Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Pokhara, Nepal
13th 16th April 2015
Contents
1.
Introduction
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
Participants
3.
Interpreting Cancun safeguards in the country context, in particular safeguards e), f), g)
3.2.
3.3.
4.
Interpreting safeguards to reflect the country context : Indonesia, Tanzania & DRC
9
10
11
3.3.
12
3.4.
13
3.5.
13
15
6.
17
7.
18
8.
Outcome evaluation of a participatory, transparent and comprehensive approach to CSA and SIS 18
9.
10.
23
24
Annex 1. Agenda
26
30
1. Introduction
State of Acre, State of Mato Grosso, State of Amazonas in Brazil; Ecuador; Region of San Martin in Peru; Chile; Costa Rica;
Honduras; Guatemala; States of the Yucatan Peninsula and State of Jalisco in Mexico; Liberia; Tanzania; Democratic Republic of
Congo; Nepal; Province of Central Kalimantan and Province of East Kalimantan in Indonesia
The overall aim of the workshop was to support countries in the development of a REDD+ country
safeguards approach (CSA), in particular the safeguards information system (SIS).
Objectives
1. Exchange experiences on elements of CSA on:
o Interpreting Cancun safeguards in the country context
o Establishing grievance and redress mechanisms
o Analysis of policies, laws and regulations
2. Exchange experiences on development of SIS:
o Interpreting safeguards to reflect the country context
o Developing country-specific indicators
o Establishing institutional arrangements and processes for stakeholders participation
o Collecting, compiling and analyzing information
o Reviewing, reporting and using information
3. Explore articulation of CSA & SIS at sub-national and national levels
4. Learn from experiences of establishing multi-stakeholder committees and processes for
stakeholder participation, and the challenges encountered
5. Exploring options for SESA/ESMF to support participatory safeguards monitoring
6. Present available tools to support the development of CSA and SIS and examples of application
7. Learn about outcome evaluation of a transparent, participatory and comprehensive approach to
CSA and SIS
8. Raise awareness about addressing equity in REDD+
9. Provide an overview of the new objectives, strategies and activities of the REDD+ SES Initiative
1.3. Participants
A total of 31 participants from 8 countries (14 jurisdictions), of which 11 were from government, 17
from civil society and 3 from support organizations (see Annex 1).
The target participants were the key government and civil society partners who are facilitating the
development and implementation of country safeguards approach and safeguards information system
in each country or jurisdiction including Brazil, the State of Acre, the State of Mato Grosso, Indonesia,
the Province of Central Kalimantan, the Province of East Kalimantan, the Democratic Republic of Congo,
Nepal, Mexico, Guatemala and Peru.
One participant was from the UN-REDD Programme, one from the World Bank and one from CIFOR and
three from the REDD+ SES international secretariat (CCBA, CARE).
The workshop was organized around thematic sessions to exchange experiences on developing and
implementing Country Safeguards Approach and Safeguards Information Systems and to explore and
discuss upcoming issues related to these. The following sections present the results of the discussions of
the sessions.
c) addressing the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples, local communities and
women, and ensuring their effective participation;
The CSA builds on and strengthens the countrys legal and institutional frameworks and information
systems by ensuring that they support effective application of internationally and nationally agreed
safeguards. In this way, the CSA contributes to lasting improvements in the countrys governance
framework, supporting not only the implementation of REDD+ but also related policies, measures and
safeguards. Countries have started to develop some of these elements and have identified challenges
and possible solutions to address these.
Some countries have reviewed their existing policies, laws and regulations to interpret the
Cancun safeguards in the country context (Peru, Indonesia)
Some countries are integrating MRV and SIS (Guatemala, Ghana) while others are keeping
them separate (Peru)
Some countries have developed principles, criteria and indicators (Nepal, Indonesia) while
others have decided not to use indicators (Peru)
In some countries social safeguards have received more attention than environmental
safeguards (Mexico, East Kalimantan), while for other countries is this the contrary (Brazil)
Challenges
Solutions
Use existing laws and grievances mechanisms such as transparency and information laws
(Mexico, Peru, Nepal)
Use informal grievance / conflict resolution mechanisms such as civil society coalitions
(Indonesia), multi-stakeholder groups reviewing and addressing grievances (Tanzania) or other
community mechanisms (Nepal)
Importance of mechanisms that address grievances at different levels e.g. local, district and
national (Peru, Brazil, Indonesia)
Challenges
Solutions
Most countries have completed their PLR analysis (Indonesia, Peru, Mexico, Acre, Tanzania) or it
is ongoing (East Kalimantan, DRC)
Laws may exist but regulations and implementation, and associated information, are often weak
In Acre and East Kalimantan the REDD+ SES assessment process has enabled comparison of
existing PLRs and existing information sources against country-specific interpretation of
indicators.
