ecd.usaid.gov · Web viewLAC-SS-17-03. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SCOPING STATEMENT FOR. The...

LAC-SS-17-03

REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SCOPING STATEMENT FORThe Environmental Assesment for USAID Colombia Land and Rural Development

ProgramLRDP

Activity Location: Colombia

Activity Title: Environmental Assessment LRDP

Activity Number: TBD

Life-of-Activity Funding: $68,000,000

Life-of-Activity: FY 2012 - FY 2018

Reference ETD and Scoping Statement: LAC-IEE-15-48

Date Prepared: 04/19/2017

I. Purpose

This is to approve the Scoping Statement for the preparation of the environmental assessment for USAID Colombia Land and Rural Development Program - LRDP (see attached).

USAID initially classified the LRDP program as a Categorical Exclusion (LAC-IEE-13-05). However, during implementation, the COR and MEO deemed it necessary to change it to a Positive Determination (LAC-IEE-15-48). This decision was taken looking to develop a set of environmental best management practices for land restitution, land formalization, and rural development policy as part of the support provided to the Government of Colombia (GoC) and to secure that piloting support to the GoC on land issues incorporated environmental considerations. To avoid implementation delays, USAID (the COR, CO, MEO and REA) agreed

1

the program could continue carrying out activities despite having a “positive determination” while implementing the environmental measures that address potential environmental issues.

II. Background

Land tenure has been one of the main causes of protracted armed conflict in Colombia. As part of its commitment to create the foundation for a lasting peace, the GoC has committed to restituting land to victims of the conflict, strengthening land tenure security through improved systems for land titling in priority rural areas, and enabling rural residents to make productive and efficient use of their land. To increase the government’s capacity to comply with this mandate, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) created the Land and Rural Development Program (LRDP) that began activities in July of 2013.The program is implemented by Tetra Tech ARD.

Thriving democracies have high functioning land governance systems that guarantee land rights for their citizens. LRDP supports Colombia’s land governance structures in providing packages of land and rural development interventions that enhance rural livelihoods.

LRDP is a five-year project that focuses on the land-based drivers of conflict, poverty, and environmental degradation. LRDP strengthens institutions—the foundation of effective land governance—by streamlining policies and procedures that will improve land access and rural development opportunities for the rural poor. The program supports the GoC to:

1. Redistribute state-owned farmland to poor families, increasing agricultural production and economic growth. During the years of conflict, a large number of state-owned lands were illegally acquired. LRDP assists the GoC with the procedures needed to recoup this land for use in the Land Fund, a bank of state-owned farmland that can be distributed to rural families, promoting agricultural production and economic growth in poor areas. The GoC’s goal is to identify 47,000 parcels for redistribution by 2018. To date, LRDP has inventoried 48,000 parcels—potentially benefitting an equal number of families—and will continue identifying land that can be reallocated to Colombia’s poor rural families.

2. Increase public spending on rural development to help farmers and rural families. In 2015, the GoC committed US$1.6 billion for the rural agriculture sector but was unable to move this money into the remote areas that need it the most. LRDP works with mayors, governors, and national-level GoC officials to increase public and private spending in poor regions. In doing so, LRDP supports the GoC to ensure that farmers have access to the resources and public goods they need—such as irrigation and technical assistance—to increase agricultural production and reduce poverty. To date, the mobilization of rural development resources has increased by 89.7% in LRDP target regions.

2

3. Address lack of access to land related information. Nearly 7 million people have been displaced from their homes during the course of Colombia’s war, and bringing them back to their land is a critical component of Colombia’s post-conflict reconciliation process. Because land-related information is disorganized, paper-based, and inaccessible, the Land Restitution Unit (URT) is constrained in its ability to move people through the land restitution process. By 2018, LRDP will digitize pending case files, providing restitution judges with the information they need to make a determination on restitution cases. To date LRDP has digitized 5,513 case files, representing 17,032 households and 11,041 hectares of land.

4. Provide legal representation to vulnerable secondary occupants. LRDP supports the Ombudsman’s Office in providing legal representation to “secondary occupants,” rural families occupying land that is claimed by others. There are 1,600 secondary occupants living in LRDP’s five target regions, many of whom are entwined in complex legal cases but cannot afford the legal representation they need. LRDP will train and support public defenders to represent 800 — or 50% — of these families

5. Formalize land rights to protect the environment and improve livelihoods for rural citizens. It is estimated that nearly half of rural properties in Colombia are informal. Land informality often prevents citizens from making agricultural investments that will improve the productivity of their land, as they are not confident they will be able to hold this land for the long term. In addition, citizens without land rights are often dis-incentivized to sustainably manage natural resources, which leads to environmental degradation. Making matters worse, registering property in Colombia (the last step in the formalization process) takes over five years, due to inefficient processes and a lack of access to land information. LRDP builds information systems and efficiencies between land governance institutions to streamline the formalization process, and recent pilots demonstrate that land can be formalized in 12 months. By 2018, LRDP will help the GoC provide land tenure security to 32,560 households, and will use a differential approach to prioritize the needs of women, Afro-Colombians, indigenous peoples, and other groups disproportionately affected by the conflict.

6. Improve quantity, quality, and accessibility of land information to expedite restitution and formalization processes. Without access to high quality, electronic land information, restituting and formalizing property in Colombia is slow, difficult, and costly. LRDP is building the Land Node, which aggregates data from eight different land-related agencies across 25 separate systems, increasing transaction efficiencies, reducing costs, and catalyzing a positive economic impact across the country. LRDP will digitize 100% of land records in our five focus regions— representing nearly 20% of all such records throughout the country—thus ensuring the accuracy of land information and filling the information gaps that impede land restitution and formalization efforts.

Regarding land restitution and pursuant to the terms of the Victims and Land Restitution Law (Law 1448), by 2021 the GoC seeks to return stolen and abandoned lands to the victims who have been forcibly displaced by the conflict. Land restitution is part of the GoC’s mandate to improve rural livelihoods and deliver reparations to victims of the armed conflict. In order to

3

prevent restitution processes from negatively affecting protected areas or territories owned by ethnic groups, the Land Restitution Unit has adopted specific norms and guidelines that annul those restitution requests affecting these areas. In addition, the LRU removes these requests from the Registry of Dispossessed and Forcibly Abandoned Lands.

III. Need for the environmental assessment

The goal of this evaluation is to avoid or mitigate potential negative impacts which could potentially derive from the work carried out by the Program in the areas of land restitution, formalization and rural development, and where possible contribute to an improved environmental desired future condition. LRDP will produce a set of environmental best management practices for land restitution, land formalization, and rural development as part of the environmental evaluation and its support to the Government of Colombia. Specifically, LRDP aims to secure "do no-harm" results through the support it provides to national and regional GoC counterparts on policy, piloting new methodologies, and direct and indirect implementation of land and productive projects.

IV. Desired future condition

The outcome expected at the end of the LRDP is that from this date forward support provided to the GoC on land and rural development policy, methodologies to test innovative land and rural development strategies, and other direct and indirect support contain environmental considerations that when proposed to the GoC for adoption will secure a do-no-harm result on environmental issues. Additionally, the program will produce an environmental best management practices document that can be used by USAID to guide current and future land and rural development programming and by the GoC to inform policy and practice on land and rural development related matters.

V. Clearances and approval:

The Mission clears and the BEO approves the Scoping Statement for the preparation of the environmental assesment for USAID Colombia Land and Rural Development Program - LRDP (see next page).

4

COLOMBIA LAND AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

PROGRAMENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

SCOPING STATEMENT

April 2017This publication was produced for review by the

United States Agency for International Development.It was prepared by Tetra Tech.

Cover Photo: Air view of the Montes de María as seen from Macayepo. Photographer: Hanz Rippe.

All photos are the property of USAID unless otherwise specified.

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development by Tetra Tech ARD through the Colombia Land and Rural Development Program Task Order under the Strengthening Tenure and Resource Rights (STARR) Indefinite Quantity Contract (USAID Contract No. AID-EPP-I-00-06-00008, Task Order No. AID-514-TO-13-00015).

Prepared by: Tetra Tech ARD159 Bank Street, Suite 300Burlington, VT 05401Tel: 802-495-0282Fax: 802-658-4247Email: [email protected]

Contact Information: Anna Knox, Chief of [email protected].: (57) (1) 7452641Carrera 7 No. 74-36, Piso 6, Bogotá, Colombia

José Luis Astorquia, Environmental [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



COLOMBIA LAND AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

SCOPING STATEMENT

FEBRUARY 2017

DISCLAIMER

The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents...................................................................................................................1

Acronyms................................................................................................................................3

1. Describe the Existing Condition..................................................................................................4

1.1. Southern Tolima.................................................................................................................5

1.1.1. Social Situation...........................................................................................................6

1.1.2. Land Potential.............................................................................................................6

1.1.3. Land Tenure Situation.................................................................................................8

1.2. Meta Region.......................................................................................................................9

1.2.1. Flora and Fauna........................................................................................................12

1.2.2. Social Situation.........................................................................................................13

1.2.3. Land Potential...........................................................................................................13

1.2.4. Land Tenure Situation...............................................................................................14

1.3. Cauca Region....................................................................................................................15


1.3.2. Land Potential...........................................................................................................18


1.4. Montes de María Region..................................................................................................20


1.4.2. Land Potential...........................................................................................................22


1.5. Cesar Region.....................................................................................................................25


1.5.2. Land Potential...........................................................................................................27


2. Describe the Desired Future Condition....................................................................................29

3. Describe the Purpose and Need...............................................................................................29

4. Proposed action.......................................................................................................................30

1

5. Scoping.....................................................................................................................................32

6. Describe Potential Impacts Related to the Proposed Action....................................................40

6.1. Significant Issues..............................................................................................................40

6.2. Non-significant Issues.......................................................................................................41

6.3. Issues Outside the Scope of the Project...........................................................................42

7. Potential Alternatives...............................................................................................................43

8. EA’s Preparation, Schedule and Methodology.........................................................................43

8.1. Methodology....................................................................................................................43

8.2. Timetable.........................................................................................................................45

8.3. Work Team.......................................................................................................................46

8.4. Estimated Budget.............................................................................................................48

9. Annex: Stakeholder Consultation Source Information.............................................................49

9.1. National Level...................................................................................................................49

9.2. Tolima Regional Office......................................................................................................52

9.3. Cauca Regional Office.......................................................................................................57

9.4. Montes de María Regional Office.....................................................................................61

9.5. Cesar Regional Office........................................................................................................67

9.6. Meta Regional Office........................................................................................................72

2

Acronyms

ADR Rural Development AgencyANT National Land AgencyART Land Renovation AgencyCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCorpoica Colombian Corporation for Agricultural ResearchDNP National Planning DepartmentEA Environmental AssessmentGoC Government of ColombiaICA Colombian Agricultural InstituteIGAC “Agustin Codazzi” Geographic InstituteLRDP Land and Rural Development ProgramLRU Land Restitution UnitMADR Agriculture and Rural Development MinistryMinTIC Information and Communications Technologies MinistryPERSUAP Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safer Use Action PlanPTDR Land and Rural Development ProgramOACP Office of the High Commissioner for PeaceSENA National Training AgencySNR Notary and Registry SuperintendenceUARIV Comprehensive Attention and Repair Unit for VictimsUMATA Municipal Agricultural Technical Assistance UnitUPRA Agricultural and Livestock Regional Planning UnitURT Land Restitution UnitUSAID United States Agency for International Development

3

1. Describe the Existing Condition1

The Land and Rural Development Program (LRDP) is a USAID initiative that began implementation in July of 2013 through a contract with ARD Tetra Tech. LRDP supports the Government of Colombia in bringing displaced victims of conflict back to their land, providing them and other poor rural families with legal certainty of land ownership, and catalyzing investments in public goods and services that support licit rural livelihoods. The Program has been implementing an ambitious set of activities to improve the GoC’s capacity to administer and manage programs to restitute land to victims of conflict, extend land titling and formalization in prioritized rural areas, and promote sustainable and comprehensive rural development that enables land beneficiaries to make productive and sustainable use of their land. LRDP works in 57 municipalities, distributed in 5 regions and 6 departments:

• Bolívar (Montes de María region): Córdoba, El Carmen de Bolívar, El Guamo, María La Baja, San Jacinto, San Juan Nepomuceno and Zambrano.

• Cauca: Buenos Aires, Caldono, Caloto, Corinto, Guachené, Jambaló, Miranda, Padilla, Puerto Tejada, Santander de Quilichao, Suárez, Toribío and Villa Rica.

• Cesar: Valledupar, La Jagua de Ibirico, Pueblo Bello, El Copey, Agustín Codazzi, La Paz, Becerril, San Diego and Bosconia.

• Meta: Villavicencio, Granada, Puerto López, Acacías, Puerto Gaitán, Fuente de Oro, El Castillo, El Dorado, Lejanías, Puerto Lleras and San Martín.

• Sucre (Montes de María region): Chalán, Coloso, Los Palmitos, Morroa, Ovejas, San Antonio de Palmitos, San Onofre and Tolú Viejo.

• Tolima: Ataco, Chaparral, Coyaima, Natagaima, Ortega, Planadas, Rioblanco, Roncesvalles and San Antonio.

USAID initially classified the program as a Categorical Exclusion (LAC-IEE-13-05). However, during implementation, the COR and MEO deemed necessary to change it to a Positive Determination (LAC-IEE-15-48). This decision was taken looking to develop a set of environmental best management practices for land restitution, land formalization, and rural development policy as part of the support provided to the GoC and to secure that piloting support to the GoC on land issues incorporated environmental considerations. To avoid implementation delays, USAID (the COR, CO, MEO and REA) agreed the program could continue carrying out activities despite having a “positive determination” while implementing the environmental measures that address potential environmental issues.

