Approaching participation for HCV identification through monitoring, Ninil Jannah at HCVRN's Side Event at RSPO RT14 2016, Bangkok.

1. Approaching participation
for HCV identification
through monitoring

2. 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.

3. • 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

4. Participatory Monitoring Process
Ekologika has operationalized the FPP protocol for
HCV monitoring through multi-step process

5. TOR Development
for Participative HCV
Monitoring
Secondary Data
Collection
Desktop Review
Initial 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

6. HCV Training for
“Community
Monitoring Team”
Developing action
plan for HCV
Monitoring
FGD & community
consultation for
existing HCV
Updating HCVs
Village consultation
result HCV update
Updating HCV
Management and
Monitoring
Workshop with Co.
for HCV
Management and
Monitoring
HCV re-identification

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. • 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

12. Discussion Points

13. • 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

14. • 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

15. • 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

16. • 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

17. Ekologika’s perspective on HCV 5 issues

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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