The Rimba Raya Biodiversity Reserve REDD Project

intentionally or unintentionally, from reaching the poorerhouseholds. For example, the village head (which is usuallyrelatively affluent in a community and frequently used as the soleconduit for distributing information) may try to guide or restrictprogram participation based on his personal interests and familyor other personal relationships. 2) The communities are provokedby a project opponent and misguided to categorically reject theproject. In this scenario, communities in the area are erroneouslyseen as accepting of every development project or programoffered to them, when in fact, they may wish to filter outquestionable initiatives. If the Project does not provide amechanism for communities to provide such fed back, thisrenders communities vulnerable to provocation by individualswith alternative agendas threatened by the Project.These two risks will be addressed through routine, directcommunication with the target households, taking advantage of,but not relying exclusively on, traditional forms ofcommunication. Communication will therefore follow two paths:the traditional system via local government (sub-­‐District,township and village heads) and a direct grassroots system,delivering project information directly through physical site visits.This approach aims to appease local government and traditionalleaders, not overstepping or offending them, but also ensurescommunication with the poorest households will be fluid andmaximizes their participation in project activities.GL2.4. Identification and mitigation of negativeimpacts from project to poorer households.Demonstrate that measures have been taken to identify any poorer andmore vulnerable households and individuals whose well-­‐being orpoverty may be negatively affected by the project, and that the projectdesign includes measures to avoid any such impacts. Where negativeimpacts are unavoidable, demonstrate that they will be effectivelymitigated.Measures to identify the most vulnerable households andindividuals will be undertaken as part of the HLSA described inGL2.2 above. Part of this assessment will be to identify ways inwhich all households, including the poorest households, may benegatively affected by the project. At the moment livelihoods inthe Project Area are largely dependent on fishing and a limitedamount of farming (with productivity in apparent steep decline).Project activities are designed to enhance these activities,improving techniques and returns. Socially and politically, theproject is thought to provide negligible risk to poor or vulnerablehouseholds. Although currently deemed unlikely, the risk ofpreviously unidentified negative impacts arising is always presentand will be monitored throughout the project.276