REDD+ Challenges and Opportunities: experiences from social and environmental standards
•Download as PPT, PDF•
1 like•2,677 views
Joanna Durbin explains what she sees and the biggest challenges and opportunities through from an social and environmental point of view.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (14)
Similar to REDD+ Challenges and Opportunities: experiences from social and environmental standards
Similar to REDD+ Challenges and Opportunities: experiences from social and environmental standards (20)
More from CIFOR-ICRAF
More from CIFOR-ICRAF (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
REDD+ Challenges and Opportunities: experiences from social and environmental standards
- 1. REDD+ Challenges and Opportunities: experiences from social and environmental standards Joanna Durbin Climate Community & Biodiversity Alliance Warsaw, 15th November 2013
- 2. Getting REDD+ ‘off the ground’ or ‘to the ground’? REDD+ needs: • International agreement, rules, finance • National policies and measures • Local decisions and action
- 3. REDD+ ‘a service to others’ or ‘a development opportunity’?
- 4. UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards identify some key challenges for REDD+ When undertaking REDD+ activities, the following safeguards should be promoted and supported: (a) Complement or consistent with the objectives of national forest programmes and relevant international conventions and agreements (b) Transparent and effective national forest governance structures (c) Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities d) Full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders e) Consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biological diversity – not used for conversion of natural forests – protection and conservation of natural forests and their ecosystem services, – enhance other social and environmental benefits d) Address the risks of reversals e) Reduce displacement of emissions
- 5. Safeguards and non-carbon benefits – essential but at what level? Developed countries • Safeguards are important and non-carbon benefits are good • help us to build support from public and channel greater funds to REDD+ • BUT we can’t require high performance • and could divert finance from emissions reductions Developing countries • It is essential that our REDD+ program delivers multiple benefits • we want to get recognition for high performance • BUT we don’t want conditions added to financing and oversight from outside
- 6. • Supports government-led REDD+ national or jurisdictional programs with development of a safeguards information system based on REDD+ SES • Comprises: – REDD+ SES content: principles, criteria and indicators – REDD+ SES process: to use the REDD+ SES at country level • Uses a country-led, multi-stakeholder process • Shows performance = enhancing benefits as well as avoiding harm. • A voluntary initiative for countries wanting to demonstrate high social and environmental performance • Developed through broad consultation and supported by an International Steering Committee with representatives of Governments, NGOs, Indigenous Peoples, community associations, private sector
- 7. REDD+ SES theory of change An effective country-led safeguards information system REDD+ delivers on its social and environmental goals Requires systemic change in at least four key domains A. Political support from government actors B. Policies, laws, and regulations and their implementation C. Civil society engagement D. Trust between key actors Through a process of constructive engagement, accepting an incremental approach to improving REDD+ S&E performance
- 8. Changes observed within the REDD+ Program
- 9. Changes observed outside the REDD+ Program
- 11. Priorities for Safeguards Information Systems
- 12. Conclusions • REDD+ presents a range of significant challenges • Some can be addressed through a transparent, inclusive multi-stakeholder process to address safeguards, to monitor their implementation and to use that information to improve the program • Safeguards and multiple benefits can also provide a key to shifting REDD+ from an international service, to an opportunity to support locally defined development objectives. • While a shift to internal reasons to reduce deforestation, with effective safeguards is important – to reach full potential REDD+ still needs the international ‘carrot’ – the finance and ambition from developed countries.....
- 13. For more information www.redd-standards.org Secretariat International Steering Committee • Joanna Durbin (CCBA) • Aurélie Lhumeau (CCBA) REDD+ implementing • Phil Franks (CARE) With technical support from • Proforest Initiative Governments •Eduardo Noboa (Ecuador) •Monica de los Rios (Acre) •Iwan Wibisono (Indonesia) •Resham Dangi (Nepal) •Tamrini Said Ally (Tanzania) •Benjamin Karmorh (Liberia) Indigenous Peoples •Jennifer Rubis (IPMN) •Kanyinke Sena (IPACC) •Estebancio Castro Non- REDD+ implementing Multilateral organisation Lera Miles (UNEP/UN-REDD) Community Associations •Rahima Njaidi (MJUMITA) •Alberto Chinchilla (ACICAFOC) •Brikha Shahi (FECOFUN) Social NGOs •Samuel Nnah (Accra Caucus) •Tony La Viňa (Ateneo SoG) Environmental NGOs •Belinda de la Paz (Haribon) •Marina Piatto (Imaflora) Private Sector •Rezal Kusumaatmadja (Starling Res) Environmental NGOs •George Akwah (IUCN) •Minnie Degawan (WWF) Private Sector •Leslie Durschinger (Terra Global) •Johannes Ebeling (Maquarie)
Editor's Notes
- We’ve come some way down the track from the early days of the REDD idea, and with some experience under our belt there is clearly a lot to say about the challenges and opportunities of REDD+. I was very pleased to be asked to participate in this event, but I did say that I would focus my overview on the experiences we have learned from developing and supporting the use of social and environmental standards for REDD+. This won’t be a comprehensive overview of all the important issues like the political challenges related to ambition and finance, or the technical (and political) challenges related reference levels and carbon MRV, but will focus on the safeguards and non-carbon benefits piece of the puzzle.
