• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
 
H
ONEST
E
NGAGEMENT
 
T
RANSPARENCY AND
C
IVIL
S
OCIETY
P
ARTICIPATION IN
REDD
Transparency and civil society participation build trust. Almost all previous attempts to reform the forest sectorhave failed when these basic principles have been ignored in decision-making. People who feel they have beenpart of making the rules are more likely to live by them. If a transparent and dynamic relationship can be createdbetween citizen and government it will be the glue that keeps REDD together. But the negotiations are moving sofast and are so complex that the vast majority of people whose lives will be directly affected by REDD are beingleft behind, while civil society groups new to the climate change negotiations have had to move into high gear justto catch up. Enhancing transparency and understanding of the process, and ensuring broad engagement of civilsociety organisations and indigenous groups, must move to the top of the agenda if REDD is to avoid failure.These groups know the challenges on the ground. They should be sitting at the negotiating table, not standing atthe door of closed sessions.
Introduction
Whatever the final outcome of negotiations at theUNFCCC relating to REDD (Reducing Emissions fromDeforestation and forest Degradation in developingcountries
1
), the one certainty is that vast revenue flowswill be generated for forest-rich nations. Past experiencein the oil, mineral and forest sectors has shown thepotential for natural resource wealth to result in perverseoutcomes, including corruption, poor governance,exacerbation of poverty and even conflict, commonlyknown as the Resource Curse. Various internationalmechanisms have been created to address theseproblems by enhancing resource-revenue transparency,improving governance and targeting illegality - all with anemphasis on full stakeholder participation. This paperhighlights some of these mechanisms. The lessons to belearned from them will be invaluable in creating thegovernance and monitoring systems necessary to ensurethat REDD revenues reach their destinations andachieve genuine, sustainable emissions reductions.
Rights holders and stakeholders – how manypeople are affected by REDD?
Forest-dependent people are more than juststakeholders, they are rights holders. It has beenestimated that around 60 million indigenous peoples livein the rainforests of Africa, Southeast Asia, and LatinAmerica
2
, but many more people in developing countriesare directly dependent on natural forests for theirlivelihood.So just how many people are affected by REDD? Aliterature review conducted by Global Witness found that30% of the population in 17 countries participating in UNand World Bank REDD “readiness” programmes, with atotal population of around 670 million, can be describedas forest-dependent.
3
In participant countries from Africa,the proportion rises to 50 - 60%. Taking a conservativeview of the figures, more than 250 million people,or one quarter of the total population in REDD pilotcountries are dependent in some way on the forests fortheir livelihoods.The legal basis for ownership of and access to forestsand their products and services (of which climatemitigation is only one) is typically complex, confused,incomplete and biased. It is widely recognised thatresolving this thorny but fundamental issue needs to bean essential element of any REDD strategy.Nevertheless, the uncertainty surrounding tenure andaccess should not prevent forest-dependent peoplesbeing recognised as rights holders in the negotiatingprocess. The process must also accommodate a diverseNGO community encompassing a broad range ofexpertise, knowledge and positions on forests andclimate change. Many are newcomers to the UNFCCCand not all are members of CAN (the Climate ActionNetwork recognised as the ‘NGO voice’ in thenegotiations). Climate negotiators and the UNFCCCSecretariat must recognise that REDD involves a widercommunity than they have dealt with to date – a diversecommunity of rights holders and stakeholders in forestswho must be fully engaged.
An empty seat….. Is this honest engagement?Photo © Global Witness
 
 2
Minimum Requirements
To ensure a transparent and participatory REDD process aimed at promoting good governance, we believe thatthe minimum requirements must be:
During negotiations 
•
Broad, effective and meaningful participation ofcivil society, including representatives of localcommunities and indigenous groups, from the topdown and bottom up.
•
An open and clear negotiating process in theUNFCCC. All REDD negotiations should be opento all observers. More effort should be made bythe UNFCCC Secretariat to ensure that theprocess is accessible by newcomers, and that thesupporting documentation is more accessible foreveryone (e.g. by improving the website).
•
Representative engagement of civil society,including local communities and indigenousgroups, in other relevant international processessuch as the World Bank FCPF and UN-REDD.
•
A review of existing international mechanisms topromote transparency, public accountability andgood governance in the management of naturalresources, such as EITI and EU-FLEGT, with aview to identifying best practices and applyingthem to the negotiation and implementation ofREDD.
•
The creation of national REDD multi-stakeholdergroups comprised of democratically electedrepresentatives of all interested parties toparticipate in national consultations.
•
The establishment of guidelines for nationalREDD consultation.
•
 
Capacity building for civil society organisations,local communities and indigenous groups toenable them to engage meaningfully in REDDnegotiations at national and international level andprevent hijacking of the process by political elitesand vested interests (e.g. the industrial scalelogging industry and agro-business).
 