This section presents the broad environmental context in which LRDP is operating.

1 A more complete version of the Baseline will be submitted in the next report, described in section 8.2 and due three weeks after the Scoping Statement has been approved

4

1.1. Southern Tolima

The department of Tolima is located at the center of the country. Its total area is 23,582 km2, which represents 2.1% of the national territory. According to data provided by the Office of the Governor of Tolima2, it shares borders with Caldas to the north, Cundinamarca to the east, Huila and Cauca to the south, and Quindío, Risaralda and Valle del Cauca to the west. This department is divided into six provinces or sub-regions (Ibague, Nevados, North, East, South, Southeast). According to the information published by the national statistics authority DANE, the department of Tolima includes 47 municipalities, and its total population is 1,408,272 inhabitants.

LRDP’s work is concentrated in the Southern Tolima sub-region. The table that follows describes some of the key characteristics of this sub-region.

SOUTHERN TOLIMA SUB-REGION

LOCATIONThis sub-region is made up of the following municipalities: Ataco, Chaparral, Coyaima, Natagaiina, Ortega, Planadas, Rioblanco, Roncesvalles, and San Antonio.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

The topography of the area is very diverse. It includes flatlands, slightly elevated lands and moderately elevated lands. The department of Tolima is renowned for its natural richness and diversity. Its vast hydrographic system is headed by the Magdalena River, into which flow basins such as the Pata, Anchique, Quebrada de los Ángeles, Ularco, Mercadillo y Guaguarco, Yaco, Chorro de Eva, and Natoroco rivers, among others.

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

The economy of this sub-region is based on activities such as agriculture (rice, sesame, coffee, cotton, sugarcane, soy, corn, tobacco, sorghum, yucca and fruit), bovine cattle raising, pig breeding, river fishing, services provision, gold mining and oil exploration.

ENVIRONMENT The Southern Tolima sub-region has a wide variety of natural parks, such as Las Hermosas National Park, which is 185,000 hectares, 80% of which lies in Tolima, and the remaining 20% in Valle del Cauca. The Nevado del Huila National Park is located in the municipality of Planadas; with 94,126 hectares, it represents 53.61% of the municipality. The Páramo Meridiano regional park is located in the municipality of Río Blanco; in 2015

2 Office of the Governor of Tolima at http://www.tolima.gov.co/ .

5

http://www.tolima.gov.co/

it was declared a natural reserve with a total area of 2,000 hectares.

The sub-region has a great ethnic richness, represented by more than 82 indigenous reserves, home to the descendants of the Pijaos, Coyaimas, Natagaimas and Paeces groups.

Tolima also includes 315,605 hectares of moorlands, which represent 13% of the total area of the department. The following moorlands are amongst those in the Southern Tolima sub-region: Valles, Barragan and Hierbabuena in the municipality of Roncesvalles, and Las Hermosas and the Nevado del Huila tundra, located in the municipalities of Río Blanco and Planadas.

Southern Tolima is characterized by diverse ecosystems with rich flora3 and fauna.4

1.1.1. Social Situation

The Southern Tolima sub-region has been deeply affected by the armed conflict, as it has served as a corridor for illegal armed groups and a strategic area in which to grow illicit crops such as poppies.

1.1.2. Land Potential

According to the Rural Agriculture Planning Unit (UPRA, for its acronym in Spanish) the Southern Tolima sub-region has a total area of 1,055,995 hectares, out of which 391,602 hectares are special management areas or environmentally restricted areas; 118,016 hectares are suitable for plantain production; 164,650 are suitable for avocado production; 20,509 are suitable for rice; 40,000 are suitable for cacao; 5,000 are suitable for coffee; 16,000 are suitable for sugarcane; 4,000 are suitable for rubber; 36,118 are suitable for

3 Flora species include: baobab, coral tree, yellow trumpet bush, evergreens, glassy wood, balsa tree, saman, inga, laurel, dyer's mulberry, vallo, caracolí, payandé, royal palm, ducksalad, iguá, chaparro, guadua, guacharaco, chichato ,gualanday, sasafrás, almizclillo, cadillo, árbol granada, piñón, marañón, eucalyptus, matarratón, higuerón caucho, saúco, totumo, pringamoza, papaya tree, chichato, royal palm, arrayán, pela, retamo, palo de la cruz, coca real de árbol, pata de vaca, mirto, and mosquero.4 Fauna species include: ant eaters, weasels, mapuro, ñeque, squirrels, oncilla, kinkajou, deer, foxes, rabbits, wild cats, parrots, dormilones, opossums, river otters, mice, tapirs, spectacled bears, rattle snakes, red tail coral snakes, granadillas, molas, iguanas, salamanders, Red-footed tortoises, eels, frogs, lizards, chepitas, toads, snails, alligators, murrangos, long-tail knife fish, sardines, mojarras, tiger fish, quiques, atlantic pomfrets, Cocoi herons, flauteros, bilujas, cornudas, patalós, gilt-head breams, sabaleta, bocachicos, golden-plumed parakeets, yellow-eared conures, condors, and armadillos; which are currently endangered species.

6

red beans; and 54,000 are suitable for soursop5. The following two maps compare the sub-region’s land potential to its current land use:

Illustration 1: Land Potential and Current Use

As seen in these two maps, Southern Tolima current land use does not conform to its land suitability with most of the land is being used for cattle raising activities, heterogeneous agricultural activities, and, to a lesser extent, transitional crops.

1.1.3. Land Tenure Situation

According to the Augustin Codazzi Geographical Institute (IGAC, for its acronym in Spanish), land in the department of Tolima is distributed as follows: private lands for cattle

5 Unidad de Planificación Rural Agropecuaria (2013). Evaluación de Tierras para la Zonificación con Fines Agropecuarios – El Caso del Sur del Tolima, Bogotá.

7

raising and agricultural use account for 90.14% of the land, for a total area of 1,905,744 hectares. Lands owned by public institutions and other State-owned lands account for 6.13% of the land, for a total area of 129,657 hectares. Private properties for non-agricultural use account for 2,67% of the land, i.e. a total area of 56,519 hectares. Protected areas account for 0.08% of the land, i.e. a total area of 1,729 hectares. Land belonging to other communities account for 0.03% of the land, for a total area of 544 hectares, and lands belonging to religious groups account for 0.02% of the land, for a total of 466 hectares6.

On the other hand, looking specifically at the nine municipalities making up Southern Toliman, one finds that private property only accounts for 66% of the total area with an estimated 51,176 properties covering a total area of 697,875 hectares. The remaining area is devoted to environmentally protected areas and areas for land-use planning (campesino reserve areas, indigenous reserves and collective Afro-Colombian territories, among others)7.

The following table contains information related with the degree of informality for land property in the Southern Tolima8:

Illustration 2: Land informality in Southern Tolima.

MUNICIPALITY Properties Total Area (ha)

Estimated Informal

Properties

Informality Percentage

Estimated Informal

Properties Area (ha)

ATACO 5,961 98,540 3,992 66.97% 64,613.60 CHAPARRAL 8,407 204,777 4,456 53.00% 134,431.36

COYAIMA 12,462 63,710 11,143 89.42% 46,422.01 NATAGAIMA 4,920 80,355 4,098 83.29% 60,312.51

ORTEGA 9,655 93,457 7,060 73.12% 63,335.47 PLANADAS 5,930 65,436 2,805 47.30% 37,562.20

RIOBLANCO 4,731 89,803 2,993 63.26% 61,416.94 RONCESVALLES 1,055 74,066 697 66.07% 51,004.56

SAN ANTONIO 3,041 38,154 1,601 52.65% 19,857.80

Presently, the National Land Agency is carrying out formalization of private property in the municipalities of Chaparral and Ortega.

IGAC uses the following categories to describe the way land is distributed and owned in Colombia: big properties, plots that extend over 200 hectares; medium properties, plots that range from 20 to 200 hectares; small properties, plots that range from 10 to 20 hectares; smallholdings, plots that range from 3 to 10 hectares; and micro-holdings, plots that are under 3 hectares. Land property in LRDP’s nine target municipalities in Tolima can

6 Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi (IGAC) (2012). Atlas de la Distribución de la Propiedad Rural en Colombia. Bogotá.7 Land and Rural Development Program -USAID. Lectura Territorial 4 Regiones Priorizadas. Cesar Tolima, Montes de María y Norte del Cauca. ARD-LRDP-FPS-00192. P. 316.8 Unidad de Planificación Rural Agropecuaria (2015). Estimación de Informalidad en la Propiedad. Bogotá

8

be described as being predominantly made up of smallholdings and micro-holdings that have slowly transitioned into bigger parcels. Since the 1980s, large scale land holdings have increased, medium properties have declined in number, and smaller properties have been fractured. These changes have been due to violence in the region, the migration of rural residents, and a generalized impoverishment of farmers. Furthermore, land property in the region is more unbalanced due to the fact that large property owners tend to have the best land and medium and small properties tend to be located in marginalized and hard-to-reach areas with little or no infrastructure and less fertile soils.

With regard to the land restitution process, 3,479 restitution claims have been filed in Southern Tolima since Law 1448 of 2011 entered into force on November 30th, 2016. To date four municipalities in Southern Tolima have been micro-ocalized, including Ataco, Coyaima, Natagaima and Ortega. According to the Land Restitution Unit, four additional municipalities in the zone will be micro-focalized in 2017, security issues permitting. Tthese include Chaparral, Rioblanco, San Antonio and Planadas.

1.2. Meta Region

The department of Meta is located in the Central-Eastern area of the country. Its total area is 8,555,025 hectares, which represent 7.5% of the total national territory. The department shares boundaries with the departments of Cundinamarca and Casanare to the north, Caquetá and Guaviare to the south, Vichada to the east, Huila and the Capital District of Bogota to the west. LRDP’s work is concentrated in the following sub-regions:

RIO META SUB-REGION

LOCATIONThe Rio Meta sub-region is located in the eastern part of Meta and is home to the municipalities of Puerto Gaitán, Puerto López, Cabuyaro and Barranca de Upía.


This region is predominantly made up of flat plains and mountain ranges. Most of the Colombian High Plains are located in the department of Meta. Its main water sources include the following rivers: Manacacias, Meta, Yucao, Planas, Muco, Uva, Tomo, El Trampolín, Chavilonia, Vergel, Piripi, Yopo, Pilón, Melua, Casibiare, Dante and La Plata, among others.

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

The economy of this sub-region is based on agriculture, and the cultivation of products such as rice, soy, corn, and African palm. The cattle raising business has focused mainly on the breeding, raising and fattening of bovine. Trade and tourism are also significant sources of income for this sub-region.

ENVIRONMENT This sub-region’s rich biodiversity encompasses savannahs, moriche palm forest and gallery forests, which serve as a wildlife corridor for the transitional rain forests of the Orinoco-Amazon

9

region at the riverbanks of the Guaviare river

CAPITAL CORDILLERA SUB-REGION

LOCATIONThis sub-region is located at the center of the department and is home to its capital. It connects the Orinoco region with the rest of the country. It is made up of the municipalities of Villavicencio, San Juanito, El Calvario, Restrepo and Cumaral.


This sub-region includes savannas and mountain range slopes, and is irrigated by several water sources, some of which have been highly subjected to human intervention.

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

This sub-region has excelled, compared to other sub-regions, because of its fast-paced growth and economic development in the past years, which has been the result of investing capital in its industrial sector, agro-industry, small-scale agricultural projects (rice and soybean) and large-scale oil extraction.

ENVIRONMENT

The Capital Cordillera sub-region is a region with vast vegetation cover, which is common in the foothills of mountain ranges and in savannas. Its ecosystems have been considerably deteriorated by urban and productive activities in the region. It is highly rich and water sources and forests, which include the Guatiquía, Guayuriba, Negro and Ocoa rivers, the Parrado, Gramalote, Maizaro, Quebrada La Unión, Grande, Quebrada Honda, Buque, Rosa Blanca and La Cuerera rivers, some of which have been highly polluted.

Its natural conditions have defined it as an area that produces water for Colombia and the world, amongst other environmental services and goods.

The natural reserves and environmentally protected areas in this sub-region include: The Chingaza National Park, Science and Leisure Ecological Park (Parque Ecológico Recreacional y de la Ciencia), El Charco Forest Reserve, the Buenavista Reserve, Coroncoro Park, the Caño Vanguardia High Basin Forest Reserve, the Zoological and Botanical Gardens among others.

Its climate is warm and humid, with high levels of rainfall.

10

ALTO ARIARI SUB-REGION

LOCATIONThis sub-region is located in the eastern part of Meta and is home to the municipalities of Acacías, Guamal, San Carlos de Guaroa, Castilla La Nueva, Cubarral and El Dorado.


This sub-region is predominantly made up of savannas and mountain range slopes. Most of the Colombian High Plains are located in the department of Meta. The soils of this sub-region are considered to be of the best quality in the department, both in physical as well as in chemical terms, being particularly suitable for the agricultural activities carried out in the region.

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

The economy of this sub-region is based on agriculture, cattle raising and fish farming. Cattle raising includes both dairy farming and fattening. Extraction of forest timber is also a significant source of income for this sub-region.

ENVIRONMENT

In spite of deforestation and its consequences, the Alto Ariari sub-region has maintained a good forest cover, which is home to a wide variety of fauna and flora, typical of Piedemonte of the Eastern Cordillera. Another characteristic condition of the Upper Ariari is its water wealth, with tributaries such as the Ariari, Guamal, Humadea, Guape. Its main water sources also include the following lakes: Carimagua, Lagunazo, Mozambique, Sataya and La Conquista. With regard to its forests and reserves, this sub-region is home to the Sumapaz natural reserve, whose total area is 34,994 hectares. Its weather is warm and humid, with high levels of rainfall9.

