IGES International Conference 2013

REDD+ Safeguards-Fundamental; not an add-on

Tokyo, Japan

4-5 December 2013

Record of Discussions

Background

In 2010, the 16th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP) in Cancun agreed on a set of seven safeguards to ensure REDD+ activities ‘do no harm’ and provide positive social and environmental outcomes. They also agreed that developing country Parties preparing for REDD+ should develop a system for providing information on how the safeguards are being addressed and respected. With international support, over 10 developing countries in the Asia Pacific region are undertaking REDD+ readiness activities, including developing their approaches to the safeguards. The UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards only provide broad guiding principles, leaving it up to those designing, funding, and implementing REDD+ initiatives to determine how to operationalize those principles.

With financial support of the Ministry of Environmental Japan, IGES organized the international conference on “REDD+ Safeguards-Fundamental; not an add-on” in Tokyo on 4-5 December 2013.. The workshop focused on the governance, rights, participation, biodiversity and ecosystems services safeguards. The objectives of the workshop were to:

Deepen understanding of the links between the REDD+ safeguards and sustainable development

Provide updates on how Governments undertaking REDD+ readiness are planning to ensure the safeguards are respected, and discuss good practice for the development of national safeguards implementation and information systems

Discuss the conceptual issues associated with each of the REDD+ safeguards and their implications for REDD+ actions

Identify approaches, guidance and tools for ensuring the safeguards are a fundamental part of all REDD+ actions

The conference was composed of eight sessions. The first day covered 4 sessions: 1) Opening and introduction; 2) National experiences and plans; 3) Governance; and 4) Rights. The Four sessions on the second day were: 5) Participation; 6) Biodiversity and ecosystems services; 7) National safeguard policies and safeguard information system; and 8) Panel discussion. For session 2 to 7, international and Japanese experts presented on their involvement, experiences, knowledge and ideas on the REDD+ safeguards, and the presentations were followed by open discussion.

2

4 December 2013 (Day 1)

Opening and Introduction

Mr Motoyuki Kumakura from the Ministry of Environment, Japan opened the conference and welcomed all participants. Dr Henry Scheyvens, IGES, then explained the background and objectives of the conference. He pointed out that safeguards are more than just a list of items to be ticked off; they are fundamental to the success of actions to protect and enhance forest carbon stocks.

Dr Makino Yamanoshita, IGES, presented her report on the results of UNFCCC COP19. In the monitoring and reporting, full and effective engagement of indigenous peoples and local communities is required and potential contribution of their knowledge is expected. She stressed that the safeguard information systems (SIS) should be shared with the relevant bodies established under the Convention and multilateral bodies to create co-benefits from the monitoring. Developing countries are required to deliver information on how they are respecting the safeguards before obtaining results based payments.

National Experience and Plans

The following presentations were provided:

Ms Le Ha Phuong, Viet Nam REDD+ Office, on Safeguards Roadmap for Vietnam’s National REDD+ Action Programme

Mr Savanh Chanthakoummane, REDD+ Office, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Lao PDR, on Social Safeguard at National and Project Level in Lao PDR: Case Study of Participatory Land and Forest Management Project for Reducing Deforestation (PAREDD), Lao PRD

Ms Phuong illustrated key challenges facing REDD+ safeguards in Viet Nam: (1) dealing with uncertainty over the international climate change negotiations and with the multiple and often inconsistent safeguards frameworks; and (2) the limited capacities inside and outside the government and the coordination of a country-led safeguard response. To achieve the REDD+ requirements and UNFCC’s guidelines, the Viet Nam government prepared the national safeguards roadmap – the national REDD+ action programme (NRAP) was approved on June 2012. The expected outcomes of this roadmap are: (1) identify all relevant UNFCCC decisions and guidance to inform a country-led approach to safeguards; (2) identify Viet Nam’s legal framework that could be used to support the operationalization of the Cancun safeguards; and (3) identify the options and recommendations to address identified gaps in the legal framework. Ms Phuong pointed out the roadmap does not provide a practical assessment for the legal framework.