During implementation 
•
The involvement of national multi-stakeholdergroups at all levels of implementation, includingthe establishment of schemes aimed at creatingpublic accountability and transparency in themanagement of natural resources, such asindependent forest monitoring (IFM: see GlobalWitness briefing on IFM and REDD) and in theimplementation of payments for environmentalservices schemes, including REDD.
•
A review of all forest-related laws to identifyweaknesses and social and environmentalinjustices and, where necessary, supportlegislative and policy reform to strengthen socialand environmental standards and participation indecision-making; and to rebalance forestmanagement so it provides co-benefits for forests,people and biodiversity.
•
A review of financial systems and theirimplementation in order to determine the reformsneeded to ensure the equitable distribution ofREDD revenue.
•
The establishment of a mechanism similar to theEITI to ensure transparency, independentoversight and public accountability in thedistribution of REDD revenues. There must beclear rules of procedure; a requirement that REDDcountries participate in the mechanism (it cannotbe voluntary); and monitoring of compliance.
•
 
The establishment of participatory land useplanning / zoning to ensure effective managementand sustainable use of natural resources basedon: strengthening land tenure and access rights forlocal communities and indigenous peoples;protecting sites of high ecological, cultural andsocial value; and transparent and public allocationof forest management permits including thoserelated to REDD.
 
Acronyms
CAN Climate Action NetworkDRC Democratic Republic of CongoEITI Extractive Industries Transparency InitiativeEU FLEGT European Union Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and TradeFCFA Franc de la Communauté Française d'AfriqueFAO (UN) Food and Agriculture OrganisationFCPF Forest Carbon Partnership FacilityPNG Papua New GuineaPWYP Publish What You Pay (NGO coalition)REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in developing countriesUN-REDD Joint programme of FAO, UNDP and UNEPUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
 
 3
Putting REDD at risk
The stakes in REDD are high and the negotiationscomplex, making civil society participation all the morecritical. And events are moving so fast that people whoare directly affected are being left behind while NGOsare scrambling to keep up. The UNFCCC process doesnot help. An exclusive club of climate experts, it fails tofoster genuine and constructive NGO engagement,resorting all too often to closed sessions. The UNFCCCwebsite, the world’s window on the process, is arguablythe worst among environmental conventions. In theheadlong rush to seal a REDD deal in Copenhagen inDecember 2009,
4
no consideration is being paid tomaking the UNFCCC process more open, accessible,transparent and participatory. In neglecting
this,
negotiators and the Secretariat are putting REDD, indeedthe whole climate negotiations, at risk.An analysis of several public consultation processesconducted to inform the negotiations of agreements(VPAs) between the EU and timber producing countriesrevealed numerous flaws that can jeopardise theoutcome, providing lessons for REDD. They include:
5
 
•
limited trust and conflicts of interest
•
uneven bargaining power between interest groups
•
poor planning and insufficient knowledge sharing
•
lip service paid to participation
•
lack of political will among government and policymakers fearing loss of power or influence
•
limited resources for a genuine consultation process
•
hijacking by powerful interests (e.g. political elitesand the timber industry)
•
poor facilitation and biased chairing
•
inaccurate and distorted records of inputs to theprocess by rights holders and interest groups
•
lack of adequate translation into languages andformats that are understandable to participants,including marginalised groups
•
lack of clarity on how recommendations by rightsholders and stakeholders will affect the finaloutcome.REDD negotiators have a responsibility to heed theselessons or risk a flawed or even perverse outcome.
“There have been countless occasions where environ- mental or social NGOs or indigenous peoples’ organisations have participated in official and public consultation processes and subsequently found that their participation was used to legitimise the process with few or none of their concerns being addressed." 
6
 
The World Bank FCPF - how not to do it?
Two "readiness" schemes are underway to preparecountries for REDD – the World Bank's Forest CarbonPartnership Facility (FCPF), with $300 million availablefor participating countries, and UN-REDD, a jointprogramme of FAO, UNDP and UNEP. To date, UN-REDD has proved to be the more transparent andinclusive of the two programmes, inviting a range ofstakeholders to its first meeting in September 2008 andproviding for web-based comment on its roadmap forREDD monitoring and verification. The FCPF process, incontrast, has been characterised by its opacity and lackof opportunities for meaningful consultation.The World Bank launched the FCPF in Bali in December2007, ignoring widespread controversy and a request todelay the process pending public consultation.
7
Instead itforged ahead with approving ‘Readiness Plan IdeaNotes’ (R-PINs) for countries willing to participate, basedon an application process that appears to be little morethan a formality. Many of the approved R-PINs receivedlow overall scores from an external Technical AdvisoryPanel
8
that raised serious questions about ownership ofthe proposals by governments and stakeholders. Themajority of the R-PINs were written and financed in partby big international NGOs or consulting firms with closeties to the timber industry. In many cases, there was littleor no consultation with forest-dependent peoples or thewider NGO community; moreover, R-PINs were notmade publicly available until after the selectionprocess. Nevertheless, 25 out of 28 R-PINS have beenapproved with a final selection round scheduled forMarch 2009. Approved countries will receive a grant tofinance the development of ‘Readiness Plans’ (R-Plans),or more detailed national strategies for REDD.In early 2008, the Bank came under fire for its “near-totallack of consultation with the peoples most likely to bedirectly affected”.
9
Since then, consultation withindigenous groups has been prioritized and some fundsare being made available for REDD capacitybuilding among indigenous peoples. The R-Plan process requires the design of a ‘Consultation andOutreach Plan’ and is now subject to Bank operationalsafeguards. However, serious doubts remain aboutwhether these retroactively negotiated measuresrepresent good faith efforts by the World Bank andparticipating governments, and if they will pave the wayfor a genuinely inclusive and transparent process.
Forest Carbon Partnership Fairytale
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...