MEDIO ARIARI SUB-REGION

LOCATIONThis sub-region is located in the northwestern part of the department. It is made up of the municipalities of Granada, Fuente de Oro, El Castillo, Puerto Lleras, San Juan de Arama, San Martín and Lejanías.


It is a territory made up of meadows and savannas. It is home to both the meadow of Ariari and the Granada-Fuente de Oro savannas. The Ariari river runs across this sub-region, crossing it from north to south.

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

The economy of this sub-region is based on agriculture, and the cultivation of products such as rice, soy, sorghum, yucca, and

9 Office of the Mayor of Villavicencio, at: https://www.villavicencio.gov.co

11

https://www.villavicencio.gov.co/

plantain. The cattle raising sector has focused mainly on the breeding, raising and fattening of bovine. Fish farming and trade are also significant sources of income for this sub-region.

ENVIRONMENT

There is a high concentration of commercial crops in this area, which has severely deteriorated the forest cover. The Ariari river and its branches are home to a wide range of species of fish, mainly ornamental varieties. This area offers a great amount of water sources and fertile soils.

It’s main water sources include the Ariari, Guape, Guejar, La Cal, Yamanes, Uruimes, Pereira, Brasil, Embarrado, Dulce, Cumaral, Acacias, Cunumia, Urichare, Pepemoya, Quebrada Honda, La Tigrera, Sardinata, La Cristalina and Zanza rivers, and the lakes of La Marcela, Los Borrachos and El Peño.

This sub-region holds 162,901 hectares of protected areas, which belong to the Ariari-Guayabero Integrated Management District.

According to the information published by the national statistics authority DANE, the department of Meta is divided into 29 municipalities, and has a total population of 961,334 inhabitants out of which 13,760 are indigenous persons who live in 20 reserves, 3 communities and 7 settlements legalized by the National Planning Department (DNP, for its acronym in Spanish) and the Directorate for Minorities, Indigenous and Romany Communities of the Ministry of Justice and Internal Affairs. The settlements and reserves are made up of different ethnic groups, including, on the one hand, the Sikuani, Páez, Achaguas, Piapoco, Guayaberos, Salivas and Guananos tribes, whose many generations of natives have inhabited this region, and, on the other hand, the Embera Katio, Embera Chami, Huitoto, Inga, and Paez tribes10, among others, who were forcefully displaced from their territories and have migrated into the department. These communities inhabit the municipalities of La Macarena, Mapiripán, Puerto Concordia, Puerto López, Puerto Gaitán, La Uribe, Granada, Villavicencio and Mesetas.

1.2.1. Flora and Fauna

The Meta Region is privileged with regard to the diversity and richness of its flora and fauna, which includes the Serranía de la Macarena mountain range, home to a unique biological diversity and wide range of ecosystems. Aside from Serranía de La Macarena, the department hosts five national parks and protected areas made up of forest reserves, integrated management districts, and natural recreation parks, which make up an area of approximately 197,895 hectares. These areas are very important for the department, as they are home to several species of fauna and flora, including capibaras, lowland pacas,

10 Cartografía Social Indígena del Departamento del Meta. Restrepo, Meta, 2010.

12

moorland and rainforest tapirs, peccaries, white-tail deer, armadillos, jaguars, pumas, oncillas tinamous, sparrow hawks, Galapago river turtles, woodpeckers, falcons, Orinoco crocodiles, jaguars, otters, cougars, spider monkeys, macaws, parrots and different types of orchids, eucalyptus, moriche palm forest, Saladilla, Chaparro, Malagueto, Sauco, Salvia, Guaco, among the many other natural riches.

Some of the aforementioned species have been included in the endangered species list, due to excessive poaching, the transformation and contamination of their natural habitat, specifically in the cases of armadillos, Galapaga river turtles, tapirs and pink dolphins.


The Meta Region has been considered by many illegal armed groups as a strategic point for arms trafficking, drug trafficking, and the cultivation of illegal crops. The municipalities of Meta have also served as a battleground between the FARC, old factions of paramilitaries, criminal gangs and military forces. This situation has unleashed a series of problems that have become part of the daily lives of the inhabitants of Meta, such as kidnappings, forced displacement, massacres, poverty, lack of education and unemployment, among others.


According to the UPRA, land in the department of Meta is mainly suited for productive forestry (19.8%) and agricultural use (17.3%). A smaller percentage of soils is suitable for agroforestry (5.3%) and cattle raising (1.9%)11.

11 Unidad De Planificación Rural Agropecuaria, at: http://www.upra.gov.co.

13

http://www.upra.gov.co/


As is the case in many other departments, Meta’s current land use is not consistent with its suitability. As seen in the maps published by UPRA, lands in the department of Meta are being used for: cattle raising (44.7%), agriculture (10.7%), water surfaces (1%) and productive forestry (0.01%). 53.7% of the land (1,197,216 hectares) is considered to be used adequately, while 35.3% of the land (3,023,126 hectares) is being underutilized, and 9.2% (787,211 hectares) is being overexploited. 12


According to IGAC, lands in the department of Meta are distributed as follows: private lands for cattle raising and agricultural use account for 82.73% of the land, for a total area of 4,877,042 hectares; lands owned by public institutions and State-owned lands account for 9.33% of the land, for a total area of 549,783 hectares; private properties for non-agricultural use account for 0.61% of the land, i.e. a total area of 35,965 hectares; protected areas account for 0.04% of the land, i.e. a total area of 2,489 hectares; and lands belonging to religious groups account for 0.09% of the land, for a total of 5,311 hectares13.

12 Unidad De Planificación Rural Agropecuaria, at: http://www.upra.gov.co.13 Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi (IGAC) (2012). Atlas de la Distribución de la Propiedad Rural en Colombia. Bogotá.

14

http://www.upra.gov.co/

The following table contains information related with the degree of informality for land property in the Meta region14:

Illustration 4: Land informality in the Meta region.


Estimated Informal

Properties


Estimated Informal


VILLAVICENCIO 27,322 122,347 12,887 47.17% 33,111.44 ACACÍAS 4,587 114,134 1,991 43.41% 65,024.22

EL CASTILLO 2,170 59,722 1,212 55.85% 39,164.72 EL DORADO 797 10,791 646 81.05% 8,355.83

FUENTE DE ORO 1,914 53,064 679 35.48% 12,304.95 GRANADA 3,152 31,209 1,522 48.29% 10,055.09 LEJANÍAS 1,993 27,315 1,015 50.93% 15,341.80

PUERTO GAITÁN 1,810 1,717,861 882 48.73% 824,980.39 PUERTO LÓPEZ 6,470 664,954 2,596 40.12% 148,355.86

PUERTO LLERAS 2,143 237,617 966 45.08% 77,738.46 SAN MARTÍN 1,882 590,884 578 30.71% 218,382.03

Meta was not included in the study carried out by Javeriana University for LRDP, our source for reporting on land ownership patterns in the other four regions. Because we were not able to find other sources on current land ownership patterns in Meta or the sub-region that LRDP works in, we do not include it here.

Presently, among LRDP’s focus municipalities, the National Land Agency is carrying out land tenure formalization in the municipalities of Granada and Acacías.

To date, all municipalities in the Meta have been micro-focalized for restitution, and 2,444 restitution claims have been filed in the region since Law 1448 of 2011 entered into force.

1.3. Cauca Region

The department of Cauca is located in the southwest of Colombia between the Andean and Pacific regions. This department is 29,308 square kilometers, which represents 2.56% of the national territory. According to the data provided by the Office of the Governor of Cauca, the department shares boundaries with Valle del Cauca to the north; Nariño and Putumayo to the south; Tolima, Huila and Caquetá to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Additionally, Cauca is divided into 7 sub-regions: Pacific, Southern Cauca, Macizo, Western Cauca, North-Central Cauca and the Amazonian Foothills. LRDP is currently working in the Northern Cauca sub-region. LRDP works in the Northern Cauca sub-region described in the table below.

14 Unidad de Planificación Rural Agropecuaria (2015). Estimación de Informalidad en la Propiedad. Bogotá

15

NORTHERN CAUCA SUB-REGION

LOCATION

This sub-region is located in the northern part of the department and is made up of the municipalities of Buenos Aires, Caloto, Puerto Tejada, Villa Rica, Suarez, Santander de Quilichao, Toribio, Corinto, Padilla, Miranda, Guachené, Caldono and Jambaló.


The northern Cauca sub-region is made up of, to a large extent, the geography of the Cauca river valley, and a series of flat lands that lie between the Western and Central Colombian Andes.

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

Due to its topography, Northern Cauca possesses a great variety of temperature ranges and ecosystems, as a result of which its productive systems are very diverse. This sub-region holds important urban centers and most of the department’s industrial activity.

This sub-region has excelled compared to other sub-regions, because of its fast-paced growth and economic development in the past years, which was the result of investing capital in its industrial sector (pharmaceutical, foods, automobile assembly, among others), agro-industry (single-crop cane farming for the production of sugar and alcohol fuel), small-scale agricultural projects (potato, corn, red beans, yucca, plan pains, sweet potato, among others) and large-scale gold extraction15.

ENVIRONMENT

The northern part of the department is a geographical area made up of mangroves and rain forests, crossed by several rivers and brooks, amongst which are the rivers Cauca, Hondo, Guengüe, Huasanó, Jagual, Negro, Paila, Palacés, Sucio, Molino, Ejido, Palo, Jambalo, Oveja, and several micro basins such as the basins of Pescador, Mondomo, Salado, Cabuyal, Quichaya, Chindaco, Guicoche, Guasano, Puente Alto, Las Ánimas and El Pilón.

Northern Cauca is also one of the sub-regions with the greatest number of natural reserves and ecological parks. This sub-region is where the Nevado del Huila National Park is located, which is approximately 158,000 hectares in size. It is also where a significant portion of the Colombian Massif is located, which is home to a wide variety of fauna16 and flora17.

15 Strategic Plan for the Development of Northern Cauca. November 2015.

16

The department of Cauca is divided into 42 municipalities, which spread over a total area of 29,308 km2 and is home to a total of 1,346,932 inhabitants, whose ethnic make-up is as follows: 20.5% indigenous, 21.1% Afro-descendants and 58.5% mestizo, contributing to a widely diverse social and cultural heritage18.

The headquarters of the Association of Indigenous Communities of Northern Cauca (ACIN, for its acronym in Spanish) are located in this sub-region. This association includes members of 14 indigenous reserves and 16 indigenous communities, including Toribío, Tacueyó, San Francisco, Corinto, Miranda, Huellas Caloto, Toéz, Jambaló, Munchique los Tigres, Canoas, Delicias, Concepción, Guadualito, Cerro Tijeras, Pueblo Nuevo Ceral, Alto Naya and the urban indigenous community of Santander de Quilichao, which are located in 7 municipalities: Toribío, Caloto, Miranda, Corinto, Jambaló, Santander de Quilichao and Suárez. It is also host to Amunorca (the Northern Cauca Association of Municipalities) and Aconc (the Northern Cauca Association of Community Councils), which in recent years have provided key support for the different ethnic groups that inhabit the region, ensuring the restoration and enforcement of their rights19.


The Northern-Cauca sub-region has implemented consolidation and economic sustainability strategies. Nevertheless, many inhabitants of Northern Cauca have been affected by problems related to internal armed conflict, agrarian conflict, low literacy, forced displacement, and high levels of poverty, particularly in the municipalities of Suarez, Buenos Aires, Corinto and Miranda, where the poverty rate is as high as 59.51%20.


According to IGAC, in Northern Cauca forestry accounts for 56% of the land surface area; agriculture accounts for 27%; agro-forestry accounts for 10%; bodies of water and land conservation account for 7%; and cattle raising accounts for 1% of the land. As shown in the map below, the current use of land in the sub-region -- heterogeneous agricultural areas (27%), pastures (25%), sugar cane (14%) and forests (4%) -- is not consistent with its suitability.21

16 Such as: lizards, squirrels, foxes, armadillos, large parrots, salamanders; snakes such as bird snakes, puffing snakes, rayuelas, dormilonas, red coral snakes, different species of turtles, iguanas, frogs, toads, and fish, including sabaletas, sábalos, catfish, sardines, bocachico, and tilapia.17 Such as: guamo, arrayán, yarumo, mullo pava, cúcharo, gualanday, carbonero, and cascarillo.18 Cauca Departmental Plan. 2016-2019.19 Pontificia Universidad Javeriana de Cali (2013). Análisis de la Posesión Territorial y Situaciones de Tensión Interétnica e Intercultural en el Departamento del Cauca. Cali.20 Pontificia Universidad Javeriana de Cali (2013). Análisis de la Posesión Territorial y Situaciones de Tensión Interétnica e Intercultural en el Departamento del Cauca. Cali.

17



According to IGAC, lands in the department of Cauca are distributed as follows: private lands for cattle raising and agricultural use account for 46.26% of the land (1,128,196 hectares); lands owned by minorities account for 33.61% of the land (819,554 hectares); lands held by public institutions and State-owned lands account for 16.63% of the land (405,413 hectares); protected areas account for 0.04% of the land (2,489 hectares); private properties for non-agricultural use account for 0.23% of the land (5,581 hectares); lands belonging to religious groups account for 0.06% of the land (1,480 hectares); and lands belonging to other communities account for 0.02% of the land ( 407 hectares)22.

21 Instituto Geografico Agustin Codazzi (IGAC), at: http://www.igac.gov.co/igac cited in: Land and Rural Development Program -USAID. Lectura Territorial 4 Regiones Priorizadas. Cesar Tolima, Montes de María y Norte del Cauca. ARD-LRDP-FPS-00192.22 Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi (IGAC) (2012). Atlas de la Distribución de la Propiedad Rural en Colombia. Bogotá.

