social impact assessment - world...

PPPrrreeepppaaarrraaatttiiiooonnn SSStttuuudddyyy fffooorrr SSSooolllooommmooonnn IIIssslllaaannndddsss RRRuuurrraaalll DDDeeevvveeelllooopppmmmeeennnttt PPPrrrooojjjeeecccttt

(((PPPHHHRRRDDD GGGrrraaannnttt NNNooo... TTTFFF000555666999777222)))

SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

AAPPRRIILL 22000077

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

wb452162

Typewritten Text

SR55

PPPrrreeepppaaarrraaatttiiiooonnn SSStttuuudddyyy fffooorrr SSSooolllooommmooonnn IIIssslllaaannndddsss RRRuuurrraaalll DDDeeevvveeelllooopppmmmeeennnttt PPPrrrooojjjeeecccttt

PPPHHHRRRDDD GGGrrraaannnttt NNNooo... TTTFFF000555666999777222

SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

April 2007

Report submitted by LANDELL MILLS LIMITED

Alice Aruhe’eta POLLARD – Senior Sociologist

Louisa FAKAIA - Sociologist

This report was prepared at the request and with the financial support of the Solomon Island Government (SIG) and World Bank (WB).

Preparation Study for Rural Development Project (PHRD Grant No. TF056972) / LML & SKM / April 2007

KEY DATA SHEET

Name of Project: Preparation Study for Solomon Islands Rural Development Project

Contractor: Landell Mills Limited, Bryer-Ash Business Park, Bradford Road, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, BA14 8HE, UK

Tel: +44 1225 763777

Fax: +44 1225 753678

www.landell-mills.com

Contracting Authority: Ministry of Development Planning and Aid Coordination, Solomon Islands Government

PHRD Grant Number: TF056972

Start/End Date 25.1.2007 / 8.6.2007

Budget: USD 370,000

Primary Location: Honiara

Secondary Locations: Malaita, Temotu and Choiseul

DISTRIBUTION LIST Recipient Copies* Format Jane Wa’etara, Deputy NAO; PS, Ministry of Development Planning and Aid Coordination

5 Hard copy (+ electronic)

Landell Mills HQ Office 1 Hard copy (+ electronic) * Additional electronic copies will be distributed upon request.

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT

Report Status Date Draft Social Impact Assessment

Second submission 30th April, 2007

Name Position Signature Date

Prepared by:

Alice Aruhe’eta Pollard

Sociologist (with input from all team members, in particular Louisa Fakaia and Marion Ferguson)

28th April, 2007

Reviewed by:

Joanna Edghill Project Executive, LML

29th April, 2007

Approved by:

Jane Wa’etara Deputy NAO; PS, Ministry of Development Planning and Aid Coordination


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express their appreciation for the guidance and support provided by the Solomon Islands Government, Provincial Authorities and the Program Management Unit (PMU).


CONTENTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS .................................................................................. 5

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................ 6

1.1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF RDP....................................................................... 6

1.1.1 Potential Positive Impacts.................................................................................... 6

1.1.2 Potential Negative Impacts .................................................................................. 7

1.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 8

1.3 RESETTLEMENT POLICY ......................................................................................................... 8

2. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 9

2.1. CONTEXT, CULTURE AND HISTORY ...................................................................................... 9

3. METHODOLOGY..........................................................................................................10

4. POPULATION...............................................................................................................11

4.1. NATIONAL POPULATION ....................................................................................................... 11

4.2. YOUTH POPULATION ............................................................................................................. 11

4.2.1. Ethnic Minorities .................................................................................................12

5. INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................14

5.1. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURES ............................................................................................... 14

5.2. PROVINCIAL LEVEL................................................................................................................ 14

5.3. REGION AND WARD LEVEL STRUCTURES ......................................................................... 15

5.4. VILLAGE-LEVEL STRUCTURES ............................................................................................ 15

6. LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE ANALYSIS .........................................................17

6.1. TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP .................................................................................................. 17

6.2. CHURCH LEADERSHIP........................................................................................................... 18

6.3. POLITICAL LEADERSHIP ....................................................................................................... 18

7. LAND............................................................................................................................21

7.1. TRIBAL LAND ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 21

8. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS ........................................................................................22

8.1. STAKEHOLDER CATEGORIES .............................................................................................. 22


8.2. IMPACT ON PROJECT-AFFECTED PERSONS (PAPS)........................................................ 23

9. GENDER ANALYSIS....................................................................................................25

9.1. GENDER DIVISION OF LABOR............................................................................................... 25

9.2. WORKLOAD ............................................................................................................................. 26

9.3. GENDER ACCESS AND CONTROL OVER RESOURCES AND SOCIAL SERVICES ......... 27

9.4. WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING............................................................. 28

9.5. WOMEN’S ORGANIZATIONS ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 28

10. DONOR SECTOR ANALYSIS...................................................................................30

10.1. MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAM AND UNDP PGSP..................................... 30

10.2. DONOR PROGRAMS AT COMMUNITY LEVEL ................................................................. 30

11. NGO SECTOR ANALYSIS........................................................................................32

12. ASSESSING THE SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT...........................................................33

13. RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................35

14. GENDER DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES................................................................36

14.1. OBJECTIVES........................................................................................................................ 36

14.2. STRATEGIES........................................................................................................................ 36

APPENDIX 1: NGOS AND PROJECTS/PROGRAMS – ROLES AND SCOPE OF OPERATION........................................................................................................................37

APPENDIX 2: RESETTLEMENT POLICY ...........................................................................40

APPENDIX 3: SOLOMON ISLANDS’ PROVINCES AND GENDER COMPOSITION..........44

REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................49


ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ARDS Agriculture and Rural Development Strategy

ADB Asian Development Bank

AusAID Australian Agency for International Development

CCU Central Coordination Unit

CAP Community Action Planning

CSP Community Sector Program

DALD The Department of Agriculture and Livestock Development

EU European Union

MOG Machinery of Government

MP Member of Parliament

MDPAC Ministry of Development Planning and Aid Coordination

MEHRD Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development NTP National Transport Plan

NGO Non-governmental Organization

PAP Project Affected Person

PAG Provincial Advisory Group

PMU Project Management Unit

PPMU Provincial Project Management Unit

RCDF Rural Constituency Development Fund

RDP Rural Development Project

RTC Rural Training Center

SIDT Solomon Islands Development Trust

SINCW Solomon Islands National Council of Women

VBMS Vois Blong Mere Solomons

WDD Women’s Development Division

WB World Bank

YWCA Young Women’s Christian Association


1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Social Impact Assessment analyzes critical issues that are important for the design of the Rural Development Project (RDP). These are land, gender, people groupings, community leadership and governance, youth and vulnerable groups, government and non-state institutions. Field visits were conducted in Malaita, Choiseul and Temotu provinces to gauge peoples’ understanding and perceptions on how best RDP should be designed. The methodology included meeting with relevant government officials at the central and provincial levels, participation in the ARDS workshop in January 2007, holding community meetings in Malaita, Choiseul and Temotu provinces, conducting face-to-face interviews, and using secondary sources such as existing reports and written material. The conclusions of this assessment are summarized as follows:

• Solomon Islands have a high youth population (36% of the total or 147,415 young people are between the ages of 15-34 according to the 1999 population and housing census). This can provide strong, able and energetic human resources for the implementation of RDP at the community level. Utilizing youth as facilitators would be realistic. It is important to note that RDP will lessen internal migration from the rural villages to urban towns such as Honiara. It will also create job opportunities for the communities’ youth population;

• Rural women’s roles in the area of production, reproduction and community involvement will be improved. Ultimately, women will be more mobile through their active participation in the decision-making processes of RDP;

• Women’s organizations within the different church structures, which already have a strong network from national to village levels, in collaboration with the Solomon Islands National Council of Women, will provide a vehicle for training and service delivery to rural communities;

• The government political structure, which exists only at the national to ward level and is absent at the community level, will work in collaboration with the churches, traditional leadership, donors and other NGOs at community level;

• The government structure from the national to ward level will be strengthened to carry out its program effectively at the provincial and community levels. Resources, logistical and technical support will be revamped in the government structure, especially at the provincial level, to enable it to function to its fullest capacity;

• The traditional and church leadership structures are active and provide the bedrock for coexistence, community participation and development at the community level. They will provide support to RDP, where and when necessary; and

• Land is a very critical issue for any development in Solomon Islands. It is noted that land for social services are easily accessed compared to that for development projects. The traditional leaders who are custodians of land will provide support to community activities that are aimed at boosting economical and efficient service delivery to the people.

1.1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF RDP

1.1.1 Potential Positive Impacts

The potential positive impacts of RDP:

• Improved coordination within the government structure (central, provincial and ward/area). This will lead to better communication and relationships within government, as well as with non-state actors such as the churches, NGOs and donors at community level;


• Creation of employment opportunities for skilled men and women at the community level. Involving both male and potential female leaders as facilitators at community and provincial levels of decision-making will empower them;

• Rehabilitating rural infrastructure addresses some of the key critical access needs of rural people. Building and maintaining wharves, roads, bridges and markets will increase rural access to goods and services. Furthermore, maintaining essential services such as health centers and schools increases access to these services;

• Improving agricultural training, advice and extension programs to the communities will result in increased food and cash crop production, resurgent rural livelihoods and improved income generation; and

• Employing a team approach at community level involving church leaders, chiefs, women, youth and RDP facilitators will promote unity in leadership.

1.1.2 Potential Negative Impacts Some of the risks of negative impacts are low while a few need particular attention. These risks include:

• Development projects and income generation activities may lead to land disputes and disharmony amongst tribes and communities1. In some villages, landowners request some payment for piping water from the water source from their land. Disharmony in this context means, tribal enmity, theft, destruction and damage to property or taking over of the project by landowners. This is a high risk but can be prevented through encouraging discussions and reaching an agreement by tribal landowners prior to the implementation of the project;

• There are underlying tensions in Solomon Islands, which remain from The Tensions. Whilst these are currently being successfully managed by SIG and RAMI, it is important for RDP to be culturally sensitive it its implementation. RDP will not allocate resources on the basis of any cultural bias.