Ms Phuong explained the analytical matrix used to conduct the assessment of legal gaps in complying with the Cancun safeguards. The study found, for example, that legal framework does not provide a clear definition on ‘ethnic people’ or ‘ethnic minority’, and limited recognition and regulation of traditional knowledge of ethnic minorities and local communities over forest resources. For the Cancun safeguard on participation, the main gaps include access to information to effectively participate in decision making. For the biodiversity and ecosystems services safeguards, the main gaps are related to (1) prohibiting the conversion of natural forest (Viet Nam allows conversion), and (2) enhancement of other benefits. For the safeguards on reversals and displacement of emissions, the main gaps include (1) measures to tackle reversals and displacement, and (2) international co-operation. While Viet Nam seeks to utilize its current domestic legal framework to operationalize the Cancun safeguards, Ms Phuong stressed the need to fill these gaps to ensure Viet Nam’s legal framework is fully consistent with the Cancun safeguards.

3

Discussion after the presentation took up the issues of “passive information access”, linkage between REDD+ activities in Viet Nam and the fund mechanism, how to combine the national legal framework and the international framework, how to fill gaps, what is different between safeguard criteria and fund criteria, and how the Viet Nam safeguards roadmap can meet the funds ‘requirements’.

Mr Chanthakoummane presented on the main drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in Laos, and REDD+ activities. He stressed that the REDD+ can be highly valuable for both sustainable forest management and livelihood improvement for forest dependent people. Laos has been making considerable efforts in preparing REDD+ since 2008. The R-PP was approved by the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) in November 2012. The strategic management framework on safeguards for REDD+ is still to be prepared, however, there are existing safeguard policies on environmental issues. Mr Chanthakoummane presented on the existing safeguard policy in Laos. He noted that tenure, rights, access and land use have emerged as important issues in REDD+ discussion and implementation. Land use planning is one of key activities to address these issues. He described the manual on participatory land use planning developed in 2010, which provides guidance for full and effective participation in land use planning at village and village cluster level.

Mr Chanthakoummane introduced the Participatory Land and Forest Management Project for Reducing Deforestation (PAREDD) in Luang Prabang Province. He provided lessons from the project: (1) local participation in the decision making process is essential for successful forest management and REDD+; (2) how to apply REDD+ can be understood only along with the reality of local community; (3) further research on the efficiency of selected activities for land use change and appropriate and effective activities to meet both local priorities and REDD+ objectives are needed; and (4) communities must have the right of rejection or re-negotiation for a project not only at “prior” stage, but also at the implementation stage.

The discussion following the presentation covered the issues of how traditional knowledge can be used for the REDD+ safeguards, how to monitor project implementation when projects have limited duration, why local people should support REDD+ when they realize no immediate benefits from the activities, and how to build community awareness of FPIC issues. Mr Chanthakoummane stressed the importance of simple and effective ways using visual materials to explain concepts and issues to local communities.

Governance

In the session on Governance, the presentations were:

Dr Timothy Cadman, Griffith University, on Climate Governance and REDD+: Ensuring Quality of Governance and Delivering Safeguards for Emissions Trading Schemes

Dr Federico Lopez-Casero, IGES, on Governance Standards: Strengthening Stakeholder Involvement in REDD+

Mr Taiji Fujisaki, IGES, on Overview of Organisational Framework for REDD+ Readiness

Dr Cadman presented on the meaning of “governance”. There are various broad kinds of governance: corporate governance (i.e. how business are run), fiduciary governance (i.e. how money is managed), and public sector governance (i.e. how government agencies are run). He explained the key elements of good governance systems as: (1) democracy – representation/participation; (2) accountability and transparency – horizontal vs. vertical systems (transparency validates arrangements); (3) interest representation – organisation vs individual; access and inclusion; (4) equality; (5) decision-making (discursive consensus formation); (6) implementation – behaviour change, problem solving, durability; and 7) legitimacy – input/output oriented.