18

http://www.igac.gov.co/igac

The following table contains information related with the degree of informality for land property in the Northern Cauca region23:

Illustration 6: Land informality in Northern Cauca.

MUNICIPIO Total Predios Área Total Predios (ha)

Estimación Predios

Informales

% Estimación Informalidad

Área Estimación

Predios BUENOS AIRES 5,166 42,072 4,191 81.13% 29,832.15

CALDONO 5,882 33,946 3,293 55.98% 25,813.46 CALOTO 3,334 26,247 1,969 59.06% 14,501.08 CORINTO 3,124 30,651 1,664 53.27% 17,819.45

GUACHENE 4,966 9,386 4,821 97.08% 9,312.52 JAMBALÓ 517 23,455 430 83.17% 22,450.86 MIRANDA 2,231 19,739 1,304 58.45% 13,503.46 PADILLA 2,601 7,239 1,592 61.21% 3,948.21

PUERTO TEJADA 2,007 10,516 1,130 56.30% 3,578.83 SANTANDER DE QUILICHAO 12,418 49,818 6,988 56.27% 28,004.98

SUÁREZ 4,520 37,683 3,999 88.47% 32,949.12 TORIBÍO 195 50,098 86 44.10% 40,812.03

VILLA RICA 2,062 7,403 1,775 86.08% 5,011.26

Most properties in the region are smallholdings and micro-holdings, except in Jambaló and Toribío. This predominance of small parcels is a consequence of the type of communities that inhabit the region and an economy based on small agriculture. Using the IGAC classifications described earlier, one finds that 77.47% of plots are micro-holdings, representing 13.46% of the area; 14.82% of plots are smallholdings, representing 15.02% of the area; and 0.25% of plots are large scale holdings, representing 31.08% of the area.

Presently, formalization of rural land is being carried out in the municipalities of Buenos Aires, Caldono, Miranda, Padilla and Santander de Quilichao.

Micro-focalization for purposes of land restitution in Northern Cauca covers Corinto (urban area), Santander de Quilichao, Guachené and Toribio. 457 restitution claims have been filed in in the sub-region since Law 1448 of 2011 entered into force. The Land Restitution Unit anticipates that in 2017, micro-focalization will expand to the following areas: Corinto (rural area), Buenos Aires, Caloto, Miranda and Suárez.

1.4. Montes de María Region

The Montes de María sub-region is made up of 15 municipalities between the department of Sucre and Bolívar. It is a highly multicultural region as it is home to several indigenous, Afro-descendent, and ethnic groups.


19

MONTES DE MARÍA SUB-REGION

LOCATION

Montes de Maria is a geographical sub-region located between the departments of Bolivar and Sucre. Its total area is 6,466 km2.

The sub-region is comprised of 15 municipalities, 8 of which are located in the department of Sucre (Ovejas, Chalán, Colosó, Morroa, Los Palmitos, San Onofre, San Antonio de Palmito, and Tolú Viejo). Seven are located in the department of Bolívar (El Carmen de Bolívar, María la Baja, San Juan Nepomuceno, San Jacinto, Córdoba, El Guamo and Zambrano)24.


The Montes de María region possesses a great geo-morphological diversity, as it is made up of the highlands in the San Jacinto mountain range belt and the flatlands in the Canal del Dique flood plains25.

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

This sub-region’s economy is mainly based on mixed agricultural activities. With regard to agriculture, products grown in the region include yucca, avocado, yams, corn, tobacco, sesame seeds, and fruit trees, as well as some agro-industry products such as oil palm and timber trees.

Another key economic activity is extensive cattle raising.

Additionally, fish farming activities have developed in this region, taking advantage the many bodies of water that are present in the area. Crafts and ecotourism are also a significant source of income for the inhabitants of Montes de Maria.

ENVIRONMENT Due to the fact that it is made up of two departments, this sub-region is home to a wide variety of strategic ecosystems, such as coral reefs, marine pastures, mangroves, and tropical dry broadleaf forests.

These ecosystems have been designated as protected areas, as they are at risk of degradation. These areas include the Boca de Guacamaya mangrove system, which is located in the municipality of Santiago de Tolú; Sanguare, which is a dry broadleaf forest located in the municipality of San Onofre, and the Caimanera system of mangroves and swamp lakes, which is located in the municipality of Coveñas. These protected areas are very important for the department as they hold most of the flora and fauna for which it is known.

The Montes De María region has a total area of 258,816

24 Funcicar y Estrategia Colombia Responde (2015). Sistematización de la Experiencia de Colombia Responde en la Zona de Consolidación Territorial de los Montes de María. Cartagena de Indias. 25 Ibid.

20

hectares devoted to the conservation and preservation of parks, preserves, lakes, and wildlife corridors. These have allowed for the preservation of several flora and fauna species26. The protected areas include: wildlife corridors (187,200 hectares); El Corchal fauna and flora sanctuary (4,300 hectares); Los Colorados sanctuary for fauna and flora (1,000 hectares); the Project for the Extraction of the Sanctuary of Flora and Fauna, which spreads over 20,600 hectares; the Coraza reserve, which spreads over 6,600 hectares; the Perico reserve, which holds 89 hectares, the Laguna preserve, with an area of 227 hectares, and forest reserve polygon (38,800 hectares). These reserves are located in the municipalities of San Onofre, Tolú Viejo, Colosó, Chalán and San Juan Nepomuceno27.

As a consequence of the physical conditions of the sub-region, a series of micro basins have been created between the Magdalena and San Jorge rivers. The most important basins include the brooks of Mancomoján and Pechilín, in Ovejas; Alférez, Macayepo and Sin Cabeza, in El Carmen de Bolívar; and Loro, Matuya, Las Palmas, el Rastro and La Flecha in San Jacinto. Additionally, this sub-region is home to the Playón reservoir, west of San Jacinto. Many of these bodies of water stay dry throughout the year, and water only runs through them during seasons of high humidity, often generating floods in urban areas.28

Montes de Maria hosts 19 indigenous communities and 11 community councils.29 Most of its indigenous population is located in the municipalities of Ovejas, San Onofre and El Carmen; and most of its Afro-descendent population is located in the municipalities of San Onofre, San Jacinto and El Carmen.


Due to its geographical features, its fluvial capacity, its access to the sea and the fact that it borders with and has access to departments such as Córdoba, Bolívar, and Antioquia, Montes de Maria is an area that is highly suitable for the development of commercial activities.

26 Such as: pacas, armadillos, sloths, opossums, squirrels, foxes, toads, lizards, iguanas, serpents, snakes, turtles, toches, cochas, rufous-collared sparrows, bluebirds, eagles, pirzas, juanchones, wild turkeys, vultures, woodpeckers, sainas, doves, smooth-billed ani, sillaros, among others.27 Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales, at: http://documentacion.ideam.gov.co.28 Funcicar y Estrategia Colombia Responde (2015). Sistematización de la Experiencia de Colombia Responde en la Zona de Consolidación Territorial de los Montes de María. Cartagena de Indias. 29 Ibid.

21

http://documentacion.ideam.gov.co/

However, the region has been plagued by a history of violent armed conflict and the lack of state presence that led to land abandonment, homicides, kidnappings, and massacres. As a consequence, the area’s agricultural and cattle-raising production plummeted.30

Another social problem that has affected the daily lives of many inhabitants of the sub-region is the lack of reliable access to potable drinking water in rural areas. Most drinking water is hoarded by larger scale landowners, who consume it for cattle raising activities.


According to data published by IGAC, Montes de Maria’s land suitability is as follows: forestry and agricultural activities, 40% (268,654 hectares) and 44% (294,386 hectares) respectively; agro-forestry, 6.98% (46,638 hectares), cattle raising, 4.81% (32,131 hectares) and soil conservation, 0.10% (732 hectares). The maps below compare current land suitability and land use in the Montes de Maria sub-region31”.

30 Ibid.31 Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi, at: http://www.igac.gov.co/igac , cited in: Land and Rural Development Program -USAID. Lectura Territorial 4 Regiones Priorizadas. Cesar Tolima, Montes de María y Norte del Cauca. ARD-LRDP-FPS-00192.

22

http://www.igac.gov.co/igac


This map on the left shows that the Magdalena River riparian area is mainly suitable for forest use, with a small percentage of land suitable for agriculture, and an even smaller percentage for cattle raising. Land suitability in this area is quite different from that of the Western foothills area and the mountain range area, which are mostly suitable for agriculture, with a few areas suitable for forestry and agroforestry.

However, use of land for pastures is on average 50% throughout the Montes de Maria region, despite the fact that land suitability for grazing pastures in all of Montes de Maria is less than 5%. Similarly, agricultural land use is less than 15%, despite the fact that 40% of the land in the region is suitable for this purpose32.

32 Land and Rural Development Program -USAID. Lectura Territorial 4 Regiones Priorizadas. Cesar Tolima, Montes de María y Norte del Cauca. ARD-LRDP-FPS-00192.

23


Studies conducted by LRDP regarding land tenure in the Montes de María region estimate that there are 25,231 land plots in total, which account for an area of 641,236 hectares. It is estimated that of these, 17,702 are illegally occupied properties with an area of 382,581 hectares.

The following table contains information related with the degree of informality for land property in the Montes de María sub-region33:

Illustration 8: Land informality in the Montes de María sub-region.


Estimated Informal

Properties


Estimated Informal


CÓRDOBA 1,332 61,452 934 70.12% 37,361.20 EL CARMEN DE BOLÍVAR 3,323 99,693 2,366 71.20% 66,121.22

EL GUAMO 736 37,181 481 65.35% 21,940.61 MARÍA LA BAJA 3,899 54,856 3,246 83.25% 41,227.69 SAN JACINTO 1,275 41,395 959 75.22% 29,569.13

SAN JUAN NEPOMUCENO 1,644 66,276 1,070 65.09% 41,958.12 ZAMBRANO 372 28,871 207 55.65% 18,713.66

COLOSÓ 872 13,335 739 84.75% 8,709.44 CHALÁN 303 7,554 254 83.83% 5,381.37

LOS PALMITOS 1,243 20,663 719 57.84% 9,621.86 MORROA 1,231 16,280 853 69.29% 8,686.43 OVEJAS 1,758 43,384 1,249 71.05% 24,849.22 PALMITO 1,059 17,352 713 67.33% 8,118.91

SAN ONOFRE 4,005 105,762 2,461 61.45% 51,153.53 TOLUVIEJO 2,179 27,182 1,451 66.59% 9,168.34

Land tenure in this region has gradually become more concentrated in the hands of a few. This is the consequence of massive purchases that followed after farmers, indigenous communities, and Afro-descendants fled violence or were unable to pay their debts. According to a report by the Superintendence of Notary and Registry, by March 2012 an estimated 37,273 hectares had been sold and bought in Montes de María, especially in Carmen de Bolívar, San Onofre, and Ovejas. This report also states that these acquisitions largely affected small parcels, particularly those owned by beneficiaries of the agrarian reform.

When it comes to formalizing rural land, only the municipality of Ovejas is being targeted for such interventions.

To date, all municipalities in the Montes de María region have been micro-focalized for restitution. 4,862 restitution claims have been filed in Bolívar and 2,371 claims have been filed in Sucre since enactment of the restitution law in 2011.


24

1.5. Cesar Region

The department of Cesar is one of the newest departments in the country. It was created by Law 25 of 21st of June 1967, when it was annexed from the Magdalena Grande department. Cesar has a total area of 2,256,550 hectares, which accounts for 2.2% of the national territory. It borders the departments of Magdalena and Guajira to the north; the departments of Santander and Norte de Santander to the south; the country of Venezuela to the east, and the departments of Magdalena and Bolívar to the west. Cesar is divided into four sub-regions (North, Northwest, Center, South).34 LRDP is currently only working with the northerm sub-region, profiled in the following table.

NORTHERN CESAR SUB-REGION

LOCATION

This sub-region is located in the northern part of the department, and is made up by the following municipalities: Becerril, Agustín Codazzi, La Paz, Manaure, Pueblo Bello, San Diego and Valledupar and La Jagua de Ibirico.


The northern sub-region and its main city, Valledupar, represent the most important center for economic, industrial, commercial and financial activities in the region. The Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Mountain constitutes the most important mountain range in the region, along with Serranía de Perijá and Serranía de Valledupar, which together make up the vast valley through which runs the Cesar River.

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY

The main income-generating activities in the sub-region are: mixed agriculture (African palm, traditional grown corn, technically grow corn, rice, sorghum, coffee, sugar cane, yucca, cotton, cacao, sesame seeds and plantain) and mining activities (coal mining and oil exploration), to a lesser degree. Industry is also a key economic activity in this sub-region.

ENVIRONMENT The department is also divided into four geographical and ecological regions called ‘eco-regions’. Each one of these eco-regions is key for Cesar and the country, whether it is because of their biodiversity, the role they play in the department’s economy, their boundaries and location, or the fact that they are strategic corridors for illegal armed groups.

Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta. It is strategic because of its biodiversity -a result of the different temperature ranges that this mountain accommodates as it goes up in altitude-, its ethnic richness and the presence of smallholders from other areas of the country. It hosts natural parks: Tayrona, in the department of Magdalena, and the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, a protected

34 Gobernación del Cesar, at: http://cesar.gov.co/c/index.php/es.

25

http://cesar.gov.co/c/index.php/es

forest reserve that spreads over the departments of Cesar, La Guajira and Magdalena.