- Per Pharo from NICFI at Oslo REDD Exchange - we should think about REDD consisting of two parts – one part is the international initiative to provide results-based payments to countries that reduce GHG emissions from forests and the other part is all the things that can be done in countries to reduce deforestation REDD+ requires international agreement, mechanism and framework for providing incentives – financing - for reducing emissions from deforestation REDD+ also requires actions at national level to reduce deforestation, policies and measures taken by governments, legal and governance frameworks, national information and monitoring systems etc REDD + also requires decisions, actions and leadership at the local community, smallholder, farm level and the supporting framework at that level including local government, NGOs, commodity buyers etc. Challenge to get all these moving parts to be aligned and mutually supportive to meet multiple goals at different levels – so all actors see what’s in it for them and keep motivated to participate
- Saraswati Rodriguez – now working on safeguards for UN-REDD program in Ecuador with a wealth of experience on community natural resource management and gender – ‘we have been explaining REDD+ in the wrong way – we’ve been going into detailed explanations about climate change and how deforestation releases greenhouse gases and how we need to reduce deforestation to help the rest of the world reduce climate change, and there will be lots of money from rich countries to pay us for this service. What we should be focused on is defining our own development objectives, identifying the pathways we could follow to improve livelihoods and well-being in a sustainable way, and then use REDD+ as an optional helping hand from developed countries, or from the national government, that can help countries and communities follow their own development path if they choose the pathway that reduces deforestation and is eligible for this ‘help’. Challenge – explaining the complexity of REDD+, climate change, greenhouse gases, role of forests and results-based finance Opportunity is REDD+ as a means to multiple benefits – the successful REDD+ ‘package’ or mechanism includes benefits for developed countries (fulfilling their commitments under the CC agreement – or the demands for action from their constituents), for developing country governments (ensuring the development of their country with a special emphasis on well-being of rural communities, attracting finance to their country, participating in global climate solution), for local communities (overcoming barriers to sustainable practices, bringing finance and technical support)
- The seven safeguards for REDD+ agreed at the UNFCCC COP in 2010 in Cancun are a good summary of some of the key challenges for REDD+, not for the international part of the equation but for the country level implementation of REDD+ The challenge of coherence and consistency among different government initiatives The challenge of ensuring that REDD+ recognizes, respects and secures the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities The challenge of enabling full and effective participaton of all relevant rights holders and stakeholders The challenge of ensuring that REDD is not used for conversion of natural forests but to protect biodiversity and enhance social and environmental benefits
- Experience from CCB Standards and REDD+ SES – designed for high social and environmental performance. To attract rewards/finance and create incentives for higher performance Developed country response to REDD+ SES. We think safeguards are important and NCBs are good (eg. helps us to build support among our public and channel greater funds to REDD+) BUT we can’t require high performance, and could divert finance from emissions reductions Developing country response to REDD+ SES. It is essential that our REDD+ program delivers multiple benefits, otherwise it’s not worth doing, and we want to get recognition for high performance, BUT we don’t want too many conditions added to our financing and oversight from outside
- Explain what REDD+ SES initiative is
- Our original hypothesis was that countries that demonstrate high social and environmental performance using best practice standards would be rewarded by improved access or increased finance, and this would lead to adoption of the standards by others and a ‘race to the top’. Over the last 3 years of experience with countries using the standards we have adapted our theory of change as follows: Recognising that political will is key for effective REDD+ and full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders – ie the SIS is a means to address some of the key challenges for REDD+
- At the exchange and learning workshop among 14 countries using REDD+ SES held at CIFOR’s campus in Bogor in July of this year we did an exercise when we asked country participants to identify any outcomes they have observed from the process of identifying safeguards indicators, consultations on indicators, creation of a multistakeholder committee to review and approve a performance assessment report - in these key domains of change – and give examples. I don’t have time to mention them all but they included Empowerment and engagement of regional govt of San Martin in regional and national REDD+ policy in Peru Changes in policies and legal frameworks in Tanzania, Mexico, Ecuador Engagement of stakeholders like women and Ips not recognised as important before
- Some benefits were even seen beyond the REDD+ program – like the enhancement and institutionalisation of rights to consultation and participation in Acre State in Brazil
- What we are seeing is a shift in emphasis from the frustrations and mistrust created by viewing the international REDD+ mechanism as an end in itself, to focusing more on broader actions for sustainable development including reduction in deforestation that make sense at the national and local level, with REDD+ as one potential support mechanism for eligible actions. We have another example of the shift in emphasis that we are seeing in some countries. Over the last month we did a survey countries, asking them what are their priority objectives for safeguards information systems – to prepare a summary for UNFCCC, to providing information to financing agencies, or to a market/private sector/other finance, or to provide information to national or local stakeholders, or to improve the REDD+ program.
- We have responses so far from 10 countries – Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Ecuador, Peru, Acre in Brazil, Chile, Central Kalimantan and Nepal. While many of them said that their original motivation for starting to develop a safeguards information system for REDD+ was in response to UNFCCC decisions, 7 of them said their primary objective for SIS now is to report back to national and local stakeholders, and the 2nd priority is to provide feedback to improve the REDD+ program management.