• RDP has created a high expectation among rural people that their needs will be met. However, RDP will not be able to meet the needs of rural people and communities within five years and with the financial allocation available. Failure to meet their needs will create dissatisfaction, withdrawal from RDP and withdrawal of their natural resources. This is a high risk. Careful planning and proper mapping of the implementation of RDP will be considered;

• While the RDP time frame is 5 years, understandably, activities at the community level take a longer time to get them implemented. This means that activities may not necessarily take place on time;

• Fewer women’s involvement in decision-making at different levels will create an added workload, on their normal load, at the community level. This is a low risk and can be counteracted by involving potential young girls and other older women. More women will be trained in leadership and encouraged to take up leadership positions in their communities rather than within their own women’s group;

• Availability of cash at the community level may result in some young/older men consuming kwaso (home brewed drink) and alcohol; domestic violence incidences may occur/increase; and there may be an increase in the consumption of processed foods such as rice, noodles, buns and ring cakes. This is a low risk issue. Since the expected increase in income is not high, the negative effects will be small. RDP will emphasize the importance of local food compared to imported food, which will reduce this risk; and

• Donor and non-state actors’ harmonization may not work at the provincial and community levels because each donor and non-state actor has their own objectives, goals and

1 Examples of community development projects are cocoa and coconut plantations and teak farming compared to

service oriented community projects such as clinics, school or church buildings.


priorities. RDP may be their least priority. This is a low risk since RDP is a joint donor initiative and there was positive support voiced by non-state actors that were consulted.

1.2 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations of the social impact assessment are as follows:

• RDP will need to appropriate the concepts of “rural development”, “bottom-up” and “people-centered approach”, for the context of RDP and people’s high expectations;

• The implementation of RDP will need to be simple and slow, but organized to allow for community understanding and active participation. The issue of donors’ time frame and exit strategy, and the actual implementation of RDP, should be flexible and negotiable;

• More emphasis should be given to cooperation between Government departments and non-state actors at all levels, and equal participation of men and women in decision-making in Components 1-3;

• A gender-relevant approach must be designed for all RDP activities, whether in the planning processes, implementation interventions or institutional support. This will mean providing gender training for decision-makers and facilitators. Such training must have clear roles for all collaborating organizations, and clearly defined tasks to help managers and extension-field workers take initiatives and leadership;

• RDP will need to explore further and develop an effective land use strategy in consultation with landowners to facilitate development projects on alienated and customary land. Grievances in relation to land issues may require both traditional and legal processes;

• The agriculture component will need to develop a formula for sharing funds and other resources between cash-oriented and subsistence crops/activities where men and women dominate, respectively;

• The established financial system will need to cater for remote communities that have no easy or cheap way to access cash;

• The roles and functions of key stakeholders (central and provincial government ministries and departments, provincial government advisory groups, NGOs, donors, facilitators, chiefs, politicians, church leaders and women leaders) need to be clearly defined;

• Efficient planning of the various activities and stages of RDP will need to be put in place prior to project implementation;

• Training in project management, administrative processes, financial systems and the roles of various stakeholders is vital at project start-up;

• Emphasis needs to be placed on stakeholder relationships and partnerships from national to community level; and

• A management system of RDP should be established at community level to allow for sustainability of the program once it is phased out.

1.3 RESETTLEMENT POLICY It is highly unlikely that there will be any involuntary resettlement or significant damage to land, food gardens, reefs and marine resources as a result of infill or road upgrading, construction of wharves, jetties, classrooms, market houses or clinics at community level. Observance of a few key principles will minimize any potential risks or negative impacts. These are discussed in Appendix 2.


2. INTRODUCTION

This Social Impact Assessment provides an overview of the social impacts that may result from implementation of RDP on rural communities and different groups of people. It assesses the strengths and limitations of RDP in meeting the needs and interests of its beneficiaries and other stakeholders. The objectives of this social impact assessment are to:

• Gain insight into whether or not the different institutions involved have the capacity to deal with social, cultural and gender issues during implementation of RDP;

• Gain insight into whether or not communities and stakeholders involved have the capacity to provide effective leadership in the implementation of RDP (and to deal with leadership challenges faced at all levels);

• Assess from a sociological perspective the positive and negative impact RDP may have on different categories of people and their likely involvement in the various project stages;

• Assess the impact RDP may have on land and other related resources in relation to tribal land ownership; and

• Make recommendations for further extension to other provinces and communities so that RDP will maximize benefits to the general population.

2.1. CONTEXT, CULTURE AND HISTORY Defining characteristics of the socio-economic conditions, culture and history and of the Solomon Islands are as follows:

• SI is an archipelago located in the South Pacific consisting of six large and 986 small islands with a total land area of 27,990 km²;

• The population is estimated to be growing at 2.8% per annum;

• A growing disparity in access to social and economic opportunities has resulted in a significant increase in the rate of rural-urban drift, especially of young people heading to Honiara and provincial centers;

• The armed conflict (The Tensions) between militant groups from the two Islands of Malaita and Guadalcanal erupted in 1998, and continued until the arrival of the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI) in July 2003;

• The Tensions led to the collapse of government structures, service delivery and key export industries, discouraged private investment and reduced employment opportunities;

• Real GDP per capita fell by more than 25% between 1995 and the end of the Tensions in 2003. It is estimated that a 5% annual growth will be needed over the next 20 years to restore per capita income to its 1995 level;

• Around 80% of the population is rural-based, and depends on a small and undiversified economy with a narrow export basis – mainly round logs, copra and cocoa. Subsistence agriculture, fisheries and tropical forest products form the basis of their livelihoods for foods, medicines and building materials; and

• Agricultural activities are mostly undertaken by women, although cash incomes from export commodities are largely controlled by men. The agricultural sector accounts for a third of GDP.

These characteristics are important and must be considered for RDP implementation.


3. METHODOLOGY

The methodology for the social impact assessment included: 1. Initial meetings with senior officials, Permanent Secretaries and a few politicians from the

three Project Year 1 (PY1) provinces - Choiseul, Temotu and Malaita; 2. Attendance at the Agriculture and Rural Development Strategy (ARDS) workshop in

Honiara on 5th February, 2007; 3. Review of existing data as a basis for planning and decision-making on the location of

selected communities for fieldwork; 4. Use of existing reports and other documents; 5. Face-to-face interviews with service providers, such as school principals, rural health

nurses and community leaders; 6. Field visits to different communities and other project sites in Malaita, Choiseul and

Temotu (see Table 1 below).

Table 1: Locations of field visits

Province Wards Locations Tai Heo, Hauhui Clinic, Tawaimare

Community High School, Afutara Rural Training Center, Siua, Kiu

Kwarekwareo Asimana Coconut Mill Malu’u Malu’u Auki Auki – Provicial Administration

staff Aimela Airahu Training Center Nafinua Nafinua

Malaita

Faumamanu/Kwai Faumamanu, Kwai

Wagina Wagina Katupika Posarae Vasiduki Luti Babatana Sasamuga Babatana Lauru Rural Training Center Tepazaka Vosa Batava Choiseul Bay Agriculture Center Susuka Susuka Senga Pangoi

Choiseul

Tavula Vurango

Luava

Graciosa Bay 14 villages – from Uta to Pala Delta Logging camp, Luesalo Rural Training Center

Nea Noole

Agriculture Research Center 6 villages (West/South)

Nevenema Vanga, Memba and Manoputi

Temotu

Neo (Malo Island) Malo, Minevi and Neo


4. POPULATION

4.1. NATIONAL POPULATION The 1999 Population and Housing Census recorded a population of 409,042 people, out of which 197,661 were female and 211,381 were male. The population growth rate is 2.8% per year. The population distribution throughout the nine provinces is uneven. Malaita has a population of over 122,000. The next two largest provinces are Guadalcanal (60,275) and Western (62,739). Other small sized provinces are Isabel (20,421), Temotu (18,912), Central (21,577) and Choiseul (20,008). Honiara, which is the capital of Solomon Islands, has (49,107) or 12% of the country’s population. Makira-Ulawa province has a medium sized population (31,002), whilst Rennell-Bellona province has the smallest of about 2,377 people. Whilst the majority live along the coast, there are substantial pockets of villages inland, mainly on Guadalcanal and Malaita. There were 65,014 households recorded during the 1999 Population and Housing Census: 63,404 were categorized as private households, and 1,610 as collective households. The national average size of a collective household was 11.9 people and 6.1 for private households. Out of this total, 84% were headed by men.

4.2. YOUTH POPULATION The Solomon Islands’ population growth rate of 2.8%, largely comprising youth (147,415 people are between the ages of 15-34), poses challenges to RDP. A significant number of young people are “pushed out” of the formal education system at the cut off points in Standard 6, Form 3, Form 5 and Form 6. For example, the 2005 Ministry of Education and Human Resource Development (MEHRD) annual report reported an enrolment of 8,441 in the Solomon Islands’ Secondary Entrance Examination at Standard 6. 7,538 students (89%) were placed in a junior secondary school in Form 1 while 903 students were unplaced. The 1999 enrolment for girls and boys were the same at primary school level. However, there was a considerable gap between boys and girls in secondary school enrolment. More girls leave the formal education system after primary schooling due to lack of equal space and facilities for girls at secondary schools. More girls return to the villages to attend to the rural livelihoods of their families. The current education system has insufficient capacity to absorb the potential youth population. Some students have the opportunity to attend further education at the Rural Training Centers (RTCs). In 2006, there were 45 RTCs, including community-based centers, with a total enrolment of 2,228 students (out of which 1,599 were male). Whilst many young people remain in the villages, many drift to Honiara and other urban centers in search of opportunities for education and employment. Internal migration is an important issue in Solomon Islands. The two main destinations for migrants are Honiara and Western Province. Migration occurs for reasons such as education, employment and business development. Malaita is the main source of migrants. RDP can be expected to have some important impacts on the youth population and internal migration: 1. Since Solomon Islands have a high youth population, the engagement of youth will be

significant for RDP. The project has the potential to engage rural youths in the villages as facilitators or as community leaders. The involvement of a limited number of students


from RTCs who have been trained in carpentry, mechanics, life skills, agriculture, business and religious instruction, and who are already living in the rural communities would be a bonus. These students could be organized and used to provide the capacity required to implement RDP and deliver services in rural villages. The involvement of rural youth in RDP will also create a mindset of rural development compared to urban migration.

2. RDP will create some employment opportunities for young people in their own villages.

Employment possibilities include: having 2-4 facilitators at ward level, having 2-4 facilitators at ward level, 10-20 private contractors for continuing infrastructure projects, and possible income generation through extension or financial business training activities. RDP will train young people to be potential leaders through personal capacity building and performing facilitating roles.