Serranía del Perijá. It is of great importance as almost 70% of its territory is a forest reserve. Its fauna and flora are very diverse, and it is home to many indigenous groups, with their native cultures and ancestral knowledge. Twenty rivers, brooks and streams are sourced in this sub-region, which traverse the valleys of the rivers Cesar, Magdalena and Lebrija, and flow into the swamp system or the Magdalena, where several of Cesar’s economic activities take place. It is a bi-national special interest area, as it borders with Venezuela, with whom it shares ecological, economic and social relationships.

Valley of the Cesar River. This eco-region is one of Cesar’s economic pillars. Activities such as cattle raising, agriculture, agro-industry and mining have developed prosperously in this area. The most important natural resource in this eco-region is the soil, as most productive processes depend on it and, conversely, the sustainability of these productive processes depends on the sustainable use of the soil35.

The northern sub-region overlaps with three protected areas: Los Besotes eco-park, located in the municipality of Valledupar with an extension of 4,316 hectares, and the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Natural Park, located in the municipalities of Valledupar and Pueblo Bello, with a total area of 44,131 hectares, and the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta Forest Reserve, with a total area of 71,08036.

The sub-region possesses a great water richness, since many important rivers traverse its territory, including the rivers Magdalena, Cesar, Lebrija, Guatapurí, Maracas, Tocuy, Ariguaní, Cesarito, Río Seco, Diluvio, Mariangola and Calenturitas, among others.

The area hosts a wide variety of fauna37 and flora38.

The department is divided into 25 municipalities, which all have less than 90,000 inhabitants except for its capital, Valledupar (349,000 habitants) and the municipality of

35 Land and Rural Development Program -USAID (2016). Tierra, Conflicto y Mercado. Análisis Histórico de la Relación del Conflicto Armado en el Mercado de Tierras en Cesar, Montes de María y Sur del Tolima, Colombia. ARD-LRDP-FPS-00041.36 Land and Rural Development Program. Avances y Perspectivas en el Departamento del Cesar.37 Such as: oncillas, deer, lizards, boas, coral snakes, mapaná, owls, hawks, doves, tierrelitas, parrots, hummingbirds, iguanas, red-footed tortoises, hicoteas and guartinaja; these last four species have been declared endangered.38 Such as: mango, peanuts, ceiba trees, oaks, calabash tree, acacias, mamones, cotoprix, uvitos, cardamom.

26

Aguachica. All other municipalities are below that threshold. Its population is diverse, given that the department is home to 7 indigenous reserves (3 in La Paz, 2 in Agustín Codazzi and 2 in Becerril) and several Afro-descendant community councils.


The northern Cesar sub-region was severely affected by the armed conflict and the presence of illegal armed groups, including corruption, massacres, kidnappings, homicides, forced displacement and poverty.

Although the department of Cesar has begun the process of transforming itself and has given way to a progressive urbanization, this has been a slow process and several unsolved social issues have increased poverty and the social gap, such as the low quality of education and health services provided to low income populations39.



According to UPRA (2016), the suitability of land in the department of Cesar is as follows: 27% should be used for agriculture, 10% for cattle raising, 2% for productive forestry and

39 Gobernación del Cesar. Plan de Desarrollo Departamental del Cesar 2016-2019. El Camino del Desarrollo y la Paz. Valledupar.

27

7% for agro-forestry. And yet, lands in Cesar are being used for agriculture (22%), pastures (47%), productive forestry (0.2%), while water bodies account for 3% of the land. The rest corresponds to natural vegetation (woods, forests) or land under conservation40.

The maps shown above reveal that almost half of the lands in the department are being used for extensive cattle raising (1,060,578 hectares), whereas only 225,655 hectares is considered suitable for this purpose.

Data from UPRA indicate that about 35% of the department’s land, equivalent to 789,681 hectares, is being adequately used, while 32.7% of the land, which represents 738,404 hectares, is being over-utilized and 30.6% of the land, which represents 690,265 hectares, is being underutilized41.


According to IGAC, lands in the department of Cesar are distributed as follows: private lands for cattle raising and agricultural use account for 75.59% of the land (1,670,269 hectares); lands held by public institutions and State-owned lands account for 11.33% of the land ( 250,273 hectares); lands owned by minorities account for 6.58% of the land, (145,429 hectares); private properties for non-agricultural use account for 6.49% of the land (143,314 hectares); lands belonging to religious groups account for 0.01% of the land (276 hectares); protected areas account for 0.01% of the land (149.26 hectares); and lands belonging to other communities account for 0.001% of the land (15.20 hectares)42.

The following table contains information related with the degree of informality for land property in the Northern Cesar sub-region43:

40 Unidad de Planificación Rural Agropecuaria, at: https://sites.google.com/a/upra.gov.co/presentaciones-upra/departamental/cesar41 Ibid.42 Instituto Geográfico Agustín Codazzi (IGAC) (2012). Atlas de la Distribución de la Propiedad Rural en Colombia. Bogotá.43 Unidad de Planificación Rural Agropecuaria (2015). Estimación de Informalidad en la Propiedad. Bogotá

28

Illustration 10: Land informality in Northern Cesar.


Estimated Informal

Properties


Estimated Informal


VALLEDUPAR 7,619 415,633 3,770 49.48% 184,550.36 AGUSTÍN CODAZZI 2,084 206,881 1,226 58.83% 143,481.94

BECERRILL 1,036 113,791 586 56.56% 73,240.81 BOSCONIA 1,181 59,238 1,051 88.99% 42,857.64 EL COPEY 1,760 96,556 1,259 71.53% 61,601.10

LA JAGUA DE IBIRICO 1,468 46,057 936 63.76% 27,034.49 PUEBLO BELLO 1,151 75,490 654 56.82% 20,610.31

LA PAZ 1,706 104,378 1,192 69.87% 73,059.54 SAN DIEGO 867 62,487 552 63.67% 40,677.35

IGAC data from 2009 show that 57.2% of the department’s area and 59.8% of all registered deeds are considered medium-scale properties. Smallholdings and micro-holdings represent only 1.87% of the total area and 27.49% of deeds, while large scale properties represent 36.57% of the total area and 4.9% of registered deeds.

Presently, formalization of rural land is taking place in the municipalities of La Paz, San Diego and Bosconia.

To date, all municipalities in the Cesar region have been micro-focalized for land restitution, except for Pueblo Bello (located in an area of forest reserve).3,904 restitution claims have been filed in northern Cesar since Law 1448 entered into force.

2. Describe the Desired Future ConditionThe outcome expected at the end of the LRDP is that from this date forward support provided to the GoC on land and rural development policy, methodologies to test innovative land and rural development strategies, and other direct and indirect support contain environmental considerations that when proposed to the GoC for adoption will secure a do-no-harm result on environmental issues. Additionally, the program will produce an environmental best management practices document that can be used by USAID to guide current and future land and rural development programming and by the GoC to inform policy and practice on land and rural development related matters.

3. Describe the Purpose and NeedThe goal of this evaluation is to avoid or mitigate potential negative impacts which could potentially derive from the work carried out by the Program in the areas of land restitution,

29

formalization and rural development, and where possible contribute to an improved environmental desired future condition. LRDP will produce a set of environmental best management practices for land restitution, land formalization, and rural development as part of the environmental evaluation and its support to the Government of Colombia. Specifically, LRDP aims to secure "do no-harm" results through the support it provides to national and regional GoC counterparts on policy, piloting new methodologies, and direct and indirect implementation of land and productive projects.

4. Proposed actionLand tenure has been one of the main causes of protracted armed conflict in Colombia. As part of its commitment to create the foundation for a lasting peace, the GoC has committed to restituting land to victims of the conflict, strengthening land tenure security through improved systems for land titling in priority rural areas, and enabling rural residents to make productive and efficient use of their land. To increase the government’s capacity to comply with this mandate, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) created the Land and Rural Development Program (LRDP) that began activities in July of 2013.The program is implemented by Tetra Tech ARD.

Thriving democracies have high functioning land governance systems that guarantee land rights for their citizens. LRDP supports Colombia’s land governance structures in providing packages of land and rural development interventions that enhance rural livelihoods.

LRDP is a five-year project that focuses on the land-based drivers of conflict, poverty, and environmental degradation. LRDP strengthens institutions—the foundation of effective land governance—by streamlining policies and procedures that will improve land access and rural development opportunities for the rural poor. The program supports the GoC to:

1. Redistribute state-owned farmland to poor families, increasing agricultural production and economic growth. During the years of conflict, a large number of state-owned lands were illegally acquired. LRDP assists the GoC with the procedures needed to recoup this land for use in the Land Fund, a bank of state-owned farmland that can be distributed to rural families, promoting agricultural production and economic growth in poor areas. The GoC’s goal is to identify 47,000 parcels for redistribution by 2018. To date, LRDP has inventoried 48,000 parcels—potentially benefitting an equal number of families—and will continue identifying land that can be reallocated to Colombia’s poor rural families.

2. Increase public spending on rural development to help farmers and rural families. In 2015, the GoC committed US$1.6 billion for the rural agriculture sector but was unable to move this money into the remote areas that need it the most. LRDP works with mayors, governors, and national-level GoC officials to increase public and private spending in poor regions. In doing so, LRDP supports the GoC to ensure that farmers have access to the resources and public goods they need—such as irrigation and technical assistance—to increase agricultural production and

30

reduce poverty. To date, the mobilization of rural development resources has increased by 89.7% in LRDP target regions.

3. Address lack of access to land related information . Nearly 7 million people have been displaced from their homes during the course of Colombia’s war, and bringing them back to their land is a critical component of Colombia’s post-conflict reconciliation process. Because land-related information is disorganized, paper-based, and inaccessible, the Land Restitution Unit (URT) is constrained in its ability to move people through the land restitution process. By 2018, LRDP will digitize pending case files, providing judges with the information they need to make a determination on restitution cases. To date LRDP has digitized 5,513 case files, representing 17,032 households and 11,041 hectares of land.

4. Provide legal representation to vulnerable secondary occupants. LRDP supports the Ombudsman’s Office in providing legal representation to “secondary occupants,” rural families occupying land that is claimed by others. There are 1,600 secondary occupants living in LRDP’s five target regions, many of whom are entwined in complex legal cases but cannot afford the legal representation they need. LRDP will train and support public defenders to represent 800 — or 50% — of these families.

5. Formalize land rights to protect the environment and improve livelihoods for rural citizens. It is estimated that nearly half of rural properties in Colombia are informal. Land informality often prevents citizens from making agricultural investments that will improve the productivity of their land, as they are not confident they will be able to hold this land for the long term. In addition, citizens without land rights are often dis-incentivized to sustainably manage natural resources, which leads to environmental degradation. Making matters worse, registering property in Colombia (the last step in the formalization process) takes over five years, due to inefficient processes and a lack of access to land information. LRDP builds information systems and efficiencies between land governance institutions to streamline the formalization process, and recent pilots demonstrate that land can be formalized in 12 months. By 2018, LRDP will help the GoC provide land tenure security to 32,560 households, and will use a differential approach to prioritize the needs of women, Afro-Colombians, indigenous peoples, and other groups disproportionately affected by the conflict.

6. Improve quantity, quality, and accessibility of land information to expedite restitution and formalization processes. Without access to high quality, electronic land information, restituting and formalizing property in Colombia is slow, difficult, and costly. LRDP is building the Land Node, which aggregates data from eight different land-related agencies across 25 separate systems, increasing transaction efficiencies, reducing costs, and catalyzing a positive economic impact across the country. LRDP will digitize 100% of land records in our five focus regions— representing nearly 20% of all such records throughout the country—thus ensuring the accuracy of land information and filling the information gaps that impede land restitution and formalization efforts.

31

Regarding land restitution and pursuant to the terms of the Victims and Land Restitution Law (Law 1448), by 2021 the GoC seeks to return stolen and abandoned lands to the victims who have been forcibly displaced by the conflict. Land restitution is part of the GoC’s mandate to improve rural livelihoods and deliver reparations to victims of the armed conflict. In order to prevent restitution processes from negatively affecting protected areas or territories owned by ethnic groups, the Land Restitution Unit has adopted specific norms and guidelines that annul those restitution requests affecting these areas. In addition, the LRU removes these requests from the Registry of Dispossessed and Forcibly Abandoned Lands.

5. ScopingFollowing the requirements defined in the regulation (22 CFR 216.6(e)(1)), consultations were held between the LRDP staff, the project-affected community, and the Program’s partners engaged in land restitution, land rights formalization and rural development. The purpose of this consultation was to (1) jointly determine the scope and significance of the issues, concerns and opportunities to be analyzed in the Environmental Assessment, including direct and indirect effects of the LRDP on the environment, and (2) increase cooperation between stakeholders and Program developers to facilitate uptake of environmental best management practices guidelines.

In this context, a consultation process was held with public entities, local governments, private companies, communities or community groups, and vulnerable populations, including women and ethnic groups, regarding the proposed action. This occurred over a series of six public meetings between November 2nd, 2016 and December 6th, 2016 (See Illustration 11 and Annex: Stakeholder Consultation Source Information). These consultations were designed to be participatory, informative, collaborative, and adapted to the context and culture of each LRDP focus region.

32

Illustration 11: Participants per Meeting

Illustration 12: Participants in the National Workshop

33

Illustration 13: Participants in the Tolima Workshop

Illustration 14: Participants in the Cauca Workshop

34

Illustration 15: Participants in the Montes de Maria Workshop

Illustration 16: Participants in the Cesar Workshop

35

Illustration 17: Participants in the Meta Workshop

The following table sums up the results of all 6 consultation workshops held in the national office and the five regional offices. This table centers on Issues and Opportunities related to Program interventions; it does not include other types of environmental concerns raised by the participants which do not relate directly to program interventions; these can be found in the Annex.

1. Support for the Consolidation of a Multipurpose Cadaster:Issues Opportunities

- None recorded. - A tool that physically describes the territory and informs the decisions of competent authorities.

