Designing Effective REDD+ Safeguards Information

Systems

Jessica BoyleIISD

With support from the Norwegian Development Agency

Presentation Overview

• UNFCCC Background• Contextualizing a “SIS” for REDD+• IISD Research Overview

– Research Questions– Methodology– Initial Findings and Key Observations

• Discussion Questions

REDD+ Safeguards in the Cancun Agreements

• Action complements objectives of national forest programs and relevant international agreements

• Transparent and effective national forest governance (e.g., openness, information publicly available)

• Respect for knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities (e.g., signed UN-DRIP, have FPIC processes in national legislation)

• Full and effective participation of stakeholders (e.g., FPIC, procedures for stakeholder involvement)

• Consistent with conservation of natural forests and biodiversity• Actions to deal with permanence• Actions to deal with leakage

REDD+ SIS Guidance in Durban Decision

• Guidance on systems for providing information on how REDD+ safeguards are addressed and respected. Safeguards Information Systems should:

• Provide transparent and consistent information; • Provide information that is accessible for all relevant

stakeholders• Update the information on a regular basis; • Provide information on how the safeguards are addressed and

respected; • Be country-driven and implemented at the national level; and• Build upon existing processes, as appropriate.

Contextualizing an SIS for REDD+• Can be understood as “the set of institutions and processes through

which information is collected, verified, assessed, published and fed back to relevant institutions.”

• The systems should be developed in a way that strikes a balance between:

• Flexible and country-driven approaches: Useful and effective for stakeholders at the country level, respecting sovereignty, but also compatible with any international standards; and,

• Financial viability: Builds confidence to trigger substantial financial investment in REDD+ while not placing undue burden or transaction costs on the country/project implementers.

IISD-ICRAF Research • Goal: An effective REDD+ Safeguard Information System (SIS).

• Outcome: Identification of lessons/characteristics from existing REDD+ process and other related processes that are applicable to REDD+, and how these lessons could be brought together to inform the development of a coherent and effective REDD+ Safeguards Information System.

• Output: A policy paper that sets out lessons for the design of an effective REDD+ information system at the national level. The paper will include case studies of a select number of processes that are identified as having the most pertinent lessons for the REDD+, and a number of countries in both Asia and Africa are working to link existing systems with the development of a REDD+ SIS.

Methodology• Desk Research: Creation of research matrix to compare existing processes

against each of the seven safeguard principles for REDD+, focus on reporting and verification elements.

• Case Studies: Conduct in-country interviews; how are SIS(s) being approached at national level?

• Expert Meeting: Review and additional input into research to date. • Publication of Policy Paper: Research and analysis to be brought together

in coherent policy paper, to be published and disseminated broadly.

Building on Existing Systems • Many countries will likely build on current REDD+ processes

related to safeguards:

– The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s (FCPF) Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) and common approach;

– UN REDD‐ Programme’s Social and Environmental Principles and Criteria (P&C); and

– Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA)’s REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards (REDD+ SES).

Building on Existing Systems (cont’d)

• Many countries will also look to build on national process with applicability REDD+ SIS, such as:

– International Conventions and Agreements (e.g., UNDRIP, CBD)

– National Legislation, Policies and Approaches (e.g., FPIC, Environmental Assessment Frameworks)

– Bilateral and Multilateral Agreements (e.g., FLEGT)– Project-level approaches (i.e., donor safeguard

requirements, and/or pilot approaches)

Initial Findings and Key Observations

• Agreement on principles (guidance) at international and national level.• Challenge comes in operationalizing systems of implementation and

subsequent monitoring and reporting. • There are opportunities for the further development, elaboration of

national-level SISs:– Existing data collection and processes via CBD, FPIC– Project-level, pilot learning simultaneously with advancing national

planning • Specific safeguard systems implemented at project level• Building on experiences on PFM/SFM, other sectors (mining)• Many donors are also starting to look at how their approaches fit

into a REDD+ SIS (ADB, USAID, etc.)

Initial Findings and Key Observations

• Most countries still very early in the process–“Sailing the ship while building it”

• Process will not be uniform across countries; very context- specific• Stocktaking of existing mechanisms, approaches and their

effectiveness/application to REDD+– Clarification of roles, authority, stakeholders, etc.– Establish forums for SIS development; dependent on broader REDD

policy development– Seek coherence where possible; establish “baseline” for elements of

SIS • Differences between policies on paper and in implementation

Discussion Questions• What existing processes and systems are countries building on in

developing REDD+ SIS(s)? Existing REDD+ frameworks? Other processes?

• How will activity level reporting on REDD+ safeguards be “rolled up” to the national level? What processes and/or tools have been developed?

• How best to ensure safeguards are addressed and respected, and reported on; while not overburdening project developers, local communities and governments?