Training Manual on REDD+ Safeguards and the Design of a ... · Training Manual on REDD+ Safeguards and the Design of a Country Approach to Safeguards for Vietnam 3 Lesson 1.1 History

1

Training Manual on REDD+ Safeguards and the Design of a Country Approach to Safeguards (CAS) for Vietnam A Learning Tool of the Operationalising National Safeguard Requirements for Results-based Payments from REDD+ Project

August, 2016

i

Acknowledgements

ThistrainingmanualisalearningtooloftheOperationalisingNationalSafeguardsRequirementsforResults-basedPaymentsfromREDD+Project.Theprojectworksinthreeregionalhubcountries(Ghana,PeruandVietnam)insupportingthemtobecomeeligibleforresults-basedREDD+paymentsthroughtheestablishmentofcountry-ledsafeguardsystemsandimprovedinstitutionalcapacityforREDD+safeguardsimplementation,monitoringandreportingatnationalandsub-nationallevels.TheprojectissupportedbytheInternationalClimateInitiative.TheGermanFederalMinistryofEnvironment,NatureConservationandNuclearSafetysupportsthisinitiativebasedonadecisionadoptedbytheGermanBundestag.

Thislearningtoolhasbeenspecificallytailoredforcapacity-buildingpurposesinVietnam.InVietnam,theprojectisimplementedbySNV–TheNetherlandsDevelopmentOrganisationinpartnershipwiththeVietnamREDD+Office(VRO)andwithtechnicalguidancefromClimate,LawandPolicy(CLP).

ThedocumenthasbeencompiledbySebastienKorwin(CLP),DanielaRey(CLP),UgoRibet(CLP),LindaRivera(CLP),RichardRastall(SNV)andLyThiMinhHai(SNV)withvaluablecontributionsfromLeHaPhuong(VRO)andNguyenThiThuThuy(VRO).TheteamisalsogratefultoVuThiKieuPhuc(SNV)forhersupportintranslatingthemanualintoVietnamese.

ii

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... i Abbreviations & Acronyms ...................................................................................... iii Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 Module 1: Negotiation and Development of REDD+ Safeguards in the UNFCCC

Framework and other REDD+ initiatives ................................................................... 2 Lesson 1.1 History and context of the international negotiations and decisions

adopted under the UNFCCC relating to REDD+ safeguards ................... 3 1.1.1 History of the negotiations in the UNFCCC framework relevant to REDD+

safeguards ................................................................................................. 3 1.1.2 Summary of international obligations for country parties in relation to REDD+

safeguards ................................................................................................. 8 Lesson 1.2: Introduction to Relevant REDD+ Initiatives and the Various

Processes/Requirements Relating to Safeguards ................................. 9 1.2.1 Introduction to multilateral, bilateral and voluntary REDD+ initiatives and

safeguards ................................................................................................. 9 1.2.2 Introduction to the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) .......................... 11 1.2.3 Introduction to the UN REDD Programme ..................................................... 13

Module 2: Introduction to the Design of a Country Approach to Safeguards ........... 14 Lesson 2.1: Justification for the design of a Country Approach to Safeguards and

introduction to its main elements and characteristics ......................... 15 2.1.1 Context and justification for the design of a Country Approach to Safeguards .... 15 2.1.2 Introduction and Characteristics of a Country Approach to Safeguards ............. 15

Lesson 2.2: Key components and processes of a country safeguards approach ...... 20 2.2.1 Engaging Stakeholders in Country Approaches to Safeguards .......................... 21 2.2.2 Setting Safeguard Goals and Scope ............................................................. 24 2.2.3 Identifying, assessing and strengthening existing governance arrangements ..... 26 2.2.4 Clarifying the Cancun safeguards in accordance with national context .............. 31 2.2.5 Articulating how the country's safeguard goals will be achieved ....................... 33 2.2.6 Designing the safeguard information system ................................................. 35

iii

Abbreviations & Acronyms ADB Asian Development Bank AfDB African Development Bank BMUB German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and