PLR assessment has led to identification of gaps, and countries are now developing action plans
to strengthen existing PLRs and to address gaps.
Stakeholder involvement ensures continuity in case of change in government - and promotes
accountability.
Challenges
Solutions
4.1. Interpreting safeguards to reflect the country context : Indonesia, Tanzania &
DRC
Indonesia
Different safeguard approaches are being used in Indonesia, like PGA (Participatory Governance
Assessment) at national level and REDD+ SES at subnational level. Now, the country aims to integrate
different safeguards approaches into one based on their technical and implementation feasibility. The
national safeguards information system developed by the Ministry of Forestry has 7 principles, 17
criteria and 32 indicators which they call PCI system. The process was started since 2011 and it has
already been implemented in two provinces.
Who is monitoring the process? Institutional structures were created in parallel with the PCI
development process. A multi-stakeholder forum has formed including government and civil
society participants which is the main body for monitoring the PCI process.
Is there any assessment report available? Data is being collected and uploaded in a web-based
system which is accessible to everyone. The data is only in Bahasa Indonesian language for now.
Collaboration with East Kalimantan is also ongoing to make those data more systematic and
facilitate dissemination.
In case of Indonesia, the government is leading the safeguard process, how do you ensure that
the process is inclusive? As an inclusive multi-stakeholders forum is monitoring the overall
process, the PCI process is also inclusive.
Democratic Republic of Congo
DRC started to develop REDD+ since 2009 and developed a national REDD+ framework strategy in 2012.
Different safeguard frameworks have been developed at national level under the Environmental and
Social Management Framework (ESMF) like indigenous peoples planning framework, FF (process
framework, cultural heritage management framework, pest and pesticide management framework but
the country has not yet developed a safeguard information system. However, the country is discussing
how to develop bottom up SIS where there are linkages from local to national to international level. DRC
has implemented eight pilot projects until now but is waiting for support from international level for SIS.
Tanzania
Tanzania developed a REDD+ Framework in 2009 and later developed a REDD+ Strategy in 2010. A
national facilitator, the technical working group, secretariat and national facilitation team were
established. Capacity building events were conducted for these structures. After reviewing UN-REDD,
FCPF and REDD+ SES initiatives, Tanzania interpreted safeguards integrating all other safeguards at
international level through 6 steps. As the safeguards have already been interpreted into the national
context, the country is planning to integrate in one process the SIS, SESA and ESMF.
10
for
stakeholder
REDD+ SES. The safeguards committee has defined a work plan that includes capacity building,
developing tools for safeguards, conducting an analysis of safeguards in the legal framework of
Guatemala, and mapping of existing stakeholders.
East Kalimantan
East Kalimantan developed principles, criteria and indicators to fit the province context using REDD+
SES. A multi-stakeholder workshop series was organized with Indigenous Peoples, NGOs and private
sector to prepare the draft indicators which were subsequently field tested in the 3 districts of Berau,
Paser and Kutai Kartanegara. The information was collected by the REDD Working Group with some help
from people trained in information collection. The field test of indicators has helped to improve the
indicators. East Kalimantan will try to translate the indicators to local languages so that they can be
understood by local stakeholders eg 4-5 languages. In addition, the REDD+ working group created by
Governor Decree with voluntary participation of its members may be integrated with the provincial
climate change council. People contribute time on a voluntary basis.
Kemitraan, national Indonesia NGO
Kemitraan facilitated community preparedness on REDD+ experience in 8 pilot sites in Indonesia,
working with communities representing up to 10,000 households and 150,000 ha. Kemitraan used
PRISAI, a safeguard developed by national government and civil society to cover Cancun safeguards, and
worked on principles most relevant to the community level. The communities already know about
safeguards but using their own terminology and there are disparities of knowledge. This process has
been conducted in collaboration with the REDD Agency, a national government agency which has
recently been dissolved so Kemitraan will need to engage with the new Ministry of Environment and
Forestry to see how this work can feed into the national SIS.