3. Many young people may have migrated to urban areas, resulting in villages lacking

younger men and women at community level to implement RDP. Urban migration of young people poses greater responsibility and a heavy workload on children and the elderly who remain in the villages. RDP may therefore experience some difficulty in implementation. Whilst older people will be interested, enthusiastic and have wise counsel, they will lack strength and energy. Young people will already be burdened because of lower numbers. Young people sometimes have no interest in village development activities, but resort to social activities and youthful lifestyle offered in urban centers.

4. If RDP promotes the involvement of young people working in partnership with older

people, it will strengthen their relationships as partners in rural development as well as encouraging wider cultural benefits and promoting mutual respect.

5. The young people will be actively engaged in subsistence and economic activities that

are necessary for rural livelihoods in the communities. If skilled young people are required for construction and facilitation, they will be compensated for their time. Community contributions will be through resources such as labor, land, sand, gravel and timber.

6. Engagement of young population in agriculture and community development may

motivate them to remain in the village rather than drift to Honiara. 7. While high population places much pressure on land and resources, it will also provide

human resources for the implementation of RDP and stimulate economic growth. For example, in Malaita there is a greater range of skilled resources than elsewhere. Communities located close to provincial centers will have had greater knowledge and awareness of business development, marketing, donor activities and project preparation.

4.2.1. Ethnic Minorities

The minority ethnic groups in Solomon Islands recorded during the 1999 census include the Chinese (464), Micronesians (4,906), Europeans (669) and Polynesians (12,259). Chinese communities and Europeans are organized and settled in and around Honiara. Significantly, Honiara reveals a strong over-representation of these ethnic groups compared to the provinces. The Melanesians who are the predominant group of people in Solomon Islands were the first settlers to inhabit the main six islands of Choiseul, New Georgia, Isabel, Guadalcanal, Malaita and Makira. The Polynesians were the second settlers who inhabited the outer islands such as Sikaina, Ontong Java and Lord Howe which are part of Malaita province,


Tikopia and Anuta islands of Temotu province and Rennell-Bellona province. Some Polynesian communities are also found in the Russell islands and in Makira province. Malaita is a province with little representation of other minority groups. Micronesians are strongly represented in Choiseul and the Western provinces. They are recent immigrants from Kiribati since 1955 and in particular in the early 1960s. Most of them were settled under official schemes in Wagina, Inner Shortlands, Gizo and Honiara. Others have migrated and settled in Vonavona.


5. INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

5.1. GOVERNMENT STRUCTURES

The national parliament consists of fifty Members of Parliament (MPs) who represent fifty constituencies. The fifty members of parliament elect the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister chooses his/her Deputy Prime Minister and his/her Cabinet Ministers. The Cabinet is headed by the Prime Minister and has executive power in the administration of the national government. The current Cabinet has approximately 20 Cabinet Ministers with departmental responsibilities. The constituency level is a political structure dating from the colonial period, determined by population and focused on national political representation. It covers a much larger boundary where the people speak one or two dialects, with minor variations and different cultural behaviors. The constituency representation is the Minister of Parliament (MP), each of whom has access to a constituency development fund known as the Rural Constituency Development Fund (RCDF). This totals SBD1 million per year. This fund is used to address community needs in each constituency. The allocation of this fund is under the administrative power of each MP. The MP can be very influential through the RCDF over his/her constituency, and in decision-making. Whilst RCDF could be compatible with RDP, RCDF is politically driven. The ministries and departments together with their functional responsibilities and interest in RDP are discussed below: The Ministry of Development Planning and Aid Coordination (MDPAC) is responsible for macro-planning and national coordination of the Government Development Assistance Program. MDPAC also provides capacity building in planning and project management through training to central and provincial government personnel. The Department of Agriculture and Livestock (DAL) supports agriculture through an extension service delivery program for rural farmers, as well as quarantine, plant protection and animal health services. DAL also facilitates training for rural farmers and conducts research. The Department of Transport and Infrastructure, in its National Transport Plan (NTP) 2007-2026, provides a framework and action plan for developing and maintaining physical infrastructure, facilitating transport services, improving the capacity of Government agencies and enhancing private sector participation. The Ministry of Provincial Government facilitates effective service delivery from the central government to the 9 provincial governments through capacity building, skilled human resources and other logistical support. The Ministry of Finance and Treasury is responsible for budgets and operating a financial system that is simple and manageable whereby finances can be transferred from the central level to the provincial and village level.

5.2. PROVINCIAL LEVEL The Provincial Government structure was established in Solomon Islands law through the 1981 Provincial Government Act, which was re-enacted in 1997. The Act provided for an elected body, the Provincial Assembly for each Province, alongside senior administrative


staff seconded by national government. The Provincial Government structure has a Provincial Assembly headed by an Executive. The Executive is led by the Provincial Premier who appoints his/her Deputy Premier and Ministers. While the administrative structure of each province exists, some provinces do not have the capacity and logistical support to implement their programs effectively. For example, Choiseul Province was without a Provincial Secretary and Treasurer and Malaita’s office premises were old and in need of repair. In Malaita, communication between Auki, the provincial center, and the sub-station of each region was non-existent due to lack of communication facilities. Provincial staff housing was in poor condition. Provincial staff salary and wages were low compared to the government seconded staff. The different provincial government departments such as RWSS and Works were without finances to implement their programs in the rural areas. Follow-up visits from service providers such as education, health and agriculture officers to the rural communities were lacking, and, in some communities, non-existent. A Provincial Advisory Group (PAG) consisting of representatives from Health, Education, Agriculture, Works, Provincial Administration, Provincial Council of Women, Donor representatives and NGOs will be established. This group will provide guidance, advice, management and monitoring capacity to RDP. They will also assess major infrastructure projects for the province. However, each representative is a full-time employee, and has his/her job commitment and priorities. Being involved in RDP will be an added responsibility.

5.3. REGION AND WARD LEVEL STRUCTURES Malaita province has a population of more than 122,000, and has established four sub-regions - Central, Northern, Eastern and Southern - as the next level down from the province. Each region has a center that is staffed with administrative and extension program officers. However, they lack resources including finances and logistical support to administer their region and provide effective service delivery. All provinces are divided into wards, which are an electoral unit used to define areas. The ward boundary replaced the Area Council structure. It has taken into account important features such as language, family relationships, cultural behaviors and characteristics, as well as land ownership. The benefits of the ward structure are that:

• The ward level and the boundaries already exist, and are known by the wider population and their association with the ward to which they belong;

• The ward level provides for easier administration and accessibility to the rural people - it is simple and manageable;

• A ward member has a limited ward grant: for example, in Malaita, it is SBD18,000 per ward member per year. The ward grant differs in each province;

• Having one ward member will have little influence over the decision-making of RDP at ward level.

The ward level is administratively closer to the people, is cost effective and manageable.

5.4. VILLAGE-LEVEL STRUCTURES There is no formal structure at village level. Local governance at the village/community level is provided by non-state structures such as the churches, the chiefs, the private sector, NGOs and various community committees. Donors have established local decision-making structures to link and communicate with both provincial government and non-state actors for delivery of services at the community level.


Each community with a church has a church leadership team that manages and administers that community. The team provides guidance, leads daily communal fellowship, conducts church fund-raising, oversees the overall running of the community, enforces law and order, and promotes unity and harmonious living. Traditional leaders provide guidance to the community in terms of cultural values and wisdom. They uphold law and order, and support the church leaders in addressing communal social issues. They are responsible for imparting knowledge about genealogy and land ownership to families and tribes. Disputes relating to tribes and land are dealt with by chiefs. Each tribe and community has its own chiefs. Some communities have established overarching committees with sub-committees that administer development issues such as health, education, water and sanitation, law and order, rural infrastructure and economic activities. For example, the Heo community in Malaita established sub-committees that are responsible for development projects, village health and education and; Sasamunga community in Choiseul established sub-committees that look after the road, market and hospital. Such community committees draw their strength from combined efforts and dialogue between traditional and church leadership. This combined effort could be translated to RDP activities at community level with its linkages to trained skilled personnel at the provincial or national level. However, some of these sub-committees are non-functional due to lack of direction and resources, heavy workload and commitment to other priority needs of community people.


6. LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE ANALYSIS

6.1. TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP The two common types of leadership evident in the rural communities are Big Man and Chief leadership. Big Man leadership is founded on warrior, feast giver and priest roles. Big Man leadership is achieved where a man proves himself through character and distribution of wealth, as well as accumulation of wealth and performance of priest roles. Discussion about Big Woman leadership is absent in literature, although exists in some cultures. A Big Man leader can be powerful and influential in community decision-making. In Solomon Islands’ political sphere, the Big Man leadership system can be used to leverage political power and accumulate wealth. The Chief leadership is predominantly hereditary (ascribed), although in some areas in Solomon Islands it can also be achieved leadership at community level. Chiefs are leaders who are knowledgeable in custom, history, genealogy and tribal land. Chiefs are always men, with the exception of Isabel province and some areas of Guadalcanal where women can be chiefs. The Chief system in Isabel is structured from family to provincial level. Chiefs are powerful and influential leaders at family, community and language level, but less so at provincial level. The Big Man and Chief leadership structure poses challenges to women’s involvement in the decision-making and implementation of RDP, for the following reasons: 1. It is likely that men will dominate all processes involving RDP. Big Men and Chiefs will

have powerful influence over decision-making compared to women who are generally absent in these positions of leadership. Women’s influential positions behind the scenes will need to be brought upfront in RDP decision-making processes to allow them to be equal partners in development. The social preparation stage of RDP will need to include, if possible, an equal number of men and women in all social structures. A record of the number of men and women attending meetings would be ideal. Negligence of women’s participation in RDP leadership and decision-making may result in a male dominated program that is prone to corruption and failure. Whether RDP fails or succeeds, women, who bear the bulk of responsibilities at family and community level, will experience the impact before other groups.

2. On the other hand, placing women in leadership at community level may undermine the

Chiefs’ power and leadership. Women’s representation in leadership may need to be negotiated with the Chiefs. The Chief’s involvement in decision-making of RDP must be considered. The Chief’s structure that is already functioning at the village level, and their influential position as community leaders and land owners, is relevant for RDP.

3. Chiefs are expected to be involved directly or indirectly in any community program. Their

absence may result in their withdrawal from those activities as well as withdrawing resources such as land, sand, gravel and trees for timber. Their absence may also result in land disputes and communal disharmony.

