Land Acquisition, Resettlement, Rehabilitation and Indigenous Peoples’ Policy, 3rd edition (2007) By policy, involuntary resettlement and relocation of ICCs/IPs should be avoided where feasible. If resettlement is unavoidable, the project affected families will be resettled as much as possible within their ancestral domain and in proximity to their original property so as not to disrupt the exercise of traditional resource use rights and livelihood activities. In presenting the project, the adverse impacts, and the possible resettlement sites, the DPWH and its agents shall observe the Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) Guidelines of 2006 or the provisions of any agreement that the DPWH may have reached with the NCIP. Following their customary law, the Indigenous Peoples’ Communities will be consulted regarding the resettlement site. The project proponent in cooperation with the relevant government agencies shall ensure that the resettlement site is of equivalent productive potential (or developed to make them so) and spatial advantages, e.g. providing the same degree of access to resources and to public and privately provided services and protection. Barring this, the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) should include measures to mitigate the lack of access to natural resources, basic services, and to cultural and religious sites. Compensation for those to be removed and resettled will be governed by Chapters II and III of this LARRIPP. Benefits agreed upon by the ICC/IPs and the proponent other than those provided by law shall be contained in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in accordance with Sections 43 to 46 of the FPIC Guidelines of 2006. The affected ICC/IPs may choose to receive the compensation and assistance in culturally appropriate form consistent with their customary law. The project proponent binds itself to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) it enters into with the affected ICC/IPs, especially regarding the manner of relocation and the transfer of compensation and benefits to the affected persons/families and the community at large. Just the same, the project proponent in cooperation with the NCIP and the affected ICCs/IPs ought to include in the MOA measures to ensure that gender equity, participation, transparency, and accountability are observed in the handling, distribution, safekeeping, and use of the funds and in the overall implementation of the MOA. The MOA with the additions written above shall serve as the Indigenous Peoples’ Action Plan (IPAP). In the exceptional case when the resettlement site is outside the affected ancestral domain, the FPIC Guidelines of 2006 or the provisions of any agreement that the DPWH may have reached with the NCIP shall also apply. Following their customary law, the IPs will be consulted regarding the choice of resettlement site. The project proponent in cooperation with the relevant government agencies shall ensure that the resettlement site is of equivalent productive potential (or developed to make them so) and Environmental and Social Services OfficeDepartment of Public Works and Highways February 2007 23