4

Dr Cadman pointed out that good governance must be understood in terms of the interaction between structure (must be participatory) and process (must be deliberative). The success of REDD+ will depend on governance arrangements that are broadly representative of interests, inclusive, verifiably responsible, and effective in terms of decision-making. Comprehensive regulatory approaches and reform of forest governance will be required for REDD+. Institutions, policies and regulations need to be inter-linked across boundaries, sectors, and levels. In response to questions, Dr Cadman explained that when people talk about governance, they often think about what the government can do for them. Thus, the basic level of understanding on governance must be raised. For international policy forums to be informed by ground-level realities, good governance structures with all actors involved are required. For example, people who are involved in conflicts over land rights should participate to increase levels of understanding on key issues and deliver good outcomes.

Dr Lopez-Casero introduced the two main research questions he was addressing: (1) How can we ensure consistent and comprehensive governance in REDD+ development and implementation? (2) In lieu of an agreed definition of good governance, could common principles be used and elaborated to reflect national circumstances?

Dr Lopez-Casero described a project conducted by IGES, the University of Southern Queensland and Griffith University in Nepal in which stakeholders play a key role in developing quality-of-governance standards. Under the project, stakeholders elaborated the standards from an understanding of principles of good governance. The project found that stakeholders see the value of developing a standard through a robust, participatory and transparent process. The preliminary findings of the project were (1) Improving governance requires a systematic and consistent approach; (2) Independent standards of good governance can be applied, (3) The process of developing voluntary national quality of governance standard has been innovative, and (4) Site and forest management regime specific standards need to be developed.

Dr Lopez-Casero was asked about the criteria for the governance standard in the project, and how local people can participate. He explained that the project’s approach to governance standards development is stronger than existing alternatives because all interest are given equal opportunity to participate and provide inputs to the standard setting. However, there is a need to find ways of complementing larger governance standards development processes and informing national policy processes.

Mr Fujisaki discussed the organisational framework for REDD+ in Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Papua New Guinea, and Viet Nam. Each country now has an organisation to coordinate stakeholders on REDD+ readiness. For example, Indonesia and Papua New Guinea have REDD+ administrative offices outside the Ministry of Forestry. In Cambodia, both the Ministry of Environment and the Forest Agency are taking responsibility on REDD+ readiness. Each country has developed REDD+ taskforces at the national level, though these are still under development in Cambodia. Mr Fujisaki pointed out that REDD+ organisational frameworks provide opportunity for the participation of non-state actors, but their roles and tasks vary across the countries. Mostly, the non-state actors involved in these frameworks are international donor agencies, international NGOs and REDD+ experts. Participation from civil society and local actors (indigenous peoples and local communities) is mostly on a consultation-basis, and opportunities for them to participate in the national development of REDD+ systems are limited. While interest in REDD+ across state organizations is increasing, REDD+ is yet to be fully incorporated into broad development policies and land use plans.

Mr Fujisaki’s presentation prompted discussion on how the safeguards can be promoted in Indonesia, a country with many villages, with different histories and cultures, across many islands. The need to elaborate indicators specific to REDD+ implementation sites was suggested.

5

Rights

The presentations on rights were:

Dr Kimihiko Hyakumura, Kyushu University, on Land and Forest Use Right for Social Safeguard of REDD+

Dr Henry Scheyvens, IGES, on REDD+ Safeguards and Rights

Dr Miho Sagara, Global Environmental Forum, on FPIC in REDD+

Dr Hyakumura explained how local people in Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and Cambodia were involved in the forest management system. He pointed out some improvements in the legal frameworks to provide local people with rights to forests and stressed the importance of multi-stakeholder processes in forest management.

Dr Scheyvens presented on securing indigenous people’s rights to their lands, and strengthening indigenous people’s capacity to effectively manage their territories. He introduced the fundamental principles of human rights, namely universality and inalienability, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness, equality and non-discrimination, participation and inclusion, and accountability and rule of law.