- It helps expedite rural property formalization procedures.

- It helps define a territory's agricultural aptitude.

- It facilitates private and public entities' access to information.

- It facilitates the identification of state-owned

36

assets.

- It serves as an instrument to appraise environmental goods and services.

- It facilitates the integration of registration and cadaster.

2. Development of the Strategic Inter-Institutional Land Restitution Plan:Issues Opportunities

- Restitution claims overlapping with environmentally protected areas or areas with restricted land uses (e.g. protected riparian areas).

- Allows environmental authorities to understand their support needs regarding the implementation of productive projects.

- Helps identify complex issues within each territory, especially with regard to protected areas.

- Facilitates ruling on the social function of property.

- Renders visible great anthropogenic modifications in protected areas.

- Facilitates inter-institutional information sharing.

3. Characterization of Impacts on Ethnic Groups:Issues Opportunities

- None recorded. - Facilitates the identification of other social groups present in the ancestral territory, who are generating land-use conflicts.

- Helps recognize the impact on the territory, including the environmental impact (water source pollution, soil contamination and land-use conflicts, among others).

- Helps understand the local cultural perception of the territory.

4. Support for the Property Formalization Processes for Individuals and Public Law Entities:

Issues Opportunities

- Formalization of land rights within strategic ecosystems, protected areas or ethnic-group owned territories.

- Reduce informality and prevent the expansion of settlements or the illegal occupation of protected areas.

37

- Promote sustainable development in the region as they allow beneficiaries to access incentives for the development of sustainable productive projects.

- Help locate and identify special management areas and strategic ecosystems. This, in turn, facilitates the identification of environmental restrictions on the rural land plots involved.

- Allows for the identification of possible land-use conflicts in special management areas. This information constitutes a key tool for competent authorities to initiate the necessary actions to recover and regain control of those lands.

- Facilitate land use planning.

- Help obtain water licenses and licenses to access potable water sources.

- Facilitate public investment in public goods (provision of basic goods and services such as sanitation facilities, sewages, treatment plants, etc.).

5. Productive and Social Organizational Plan for Rural Property:Issues Opportunities

- Expansion of the agricultural frontier and depletion of water resources resulting from the implementation of productive land-use plans.

- Helps identify land apt for conservation or productive purposes. This can facilitate agricultural boundary control and the adoption of conservation measures.

- Helps determine land suitability in forest reserve areas in accordance with Law 2/1959.

- Facilitates land use planning for productive systems, based on an analysis of usable farmlands, and helps establish the conditions required for its implementation.

- Fosters the development of sustainable productive projects, in other words, projects that use land in an adequate and efficient way.

38

- Excludes protected areas from livestock zoning grounds.

- Expedites the adoption of environmental planning tools and the design of public policies for sustainable rural development.

6. Supports for Public-Private Partnerships:Issues Opportunities

- Difficulties for agricultural producers to comply with environmental standards and good agricultural practices.

- Partnerships foster the development of scientific research.

- Partnerships promote the integrated management of crops and the improvement of agricultural practices.

- Partnerships encourage the efficient and rational use of water.

- Partnerships open a window to train growers on pesticide training and management, per our new PERSUAP.

- Partnerships bolster self-sufficiency and food security.

- Partnerships increase inter-institutional coordination.

- Crops favor the recovery of the vegetative cover and of agro-forestry systems.

- Crops serve as biological corridors for certain fauna species to circulate.

- Crops favor soil enrichment through the generation of organic material.

- Crops favor temperature regulation and guarantee a greater retention of moisture.

7. Small Scale Irrigation Districts:Issues Opportunities

- Greater pressure on natural resources due to an increased investment in public goods (such as tertiary roads and small scale irrigation districts).

- Favors water use control.

- Improves productivity.

- Guarantees food security.

- Favors climate change adaptation.

39

- Generates social and economic well-being.

6. Describe Potential Impacts Related to the Proposed Action6.1. Significant Issues

As a starting point, preliminary inquiries have yielded some conclusions regarding program activities and interventions that could pose environmental consequences, both negative and positive, and therefore, are likely to be the primary targets of the Environmental Assessment. These issues, concerns, and opportunities are:

Restitution claims overlapping with environmentally protected areas or areas with restricted land uses. The LRDP supports the GoC in increasing its capacity to process restitution claims and incorporating restituted families into public-private partnerships that target strategic value chains for livelihood improvement; however, facilitating restitution processes within strategic ecosystems, protected areas or ethnic-group owned territories may cause significant impacts on the environment, while diminishing their odds of achieving land conservation and growth objectives for which they were created. The primary impacts to be addressed by the LRDP in such cases include: degradation and loss of soil; damage to water resources; deforestation; biodiversity loss; land-use conflicts; and degradation and loss of natural landscapes, historic sites, and monuments.

Formalization of land rights within strategic ecosystems, protected areas or ethnic-group owned territories. LRDP provides support to the GoC in implementing massive formalization processes, streamlining its on-demand formalization processes, unifying land formalization and cadastral mapping processes, and piloting projects to register public lands. In doing so, the LRDP not only seeks to address land informality and insecure land tenure that limit farmers from reaching their agricultural potential, but also strives to protect public properties (including land adjacent to or located within protected areas) from being claimed through illegal methods. Yet, if land rights are formalized within environmentally sensitive ecosystems, riverine areas, protected areas or ethnic-group owned territories, it may lead to negative impacts on the environment. The potential negative impacts to be addressed by the LRDP include: degradation and loss of soil; damage to water resources; deforestation; biodiversity loss; and degradation and loss of natural landscapes, historic sites, and monuments. Furthermore, facilitating formalization within areas with restricted land uses may lead to improper land use by formalization beneficiaries, who may not know or comply with applicable land use regulations and may not receive adequate assistance from environmental authorities.

40

Greater pressure on natural resources due to an increased investment in public goods (such as tertiary roads and small scale irrigation districts). The LRDP works with mayors, governors, and national-level officials to strengthen their capacity to increase public and private investment in marginal regions. In doing so, it helps the government ensure that farmers have access to the resources they need —such as irrigation and technical assistance— to increase agricultural production and reduce poverty. While enhancing rural livelihoods and productivity, investment in public goods (such as tertiary roads and small scale irrigation districts) may cause significant impacts on the environment, including deforestation; degradation and loss of soil; depletion and pollution of water sources; riverbed alterations; and loss of biodiversity.

Difficulties for agricultural producers to comply with environmental standards and good agricultural practices. Insufficient training and technical assistance often inhibit producers from complying with environmental standards and other market demands, such as sanitation, marking, and packing standards. By helping negotiate the terms of public-private partnerships and providing technical assistance on good agricultural practices and pesticide use and management, the LRDP allows producer associations to get a fair offer while ensuring that agricultural production is consistent with environmental policies/regulations and land-use plans, thus reducing soil and water pollution, soil degradation, deforestation, land-use conflicts, and biodiversity loss.

Expansion of the agricultural frontier and depletion of water resources resulting from the implementation of productive land-use plans. LRDP supports Municipal and Departmental Governments with productive land-use planning. By providing technical assistance to the GoC when designing and testing productive land-use planning models, the LRDP ensures not only that land development is consistent with existing conditions (environmental, economic, physical, social, etc.), but also help increase agricultural productivity. While supporting land-use planning may lead to reduced land-use conflicts and promote environmental sustainability within these regions, the agricultural productivity increase resulting from the implementation of these plans may also cause an expansion of the agricultural frontier and the depletion of water resources if not taken into account when designing these plans. LRDP will also support the GoC partners by providing key recommendations to monitor risk related to expansion of the agricultural frontier in formalization, restitution, and rural development activities that fall within the scope of the program.

6.2. Non-significant Issues

This same preliminary inquiry identified the following LRDP activities as likely to cause no or negligible environmental impacts; they will therefore be excluded from the assessment.

Capacity strengthening of GoC institutions engaged in land restitution, formalization and rural development, through training and development of

41

institutional systems, policies and procedures. With capacity strengthening, LRDP assists the Government of Colombia (GoC) to address the following: (i) insufficient funding for rural development; (ii) land informality and insecure land tenure; (iii) legal and procedural challenges to restitute land to victims of conflict; and (iv) difficulty in accessing electronic land data.

Developing information systems that reduce processing times and increase access to data, except those having geographic implications. LRDP works towards improving the quality and accessibility of land-related information. To achieve this, it focuses on three key areas: (i) converting paper files to digital formats and uploading that information into systems; (ii) building electronic information systems that allow land institutions to do their work more efficiently and more securely; and (iii) launching the Land Node, an interoperable network that will make land data accessible across eight key land sector entities.

Awareness raising on land rights, laws and regulation, opportunities and other matters regarding land and rural development through workshops, meetings, radio and theater. LRDP conducts strategic outreach and advocacy with key GoC counterparts at the national and regional levels to raise awareness of program activities, approaches, successes, and lessons learned, and to motivate uptake of LRDP methods, tools, best practices, and policy recommendations. This includes events for the handover of piloted approaches and investments and development of policy briefs that synthesize key findings and recommendations emerging from LRDP research.

Developing and implementing monitoring and reporting tools aiming to facilitate the follow up of land and rural development policies. By developing monitoring and reporting tools for indicators, the LRDP seeks to strengthen land-related entities capacity to plan, conduct monitoring and evaluation, and report information.

6.3. Issues Outside the Scope of the Project

The following are relevant issues considered to be outside the scope of the Assessment:

Engagement in influencing environmental policies and institutions that fall outside the scope of land and rural development purview of the Program, or which are focused on urban environmental issues -- e.g. air pollution, water contamination, threats to endangered species.

Environmental impacts that are singularly urban or have an urban origin since the program does not address urban issues.

Environmental impacts that are caused by groups operating outside the purview of law.

42

Environmental impacts that occur outside of the program’s target municipalities and which are not influenced by the activities carried out by the program.

In addition, there are issues that, while they are within the technical scope of the program and the program may be able to influence these, the program does not exercise direct control over their final outcome. For example,

The adoption of policies, laws, regulations and plans such as the anticipated cadastral statute; court decisions; departmental development plans; productive and social management plans and municipal formalization plans. It is important to bear in mind that final adoption or approval of these instruments is the responsibility of the Government of Colombia.

The approval of environmental permits and licenses required to build, improve and/or put into operation roads, irrigation districts and another infrastructure. While the program may provide recommendations to local authorities based on the findings of the environmental assessment, decisions on approvals depend on local environmental authorities based on parameters established by Colombia’s environmental laws.

7. Potential AlternativesAs part of the Environmental Assessment approach, we will consider two alternatives for each of the identified significant issues:

1. No action or forgoing the proposed action.2. The action proposed by USAID/Colombia.

The environmental implications of each alternative will be assessed.

It is important to mention that, per the potential risks associated with the technical assistance to the GoC, the REA and MEO agreed that two alternatives were enough to avoid the potential adverse impacts and that there are no additional options to bring forward.

8. EA’s Preparation, Schedule and Methodology8.1. Methodology

Consistent with the guidelines received by the USAID/Colombia Mission, LRDP will implement the Environmental Assessment as follows:

43

1. Baseline Information:a. Review the activities and initiatives undertaken by the Program identified to

date as having significant issues in order to determine direct, indirect and cumulative effects on the environment. This becomes the baseline information.

b. Review planned program activities with the aim of ensuring technical assistance taking into account potential negative environmental impacts and incorporating recommendations to avoid or mitigate such impacts together with examples of good environmental practices.

c. Review relevant GoC documents to determine effectiveness and consistency of their land restitution, formalization, and rural development policies and procedures with existing conditions in the proposed areas of intervention (Montes de María, Southern Tolima, Northern Cauca, Northern Cesar and Northern Meta).

Starts: Approved Scoping Statement

Ends: Three weeks later

Deliverable: Progress Report

2. Prepare the Environmental Assessment and Other Tasks:a. For each of the LRDP activities associated with ‘significant issues’, define

and describe at least two alternatives to the current course of action: these alternatives should include, at least, the no-action alternative and USAID/Colombia proposed activity.

b. Evaluate and describe the possible direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts that are expected to emerge from each of the alternatives. These impacts should be analyzed by resource (soil, water, air, flora, fauna, human health and social issues) and could cover a specific location or could be true for several locations.

c. Based on the analysis of the alternatives, identify the preferred alternative based on achieving the appropriate balance between a ‘do no harm’ environmental outcome and positive social and economic development outcomes.

d. Solicit public and expert opinion on the proposed environmental alternative from the affected parties and other interested parties in workshops, public meetings and other appropriate venues. These parties include, but are not limited to, public entities, local governments, community members and other organizations, like NGOs.

e. Identify and assess possible measures and practices to avoid or mitigate any potential negative impacts which could emerge through implementation of the preferred alternative. This exercise should serve to build a set of realistic recommendations and/or a management plan and/or a guide of

44

good practices to be assumed or implemented by the Program or by its partners, including a budget and description of institutional responsibilities.

f. Postulate a practical system for monitoring the environmental impacts of the proposed alternatives and the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

g. Provide detailed guidance to USAID/Colombia on practical and workable means to strengthen the environmental assessment and monitoring capability of the GoC and other pertinent institutions to assure the adequate and effective implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.

Starts: After Objective 2

Ends: Ten weeks later

Deliverable: One Environmental Assessment containing:1) Introduction, Research and Field Information

a) Summary and Presentationb) Collected and Analyzed Information

2) Resultsa) Alternatives (Including the Proposed Action)b) Potential Affected Environmentc) Environmental Consequences or Impactsd) Mitigation Measures, Recommendations and Best Practices

3) List of Preparers4) Appendixes (which should include a Guide to incorporate best practice into land and

rural developing programming).