Nuclear Safety

CAS Country Approach to Safeguards CCBA Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance CLP Climate Law and Policy COP Conference of Parties ERP Emission Reduction Programme ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility FIP Forest Investment Programme FORMIS Forest Management Information System FREL Forest Reference Emission Level GCF Green Climate Fund GHG Greenhouse Gas GSO General Statistics Office IADB Inter-American Development Bank ICI International Climate Initiative IFC International Finance Corporation JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MB-REDD Delivering Multiple Environmental and Social Benefits from REDD+ MDB Multilateral Development Bank MONRE Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment MPI Ministry of Planning and Investment MRV Monitoring, Reporting and Verification NFMS National Forest Monitoring System NGO Non-government Organisation NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development NRAP National REDD+ Action Plan NS/AP National Strategy/Action Plan PaMs Policies and Measures PCI Principles, Criteria and Indicators PLR Policies, Laws and Regulations

iv

PRAP Provincial REDD+ Action Plan QC Quality Control REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation RPP Readiness Project Proposal SBI Subsidiary Body for Information SBSTA Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice SDG Sustainable Development Goals SES Social and Environmental Standard SESA Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment SOI Summary of Information SIS Safeguards Information System SNV The Netherlands Development Organisation STWG Sub-Technical Working Group STWG-SG Safeguards Sub-Technical Working Group UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UN-REDD United Nations REDD+ Programme USAID United States Agency for International Development VCS Verified Carbon Standard VER Verified Emission Reduction VNFOREST Vietnam Forest Administration VRO Vietnam REDD+ Office

Training Manual on REDD+ Safeguards and the Design of a Country Approach to Safeguards for Vietnam

1

Introduction Learning tool objective

This learning tool seeks to provide the information needed to ensure a good understanding of the REDD+ Safeguards of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the development of a Country Approach to Safeguards (CAS) in a simple and structured manner.

For whom is this capacity training tool intended?

Specifically, the tool is designed to support capacity building activities for national safeguards working groups (i.e. in Vietnam a Sub-Technical Working Group (STWG) on REDD+ Safeguards has been established comprised of a core working group as well as a broader constituency of other interested stakeholders from public sector agencies, civil society, NGOs and the private sector). In addition, the learning tool can be used by any individual who has an interest in self-training in the subjects identified.

Learning tool structure

The tool is divided into two main modules, each of which is subdivided into lessons. Depending on the initial level of knowledge and interest of the individual or group to train, modules and/or lessons can be skipped. Below is the table of contents of the modules and lessons:

Module 1: Negotiation and development of REDD+ safeguards in the UNFCCC framework and other REDD+ initiatives Lesson 1

History and context of the international negotiations and decisions adopted under the UNFCC relating to REDD+ safeguards

Lesson 2

Introduction to relevant REDD+ initiatives and requirements/ processes related to safeguards

Module 2: Introduction to the design of a Country Approach to Safeguards Lesson 1

Justification for the design of a Country Approach to Safeguards and introduction to its main elements and characteristics

Lesson 2 Guidance on the steps to develop a Country Approach to Safeguards


2

Module 1: Negotiation and Development of REDD+ Safeguards in the UNFCCC Framework and other REDD+ initiatives

Module Learning Objective:

In completing this module participants should have a good understanding of the context and international decisions relevant to REDD+ safeguards under the UNFCCC framework, as well as the safeguards processes/requirements of the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and UN-REDD Programme.

Module 1 is divided into two lessons:

1.1 History and context of the international negotiations and decisions adopted under the UNFCCC relating to REDD+ safeguards

1.2 Introduction to relevant REDD+ initiatives and requirements/processes related to safeguards.


3

Lesson 1.1 History and context of the international negotiations and decisions adopted under the UNFCCC relating to REDD+ safeguards

REDD+ originated and has developed within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). International negotiations on REDD+ have been ongoing and evolving over the last ten years

This lesson provides the necessary information for participants to have a better understanding of the negotiations and decisions of the UNFCCC on the subject of safeguards.

1.1.1 History of the negotiations in the UNFCCC framework relevant to REDD+ safeguards

REDD+ has been designed and developed under the UNFCCC negotiations as an international mechanism to incentivise the mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through providing results-based payments to developing countries for the effective conservation, sustainable management and enhancement of tropical forests. The Conference of the Parties (COP) is the supreme body of the UNFCCC, in charge of making decisions related to the objective of the Convention.