Dr Scheyvens pointed out progress on land and resource rights in some countries in the region. He pointed out the risks of REDD+ to rights, and the need for REDD+ to support the achievements on forest rights that have been made. He proposed the idea of including rights-based approaches in REDD+ activities, and explained that rights-based approaches integrate rights norms, standards, and principles into policy, planning, implementation, and outcomes assessment.

Dr Scheyvens provide a case study on national REDD+ project guidelines developed in Papua New Guinea (PNG). While local communities have strong tenure in PNG, there is poor implementation of free, prior informed consent, meaning they often give up the rights to develop their land and forests with the hope of “easy money”. In this context, the national REDD+ project guidelines are very important. The REDD+ guidelines document is a template for all project proponents who wish to develop a government supported REDD+ project in PNG. The guidelines require workshops and training for local communities at the project sites to ensure their full understanding of the proposed REDD+ actions. Dr Scheyvens concluded that the countries should incorporate a rights-based approach into their national REDD+ readiness activities, and that capacity and resourcing for rights- based approaches to REDD+ are needed.

Dr Sagara presented on a project to create FPIC guidelines for Japanese organizations and private companies. She explained that FPIC requires that consent is given voluntarily and without any coercion, intimidation or manipulation. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) has included FPIC in several of its articles. In the Article 18, indigenous people have the right to participate in decision-making in matters that would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions. Dr Sagara explained that under her project, FPIC guidelines were developed through a literature survey and a comparative analysis of several existing safeguard guidelines. The final version is now being drafted and will appear next spring or summer.

Dr Sagara pointed out that challenges of this project include deciding the minimum standards for the FPIC process. She explained that the voluntary Climate Community Biodiversity Standards (CCBS) can be used as a minimum requirement. They require demonstration that the net impacts of a REDD+ project on well-being are positive for all identified community groups and that project activities at least “do no harm” to the well-being of other stakeholder. Another challenge is how project proponents implement FPIC when a REDD+ project is undertaken through an alliance with the host

6

country’s government? Governments may be unwilling to discuss FPIC because of its relation to self-determination. Other issues to be considered include: To what extent should REDD+ project proponents be involved in identifying and recognizing rights holders and their land resources? How can FPIC be applied when there are gaps in traditional knowledge systems and governmental decision-making processes? Should FPIC guidelines distinguish between indigenous people and local communities?

5 December 2013 (Day 2)

After opening remarks by Dr Yamanoshita, Dr Henry Scheyvens provided a wrap up of the previous day. On the outcome of COP19 in Warsaw, he pointed out that the progress on REDD+ is important for people who are working in the field on REDD+; they need the negotiations to provide them with encouragement to continue their work. With regard to the session on national experiences and plans, Dr Scheyvens pointed out the importance of a national review of policies, laws and regulation in order to understand whether they fully accommodate the REDD+ safeguards, as has taken place in Viet Nam, even though this is not a requirement of the REDD+ safeguards. He explained that the presentation on the PAREDD project in Lao PDR pointed at some tension between the safeguards issues and the desire of local people to see immediate benefits from development and conservation activities. Participatory land use planning has been implemented, but this takes about two years, and during this time local people may become frustrated with what they view as a lack of results. On governance, Dr Scheyvens noted that the process to develop governance standards should be comprehensive, but not overly complex, in order not to discourage people. He explained that the presentations on the organizational arrangements for REDD+ showed that countries in the region preparing for REDD+ have learned a lot over the past few years and can provide lessons well beyond the forestry sector. On rights, Dr Scheyvens highlighted the FPIC guideline as a very important initiative in Japan.

The first presentation on Day 2 was related to the session on National Experiences and Plans from the previous day. The presentation was delivered by Dr Nur Masripatin, Director of the Centre for Standardization and Environment, Ministry of Forestry of Indonesia, on Safeguards and Safeguards Information System for REDD+: National Experiences and Plans.