4. Tribal and community Chiefs’ roles focus more on land, law/order and peaceful

coexistence with each other. They are resourceful men in both development and the organizational capacity of communities. However, they may be motivated by self gain and act in an opportunistic manner. This may be to the detriment of the community.


6.2. CHURCH LEADERSHIP There are five main churches operating nationally that reach down to rural communities. They are the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Melanesia, the Seventh Day Adventist, the United Church and the South Sea Evangelical Church2. Smaller churches are centered around Honiara and some provincial capitals. The churches have an established network from the national to the community level. There is a church operating in each community with a strong leadership team headed by the Church Pastor or Catechist. Each main church has its own church structure and programs. For example, the South Sea Evangelical Church structure starts at the community level; the Association level, the second level up, covers a cluster of local churches; the Regional level is the third level up and covers a cluster of Associations; the National level is based in Honiara. Church leadership at all levels will have some significant impact on RDP, more so at the family, community and Association level in the following manner: 1. While the churches have an effective network, their focus is on spiritual development and

communal harmony. They also participate actively in education, health and any other programs that addresses rural livelihood. However, many church communities are established on land belonging to other tribes. Any development programs involving church communities will need to consider land issues and communal harmony. In addition, the church networks are set up by each individual church. However, the formation of the Solomon Islands Christian Association (SICA) comprises the five mainline churches, and is functional at the national level. It provides an excellent vehicle for national issues affecting the churches and the country.

2. The five main churches have established women’s organizations in each of their

churches at all levels, looking at development issues affecting women. The organizations are the Mothers Union, Dorcas Welfare Society, United Church Women’s Fellowship, SSEC Women’s Fellowship and the Catholic Women’s Association. They have also established a women’s desk known as Solomon Islands Christian Association Federation of Women (SICAFOA). Church leadership has encouraged women’s leadership and mobility through women’s group programs. RDP could strengthen women in leadership and decision-making processes. Some of these leaders could be used as facilitators at ward level. Improving women leadership in churches will have a positive impact on church communities at all levels, as well as on RDP.

3. Women’s church groups have also established an effective, functional network stretching

from community to national levels. Their programs are ongoing throughout the year on a voluntary basis. Strengthening and improving their existing programs will boost their morale and capacity in development. These groups could also strengthen the provincial councils of women through advisory roles, networking and exchange of human resources, as well as training and coordination.

4. Involving male church leaders in RDP will complement women church leaders and encourage partnership. RDP will assist the churches to widen their focus to include other development programs into spiritual-based programs. However, it should be noted that church leaders are busy, and may not be able to perform when and where required.

6.3. POLITICAL LEADERSHIP

2 For a breakdown of churches, please see the 1999 Census.


The Solomon Islands is currently a unitary state. It has two levels of government - national and provincial. Provincial government stemmed out of the local government of the colonial bureaucracy. This divided the country into four districts - Western, Central, Malaita and Eastern - each of which was administered by an expatriate District Officer. Under the British colonial rule, this system represented government at local level. The country’s form of government is a constitutional monarchy within the Commonwealth in which the Governor General represents the British monarch. The executive power is in the hands of a national cabinet headed by the Prime Minister. There are 50 members in parliament, each of whom is elected from a constituency every four years. The current parliament comprises all men. Women and youth are absent in national parliamentary leadership. The second administrative level of provincial government is made up of the nine provinces and Honiara Town Council. The provincial government has a Provincial Assembly headed by an Executive. The Provincial Executive is led by the Premier who is elected by an absolute majority of Provincial Assembly members. Once elected, the Premier appoints a Deputy Premier and Ministers with portfolio responsibilities. The provinces and Honiara Town Council are again subdivided into 183 wards (of which Malaita has 33). Government representation does not expand beyond the ward level. Some women were successful in the provincial elections in Guadalcanal, Malaita and Isabel. Men continue to dominate in leadership at national and provincial government level. The government leadership structure has implications for the implementation of RDP: 1. The Government leadership structure is all men, except for Isabel Province which

recently elected two female provincial members. This may imply that male politicians in their capacity as provincial and national members could play an influential role in RDP decision-making. However, their influential roles could be directed towards personal gain and status. Such an attitude could be detrimental for RDP and people in the rural community. There needs to be a demarcation between their roles as politicians and as RDP advisors.

2. Women’s absence in the government leadership structure is significant for their

participation in RDP. To facilitate gender balance, women will have to be recruited into the project. However, there are few women with proven leadership skills. They will need to be involved at central management level, some as Provincial Coordinators, and as facilitators at community level.

3. RDP should consider establishing a separate allocation of funds for women.

Mainstreaming gender may be difficult for women in an informal environment where men dominate all types of leadership. Competing with men for RDP resources may not work. Having a separate allocation for women will allow them to benefit from RDP, and have their needs met. It would also enhance women’s capacity in planning and leadership, and strengthen the ideology of “separate but complementary”, that is commonly practiced throughout Melanesia. New ways of reinforcing women’s potential need to be developed. An allocation of small grants and training in PY1 for women needs to be considered.

4. While RDP will be administratively organized along the government leadership structure

(central, provincial and wards) for planning training and facilitation, other existing community structures need to be explored to allow for networking and cooperation rather than competition and duplication. This is important particularly because the government leadership structure does not reach rural communities. Networking is crucial for RDP rather than working in isolation. RDP will need to be simple and flexible at the village level, as well as work alongside existing structures. RDP will encourage community-


driven committees, involving church leaders, traditional leaders, women leaders and youth leaders for advisory roles and decision-making.


7. LAND

7.1. TRIBAL LAND ANALYSIS Most land in Solomon Islands is customary land: it is owned by tribes and not individuals. Development that takes place on customary land becomes the property of the customary land holder(s). The boundaries of customary land are not always clearly defined. For example, in `Are`Are, customary land boundaries are defined by rivers, streams, valleys, stones, certain type of trees or mountains. Understanding customary land boundaries is based on indigenous knowledge and mutual agreement between tribes and their descendants. Land alienation that stemmed from colonial rule, through “Waste Lands” regulations, freehold purchase and government purchase of land for leasing, still creates anomalies. Land disputes in relation to development on customary land are common. However, there is an appeal process that includes chiefs’ hearings, a local court and a customary land appeal court (this may be relevant in the context of activities to be undertaken by the rural infrastructure component of RDP). Consultations and dialogue will be required between Government and landowners prior to signing any agreement for RDP projects (especially in relation to customary land, whether it is for infrastructure or development projects). Extension service programs, such as education, health, infrastructure and agriculture, are generally embraced by the community and landowners, as compared to economic activities that are managed by families or tribes. Any development that will require land will also need to consider rural people’s livelihoods, which depend on subsistence agriculture where women dominate. Arable coastal land will need to be reserved for subsistence agriculture. See Appendix 2 for the Grievance Resolution process and Resettlement Policy.


8. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

8.1. STAKEHOLDER CATEGORIES The Asian Development Bank’s definition of primary and secondary stakeholders is used for this analysis:

• Primary Stakeholders: people, groups or institutions affected positively (e.g. beneficiaries) or negatively (e.g. those involuntarily resettled); and

• Secondary Stakeholders: people, groups or institutions that are important intermediaries in project delivery processes (e.g. donors and Government agencies).

Table 2: Stakeholder Categories and Interests

A. Primary Stakeholders Stakeholder group Interest Level of Involvement

Involvement in RDP

Primary

Central level

Ministry of Development Planning and Aid Coordination

Monitoring on behalf of SIG, assessing impact on SIG policy, coordinating SIG communications regarding RDP.

Direct

Implementation. Need to be kept informed, regular reporting with respect to RDP.

Department of Infrastructure

Maintain a database which may be used at provincial level, advise on standard infrastructure design, monitor National Transport Policy (NTP).

Direct Monitor implementation of NTP, provide advice and technical support, regularly informed of progress of activities.

Department of Provincial Government and Rural Development

Planning, coordination and monitoring of RDP.

Direct Coordinate planning and delivery of services, provide technical and planning advice to RDP decision-makers at all levels

Department of Agriculture and Livestock

Service delivery and monitor implementation of Component 3.

Direct Keep informed of delivery of services at provincial and community level, provide training and advisory roles.

Provincial level

Provincial Government Administration

Advisory roles and logistical support.

Indirect Provide advice and logistical support, keep informed of progress at provincial level.

Agriculture Service delivery, advisory roles, coordination and monitoring.

Direct Provide advice and training at community level.

Health/RWSS Planning, coordination and training.

Direct Ensure that new infrastructure planning is coordinated with NTP, provide training at village level.


Education Provide advisory roles and coordination of education development activities.

Indirect Ensure that new education developments are in line with the national plans.

Infrastructure Support to assess sub-projects.

Indirect Provide assessment work on projects.

Provincial Council of Women

Monitoring and training.

Direct Provide advice and training at provincial and community level.

Donors Advisory roles and working in partnership.

Indirect Provide dialogue and cost-sharing where possible.

NGOs Training and information.

Direct Keep informed of progress of activities, provide training.

Village level

Village facilitators Training, supervision and information.

Direct Provide training, information and field visits, assess progress.

Traditional leaders Advisory roles, traditional wisdom.

Indirect Provide advisory roles and support in dealing with land issues, participate in community meetings.

Church leaders Advisory roles and community leadership.

Indirect Provide leadership roles and support to community activities.

Women’s leaders Advisory and participation.

Direct Involvement in community meetings and activities.

Youth leaders Advisory and participation.

Direct Involvement in community activities and meetings.

Community members

Active participation. Direct Involvement in RDP community decision-making and activities.

B. Secondary Stakeholders Stakeholder Group Interest Level of Involvement Involvement in RDP

Secondary World Bank Financial Indirect Provide financial support,

guidance and monitoring. AUSAID Financial Indirect Provide financial support

and monitoring. EU Financial Indirect Provide financial support

and monitoring. SIG Advisory roles Indirect Provide advice.

8.2. IMPACT ON PROJECT-AFFECTED PERSONS (PAPS) RDP will focus its attention on rural communities. The main groups who will benefit from RDP include the youth, men and women groups who will attend training programs. Some will become facilitators while some will be involved in decision-making processes at different levels. Skilled men and women will participate in construction as contractors at community level. Rural farmers will access agricultural training, technical support and financial assistance towards improving rural livelihoods and development. Fishermen will also access technical support and training in improved fishing techniques, fish marketing and improved fish storage facilities. Having access to cash will improve service delivery to these groups.