Since the entry into force of the UNFCCC, parties have met regularly in cities across the world to discuss the operationalization of the objectives of the UNFCCC. REDD+ has been on the discussion table since 2005, gaining greater interest from the parties in the negotiations and weight over the years.

Below are listed the main COPs of the UNFCCC addressing, or with important outcomes related to, REDD+, as well the specific issues related to safeguards (such as the development of the safeguard information system and its connection with results-based payments).

2005 - COP 11, MONTREAL, CANADA

In 2005, Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica, on behalf of the Coalition of Rainforest Nations, presented a proposal to create a mechanism to reduce GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries to the eleventh Conference of the Parties (COP 11) of the UNFCCC.

The idea was well received by most parties, and a two-year process was initiated to design an effective REDD proposal and resubmit it to the COP 13.

2007 - COP 13, BALI, INDONESIA

At COP 13, a large group of countries showed interest in REDD+ and therefore the parties recognized it as an option to mitigate climate change in the "Bali Action Plan", laying the foundation for future negotiations.

2010 – COP 16, CANCUN, MEXICO

The "Cancun Agreement" is a milestone on the subject of international policy on REDD+. The main commitments on REDD+ decided by the parties included:

1. Confirmation of the list of agreed activities for REDD+

4

The initial REDD+ concept was broadened in Cancun, to include Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, and the ‘plus’ (+), including:

+ The conservation of forest carbon stocks;

+ The sustainable management of forests;

+ The enhancement of forest carbon stocks.

2. The parties agreed to a set of seven safeguards applicable to the implementation of REDD+.

This means that any country interested in carrying out any of the above-mentioned REDD+ activities must implement them in accordance with a number of safeguards related requirements. The safeguards themselves are referred to as the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards (also known as the Cancun safeguards).

5

3. As initial guidance for the development of REDD+ the parties called on developing countries to:1

1 UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.16 paragraph 71

The UNFCCC REDD+ (Cancun) Safeguards

“When undertaking [REDD+] activities, the following safeguards should be promoted and supported:

a) That action complements or is consistent with the objectives of national forest programmes and relevant international conventions and agreements;

b) Transparent and effective national forest governance structures, taking into account national legislation and sovereignty;

c) Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, by taking into account relevant international obligations, national circumstances and laws, and noting that the United Nations General Assembly has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

d) The full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities;

e) That actions are consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biological diversity, ensuring that the [REDD+] actions are not used for the conversion of natural forests, but are instead used to incentivize the protection and conservation of natural forests and their ecosystem services, and to enhance other social and environmental benefits;

f) Actions to address the risks of reversals;

g) Actions to reduce displacement of emissions.”

Source: UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.16, Appendix I, paragraph 2

6

- Develop a national strategy or action plan;

- Establish reference levels for forest emissions and/ or national forest reference levels;

- Develop a robust and transparent national forest monitoring system;

- Develop a system for providing information on how safeguards are being addressed and respected (also known as a Safeguards Information System (SIS)).

Finally, the parties decided to establish a new work program to the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), which includes, among other things, work on guidance for countries as to how they should provide information on safeguards.

2011 - COP 17, DURBAN, SOUTH AFRICA

At COP 17, the “Durban decision” included some important safeguard related provisions.

First, the decision made a clear link between the implementation of the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards and obtaining results based finance. Parties agreed on the requirement that regardless of the source and type of funding, REDD+ activities, must be implemented in a manner consistent with the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards.2 This decision clarified that it isn’t enough for countries to comply with the safeguards of the respective funds and entities that they are receiving financing from for their REDD+ activities (e.g. operational policies of the World Bank), but would need to ensure that all REDD+ activities are consistent with the provisions of the seven UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards.

Secondly, the Decision also required developing countries to periodically provide a summary of information (SOI) on how the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards are being addressed and respected, during all phases of the implementation of activities.3

Thirdly, the COP developed guidance on the characteristics of the SIS, including that it should:4

- Be based on existing systems

- Provide information on how all REDD+ safeguards are being addressed and respected

- Take into account national circumstances and capacities

- Be transparent and accessible to stakeholders

- Be flexible and be regularly updated

The SBSTA was also requested to consider the need for additional guidance to ensure “transparency, consistency, comprehensiveness and effectiveness when informing on how all safeguards are addressed and respected”5