3. Other Actions:a. Train the Program’s relevant personnel to offer technical environmental

guidance to counterparts.b. Train USAID/Colombia relevant personnel on practical and workable means

to strengthen the environmental assessment and monitoring capability of the GoC and other pertinent institutions to assure the adequate and effective implementation of the recommended mitigation measures.

c. For activities implemented directly by the Program, test and adjust the set of environmental best management practices for land and rural development in prioritized projects.

Starts: Approved Environmental Review

Ends: Eight Weeks Later

Deliverable: Report containing a practical system to carry out monitoring of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and the effectiveness of mitigation measures.

8.2. Timetable

The assessment is anticipated to last 13 weeks, with three weeks allocated to the task of gathering field information, two weeks for analysis and further consultations, three weeks

45

for preparing the environmental assessment and best practice training guide, two weeks for review of the report and guide, one week to pilot the guide, one week to make final revisions to the report and guide, plus one additional week to accommodate unanticipated delays. The 13-week assessment period will begin as soon as the scoping statement is approved. The following figure provides an illustrative example.

Illustration 18: Anticipated Timetable to Complete the Environmental Assessment

8.3. Work Team

This Environmental Assessment will be prepared by a team within the Land and Rural Development Program. The team will be made up of two full time professionals, an Environmental Engineer with a Master’s degree in environmental science and an

46

Other AcionsTrain USAID and LRDP personnel and test proposed actions. August 25, 2017 (contingent to EA approval, 8 weeks after that)

USAID Review – Environmental AssessmentReceive approval from the MEO, COR, REA and BEO. June 30, 2017

USAID General ReviewReceive approval from the BEO May 30, 2017 (contingent to SS approval, 13 weeks after that)

Prepare Baseline InformationReview existing documents and prepare initial report. March 21, 2017 (contingent to SS approval, 3 weeks after that)

USAID Review – Scoping StatementReceive approval from the MEO, COR, REA and BEO. February 28, 2017

Submit Scoping StatementSubmit the latest version of the Scoping Statement including the results of

the Consultation Process. February 15, 2017

Environmental Lawyer. Together, they will lead all aspects of the EA. Depending on the nature of an activity or set of activities to be assessed, they may be complemented by short-term professionals (STTAs) to undertake specific analyses, expedite the EA or fill knowledge gaps encountered during assessment implementation. The figure below provides an illustrative example of the potential expertise the assessment may require.

Illustration 19: Work Team Composition

47

LTTATeam Leader:

Engineer, Master's Degree Environmental Science

Legal Environmental Expert:Lawyer, Master's Degree

Environmental Law

STTACadastral Engineer

Geographer

Engineer Specialized in Information Systems

Environmental Engineer or Ecologist

Environmental Lawyer

8.4. Estimated Budget

48

9. Annex: Stakeholder Consultation Source Information9.1. National Level

WORKSHOP BASIC INFORMATIONRegional Office: Bogota

Date: November 2, 2016

Place: Bogota Office

Selected Activities:1. Support for the Consolidation of a Multipurpose Cadaster2. Development of the Strategic Inter-Institutional Land Restitution Plan

Attendees:- Notary and Registry Superintendence- National Natural Parks Unit- ANT- URT- DNP

49

LRDP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IDENTIFICATION WORKSHOP – NATIONAL LEVEL

1. Support for the Consolidation of a Multipurpose Cadaster

Environmental impacts

Positive Negative

- An instrument that physically characterizes the territory and serves as the basis for decision-making by the competent entity.

- Expedited procedures for the legalization of land.

- Definition of the agronomic aptitude of the territory.

- Ease of access to information (entities and individuals).

- Contributes to the identification of state-owned plots.

- A tool to determine payment for environmental services.

- Cadaster-registry integration.

- Conversion of the use of the plots for a higher valuation.

Recommended action

- Training for local authorities and environmental authorities.- Socialization of the goal of the multipurpose cadaster with the communities in

order to avoid misconceptions involving the generation of negative impacts.- Inclusion of environmentally relevant information in the system.

2. Development of the Strategic Inter-Institutional Land Restitution Plan


Positive Negative

- Makes it possible to identify the support needs of environmental authorities for the implementation of productive projects.

- Material compensation of land in areas with restricted uses (riparian buffer strips).

- Development of productive

50

- Makes it possible to identify complexities in the territory, particularly related to protected areas.

- Facilitates social function management regarding property.

- Enables detecting large anthropogenic changes in protected areas.

- Facilitates information exchange.

projects without following guidelines of environmental authorities.

- The lack of processing of restitution claims in protected areas favors the voluntary return of victims to them, causing environmental impacts on these territories.

Actions recommended by Workshop Attendees

- Restoration with forestry-grazing projects (sustainable production projects) to rehabilitate protected areas.

- Implementation of environmental education programs.- Re-categorization of forest reserve areas in cases where their protective

forest vocation has been lost- Identification of restitution cases that overlap with areas of exploitation of

non-renewable natural resources.- Adoption of clear guidelines for cases where an overlap with the protected

areas is verified. Some cases opt for compensation and others are restitution cases.

- Development of claims related to environmental impacts.- Strengthening of environmental authorities for the processing of the

restitution process.- Identification of protected areas that were declared without regard for ethnic

communities’ right to prior consultation.- Interinstitutional strengthening for the management of public partnerships

cases.- Strengthening inter-agency coordination spaces.

51

9.2. Tolima Regional Office

WORKSHOP BASIC INFORMATIONRegional Office: Tolima


Place: Ambalá Hotel, Ibagué, Tolima

Selected Activities:1. Support for the Property Formalization Processes for Individuals and Public Law

Entities2. Development of the Social and Productive Management Plan for Rural Property3. Support for the Public-Private partnership in Cacao

Attendees:- Government of Tolima- Municipal Governments (Chaparral, Planadas)- Cortolima- National Natural Parks Unit- ANT- IGAC- UPRA- SENA- ICA- Corpoica- Cispro- National Cacao Grower Association- Grower Associations (Asoperotol, Asorenacer)

52

LRDP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IDENTIFICATION WORKSHOP – TOLIMA REGIONAL OFFICE

1. Support for the Property Formalization Processes for Individuals and Public Law Entities


Positive Negative

- Formalization of rural property encourages the appropriate use of the land.

- The cross-referencing of information in the context of the rural property formalization process is a tool to locate and identify special management areas and strategic ecosystems.

- Field visits and visual inspections that take place in the context of the processes of identification of rural property make it possible to identify potential impacts and the construction of housing in special management areas. This makes it possible to generate alerts and design mitigation measures.

- Inappropriate use of the land by beneficiaries of rural property formalization processes that do not know the law and have not received support from environmental authorities.

- Beneficiaries of the rural property formalization processes do not have a culture of care and responsible use of water resources.

- During the field visits that occur in the context of the formalization processes, trees are felled indiscriminately.

- During the visual inspections, waste is generated and it is not handled properly.

- Abandonment of the plots by lack of resources and lack of investment for environmental conservation.

- Construction of housing in high-risk areas.


- Increase the capacity of municipalities and other relevant authorities to exercise control and follow-up regarding the illegal occupation of protected areas or special management areas.

- Feed the databases of local authorities (massification of information) with identified risk micro-areas.

- Follow-up on the use of the formalized plots, based on the update of the territorial organization plans (environmental and risk-related issues).

53

- Support with ortofoto in the process of plot marking.- Digitize data from files.- Photo records in plot marking.- Update the studies on micro-risk areas and cross-reference with territorial

organization plans in order to update the corresponding maps.- Develop protocols for waste handling during the different stages of the

formalization process.- Support for environmental technical staff over the formalization processes in

order to identify areas of special ecological importance, as well as areas of risk.

- Promote and encourage actions of conservation and care for the environment within the formalization processes' target communities, through training and awareness-raising programs.

2. Productive and Social Organizational Plan for Rural Property


Positive Negative

- Clearly identify the areas where the agricultural developments will be located. This contributes to the closure of the agricultural frontier.

- Incentives aimed solely at productive projects that make an efficient use of the land.

- Protected areas are excluded from agricultural zoning.

- Administration of environmental planning instruments.

- Construction of a baseline that can be used by environmental authorities to make the corresponding zoning.

- Changes in the form of use, occupation, and utilization of land can lead to social conflict.

- Depletion of water resources due to their destination for agricultural purposes. This can lead to social and environmental conflicts of great magnitude.

- Reduction of the forest frontier and a greater pressure on special management areas.


- Coordinate the Social and Productive Management Plans for Rural Property with the regulation of water usage.

- Consider the environmental zoning of the River Basins Environmental

54

Management Plans as a key factor for the productive and social organization of rural property.

- Contrast the water supply with the water requirements of the productive projects that are prioritized in the region.

- Coordinate productive management with the territory's environmental management.

- Consider new declarations of protected areas within POPSPRs.- Consider the issue of payment for environmental services during the foresight

phase of the POPSPR.- Consider the importance of preserving ecosystem connectivity between the

different protected areas located in the region.- Value ecosystem services of the protected areas, particularly from a water-

related point of view.- Zone the territory at the same scale. This makes it possible to harmonize the

uses of land defined in the Territorial Management Plans with the uses of protected areas and their buffer zones.

- Generate joint spaces between the different authorities responsible for managing the territory.

3. Support for the Public-Private partnership in Cacao


Positive Negative

- Restoration of the vegetation cover.- Crops serve as biological corridors

that enable the movement of certain species.

- Crops have effects on temperature and humidity.

- Agroforestry ecosystems are restored.

- Promotes the development of scientific research.

- Promotes an integrated management of the crops.

- Avoids the use of pesticides. This decreases the chances of generating environmental liabilities.

- Decrease in the pollutant load on

- Flaws in sanitary control in the post-harvest phase.

- Genetic erosion.- Use of wood for fermentation

crates.

55

water bodies.- Improvement of the water quality

indices.- Enrichment of the land through the

generation of organic matter.

Recommended action

- Training on the handling of regular and hazardous waste to prevent the pollution of water bodies.

- Encourage the use of organic waste from the harvest for the manufacture of fertilizer (worm compost).

- Use of integrated management technologies.

56

9.3. Cauca Regional Office

WORKSHOP BASIC INFORMATIONRegional Office: Cauca


Place:Casablanca Hall, Santander de Quilichao, Cauca

Selected Activities:1. Support for the Property Formalization Processes for Individuals and Public Law

Entities2. Support the Creation of Public-Private Partnerships

Attendees:- Government of Cauca- Municipal Governments (Santander de Quilichao, Jambaló)- CRC- ICA- Corpoica- Comfacauca University- Geosoil- Grower Associations (Asprofinca)

57

LRDP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IDENTIFICATION WORKSHOP – CAUCA REGIONAL OFFICE



Positive Negative

- The assessments conducted in the context of the formalization processes make it possible to identify the different environmental restrictions of the rural plots involved.

- The cartographic information collected in the context of the formalization processes can serve as a baseline for the environmental management of the territory.

- Formalization processes are a tool to combat informality, and therefore prevent the expansion of colonization and irregular occupation processes in protected areas or special management areas.

- The processes of collective titling and constitution of indigenous reservations favor and facilitate the environmental management of ancestral territories and compliance with environmental regulations. This is because different ethnic groups have shown a historical commitment to environmental protection and the conservation of natural resources within their territory.

- Formalizing property rights on rural plots that have some kind of environmental restriction may generate socio-environmental conflicts (e.g., titles that include buffer strips such as riparian buffer zones).

58


- In cases where there is an environmental restriction that does not obstruct the formalization of property rights, beneficiaries must be trained and sensitized on the permitted, restricted, and prohibited uses of the respective plots in order to avoid conflicts over land use. Such training shall be conducted by the authorities in charge of the formalization processes in conjunction with the competent environmental authorities.

- Increase the capacity of municipalities and other relevant authorities to exercise control and follow-up regarding the unlawful occupation of protected areas or special management areas.

- Increase the capacity of municipalities to recover unduly occupied zones within protected areas.

2. Support for Public-Private Partnerships


Positive Negative

- Improved agricultural practices- Allows the identification of poor

agricultural practices in detail- Increases self-reliance and food

security- Promotes the efficient and rational

use of water- Increases inter-agency coordination

- Risk of expansion of the agricultural frontier

- Indiscriminate use of pesticides- Indiscriminate logging due to

rising demand for wood- Bad farming practices


- Implementation of BPAs- Develop workshops to promote organic production- Exchange of sustainable agricultural experiences- Implementation of early weather warnings- Training and technology transfer for farmers- Promotion of productivity through technology- Non-certification of plots that are in protected areas- Promote the planting of fast-growing species44

44 As part of the evaluation, LRDP will consider to include the introduction/promotion of native/non-invasive species in its recommendations.

59

- Promote agroforestry arrangements- Ensure technical assistance to farmers- Promote the planting of fast-growing species for fence building

60

9.4. Montes de María Regional Office

WORKSHOP BASIC INFORMATIONRegional Office: Montes de María


Place: Malibú Hotel, Sincelejo, Sucre

Selected Activities:1. Social Management Plan for Property in Ovejas, Sucre2. Support the Public-Private partnership in Cacao3. Small scale irrigation districts

Attendees:- Government of Sucre- Municipal Governments (Coloso, Ovejas, Carmen de Bolívar)- UMATA (Carmen de Bolívar, Ovejas, Maria la Baja, San Juan de Nepomuceno, San

Jacinto, San Onofre)- SENA- Geosoil- Grower Associations (Asoapicol, Asproagromar, Asprocam)- Community Leaders (Ovejas, San Jacinto, Carmen de Bolívar)

61

LRDP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IDENTIFICATION WORKSHOP – MONTES DE MARÍA REGIONAL OFFICE

1. Social Management Plan for Property in Ovejas, Sucre


Positive Negative

- Information gathering occurring in the context of the Social Management Plan for Rural Property makes it possible to identify the existence of conflict over land use.