8.2.1 Youth Groups Youth groups are organized at community level either under church leadership or as an association, e.g. soccer clubs. Youth form an important part of the community. Whilst they are physically strong, healthy and active, they are often ignored in development programs. RDP will need to utilize this as a group of human resources that are relatively untapped and available. Investing in them through training as potential leaders/involvement in decision-making will boost their morale and self-image. Ignoring their presence and potential poses a threat to the sustainability and ownership of any RDP projects at village level. Engaging youths with adult men and women as facilitators (i.e. young girls/boys and older men/women) at local level is desirable. Both skilled and unskilled youth will be useful at the community level. However, consumption of Kwaso (home brewed drink) and alcohol may increase at community level as a result of increased access to cash.

8.2.2 Vulnerable Groups Vulnerable groups (e.g. the disabled and elderly) exist in the community but are not a large part of the population. These groups often receive community services from family members, churches or women’s groups. Involving them where necessary in decision-making and listening to their voices on any issues that would cause negative impact on their livelihoods is significant.

8.2.3 Government Extension Services The two common government services that reach rural communities are education and health. Fewer communities have access to infrastructure projects such as wharfs, roads and bridges. Agriculture services are very limited or absent as extension officers lack the funds and resources needed to address rural farmers’ needs. While women’s prime roles are in the area of gardening, female agriculture extension officers are very limited or non-existent in many provinces and communities. RDP should consider engaging more female agriculture extension officers to work alongside women farmers. If RDP could strengthen essential services covering education, health and agriculture, it would help to overcome the health risks that communities face daily, as well as improve service delivery and extension programs to remote communities. Women as users of health services will have access to better treatment and medical resources. In addition, improved education facilities and resources will lead to more children attending school, particularly female students. Improved subsistence agriculture techniques and accessibility of agriculture training, tools and seedlings will boost women’s productive roles (and incomes). Education is essential for development of rural livelihoods. These community programs are desired services that will bring positive changes to rural people’s lives.


9. GENDER ANALYSIS

Women are important in Solomon Islands’ society. Their prime roles are in subsistence agriculture and community development. Women’s participation in development dominates the informal and community sector.

9.1. GENDER DIVISION OF LABOR The following summarizes the various roles that women and men play at household and community levels: Agriculture Women take greater responsibility than men for agricultural activities such as labor, brushing, planting, weeding and harvesting. Men assist in some gardening activities such as felling of trees and clearing. Women take charge over subsistence agriculture. Almost all physically active women in the rural communities are involved in gardening, crop production and livestock. This takes 8-12 hours of women’s available time each day. Girls of primary and secondary school age who are pushed out of the formal education system (but who have the ability to continue with their schooling) are expected to assist in agriculture. Livestock Women take care of pigs and chickens. Imported chickens are very expensive and difficult to raise in rural areas. Villages around urban centers where transport is easy and accessible can afford to feed imported chickens. This forms part of women’s overall agriculture workload. Men assist in livestock activities as well. Rice Farming Whilst women and men participate in farming rice, women bear the bulk of the work. They are engaged in brushing, cleaning, weeding, planting, maintaining the farm, harvesting and carrying rice to the mill. Men dominate the planning and supervision processes and assist with cleaning, harvesting and milling. Copra, Cocoa and Honey Men handle the bulk of cash crop activities and manage the finances, whilst women and youth assist with labor. In special cases where a woman decides to produce copra or harvest cocoa, she takes charge of all processes, including the finances. The need for cash outweighs the labor and strenuous roles expected from women and men. Fishing Men fish (particularly reef and deep sea fishing) whilst women search the reefs and mangroves for sea shells and other marine resources. Women also fish in the lagoons where it is less dangerous. Marketing Small markets operate in rural communities throughout Solomon Islands. Women are often initiators and users of such market facilities. Because women dominate agricultural activities, they market their garden produce. Men also perform marketing activities when necessary. Family Tasks Women and girls are responsible for 2-4 hours per day for house cleaning, cooking, feeding and child/elderly care. Men sometimes assist with child and elderly care but the bulk of this responsibility rests on women and girls.


Community Tasks Women dominate community activities such as leading church morning and evening devotions and cleaning around the church, school and clinic compounds. In addition, women maintain their group activities. This involves weekly fellowship, fundraising, assisting the disabled and the elderly, and participating in their own extension programs. For example, in Heo community, West `Are`Are, Malaita Province, the SSEC Women’s Fellowship gathered at Surairo village for fellowship and to encourage each other, as well as to discuss their planned activities for 2007. Women’s group activities are performed on a weekly, monthly and quarterly basis. Men dominate community planning and decision-making, playing the role of overseer. In some communities, men attend to their own group activities and interests. Internal Migration Internal migration is common amongst men. Often, they migrate to Honiara in search of employment to earn cash for meeting basic needs such as school fees. In cases where men are absent in the household or community, women take on their roles (in particular, community leadership and construction) on top of their normal workload.

9.2. WORKLOAD Women have an excessive workload compared to men. The typical working day for a rural woman begins very early and ends late at night (12-14 hours work per day). In a rural environment, where there is generally an absence of rural infrastructure, communication facilities, essential services, water and sanitation, women’s tasks are performed manually, resulting in long hours and extra effort. It is not so much the amount of work performed each day but the accumulation and overlapping of many productive and community tasks which has created the excessive workload. This limits women’s opportunity to participate in community leadership, decision-making, training and extension services. It also limits their mobility and chances for involvement in cash income activities. This situation raises some positive and negative implications for the implementation of the RDP, as summarized below: a. The excessive workload of women will allow them little opportunity for active participation

in the implementation of RDP. It also limits the opportunity of women to be project facilitators (a role that will require regular mobility between communities). It may limit women from participating actively in the decision-making of RDP at all levels (family, community and provincial levels). However, women are strong, organized and have the capacity to move beyond boundaries and perform to the highest level on any program that makes allowance for their participation, and targets meeting their needs.

b. Pushing to increase women’s active involvement in the implementation of RDP may

mean an added responsibility for women. Where women are unable to participate in RDP, men will dominate all RDP processes. Negotiation and flexibility will need to take place to allow for gender balance in such circumstances.

c. Where women are unable to participate in RDP, young girls who demonstrate

characteristics of potential leaders should be encouraged and trained to ensure gender balance. Young, rural girls who are energetic and available should be encouraged to work alongside older women.

d. RDP will need to recognize the resources, skills and programs that women have.

Strengthening and improving existing programs and activities will encourage women’s feeling of ownership of RDP, as well as a desire to work in partnership with the project. Increased involvement of women in project activities can be achieved by: using local experts and language; mixing teams of younger/older men and women; separating training for women; providing open training for women; providing gender training for both men and women; investigating alternative technology (under Component 3) to minimize


women’s workload in agriculture; and involving at least 1-2 women in all levels of the decision-making structure (community, ward, provincial and national levels).

e. RDP will need to consider alternative technology/tools that will assist in reducing the

workload of women (in gardening, food processing, packaging, storage, communication and transportation). In addition, a critical issue for rural women is having access to clean water supply and sanitation.

f. RDP must acknowledge women’s potential in agricultural production, and assist them to

focus on agriculture not only for family consumption but also for income generation.

9.3. GENDER ACCESS AND CONTROL OVER RESOURCES AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Women and men have access to land for gardening and other essential services such as education and health. Schools and health centers/clinics are established in the vicinity of most communities. A significant number of communities have to walk considerable distances to access such services. Most clinics are staffed with both male and female registered nurses and nurse aides. The clinics have basic drugs, two-way radios and motorized canoes (some also have solar lighting). However, the condition of some clinics is poor and needs repair. Health facilities are inadequate and in poor condition, as well as lacking proper lighting and power supply. Educational opportunities for girls and boys are available and accessible at primary and community high schools. Most children who finish primary schooling proceed to community high schools, which are located close to the communities. Some proceed to national secondary schools. Facilities in newly established community high schools are good but insufficient, whilst facilities in older schools have deteriorated and are in poor condition. The Rural Training Centers (RTCs) also provide education opportunities for those students who are pushed out of the formal education system. However, some RTCs are inadequately staffed. One RTC was closed since 2006, and hopes to resume classes in April 2007. Many men and the majority of women are illiterate. Most women speak their native language and pidgin: few speak English. Adult literacy classes are generally non-existent. Banking and credit facilities do not exist in remote rural communities: they exist in Honiara, provincial capitals and communities around provincial capitals. For example, the West Kwara’ae people have established a Credit Union near Auki, Malaita Province. This project has been successful with around 3,000 members and savings to date of SBD 2.5 million. In Wagina Island, Choiseul Province, the few shops operating in the village offer banking services through charging a small commission to the client. The West `Are`Are Rokotanikeni Association of Malaita Province operates a Revolving Fund Scheme where its members can borrow small amounts of money to operate small income generating activities, e.g. they dye lavalavas. Accessing banking facilities in Honiara and provincial centers is expensive and dangerous during bad weather for remote communities. These essential services are crucial for the livelihoods of rural communities, particularly the women who regularly use education and health services. In this regard, RDP will need to strengthen these services through renovation and new construction, as well as the provision of school materials, clinic equipment and training. RDP will also engage in designing an effective rural financial system which will allow rural women and men to access banking and credit facilities quickly and cheaply. There is also a need for business, budgetary and banking training. Improved service delivery to the rural population will lead to improved education, health and economic development.


9.4. WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING Within the family unit, women take charge over agricultural and household production. Within the community, they take charge over the implementation of community activities such as cleaning and feeding. Women’s representation in community decision-making bodies is minimal or absent. Whilst they attend community meetings they speak less than men, or remain silent for most of the time, or sit at the periphery. Men are the head of the households and the decision-makers at all levels (community, ward, provincial and national levels). Women’s absence in decision-making will have the following implications for RDP: 1. Including women in decision-making bodies at all levels will have to be thought out

carefully in accordance with the culture in which RDP operates. Challenging the status quo at village level may do more harm than good. Selecting two to three women representatives to participate in decision-making bodies would be more realistic than pushing for 50% women representation. Slowly increasing gender equity in RDP through training, work performance and proven character at community level is necessary.

2. RDP acknowledges that their excessive workload gives little time for women in

decision-making and mobility. However, RDP will ensure that women’s roles in decision-making will be carefully mapped and designed so as to not overload them further. Component 3 needs to explore alternative technologies that would lessen women’s work load.