2 UNFCCC Decision 2/CP.17 paragraph 63 3 UNFCCC Decision 12/CP.12 paragraph 3 4 UNFCCC Decision 12/CP.17 paragraph 2 5 UNFCCC Decision 12/CP.17 paragraph 6

7

2012 - COP 18, DOHA, QATAR

At COP 18 in Doha the parties agreed to launch in 2013 a work programme dedicated to results based funding in order to increase and improve the financing effectiveness of REDD+ activities,6

SBSTA and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) were also requested by the COP to jointly initiate a process to improve the technical, technological and financial support to developing countries in the implementation of REDD+.7

Finally, it was agreed to resume discussions related to the time and manner in which countries should present their summary of information on safeguards to the UNFCCC, as well as the frequency of subsequent summaries. In addition, further guidance was requested.

2013 - COP 19 WARSAW, POLAND

COP 19, was a key meeting for REDD+, as the parties adopted the “Warsaw Framework for REDD+” which consolidated and confirmed previous COP decisions and guidance on REDD+. This set of decisions is also known as ‘REDD+ Rulebook’.

The Warsaw framework also provides additional guidance on the summary of information Parties must submit on how safeguards have been addressed and respected throughout the implementation of REDD+:

- The Warsaw framework reaffirmed that Parties should provide the most recent summary of information8 and that it shall be included in national communications or communication channels agreed by the COP.9 This will mean that the frequency of reporting is linked to the frequency of national communications (every 4 years).

- It was anticipated that on an additional and voluntary basis parties could provide a summary of information through the UNFCCC web platform.10

2015 - COP 21, Paris, FRANCE

In the final series of decisions on REDD+, agreed in Paris at COP 21, Parties to the UNFCCC developed further guidance on the content of the summaries of information.

As part of this guidance, developing country Parties should provide information on which REDD+ activity or activities they are including in their summary of information (what specific REDD+ activities in the country are subject to the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards)11

6 UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.18 paragraph 25 7 UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.18 paragraph 35 8 UNFCCC Decision 9/CP.19 paragraph 4 9 UNFCCC Decision 12/CP.19 paragraph 2 10 Ibid paragraph 3 11 UNFCCC Decision 17/CP.21 paragraph 5

8

Parties are also ‘strongly encouraged’ to include the following elements in their summaries:12

– Information on national circumstances relevant to addressing and respecting the safeguards;

– A description of each safeguard in accordance with national circumstances;

– A description of existing systems and processes relevant to addressing and respecting safeguards, including the SIS; and

– Information on how each of the safeguards has been addressed and respected

Developing country Parties are ‘encouraged’ to provide any other relevant information on the safeguards.13

1.1.2 Summary of international obligations for country parties in relation to REDD+ safeguards

Based on the above UNFCCC decisions, there are three key safeguards requirements that all REDD+ countries must comply with in order to access result based payments, independently of the source of funding:

1. Implement REDD+ measures in a manner consistent with the Cancun safeguards;

2. Establish a system to provide information on how the Cancun safeguards are being addressed and respected; and

3. Provide a summary of information on how the safeguards are being addressed and respected throughout the implementation of REDD+.

12 Ibid 13 Ibid


9

Lesson 1.2: Introduction to Relevant REDD+ Initiatives and the Various Processes/Requirements Relating to Safeguards

1.2.1 Introduction to multilateral, bilateral and voluntary REDD+ initiatives and safeguards

The previous lesson covered the development of REDD+ as an international climate change mitigation strategy in the UNFCCC negotiations. In parallel with these processes there have been various initiatives supporting the development of REDD+ programmes or institutional frameworks at national levels, as well as projects at sub-national or site-levels.

Multilateral Initiatives

There are two main multilateral REDD+ initiatives:

1. The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) has been established by the World Bank to assist countries in their REDD+ efforts by providing them with financial and technical assistance in building their capacity to benefit from possible future systems of positive incentives for REDD+. The World Bank acts as trustee of the FCPF; and also often serves as a delivery partner. However, under the FCPF a range of Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) (such as the African Development Bank (AfDB); Inter-American Development Bank (IADB)) may also act as implementing agencies and/or delivery partners, as in some cases may the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

The World Bank has also established the Forest Investment Programme (FIP) which may fund a range of investments in a given country’s forest sector, including REDD+ interventions. Investments in the FIP may be channelled through MDBs e.g. in Laos the FIP is channelled through the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC).