The presentation focused on Indonesia forests in the global and national context and covered:

Indonesia's position on the REDD+ safeguards and SIS-REDD+ National Strategy for REDD+ How safeguards are approached in Indonesia's strategy on REDD How to building on existing systems in Indonesia relevant to the safeguards Lessons for the safeguards and SIS based on experience

During the question and answer session, Dr Masripatin explained that the workshops are usually held at the national level and in Jakarta, where most experts are based, and that participation is high; about 100-150 people representing various groups, including civil society (NGOs, and representatives of local community groups and indigenous peoples). In response to questions, she explained that the governance index that Indonesia how has was developed by a government official with support from UN-REDD and UNDP and is intended to support governance efforts. Criteria and indicators have been developed based on the experiences from the areas where there are REDD+ demonstration activities. Dr Masripatin stressed that REDD+ is not only about money, but that the government uses REDD+ as an instrument to improve governance. Responding to a question on the complexity of the standards, Dr Masripatin said that the team is willing to simplify the indicators and is working on avoiding overlaps and duplication.

7

Participation

The following presentations were delivered:

Dr Kazuhiro Harada, University of Hyogo, on a Case Study of Collaborative Forest Management of a National Park in Indonesia with the Involvement of Local People who also Participate in a REDD+ Project

Dr Makino Yamanoshita, Forest Conservation Task Manager, IGES, on the Importance of “Participation” at Project Level

Mr Saykham Boutthavong (Kyushu University / National University of Laos) on Participatory Forest Management in Laos with Challenges & Implications for REDD+ Program Development

Based on the experience of an ITTO project in Java, Indonesia, Dr Harada explained that REDD+ projects can promote community participation in forest management and forestry activities, and can have spill over effects for promoting community participation in other land use management schemes, such as national park management.

Dr Harada was asked about the motivation for villagers who are living in the national park to become involved in the reforestation project and whether the local people, who earlier had no use rights, are now in a better position to use the land. He responded that local people had been logging in the area prior to its designation as a National Park. REDD+ has provided them with a new opportunity as they can participate in the rehabilitation of land in the vicinity of the Park. In areas designated as rehabilitation land, people are allowed to cultivate the land and collect non-timber forest products (NTFPs). Dr Harada also clarified that this use right is collective.

Dr Yamanoshita explained that stakeholder participation in a CDM project she was involved with in Viet Nam was limited, as villagers without resource rights could not join the project. This, combined with the key role of external consultants, meant a weak sense of ownership, which implications for leakage and non-permanence. Dr Yamanoshita stressed that the participation safeguard is closely related to the safeguards on “actions to address the risks of reversals” and “actions to reduce displacement of emissions.” Dr Yamanoshita concluded that participation in not an additional burden; it is a fundamental to the success of REDD+ activities.

Mr Boutthavong explained the top-down culture that prevails in the forest management of Lao PDR. In this context, negotiation between investors and local people can result in elite capture or manipulation by investors. In some cases, local people have been excluded from their land. Mr Boutthavong also pointed out that civil society organisations are mostly run by senior government officials.

Asked about whether his findings are Laos specific, or representative for the subregion, Mr Boutthavong responded that in the neighbouring countries (Thailand, Cambodia) most of the national forest land is managed by the government, so they have similarities with Laos with respect to participation issues.

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

The presentations in this session were:

Ms Kimiko Okabe, the Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (FFPRI), on Conservation of Biodiversity and Natural Forests in REDD+ Projects

Prof Ryo Kohsaka, Kanazawa University, on Biological Diversity Mr Yuyun Kurniawan, WWF Indonesia, on Biodiversity and Ecosysystem Services: Opportunity

and Challenges for REDD+ Implementation in the Upper Mahakam

8

In her presentation Ms Okabe stressed the importance of biodiversity conservation in tropical forests. She argued from a moral perspective that humans do not have the right to destroy biodiversity, and that the destruction of biodiversity can lead to a tipping point being reached where ecosystems collapse. She explained that the functionality of species is more relevant than their numbers. Ms Okabe highlighted pollination, biological control and decomposition as three important biodiversity services for ecosystems.