3. If women are expected to participate in decision-making, RDP will need to provide

training in leadership, confidence building, public speaking, financial management, administration, literacy and assertiveness. Such training will have a positive impact on women in decision-making through raising their morale and confidence. RDP will provide separate additional training for women, and involve both younger and older women as facilitators.

4. There is no objection from the communities with regard to women’s representation in

the decision-making of RDP. The amount of women and how they will be integrated into RDP will require careful consideration. Equal gender representation in decision-making at all levels may be achieved over time.

9.5. WOMEN’S ORGANIZATIONS ANALYSIS In addition to the five main church women’s organizations, there is the Solomon Islands National Council of Women (SINCW). This has its structure from national to provincial level, and focuses its training on women in leadership, as well as national issues such as domestic violence, representation, logging and the establishment of training centers at provincial level. The Women’s Development Division (WDD) is the government arm for women. WDD is also structured from national to provincial levels in some provinces. Its key objectives cover training, income generation, research and planning. Both SINCW and WDD representation is absent at ward and community level. SINCW staff work on a voluntary basis at both national and provincial level, except the General Secretary who is on a senior level salary based in Honiara. The WDD staff are government employees on a fortnightly salary. The absence of SINCW and WDD at community and ward levels implies that both women’s organizations can only play an influential role at the provincial and national levels in terms of representation and decision-making. There are other Honiara based women’s organizations. Vois Blong Mere Solomons (VBMS), Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA), Floral Women’s Association and Business


Women’s Association could be used to provide training at community level. The media group VBMS will be used as a communication link between Honiara and rural communities under RDP. A network of women’s organizations will mean generally that women are represented at all levels of decision-making (community to national levels). This is because: 1. The network has already provided a vehicle that RDP can use as a stepping stone for

female leadership; 2. Women’s organizations will facilitate women’s representation at different decision-

making levels; and 3. Women’s organizations will assist RDP in gender training, confidence-building and

community development on a cost-sharing basis, where necessary.


10. DONOR SECTOR ANALYSIS The different major donor agencies assisting Solomon Islands’ rural communities include AusAID, EU, NZAID, Japanese Grassroots, ROC-Taiwan and smaller agencies and NGOs such as Oxfam, World Vision and International Women’s Development agencies. Some donor agencies have developed links at community to national levels, such as AusAID’s Community Sector Program (CSP). RDP will collaborate with CSP in terms of capacity building and service delivery. Consultation, collaboration and dialogue should be done with the formal and informal sectors and at all levels. This relationship and partnership will lessen RDP’s chances of working in isolation, and avoid competition, confusion and duplication. While RDP does not incorporate direct linkages with other donor programs (since this could negatively affect the achievement of RDP outcomes) there are areas in which programs will be congruent and provide positive benefits to all donors.

10.1. MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAM AND UNDP PGSP The prime example of congruency is the work of the Machinery of Government (MOG), program which will strengthen the financial and administrative management at provincial and central government levels. This will be reinforced by the UNDP Provincial Government Strengthening Program (PGSP), currently in the design stage. PGSP focuses on improved transparency of financial management through a review of the roles and responsibilities of provincial and seconded line ministry staff; a review of salaries; and increased operational efficiency. PGSP will increase the ability of provincial government to improve their links at community level. RDP’s inputs will add value to PGSP’s strengthening of community linkages and relationships. Since the benefits from PGSP will not be demonstrated for at least two years, RDP design rests on a partnership rather than a project management relationship with provincial government. RDP’s mid-term review will assess the demonstrable changes from PGSP, and have the flexibility to build in a more formal relationship after the mid-term review, if appropriate. The CCU will maintain links with UNDP program staff.

10.2. DONOR PROGRAMS AT COMMUNITY LEVEL There are donor programs at community level other than RDP. MPPII and CSP There is donor cooperation3 in the Solomon Islands which bodes well for harmonization of RDP and other donor programs during project implementation. This cooperation will be built in the early stages of RDP implementation to ensure that parallel structures are not developed. This will ensure that confusion amongst service providers and community stakeholders is minimized. This will be achieved by agreeing core operational principles4 without compromising the outputs of any one donor program.

3 AusAID’s CSP and EU’s Micro Projects Programme Phase II (MPPII) and to a lesser extent UNDP’s PGSP staff

were in joint discussion during the WB Preparatory Mission about working constructively to share limited resources and build capacity of service providers. CSP operational documentation was freely provided for review. There was agreement in principle that the payment schedules of any one program should not undermine any other program. 4 Such as non-payment of Provincial Government recurrent costs, salary levels to avoid ‘poaching’ of staff from

other projects, possible use of existing structures such as Provincial Advisory Groups (PAGs), similar use of titles and job descriptions, i.e. for facilitators.


In particular, MPPII and CSP work with a cadre of facilitators, as well as take a participatory planning or Community Action Planning (CAP) approach. RDP will use similar techniques. As these programs will have already engaged some key service providers through short term contracts, particularly for the purpose of training, it is likely that RDP will use some of the same persons at a later stage. This will result in compatibility of materials and approaches, as well as minimize community confusion and enhance overall community understanding. Public awareness-raising will also take place. The CCU will develop and maintain working relationships with other donor teams to ensure that there is compatibility of core operating principles in areas such as payment of salaries and allowances. SIG recognizes that the future well-being of the majority of Solomon Islanders can only be attained through continuous support for improvements in rural life. Improvements in rural life include diversifying village agriculture whilst sustaining or increasing yields of traditional crops; improving utilization of land and marine resources; providing new and innovative skills; and seeking supplementary means for income-generating activities in village communities.


11. NGO SECTOR ANALYSIS

The NGO sector in the Solomon Islands is not large, and the capacity of all but approximately ten NGOs is limited (see Appendix 1 for a summary of NGOs and their scope of operation). The major local and international NGOs are either fully occupied with delivery of their own programs (e.g. Oxfam) or already in the process of being subcontracted by donor programs such as MPPII and CSP. MPPII in particular has started to subcontract a full range of training delivery and facilitator services from NGOs5. While social fund agencies generally develop capacity as effective and innovative organizations, experience (confirmed by OED findings) emphasizes that it is important that NGOs involved as service delivery agents are not overly diverted from their core activities, nor swamped by the pressure to scale-up to meet donor demands for support. The membership based umbrella body for NGOs, Development Services Exchange (DSE), will experience difficulty in pulling its resources together - NGOs are independent organizations with different goals. NZAID and AusAID are strengthening the work of DSE, and NZAID is strengthening the work of the National Council of Women. Despite this, there is currently limited absorption capacity available in Solomon Islands. It is unlikely that by the time the RDP is implemented (in late 2007) many of these organizations will be available to provide substantial service delivery of a similar kind to that provided to MPPII. However, more limited packages of support may be available from smaller NGOs (such as the Kastam Garden Association), which have experience in community-level education and preparation of materials. There may be capacity for some support from larger organizations for both material preparation and training-of-trainers/facilitators. SIDT, for instance, has substantial long term expertise in CAP processes and may be available for short-term contracts. RDP can build on the following strengths of NGOs: - These is a broad and growing range of NGOs in SI; - There exist community networks that provide opportunities for out-reaching; - A network of 45 RTCs that can be used as a base for rural/community training,

research/trial, innovation and outreach programs at provincial level; and - The potential to develop new rural strategies and programs for reaching a more diverse

and remote range of people. The EU and AusAID programs have active components to enhance the capacity of the NGOs with which they work. For example, the EU TVET Programme starting in 2007 will increase the capacity of RTCs through the delivery of short courses. These will include awareness programs explaining that Solomon Islands is a rural base that remains largely subject to customary land ownership (which gives almost everyone access to their own land and is one of the greatest strengths of the society).

5 Solomon Islands Development Trust, Save the Children Fund, World Vision, ADRA, Natural Resource

Development Fund.


12. ASSESSING THE SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT

The anticipated positive impacts of RDP include:

• Improved coordination within the government structure (central, provincial and ward/area). This will lead to better communication and relationships within government, as well as with non-state actors such as the churches, NGOs and donors at community level;

• As a community-based program, it will reach the rural population which is currently the majority but receives the least of government services and resources;

• Creation of employment opportunities for skilled men and women at the community level. Involving both male and potential female leaders as facilitators at community and provincial levels of decision-making will empower them;

• Rehabilitating rural infrastructure addresses some of the key critical access needs of rural people. Building and maintaining wharves, roads, bridges and markets will increase rural access to goods and services. Furthermore, maintaining essential services such as health centers and schools increases access to these services;

• Improving agricultural training, advice and extension programs available to communities will result in increased food and cash crop production, resurgent rural livelihoods and improved income generation; and

• Employing a team approach at community level involving church leaders, chiefs, women, youth and RDP facilitators will promote unity in leadership.

Possible potential negative impacts and risks include:

• Development projects and income generation activities may lead to land disputes and disharmony amongst tribes and communities6. In some villages, landowners request some payment for piping water from the water source from their land. Disharmony in this context means, tribal enmity, theft, destruction and damage to property or taking over of the project by landowners. This is a high risk but can be prevented through encouraging discussions and reaching an agreement by tribal landowners prior to the implementation of the project;

• RDP has created a high expectation among rural people that their needs will be met. However, RDP will not be able to meet the needs of rural people and communities within five years and with the financial allocation available. Failure to meet their needs will create dissatisfaction, withdrawal from RDP and withdrawal of their natural resources. This is a high risk. Careful planning and proper mapping of the implementation of RDP will be considered;

• There are underlying tensions in Solomon Islands, which remain from The Tensions. Whilst these are currently being successfully managed by SIG and RAMI, it is important for RDP to be culturally sensitive it its implementation. RDP will not allocate resources on the basis of any cultural bias;

• While the RDP time frame is 5 years, understandably, activities at the community level take a longer time to get them implemented. This means that activities may not necessarily take place on time;

• Fewer women’s involvement in decision-making at different levels will create an added workload, on their normal load, at the community level. This is a low risk and can be counteracted by involving potential young girls and other older women. More women will be trained in leadership and encouraged to take up leadership positions in their communities rather than within their own women’s group;

6 Examples of community development projects are cocoa and coconut plantations and teak farming compared to

service oriented community projects such as clinics, school or church buildings.