4.5. Reviewing, reporting and using information : Acre
Acre
The process in Acre for reviewing, reporting and using information followed 3 phases:
1st phase self evaluation process which resulted in a compliance report presented to 3 councils
of about 80 representatives of government, civil society and private sector and validated by
them. This report is now publicly available.
2nd phase International review which is a process review with detailed information on positive
and challenges/gaps e.g. transparency, gender aspect etc. The internal document has been
shared with the working team in Acre to improve the process.
3rd phase an outcome harvesting report when a consultant did interviews about what
stakeholders thought what was the additional value of implementing safeguards
CEVA, the multi-stakeholder commission created since 2012, includes social and environmental
movements, private sector, and government. An indigenous working group was later created as a subgroup of CEVA. The next steps include:
13
1. Develop an action plan to address gaps and strengthen existing policies based on safeguards
assessment
2. Develop a SIS which will be supported by consultant from University of Minas Gerais who will
include carbon and social and environmental based on REDD+ SES
3. Further align with national and international safeguards processes
4. Implement monitoring at outcome level (not yet well developed), compliance, jurisdictional and
local scale
5. Provide capacity building on transparency, equity, inclusion, rights, quality and diversity (15
indigenous ethnic groups)
The government of Acre has shared information on safeguards with the 3 Councils (around 80
representatives) and the information is publicly available but not yet widely disseminated and
understood. This is a weak point as there is no guarantee that the information is transferred to their
constituents. In addition, the Indigenous Groups are represented in the IP working group. Other
stakeholder groups are interested to create their own working group which would be helpful as CEVA
needs knowledge and specificity of the different working groups.
4.6. Experiences of developing CSA and SIS UN-REDD Programme
Country approach to safeguards
Safeguards should be interpreted in the specific context of the countrys selection of REDD+
activities (relevant PaMs to address identified drivers)
Assessments of exisiting PLRs, and their implementation can help identify how safeguards might
be addressed and respected
Operational procedures and their implementation should be the focus of addressing/respecting
safeguards (new PLRs need time/political capital)
Differing expectations among stakeholders can constitute a major challenged a national
dialogue is time consuming and needs careful planning
Countries should align their SIS to the national agendas related to environment, forest
management and sustainable development goals
Countries need to consider the most appropriate means for providing information in a format
accessible to all relevant stakeholders
Managing expectations is particularly important when developing PCIs extensive list of
indicators can be difficult and expensive to maintain
REDD+ activities will happen at the local level so information will need to be aggregated from
the sub-national to the national level
14
Links o national strategies and action plans need to be explicitly made in the country
approach : driver analysis, then identify candidate PaMs and conduct a benefit/risk
assessment
Goal and scope of safeguards need to be explicitly defined, without which they serve as a
source of confusion
National interpretation of Cancun safeguards need to be expressed as an important iterative
step in the country approach
PLR assessments purpose is to primarily identify existing PLRs that address safeguards, less
so on identifying gaps for subsequent PLR reform
Institutions should be positioned from and centre of the country approach as these are
essential in implementing PLRs (i.e. respecting safeguards).
15
Increase transparency
Validation of methodology
by research institutions
Social validation of
information through multistakeholder forum at each
appropriate level
Institutional
arrangements
Define clear roles and
mandates at each level
Define communication
channels
Give attributions/
competences to sub-national
government institutions that
are already collecting
information
Establish an independent
structure dedicated to
coordination of sub-national
with national level
Different information
needs at different levels
Variety of conditions at
sub-national level
Establish a specific
knowledge/network support
Develop technology
solutions : database, easy
format, protocols
16
Local community
involvement
Reporting of cross
jurisdictional projects
Identify communities
interested in being involved
in providing
information/monitoring
Use existing
institutions/organizations
that are already collecting
information
Specific capacity building to
simplify safeguards language
Lack of political
commitment/ turnover of
staff
Involve academia to ensure
continuity of processes
influence decision-making, the final decisions are made through processes in which they are not
necessarily directly involved.
A multi-stakeholder decision-making process in which representatives of key stakeholder
groups come together in a mechanism which allows them to make decisions using democratic
processes: i.e. it goes beyond expressing an opinion.