In his presentation, Dr Kosaka introduced the objectives and structure of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). He described the CBD work programme on biodiversity access and benefit sharing (ABS) policies arising from the utilisation of genetic resources. Dr Kosaka explained that the ABS-related consultations were relevant to REDD+, as both issues deal with FPIC.

Mr Kurniawan focused on community – private sector partnerships to safeguard environmental services. He emphasised that good communication skills in explaining REDD+ to communities are important. He stressed that expertise is required on how REDD+ can provide financial incentives for conservation, which are currently not available to the private sector.

Mr Kurniawan acknowledged that maintaining biodiversity involves financial costs. In the case of one logging concession in the Upper Mahakam, the concession covers the costs, while WWF and the local government provide some of the expertise.

Points raised and information shared by the audience included:

The CBD took a specific decision on Dec. No 11/19 on REDD+. This includes an annex of advice on possible indicators for biodiversity and spatial analysis on biodiversity. The Forest Carbon Asia website is a rich source of relevant information.

The costs of biodiversity surveys for forest certification are very high. The challenge for the biodiversity safeguard is to find an appropriate balance between costs and comprehensiveness.

Safeguard Information System

The following presentations were provided:

Dr Bernadinus Steni Sugiarto, HUMA: Association for Community and Ecology Based Law Reform, Indonesia, on Principles, Criteria and Indicators for REDD+ Safeguards Indonesia – PRISAI

Mr Steven Swan, SNV Vietnam, on National Safeguard Policies: A Country-Led Approach to REDD+ Safeguards and Multiple Benefits

In his presentation Dr Sugiarto explained that in Indonesia, the legal basis of the PRISAI development, testing and implementation includes the Cancun Agreement, National laws and National REDD+ Strategy. The National REDD+ Strategy in its 2nd version has been circulated and tested in four pilot areas. The grievance mechanism and conflict resolution are two of the most difficult elements of the strategy. New opportunities and challenges arise from the guidelines for reporting and public disclosure and, in terms of tenure, from the constitutional court decision MK 35/2023 stating that indigenous forest belongs to the indigenous peoples. He explained that his team complements the work of Dr Masripatin from the Centre for Standardization and Environment with a focus on developing the content of the standard.

Dr Sugiarto opined that the answer to whether Indonesia was using existing data to implement the PRISAI was both “yes” and “no”. In the context of Indonesia, the players are not only the government but also other stakeholders, such as the World Bank and UNDP. He said that it depends

9

on the best practices Indonesia has. In terms of finance the country has an anti-corruption commission, but the point is how the process can learn from the existing success stories.

In his presentation, Mr Swan explored the multiple benefits that REDD+ and the safeguards can potentially provide. He addressed national safeguard policies as a country-led approach with respect to:

Multiple benefits – risks, benefits & strategies How to safeguard? – the ‘country safeguard system’ How to mainstream? – into policies and plans How to incentivise? – economic instruments Multiple benefits – risks and opportunities

Mr Swan stressed that the success and legitimacy of REDD+ depends on the potential to deliver multiple benefits. There are 3 broad, complementary strategies to achieve multiple benefits:

1. Country safeguards systems 2. Maintreaming into strategies and plans 3. Economic incentive structure

Countries can respond to safeguards requirements through three frameworks, namely their legal, institutional and compliance framework.

In the question and answer session Mr Swan was asked whether he thought that the discussion on natural capital accounting would be a good approach. He responded that he agreed that this was a good approach, as it would address the third point of the assessment tools he had presented, the valuation of ecosystem services. However, he also expressed his concern that it will be difficult to expect payments purely for biodiversity conservation. He added that all national REDD+ strategies have a statement on biodiversity conservation.