- Information gathering occurring in the context of the Social Management Plan for Rural Property makes it possible to identify state-owned lands and the protection strips of protected areas and strategic ecosystems that are being unduly occupied or used. This information is a key tool for municipal authorities to initiate recovery processes for these areas.

- Support for processes of mass formalization of rural property facilitates access to sources of drinking water for the beneficiaries of such processes.

- Formalization of rural property promotes the sustainable development of the region to the extent that it allows beneficiaries to access incentives for the development of sustainable productive projects.

- Formalization of rural property makes it possible for stakeholders to develop ecotourism projects in the region of Montes de Maria.

- The formalization of public assets is a tool that facilitates investment in public assets (provision of basic goods and services such as toilet blocks,

- Formalizing property rights on rural properties that have some kind of environmental restriction can lead to conflicts over land use (e.g., riparian buffer zones).

- Mass formalization processes for rural property indirectly promote the expansion of the agricultural frontier and the loss of forest cover.

62

aqueducts, etc.).- The formalization of agricultural

technical institutions is a tool to promote sustainable agricultural production in the region.


- Implement forest-keeper families’ programs. These programs make it possible to raise awareness about the importance of protecting forests and strategic ecosystems located in the region.

- Consult the competent environmental authorities and UPRA regarding the properties that will be part of the process of mass formalization of rural property, so that it is possible to identify the environmental restrictions on such properties.

- Influence the regulation of land uses of certain strategic ecosystems and their buffer strips, such as beaches, riparian buffer zones, wetlands, etc. This contributes to the prevention of conflicts over land use and to the consolidation of the conservation objectives for these areas.

- The formalization processes must be accompanied with training strategies in the sustainable use of land and the need for conservation of certain areas. These strategies must involve the active participation of environmental authorities.

- Strengthen joint spaces between entities in charge of the processes of mass formalization of rural property and environmental authorities (national parks, Cardique and Carsucre).

2. Support for Public-Private Partnership in Cacao


Positive Negative

- The crop is environment-friendly due to the use of native species as shade.

- Partnerships facilitate the mitigation of negative impacts caused by felling and the use of agrochemicals.

- Favors soil regulation and greater moisture retention.

- Attracts birds and insects around the

- Inadequate disposal of large numbers of containers containing agrochemicals.

- Widespread use of polluting herbicides.

- Widespread use of chemical fertilizers.

- Construction of harvest

63

crops.- Annual pruning contributes with

organic matter (biomass).

infrastructure.- Environmental pollution in the

processing process.- Shortage of water in the territory

or changes in its use.- Deforestation of the buffer strips

of certain ecosystems.- Expectations arise among the

community regarding the establishment of new crops.


- Provide training on the proper disposal of regular and hazardous waste.- Use organic fertilizers.- Reuse crop waste to fertilize.- Use construction materials other than wood.- Process liquids in by-products such as wines and compost.- Use the areas degraded by agricultural activities for planting forest species.- Implement information systems in regard to crops in order to raise awareness

and train farmers about best agricultural practices.- Implementation of water harvesting for irrigation systems.

3. Small Scale Irrigation Districts


Positive Negative

- Tourism- Productivity- Transfer of technology- Food security- Attachment to land- Public goods- Adaptation to climate change- Economic welfare- Social welfare- Generation of employment- Primary transformation

- Water resource:o Monitoring practiceso Summer-winter excess

- Productive vocationo Training in use and

handlingo Productive use and

consumer useo Agricultural over-

harvestingo Livestock or agricultural

64

- Productive partnerships- Markets

- Fauna and florao Displacement of specieso Soil erosiono Burnso Aquatic species

- Displacement of familieso Relocated familieso Productive alternatives

- Impact on riverbed and floodso Downstream economic

impacto Reforestation

management in watershed- Conflict over land

o Limits and adjacent landso Use of the propertyo Restitution processeso Private property

- Culturalo Lack of trainingo Identification of familieso Social worko Individualism


- Water resourceo Reforestation in watershedso Watch over logging

- Productive vocationo Technical trainingo Productive projects built with the community

- Impact on fauna and florao Reforestation of watershedso Lawfully constituted agroecological reserveso Support from CAR

- Displacement of familieso Awareness-raisingo Social worko Productive alternatives

65

- Impact on riverbed and floodso Watershed management plano Construction of engineering work

- Land conflicto Legal adviceo Plot characterizationo Fair valuation of propertyo Community council on property

- Culturalo Organizational and community-level strengthening

66

9.5. Cesar Regional Office

WORKSHOP BASIC INFORMATIONRegional Office: Cesar


Place: Sicarare Hotel, Valledupar, Cesar

Selected Activities:1. Characterization of Impacts on Ethnic Groups2. Formalization of Public Assets in Favor of Public Entities3. Productive and Social Management Plan for Rural Property4. Support the Public-Private partnership in Sugar Cane5. Small scale irrigation districts

Attendees:- Government of Cesar- Corpocesar- URT- CPA Ingeniería- Prodesarrollo- Geosoil- Grower Associations (Asompromora)- Irrigation District Users (Usobonito, Asoavemaría)- Indigenous Communities (El Rosario, La Laguna)- Community Leaders (Villa Lucy, La Estrella, El Triángulo)

67

LRDP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IDENTIFICATION WORKSHOP IN THE CESAR OFFICE

1. Characterization of Impacts on Ethnic Groups


Positive Negative

- Facilitates the identification of other social groups present in the territory that are generating conflicts over land use.

- Allows visibility of territorial impacts, including environmental impacts

- Highlight perception/cultural worldview on the territory.

- Generation of solid waste during characterization study activities.


- Development of claims according to reparation measures (land uses, relocation, cultural conception of the territory).

- Logistics planning to reduce waste generation.



Positive Negative

- Environmental restrictions on plots are identified after the early engagement of environmental authorities in the formalization processes.

- The information gathered makes it possible to identify and geo-reference the ecosystems in the area. This facilitates the adoption of conservation measures for these areas.

- The construction of infrastructure for public assets may have environmental implications when these are located in areas of special ecological importance or special management areas.

68

- The ecosystems in high-risk areas that cannot be mitigated are identified. This facilitates the work of the municipalities for the corresponding relocation tasks.

- Awareness is raised in the community regarding the areas of protection and restricted uses within them.


- Infrastructure designs should take into account the environmental impacts and measures to manage these impacts (environmental impact studies and management plans).

- Training to address the uses of special management areas for purposes of construction of infrastructure for said public assets.

3. Productive and Social Organizational Plan for Rural Property


Positive Negative

- Better use of water resources- Identification of land for conservation

and/or production- Analysis of fit crops and necessary

conditions- A tool for drafting public policies for

sustainable rural development- Enables the recovery and

management of production- Development of efficient and

environmentally sustainable production models

- Conversion of production systems- Determining the real vocation of the

land in reserve areas declared by Law 2/1959

- Bad practices adopted- Reduced supply of products that

are not prioritized- Increased water demand for

production purposes- Desertification of the land- Decrease in native forests

69

- Restart food production processes- Strengthen environmental plans and

programs


- Adopt agroforestry systems in middle and upper areas- Education programs aimed at farmers.- Technical assistance for farmers.- Use of alternative energy.- Efficient irrigation solutions.- Formalization of rural property to avoid the expansion of the agricultural

frontier- Engage different entities, including environmental authorities, during the plan

execution process.- Strengthening of and investment in scientific research.- Strengthen associations and/or grassroots organizations.- Make recommendations to the environmental authority regarding measures

for the mining and oil sector.

4. Support for Public-Private Partnership in Sugar Cane


Positive Negative

- Strengthening and establishment of protective barriers

- Decrease in water demand- Recovery of soil for organic

management- Agro-ecological management of

crops

- Displacement of fauna due to change in crops

- Emission of gases by vehicles for the transport of sugarcane

- Noise generation- Soil compaction for roads- Soil contamination by fuel spill- Generation of emissions by the

use of wood for fireplaces- Inadequate management of waste

arising from processes related to the production of sugarcane


70

- Environmental management plans- Preventive maintenance plans for vehicles and equipment- Planning and layout of roads and plots- Implementation of filters in chimneys and motorcycle exhausts- Establishment of engine spill containment areas- Change of energy sources (pulp for firewood)- Management plan for solid and liquid waste- Adequate provision of personal protective equipment- Training and technical assistance plan for farmers- Promote live fences

5. Small Scale Irrigation Districts


Positive Negative

- Valuation of the plots- Improvement of production systems- Establishment of crops that promote

reforestation of the protective strip- Favors control of water usage

- Inappropriate use of soil- Increasing demand for water and

mishandling of rice crops- Deforestation in the buffer strips

of watersheds- Uncontrolled use of water by

users, without having the respective concessions


- Reforestation and watershed protection activities- Review of the River Basins Environmental Management Plans- Economic incentive programs for reforestation activities- Regulation of the use of waters and the buffer strips of basins, according to

their real vocation.- Training of environmental authorities to exercise control.- Implementation of the forest ranger strategy- Design of an operations manual for the irrigation mini-district

71

9.6. Meta Regional Office

WORKSHOP BASIC INFORMATIONRegional Office: Meta

Date: December 6, 2016

Place:Villavicencio Plaza Hotel, Villavicencio, Meta

Selected Activities:1. Characterization of Impacts on Ethnic Groups2. Formalization of Public Assets in Favor of Public Entities3. Support the Public-Private partnership for Dairy Products

Attendees:- Government of Meta- Municipal Governments (Fuente de Oro, El Castillo)- National Natural Parks Unit- Cormacarena- La Alquería- Grower Associations (Caño Blanco, Medellín del Ariari)- Community Leaders (Fuente de Oro)- Indigenous Communities (Walianae, Domoplanas)

72

LRDP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT IDENTIFICATION WORKSHOP IN THE META OFFICE

1. Characterization of Impacts on Ethnic Groups


Positive Negative

- Characterizations make it possible to identify wastewater discharges into water sources whose primary use is human consumption.

- Characterization makes it possible to identify the different sources of pollution of rivers and creeks (oil activities pollute the Rubiales and Tillavá creeks).

- Agro-industrial crops that generate water pollution by chemical runoff are identified.

- The decline of groundwater in the reserve is identified.

- Generation of waste by groups in charge of the characterization processes.

- Access through paths that are not permitted and/or appropriate for access to the reserve.


- The petition should include claims for the judge to order Cormacarena, the department of Meta, and the municipality of Puerto Gaitán to take corrective and preventive measures against the environmental problem evidenced in the characterization study, specifically with regard to the Sewage Treatment Plant and discharges into the creeks used by indigenous peoples for traditional purposes.

- Adopt procedures for waste management during field work in the context of the characterizations.

- Support a community guide when there are no traditional routes of access and it is necessary to cut into the territory. This is to reduce damage to the ecosystem and to the fauna and flora of the territory.

- Request territorial compensation measures authorized under Decree Law No. 4633 of 2011.

73



Positive Negative

- The mobilization of resources for investing in the formalized properties is facilitated; particularly for the construction of treatment plants, installation of toilet blocks, etc.

- Control on discharges and water catchments is facilitated.

- Securing of water concessions and access to sources of drinking water are facilitated.

- Empowerment of children and young people in regard to the commitment to prevent and mitigate environmental impacts (promotion of environmental culture).

- Environmental control is facilitated and conflict is prevented between the environmental authority and the communities that benefit from educational institutions.

- Inappropriate use of riparian buffer strips and pollution of water sources.

- Formalization of educational institutions located in protected areas can attract human settlements and, therefore, generate environmental conflicts.


- Reduction of property tax for properties that include protection and restoration strips.

- Unification of criteria for the Comprehensive Environmental Management Plans required in the context of the titling processes for public and private plots in favor of public law entities.

- Develop environmental education programs in schools located inside preservation areas.

- Community awareness-raising events in regard to the importance of preserving protected areas and the buffer strips of rivers, wetlands, etc.

- Consider removal alternatives for academic establishments located within protected areas or their buffer zones.

- Strengthen environmental control measures for productive processes that are developed around academic institutions, especially when they are inside

74

protected areas or their buffer zones.- Redefine special management areas, amending the corresponding

regulations.

3. Support for Public-Private Partnership for Dairy Products


Positive Negative

- Promotes implementation of forestry-grazing systems.

- Favors the reconnection of biological corridors.

- Reduction of natural waterholes turned into troughs.

- Responsible use of veterinary medications.

- Promotes the optimization of the use of land for livestock

- The project's success could promote the increase of livestock activities in protected areas or in soils that are not suitable for them.

- Increase of non-biodegradable waste.


- Continuous training and awareness events for the protection of the environment.

- Engage national parks and Cormacarena throughout the process of consolidation of the PPP.

- Facilitate inter-agency joint spaces with environmental authorities.- Strengthen biological corridors in livestock farms.- Share successful experiences in sustainable regional livestock.- Develop campaigns for the cultural appropriation of national parks.- Encourage the use and planting of native forest species in forestry-grazing

systems, fences, and the buffer zones of creeks.- Establish collection centers for plastic packaging containing agrochemicals.

In this regard, it is important to include Campo Limpio.- Productive management of land for livestock activity.

75

United States Agency for International Development1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20523Tel: (202) 712-0000Fax: (202) 216-3524

www.usaid.gov

1

ecd.usaid.gov · Web viewLAC-SS-17-03. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SCOPING STATEMENT FOR. The...

Documents

Transcript of ecd.usaid.gov · Web viewLAC-SS-17-03. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF SCOPING STATEMENT FOR. The...