• Availability of cash at the community level may result in some young/older men consuming kwaso (home brewed drink) and alcohol; domestic violence incidences may occur/increase; and there may be an increase in the consumption of processed foods such as rice, noodles, buns and ring cakes. This is a low risk issue. Since the expected increase in income is not high, the negative effects will be small. RDP will emphasize the importance of local food compared to imported food, which will reduce this risk; and

• Donor and non-state actors’ harmonization may not work at the provincial and community levels because each donor and non-state actor has their own objectives, goals and priorities. RDP may be their least priority. This is a low risk since RDP is a joint donor initiative and there was positive support voiced by non-state actors that were consulted.


13. RECOMMENDATIONS

• RDP will need to appropriate the concepts of “rural development”, “bottom-up” and “people-centered approach”, for the context of RDP and people’s high expectations;

• The implementation of RDP will need to be simple and slow, but organized to allow for community understanding and active participation. The issue of donors’ time frame and exit strategy, and the actual implementation of RDP, should be flexible and negotiable;

• More emphasis should be given to cooperation between Government departments and non-state actors at all levels, and equal participation of men and women in decision-making in Components 1-3;

• A gender-relevant approach must be designed for all RDP activities, whether in the planning processes, implementation interventions or institutional support. This will mean providing gender training for decision-makers and facilitators. Such training must have clear roles for all collaborating organizations, and clearly defined tasks to help managers and extension-field workers take initiatives and leadership;

• RDP will need to explore further and develop an effective land use strategy in consultation with landowners to facilitate development projects on alienated and customary land. Grievances in relation to land issues may require both traditional and legal processes;

• The agriculture component will need to develop a formula for sharing funds and other resources between cash-oriented and subsistence crops/activities where men and women dominate, respectively;

• The established financial system will need to cater for remote communities that have no easy or cheap way to access cash;

• The roles and functions of key stakeholders (central and provincial government ministries and departments, provincial government advisory groups, NGOs, donors, facilitators, chiefs, politicians, church leaders and women leaders) need to be clearly defined;

• Efficient planning of the various activities and stages of RDP will need to be put in place prior to project implementation;

• Training in project management, administrative processes, financial systems and the roles of various stakeholders is vital at project start-up;

• Emphasis needs to be placed on stakeholder relationships and partnerships from national to community level; and

• A management system of RDP should be established at community level to allow for sustainability of the program once it is phased out.


14. GENDER DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES

14.1. OBJECTIVES The three key objectives are to:

• Strengthen women’s groups, make them aware of gender issues, and engage them in the implementation of RDP;

• Encourage women to be involved in leadership and decision-making processes in RDP (which were often considered to be men’s domain in past similar programs); and

• Ensure that women and men participate equally in all processes of RDP as well as gain equal benefits.

14.2. STRATEGIES The following strategy has been identified to bring women to the forefront, and make gender a central focus in RDP:

• Identify existing women’s groupings and their specific areas of potential involvement in RDP. A distinction needs to be made between women who have already had access to training and decision-making, and those who could be involved in unskilled labor.

• The community facilitators and stakeholder field staff need to work together to carry out a baseline study on priority needs of women (and men) on village socio-economic profiles, cropping patterns and types of crop available, gender division of labor, household economy, and access to financial and other institutions.

• Sufficient time and training should be allowed for building up the effective participation of women in all RDP processes, in particular decision-making. This will involve finding out about women’s organizations and, if they do not exist, facilitating their establishment around an area of training and/or NGO, and providing them with training in confidence-building.

• Village women’s groups can facilitate the selection of women representatives for different decision-making levels. They will use women’s group networks to encourage active participation of women, both skilled and unskilled, in the implementation of RDP.

• Training in gender, project management, community involvement, decision-making processes and relationships with other stakeholders will be a key focus of RDP.

• A special agricultural extension package for women under Component 3 will act as an incentive for them to participate. This is needed given their important role in subsistence agriculture. Such a package could involve offering training in agriculture at provincial and national level; provision of gardening tools and seeds; and making rural credit more accessible.

• RDP should address barriers such as inequality, women’s excessive workload and lack of access to resources, decision-making, production processes in agriculture, essential service delivery and infrastructure.

See Appendix 3 for a gender breakdown by province.


APPENDIX 1: NGOS AND PROJECTS/PROGRAMS – ROLES AND SCOPE OF OPERATION Appropriate Technology for Community and Environment (APACE) APACE works in partnership with indigenous communities to implement technologies designed to enable people to control their own futures. The principal method used to date has been the implementation of community-owned, designed, built and managed hydro power systems. It works in Western Province. Its approach includes training, research, advocacy and community development, as well as participatory development processes and techniques. Its networking organizations include University of Technology Sydney, SI Village Electrification Council and Earth Trust. BLESS Project The project is sponsored by SIDT. Its goal is to improve quality of life, particularly at village level, through strengthening local governance structures and supporting inclusive processes in target wards of Guadalcanal, Malaita and Isabel provinces. Its approach includes training, advocacy, community development and participatory development processes and techniques. Networking includes ACSI, ADRA, CSP, SCA-YOP, Honiara City Council and community organizations. Civil Society Network (CSN) CSN’s aim is to facilitate a network that links different groups within rural Solomon Islands to stay informed about national issues, and influence government to formulate policies and take decisions in the best interest of Solomon Islands’ Civil Society. Networking is through the Solomon Star, Vois Blong Mere and SIDT. The approach is public awareness-raising, research and advocacy. Community Sector Program (CSP) The overall goal is to contribute to poverty reduction and peace-building in Solomon Islands. The purpose is to build capacity for self-reliance within communities and civil society organizations. It is located in Honiara and all provinces. Activities include youth, gender livelihoods and community development. The approach taken includes public awareness-raising, training, resource provision, community development, advocacy and participatory development processes and techniques. Networking includes civil society organizations, national and provincial governments and communities. Inclusive Community Program (ICP) The goal of ICP is to contribute to poverty reduction and peace-building in Solomon Islands through the creation of a stronger civil society that will increase people’s ability to meet their basic needs. Civil society strengthening is focused on building capacity in governance. The approaches used are public awareness raising, training, community development, participatory development processes and techniques and the development of training manuals. The work is based in Malaita, operating through Anglican parish churches. The target area of work is leadership training and conflict resolution. ICP networking includes CSP, EU SCA, Global Fund and the Ministry of Health. Kastom Garden Association (KGA) KGA works with farmers at village level. It promotes self-reliance through strengthening food security and the sustainability of rural livelihood development. KGA is working with rural communities to strengthen farmers’ services, networks and provision of training. Its approach includes public awareness-raising, resource provision, policy development, community development, advocacy, research and participatory development processes and techniques. Work is undertaken on Malaita, Makira and Guadalcanal. KGA networking includes Farmers’ Schools, RTCs, SPC and DSE.


Oxfam International (OI) The aim of OI is to contribute to peace and security in Solomon Islands. This is sought through reducing the vulnerability of rural households and communities, and enhancing their ability to cope with external shocks (of various kinds); increasing the responsiveness and accountability of decision-makers who support households and communities to meet basic needs and achieve basic rights; and ensuring that OI’s work is conformed by an understanding of its impact, both positive and negative, on peace and security. OI approaches include public awareness raising, training, resource provision, community development advocacy, research and participatory development processes and techniques. Its networking and formal partnership agreements have been signed with KGA, ECANSI, FSC, SIDT, Eco-Forestry, Oxfam NZ and SICA Commission. Solomon Islands Honey Producers’ Cooperative The Cooperative’s aim is to provide a market on behalf of honey farmers; provide technical expertise and equipment to farmers; and promote development in an environmentally friendly way. Its approach is to offer training and resource provision. Networking includes national and provincial governments, RTCs, rural farmers and donors. It works in all nine provinces. Solomon Islands National Council of Women (SINCW) SINCW promotes mutual understanding, cooperation consultation and networking among all focal points in Honiara and the provinces. These are responsible for training, information dissemination, projects and overall development of women as specified in the SI National Women’s Policy. SINCW facilitates women’s representation at all levels of decision making to ensure that women’s views and concerns are heard and addressed constructively. Its approach involves training and public awareness raising. Networking includes all Provincial Councils of Women, including the Honiara Council of Women, DSE, VBMS, YWCA, CSP, WDD and Soroptimist International of Solomon Islands. Solomon Islands Rural Energy Agency (SIREA) SIREA promotes safe and better lighting in rural Solomon Islands through solar power. They focus on training, resource provision, community development and public awareness raising. Networking includes Solar Electric Light Fund (USA) and Willie’s Electrical School. Solomon Islands Association of Vocational and Rural Training Center (SIAVRTC) The Association is responsible for advocating the development and maintenance of members’ centers to deliver quality skills training. The Association acts as the point of contact between centers and their education authorities, the Ministry of Education, the EU/TVET Programme, NGOs, donors and other stakeholders. It monitors the functioning of the centers in relation to the needs of Solomon Islands as expressed by the government, communities, employers and people to promote the value of skills training as a means of improving quality of life. Its approach includes training, public awareness-raising, advocacy, policy development and participatory development processes and techniques. Networking is with TVET regional institutions, MEHRD, SICHE, churches, RTCs, communities and donors. Solomon Islands Development Trust (SIDT) SIDT’s mission is to strengthen the quality of village life. The main programs are the Bless Project, Eco-Timber Harvesting, the Restorative Justice Program and Disaster Management. These programs are implemented in Malaita, Guadalcanal, Isabel and Central Province. Its approach includes public awareness-raising, training, advocacy, community development, research, resource provision and participatory development processes and techniques. It networks with the Australian Foundation for the Asia/Pacific and the Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific International.


SWIM Solomon Islands SWIM assists churches with training and education programs for church leadership, giving workshops and training seminars in Honiara and the provinces. It assists communities with small development projects by providing expertise and occasional short term missions. Emergency assistance is provided that includes assorted relief goods, clothing, educational materials and medical supplies. It networks with SICA and SICA-affiliated churches. World Vision Solomon Islands Its vision is for Pacific communities to be transformed and empowered to maximize their true potential, as well as live in peace, prosperity and harmony. Its work includes Guadalcanal Stap Helti, the Girl Child Rescue and Reading Project, Guadalcanal Community Water Supply, HIV/AIDS Behavioral Change, Capacity Building, Weather Coast Relief and Rehabilitation and Weather Coast Community Peace Building. Its networking is with communities, provincial government and NGOs/CSOs.