This has implications from a safeguards perspective since each MDB is responsible for the use of the funds transferred and the implementation of activities and the MDBs require countries to conduct activities in accordance with the MDB policies, guidelines and procedures.

2. The United Nations – REDD (UN-REDD) Programme is a collaborative partnership between the UNDP, the UNEP and the FAO.

Multilateral agencies support both the development of a REDD+ programme or framework at the national level in participating countries as well as demonstration or pilot initiatives and investment projects at the sub-national or site project levels. Vietnam is one of only a relatively small number of countries that receives support from both the FCPF and UN-REDD. Section 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 will examine the FCPF and UN-REDD programmes in more detail.

Bilateral Agencies

Bilateral donors also support REDD+ financing, readiness and sub-national REDD+ activities and projects. This is the case for example of Norway, which supports the preparation for REDD+ through its development agency NORAD. In Vietnam, major bilateral donors supporting REDD+ include Germany, Japan, Norway and the USA.

10

Voluntary Initiatives

Voluntary initiatives are REDD+ projects which have been developed at sub-national jurisdictional or site levels with the intention to generate emission reductions and tradable credits for sale on the voluntary market. Such projects are often developed by conservation NGOs interested in conserving important forest ecosystems and habitats and/or commercial investors seeking to make conservation a business.

Safeguards Implications

Several of the REDD+ funding agencies and donors have developed their own safeguard frameworks applicable to the REDD+ readiness and demonstration activities that they financially support, or apply existing safeguards policies to the REDD+ initiatives they support. REDD+ recipient countries are under increasing pressure to develop safeguard responses that meet not only the UNFCCC requirements, but also the multilateral and bilateral and contractual commitments they acquired through the funding agencies and donors that are supporting them.

These include contractual safeguard requirements of multilateral funds, such as the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and many bilateral REDD+ funding sources (such as Norway, Australia and Germany).14 In the near future other proposed multilateral sources such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF) will also establish safeguard mechanisms, and have their own separate safeguard procedures.15 In the case of projects being bilaterally funded, countries are generally required to comply with safeguards of the donor, which are not always made public.

Voluntary initiatives, on the other hand, need to be validated and verified as projects prior to any emissions trading. Buyers need to know that they are genuinely purchasing emission reductions. Most projects of this kind have been validated and verified under the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), which also includes some environmental and social safeguards indicators and standards of it’s own. In addition, many of these projects have sought further certification in terms of their environmental and social co-benefits and performance through assessment against standards such as the REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards (REDD+ SES) an initiative of the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) and CARE International, and Plan Vivo. In fact, in the case of REDD+ SES, some countries also participate in the initiative, and have used the content and process of the REDD+ SES as a basis for developing their SIS.

This means that countries may face multiple safeguards requirements for the implementation of REDD+ measures. The following sections provide more details on the two principal multilateral initiatives and the safeguard frameworks that will apply to them. Note that here we will not focus on the REDD+ SES due to a number of challenges associated with using REDD+ SES for developing the SIS. Although the REDD+ SES initiative has some advantages in terms of participatory processes, the outcome is a safeguards system based on Principles, Criteria and Indicators which can be unwieldy and is not based on existing country systems, and is therefore not enforceable and would not ensure the consistency of safeguards in practice.

14 It should be noted that the FCPF safeguard framework constitutes a contractual conditionality; whilst the UN-REDD programme provides voluntary guiding framework to assist countries in developing a national approach to safeguards. 15 Progress note on GCF Accreditation and Safeguards Framework, GCF/B/06/09,

http://gcfund.net/fileadmin/00_customer/documents/pdf/GCF_B06_09_Guiding_Framework_for_Accreditation_fin_20140211.pdf


11

1.2.2 Introduction to the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)

FCPF Background

In 2007, The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) was launched with the aim of strengthening the capacity of developing countries in tropical and subtropical regions, to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and to take advantage of the potential future system of positive incentives for REDD+.

FCPF Objectives

FCPF has four strategic objectives:

1) To assist countries in their REDD+ efforts by providing them with financial and technical assistance in building their capacity to benefit from possible future systems of positive incentives for REDD+.