Combining a multi-stakeholder consultation and decision making process. It is often the case
that both types of processes are used together within the same project, i.e. a multi-stakeholder
decision-making process frequently also employs multi-stakeholder consultation processes to
make its work more effective.
During the workshop, the Region of San Martin in Peru, the State of Mato Grosso in Brazil and the States
of the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico shared their experiences of conducting consultation processes and
establishing multi-stakeholder committees.
to the government and civil society partners in the participating countries to help them to
communicate about and to improve their country safeguards approach,
to the REDD+ SES secretariat and International Steering Committee to help them to improve the
Initiatives strategies and to provide guidance to assist other countries, and
to the donor of the REDD+ SES Initiative (Norad).
18
In addition, the outcome evaluation will also be used to explain the benefits of a participatory,
transparent and comprehensive approach to social and environmental assessment for REDD+ to share
broadly with governments, civil society and donors/finance agencies that may be involved in designing,
implementing and evaluation REDD+ or related low emissions land use strategies and action plans.
Central
Kalimantan
Indonesia
national level
Nepal
DRC
Tanzania
21
Guatemala
society organisations
From 2011, the institutions of the
interministerial coordination group
(MARN, INAB, CONAP) worked in a
coordinated manner for the preparation
of the National REDD+ Strategy
From 2014, technical staff from other
agencies linked with climate change in
political institutions have worked in a
coordinated manner to elaborate specific
products like SESA, ESMF, consultation
processes on safeguards etc.
Peru
Yucatan
Peninsula
Mato Grosso
22
ii.
iii.
23
Recognition of
rights & knowledge
Social clause
Free, prior and
informed consent
Procedure for
participation, information
and justice
Regional land planning
Transparent multistakeholder/
participatory process
Include vulnerable
groups in decisionmaking
Fair process
Access to information
including about existing
processes, risks and
adjustments of decisions
Stakeholders have
sufficient information to
make decisions
Training kit on REDD+ safeguards and REDD+ SES - REDD+ SES Secretariat
The training kit is aimed at REDD+ practitioners to help them to provide capacity building on REDD+
safeguards in an interactive manner. The kit is composed of a manual, presentations, activities and
summaries.
English Manual Presentations Summaries
Espaol Manual Presentaciones Resumenes
This publication presents the results of the action research on gender and REDD+ carried out by the
Women Environment and Development Organization in collaboration with the REDD+ SES Initiative. The
publication is composed of two parts:
Booklet 1 - Lessons learned from action research describes the development of the action research
project, the methodology and process of the action research, the baselines developed in each of the 4
24
countries, the steps to design a gender sensitive strategy or program, and the research outcomes.
English | Espaol
Booklet 2 Actions Steps for National REDD+ Programs summarizes the action research, and contains
three distinct action checklists:
1. Essential actions to develop a gender sensitive REDD+ Program
2. Actions to address the gender components of the REDD+ SES Principles, Criteria, and Indicators
3. Actions to develop a gender responsive country-level interpretation of Indicators
English | Espaol
The UN-REDD Programme Benefits and Risks Tool (BeRT) supports REDD+ countries to: a) assess the
social and environmental risks and benefits associated with potential REDD+ actions (also known as
candidate Policies and Measures, PAMs) and b) analyse how existing policies, laws and regulations
(PLRs) address the Cancun safeguards. BeRT can be downloaded in English, Spanish and French here.
Global comparative study on REDD+ - CIFOR
Through comparative studies of the implementation of REDD+ around the world, the GCS REDD+ project
takes stock of international, national and subnational REDD+ experiences to identify challenges and
opportunities in designing and implementing effective, efficient, and equitable REDD+ policies and
projects. To deliver policy relevant evidence, our approach is comparative and longitudinal, and
combines biophysical, socio-economic and political economy analysis with an active knowledge sharing
element to provide an holistic understanding of what works and what doesnt - in REDD+. The overall
aim of the GCS REDD+ project is to inform the REDD+ policy arenas and practitioner communities with
evidence, analysis, and tools so as to ensure 3E+ outcomes: (carbon-) effectiveness, (cost-)efficiency,
and equity as well as co-benefits. More information is available here.
