This participation in turn, ensures the implementation and mainstreaming of FPIC principles and an informed decision of HCVs in the landscape

Closing points

Ekologika’s perspective on HCV 5 issues

Q. As the need for HCV 5 might change over time as community livelihood is developing how often should a re-assessment for the area being done?

• Routine (yearly) Participatory Monitoring can highlight communities changing values. Monitoring HCV is not a re-assessment but providing information required to adapt management implementation, evaluate HCV plans and design in the landscape.

Ekologika’s perspective on HCV 5 issues

Q.

Can the communities continue to sell land parcels of HCV 5 to other village members or even outsiders (as is common practice)? Does that result automatically in a status change to non-HCV?

• Land to maintain financial income can be considered HCV 5 from the perspective of the community - land is need to maintain their socio-economic standards. Where land is sold from traditional ownership to investors (where ever they come from) the values for preventing these lands being used for oil palm (or conservation) have obviously changed. During Participatory Monitoring, these changes should be highlighted.

Ekologika’s perspective on HCV 5 issues

Q.If HCV 5 overlaps with a forested area, can the community convert into palm oil? Will companies need to reject buying such palm fruits due to their no deforestation commitment?

• Communities in many parts of Indonesia view forested land as reserve for their future development. Other communities value the environmental services – provisioning, regulating and cultural / esthetic – that they provide. An important part of “FPIC” is to ensure that communities are aware of these environmental services and the impacts on their livelihoods that will result if they are lost. The role of the company to advocate for forest conservation is important – especially where any HCVs have been identified. A component of this awareness raising where companies have signed No Deforestation commitments will be the inability to purchase FFB if the area held other HCVs or was HCS forest.

Ekologika’s perspective on HCV 5 issues

Q.• As HCV 5 is can be subjective how to ensure that HCV assessors

will end up with comparable assessments in specific situations?

• HCV assessments should have sufficient consultation with stakeholders to remove subjectivity. Participatory Monitoring is designed to improve assessment that are subjective. If participatory approaches are routinely used HCV important to local stakeholders and communities can be properly identified and adjusted, mapped and managed

Ekologika’s perspective on HCV 5 issues