APPENDIX 2: RESETTLEMENT POLICY

It is highly unlikely that there will be any involuntary resettlement or significant damage to land, food gardens, reefs and marine resources as a result of infill or road upgrading, construction of wharves, jetties, classrooms, markets or clinics. Observance of a few key principles will minimize any potential risks or negative impacts of project activities. These include the following:

• In the case of proposed projects on customary land, Community Facilitators (CFs) will need to consult with landowners, community leaders, church leaders and community youth and women’s groups. CFs will facilitate continuous dialogue amongst, and with, the concerned group to come to a conclusion with regards to any proposed project.

• CFs can provide the minutes of their meeting as a record, proving agreement for the proposed project. The CF will also provide a letter signed by the concerned landowners, giving their consent for the land to be used for the proposed project.

• In the case of infill and road upgrading, jetties, classrooms, market houses or clinics, construction will only be at the request of the affected population. It will have the majority consent of all village members potentially affected by a particular project activity. Participation in RDP activities is entirely voluntary.

• Projects such as road upgrading, construction of classrooms, market houses or clinics do not require the relocation of houses unless this is the expressed desire of the occupants who may wish to take the opportunity to relocate their houses. Bush material houses are replaced every few years, and some people may wish to relocate their houses to better sites that suit their needs (perhaps where arable land is available or where they have access to essential services and church congregation).

• Implementation of any projects on land or near the sea should be carried out with special care not to damage roadside gardens, sacred sites, protected sites, drinking water sources and economic trees.

• For proposed projects on alienated or leasehold land, the PAG in consultation with the Provincial Government will need to determine who has the title or lease to the site from the Department of Lands, and the ownership of the constructed project. This may require some formal arrangement between potential operators or administrators and the title/ leaseholder of the land.

1. RESETTLEMNT POLICY FRAMEWORK

Project Affected People (PAPs) PAPs include people who may experience negative economic and social impacts caused by the project due to relocation or loss of shelter; loss of garden crops, economic trees and other assets; and loss of income or livelihoods resulting from the involuntary acquisition of land for RDP projects. Given that involuntary resettlement is unlikely, it is estimated that the number of potential PAPs in each project region will be nil or very small.

Policy Framework Principles and Objectives In line with the World Bank’s Operational Policy on resettlement and taking into consideration customary law and structures, the Resettlement Policy Framework for RDP has the following principles and objectives:


• Avoid and minimize involuntary resettlement and land acquisition associated with infill or road upgrading or construction of buildings which may result in negative impacts on PAPs. Thus, infill and road upgrading should avoid the destruction of housing, food gardens, other economic crops and income sources. Land acquisition or resettlement should be entirely voluntary and be limited to situations where PAPs will be clear net beneficiaries from the services and facilities offered by the Project, resulting in long-term improvements in their economic security;

• Provide assistance to PAPs to re-establish their livelihoods so that their income levels and living standards are equal to or greater than pre-displacement levels. Assistance should aim for the timely restoration of PAPs’ livelihoods and living standards through the provision of services such as youth labor groups for the preparation of land for replacement food gardens;

• If resettlement or land acquisition cannot be avoided, a Resettlement Plan should be prepared in consultation with customary landowners;

• Allow culturally appropriate and accepted procedures to take place among landowners and PAPs, regarding where PAPs will be resettled within village territories. Landowners, clan leaders and community leaders should be encouraged to ensure that relocation sites chosen cause minimal disturbance to the livelihoods and living standards of PAPs, and that particularly vulnerable groups among those relocated, such as the elderly, women and children, or marginal clan members are not disadvantaged by relocation;

• PAPs will be entitled to compensation if relocation or land acquisition cannot be avoided and loss of assets and livelihoods results. Compensation should be provided for loss of assets, such as housing materials, garden crops and other economic trees and income sources; and

• All the costs related to resettlement and compensation should be included in the RDP cost estimates.

2. LAND ACQUISITION POLICIES, LAWS AND REGULATIONS In the unlikely event that resettlement and land acquisition cannot be avoided, necessary rehabilitation measures will be developed in the form of a Resettlement Plan. The Resettlement Plan will be subject to the rules and regulations of customary law and land tenure principles (any resettlement of PAPs would occur on customary land within their own villages). Village land is governed by the principles of customary land tenure with clan leaders controlling land allocation and land use. Customary land in Solomon Islands generally refers to land that is under the communal ownership of traditional social and kinship groupings such as tribes, clans, sub clans and lineages.

3. MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The Project Management Unit (PMU) and Provincial Advisory Group (PAG) will be responsible for enforcement of the Resettlement Policy Framework; planning and preparing the inventories; and for liaising with customary landowners over land and resettlement issues. Whilst the management and organizational procedures for resettlement of PAPs will ultimately rest with clan leaders, the PMU and PAG will be responsible for consulting with clan leaders and customary landowners to ensure that resettlement complies with the World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.12: Involuntary Resettlement and the Laws and Customs of the customary land group. A representative from the PMU should also be available to review the resettlement process, prepare inventories, record any land acquisitions, address any problems or conflicts and oversee the implementation of compensation measures and other entitlements (e.g. labor groups for preparation of land for new gardens).


4. ENTITLEMENT POLICY PAPs undergoing resettlement within the village or experiencing loss of agricultural land as a result of Project activities will be entitled to the following types of compensation and rehabilitation measures:

• Compensation will be paid at ‘replacement cost’2 for loss of assets, such as food crops, economic trees and housing materials. Compensation will not be paid for land since the land remains under communal ownership. Compensation for assets such as housing material should be paid at the time of relocation so that new housing material can be purchased;

• Compensation will be paid for any loss of income as a result of land acquisition resulting from Project activities; and

• PAPs undergoing relocation will be entitled to assistance to re-establish their livelihoods so that their income levels and living standards are equal to or greater than pre-displacement levels. Assistance should aim for the timely restoration of PAPs’ livelihoods and living standards through the provision of services such as youth groups (labor) for the preparation of land for cultivation or the procurement of bush materials for relocated houses (most houses are constructed from bush materials).

5. FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS A special fund for compensation and related costs of involuntary resettlement, land acquisition, destruction of food gardens, other assets and income sources should be established within the PMU. Compensation rates, cost estimates, budgets and compensation fund flow procedures should be outlined in the Resettlement Plan.

6. RESETTLEMENT PLAN In the unlikely event that involuntary relocation or land acquisition were to occur, the PMU and PAG will be required to conduct a baseline socio-economic survey to assess the proposed resettlement and its impacts on PAPs. The socio-economic survey would form the basis of a Resettlement Plan. Given that resettlement and land acquisition are unlikely, then it is expected that an “Abbreviated Resettlement Plan” would suffice. The baseline socioeconomic survey should cover the following:

• A census of the affected population. This should include the number of persons affected, their sources and levels of income, and family living standards (e.g. housing quality);

• Estimate of expected economic losses resulting from relocation or disruption of livelihoods; and

• Inventory of the land to be acquired and assets on the land (e.g. housing stock, garden crops, coconut and betel nut palms, fruit trees, etc.).

The Abbreviated Resettlement Plan should also include:

• Description of compensation and other resettlement assistance;

• Eligibility criteria for entitlements;

• Relocation arrangements;

• Consultations with PAPs concerning acceptable sites for relocation;

• Institutional framework;

• Grievance procedures;

• Monitoring and evaluation framework; and

• Timetable and budget.


7. MONITORING AND EVALUATION If resettlement were to take place, monitoring and evaluation of the resettlement must be carried out by the PPMU. It is not necessary to contract an independent monitoring and evaluation team because, if resettlement were to occur, the number of people to be resettled is likely to be very small (less than ten households) and resettlement would be within village boundaries. Performance monitoring indicators should be developed to measure inputs, outputs and outcomes for resettlement activities, and PAPs should participate in the monitoring process. Monitoring and evaluation should verify/assess the following:

• That the baseline survey of PAPs is carried out and damaged assets have been valued, and compensation (and any other entitlements) have been paid in accordance with the provisions of the Resettlement Policy Framework;

• Assess the degree of participation of PAPs in the monitoring process (especially the participation level of vulnerable groups such as women, elderly and minor clan members);

• Verify the Resettlement Plan and resettlement process in terms of the World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.12 guidelines and culturally accepted procedures of relocation and land acquisition;

• Assess the delivery of compensation and other entitlements to ensure timely and fair payments and assistance with restoration of PAPs’ livelihoods and standards of living in line with the Resettlement Policy Framework objectives;

• Monitor changes in the economic status and security of PAPs;

• Assess PAPs’ access to the services and facilities offered by RDP; and

• Assess the implementation and functioning of grievance mechanisms.

8. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES The Project Management Unit will be responsible for explaining to PAPs their rights and procedures for resolving grievances. Complaints and grievances related to any aspect of land acquisition and resettlement should be handled as follows:

• PAPs should present any complaints and grievances to their clan leaders/village committees involved in decisions relating to land acquisition and resettlement. Formal customary grievance procedures should be followed to resolve complaints. The nature of the complaint and the solution agreed upon should be presented in written form to the PMU within 14 days of the decision. The PMU will record the grievances and the proposed solution.

• If the complaint or grievance cannot be resolved at the village level, the PMU should consult with the clan leaders, village magistrates and any party involved in the dispute to reach a solution. If the grievances cannot be resolved through community consultation, then any party involved in the dispute can:

i) Submit a complaint to the customary lands section of the Lands Department. The

lands officers (within the Lands Department) should process the complaint following established dispute procedures, or

ii) Take legal proceedings in the local Lands Court.


APPENDIX 3: SOLOMON ISLANDS’ PROVINCES AND GENDER COMPOSITION The following map outlines the lay out of Solomon Island provinces and the subsequent tables highlight the gender composition in all 9 provinces and Honiara town council.

Map 1: Solomon Islands


REFERENCES

ARDS documents: Concept note for the preparation of the ARDS (December 2005); July; 2006 discussion paper and synthesis paper; ARDS background studies. Catherwood, V. (2006). National Education Action Plan 2007-2009, Prepared for the Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development, Wellington, New Zealand. Gianotten, V., Groverman, V., Walssum, E. and Zuidberg, L. (1994). Assessing the Gender Impact of Development Projects, London, United Kingdom. Pollard, A. (2006). Painaha, Gender and Leadership in `Are`Are Society, the South Sea Evangelical Church and National Politics – Solomon Islands, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Statistic Office, SIG (2002). Report of the 1999 Population and Housing Census – Analysis, Honiara, Solomon Islands.

social impact assessment - world...

Documents