25
Annex 1. Agenda
9.00
10.25
10.45
Session
Welcome and
getting to know
each other
Exchange of
experience on
elements of CSA
Activity
Coffee break
Exchange experiences on key
World caf with rotating interactive
issues related to developing
discussions on key issues for the
CSA
development of CSA:
o Interpreting Cancun safeguards
in the country context
o Establishing grievance and
redress mechanisms
o Analysis of Policies, Laws and
Regulations
12.45
Exchange of
experience on SIS
Lunch
Exchange country experiences
on key topics for SIS
o
o
Interpreting safeguards to
reflect the country context
Developing country-specific
indicators
Establishing institutional
arrangements and processes for
stakeholders participation
Collecting, compiling and
analyzing information
Reviewing, reporting and using
26
15.30
15.50
17.15
Coffee break
Learning about
Learn about country
addressing equity experiences of addressing
in REDD+
equity in REDD+
End of the day
information
9.00
10.45
11.05
13.00
14.00
Session
Explore
articulation of
CSA & SIS at subnational and
national levels
including,
stakeholders
participation
Experience of
establishing
multistakeholder
committees and
processes for
stakeholder
participation and
the challenges
Exploring options
for SESA/ESMF to
support
participatory
safeguards
monitoring
Exchange about
addressing
safeguards in
sub-national
initiatives
Lunch
Present and discuss ways that
SESA/ESMF can provide
inputs for SIS based on
country cases
16.00
16.20
17.15
Exchange tables
on specific topics
identified during
Day 1 exchange
of experiences
End of the day
Coffee break
Further exchange on topics of
particular interest in a free
manner
9.00
11.00
11.20
12.30
13.30
Session
Marketplace about
tools and
approaches for
CSA and SIS
Learning from a
participatory,
transparent and
comprehensive
approach to CSA
and SIS: Acre case
study
Learning from a
participatory,
transparent and
comprehensive
approach to CSA
and SIS: group
Lunch
Details
Marketplace for tools and
materials: each
organization/person presents a tool
and participants go to different
stands to learn about tools that
can help in developing CSA and SIS
28
15.00
15.20
work
Learning &
applying
Update and next
steps for REDD+
SES
17.00
Feedback
17.30
Close of workshop
Coffee break
Groups by regions identify
Group work & presentation in
what they have learned from plenary
the workshop and they will
use it moving forward
Presentation from the
Presentation
REDD+SES secretariat on
recent events, and future
plans, including International
Reviews, International
Steering Committee,
guidance etc.
Participants share feedback
about the workshop
29
Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Pavel Jezek
Ricardo Mello
Alcilene Freitas
Edilene Fernandes
Marina Piatto
Patricia Porras
Milagros Sandoval
Lucas Durojeanni
Jos Roch Vasquez
Angelica Lara
Novia Widyaningtyas
Jasmine Puteri
Amalia Prameswari
Jagau Yusurum
Wilma Febrina
Fadjar Pambudhi
Country
Acre, Brazil
Acre, Brazil
Mato Grosso, Brazil
Mato Grosso, Brazil
Brazil
Peru
Peru
Peru
Quintana Roo, Mexico
Campeche, Mexico
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Central Kalimantan
East Kalimantan
East Kalimantan
Aym Sosa
Jolly Sassa Kiuka
Julien Kabalako
Alain Binibangili
Tamrini Said
Narendra Chand
Dil Raj Khanal
Tunga Bhadra Rai
Devi Chandra Pokharel
Pabitra Jha
Keshav Khanal
Krishna Khadka
Akihito Kono
Ken Green
Daju Resosudarmo
Joanna Durbin
Aurlie Lhumeau
Phil Franks
Nanibeti Shakya
Guatemala
DRC
DRC
DRC
Tanzania
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Thailand
USA
Indonesia
US
US
UK
Nepal
Organization
Climate Change Institute
CEVA, WWF
Secretary of Environment
Instituto Centro de Vida
Imaflora
Regional Government of San Martin
Conservation International
Ministry of Environment
Ecology and Environment Secretary
Secretary of Environmental
Ministry of Forestry and Environment
Kamitraan
Kemitraan
University of Palangka Raya
Forestry Agency
REDD Working Group
IDB
WWF
GTCR
CN REDD
Ministry of Forestry
REDD Implementation Center
FECOFUN
Nepal Federation of Indigenous People
Department of Forests
CARE Nepal
WWF Nepal
CARE Nepal
UN-REDD
World Bank
CIFOR
CCBA
CCBA
CARE
CARE Nepal
30