On the issues of financing and non-carbon benefits, Mr Swan explained that he is not proposing economic incentives as part of a safeguards package, but that safeguards can contribute to facilitate the provision of these incentives. The issue is how to reform long-established instruments to modify the flow of revenue. He suggested defraying some up-front costs of REDD+ through promoting multiple benefits.

Mr Swan was asked about the relationship between multiple benefits and transboundary issues, such as development of infrastructure, e.g. a dam. Mr Swan explained that addressing mining, logging, hydropower, as drivers of deforestation works only on the supply side issues. A fundamental weakness of REDD+ is transboundary leakage. These issues go to the very core of the challenges.

Points raised and information shared by the audience included:

Negotiators will discuss non-carbon benefits at SBSTA 14. The views on non-carbon benefits are diverse, and that it will take for a definition to be agreed.

The constituencies for REDD+ and biodiversity are different. Beyond the certain level of dialogue that has taken place, how to merge the two remains a major challenge.

Indonesia is developing its national forest monitoring system for REDD+ based on its existing systems, and with a view to what will happen in the future.

REDD+ should not be seen in isolation, and not everything can be brought into the UNFCCC process. ASEAN has a common approach to recognise the standards that exist in each ASEAN country and to develop capacity building strategies, though there is a gap on how the ASEAN government officials communicate with their stakeholders.

10

Panel discussion

Dr Scheyvens, as the moderator of the panel discussion, asked the panelists what key messages they wanted the audience to take home with them.

Dr Cadman responded that safeguards exist in REDD+, because governance is weak. Safeguards have become a surrogate or substitute for a comprehensive (system wide) “good” governance framework in REDD+. Safeguards are the post-Copenhagen response from member states to pressure from NGOs and civil society organizations regarding the shortcomings of REDD+. Governance is about good relationship between stakeholders, it is about democracy and it is about resources. When you cannot reach an agreement on these issues at the negotiations, you use the safeguards. You are already dealing with an inadequate response due to the institutional failure.

Dr Sugiarto said that for him the point of discussing safeguards is about making change. In countries like Indonesia, the safeguards are an opportunity to make changes on the ground and to improve legislation. In Indonesia, safeguards are in the first stage of development, so the change is still small, but the intention is to gradually make a larger change, to change the system.

Dr Masripatin said that as a forester, she thinks safeguards have to be addressed and respected, but should not overburden implementation. She admitted that in the UNFCCC many people are not happy with the safeguards. If the country could interpret those safeguards well, I think the safeguards will give benefits to the REDD+ countries.

Mr Swan stressed that safeguards are one mechanism to protect and enhance the multiple benefits that you can achieve from protecting forests. It is an imperfect one, but it is not practical to expect more from countries. He explained that the multiple benefits can be understood as “multiple returns” and that the question should be “how can we get more back from REDD+ than we have put into REDD+.”

Ms Phuong explained that social, governance, and environmental aspects are all keys to REDD+. She explained that while there is a desire in Viet Nam to comply with the agreement on safeguards, there are still many gaps to be filled.

Mr Kurniawan felt that we cannot make the safeguards perfect, but better. He stressed that the safeguards are necessary for REDD+ to work at the local level.

Mr Boutthavong directed attention to the need for more capacity building to ensure the safeguards are understood and accepted by all stakeholders.

From the audience, the need for greater attention to be directed at the potential for cross-border leakage, and for inter-agency co-ordination, were stressed. On the second point, Dr Sugiarto explained that Indonesia has developed a “one map approach” under which all agencies will start using one single consistent and comprehensive map.

Closing

Dr Schevyens closed the conference by thanking all the supporters and participants, pointing out the conference had achieved its objectives and exceeded expectations. He explained that a closed experts meeting would be held to take up the issues raised for further discussion, and that the discussions could contribute to an IGES brief and/or submission to the UNFCCC on safeguards.