2) To pilot a performance-based payment system for REDD+ activities, with a view to ensuring equitable benefit sharing and promoting future large-scale positive incentives for REDD+.

3) Within the approach to REDD+, to test ways to sustain or enhance livelihoods of local communities and to conserve biodiversity.

4) To disseminate broadly the knowledge gained in the development of the Facility and the implementation of Readiness Preparation Proposals (RPPs) and Emission Reductions Programs (ERPs).

FCPF funds

The FCPF consists of two separate but complementary funds: the ' Readiness Fund ' and the ' Carbon Fund':

1) The Readiness Fund aims to assist developing countries in preparing for their future participation in REDD+

2) The Carbon Fund will drive the payments of incentives for REDD+ policies and measures that result in verified emissions reductions (VER)

FCPF Safeguards Requirements

Countries receiving FCPF funding for readiness preparation through the World Bank are required to ensure compliance with the FCPF Readiness Fund’s common approach to environmental and social safeguards for multiple delivery partners (Common Approach).16 This also applies to countries seeking to obtain results based funding from the FCPF Carbon Fund.17 FCPF’s safeguard requirements applicable to REDD+ have two dimensions, substantive, and procedural.

Substantive Requirements

16 UN REDD FCPF (2012) R-PP Template Annexes Version 6, for Country Use p. 44 17 FCPF (2013) Carbon Fund Methodological Framework. Final. P. 17

12

According to the Common Approach, participating countries are expected to achieve “substantial equivalence” to the “material elements” of the World Bank’s environmental and social safeguard policies and procedures applicable to the FCPF Readiness Fund.18 In addition, according to the World Bank, its own safeguards policies, procedures and practices are “consistent” with the Cancun safeguards for REDD+,19 which means that a country approach developed to address and respect the Cancun safeguards could be understood substantively at least, to be “consistent” with the FCPF safeguard requirements.

Procedurally however, a number of additional activities need to be undertaken and outputs produced in order to fully meet the FCPF safeguard requirements.

Procedural Requirements

There are two procedural requirements under the FCPF:

a) Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA), and

b) Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF)

Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA)

The SESA stems from environmental assessment (EA) requirements of the World Bank.20 It is intended to be an inclusive process whereby the REDD+ country, with the participation of all potentially affected stakeholders, seeks to “identify likely impacts and risks, as well as opportunities,” among different strategic REDD+ options. During the SESA process these impacts, risks and opportunities are assessed and weighed by the various stakeholders. Activities that form part of the SESA include:21

• Identifying and prioritising the drivers of deforestation and the key social and environmental issues associated with the drivers. This assessment also includes looking at how issues such as land tenure, benefit-sharing and access to resources are dealt with in the country. A preliminary examination of the likely social and environmental impacts of the REDD+ strategy options identified in the R-PP is also necessary.

• Analysing the legal, policy and institutional “aspects” of REDD+ readiness

• Assessing existing capacities and gaps to address the environmental and social issues identified

• Establishing outreach, communication and consultative mechanisms with relevant stakeholders throughout the process

The SESA should conclude with the production of an ESMF as a means for managing environmental and social risks as REDD+ countries develop their REDD+ national strategies.

18 FCPF (2011) Readiness Fund Common Approach to Environmental and Social Safeguards for Multiple Delivery Partners. https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Nov2011/FCPF%20Readiness%20Fund%20Common%20Approach%20_Final_%2010-Aug-2011_Revised.pdf 19 FCPF Carbon Fund (2013) World Bank Safeguard Policies and the UNFCCC REDD+ Safeguards. FMT Note CF-2013-3 https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/june2013/FMT%20Note%20CF-2013-3_FCPF%20WB%20Safeguard%20Policies%20and%20UNFCCC%20REDD%2B%20Safeguards_FINAL.pdf 20 See OP 4.01 – Environmental Assessment, para. 7; and Annex A, para. 10. 21 Ibid

13

Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF)

All REDD+ countries must produce an ESMF as a direct output of the SESA process.22 The ESMF lays out principles, rules, guidelines and procedures for assessing issues and impacts associated with planned REDD+ activities that may occur in the future but are not presently known or are uncertain.23 It largely provides a framework for REDD+ countries to address environmental and social issues in their REDD+ Strategy as it is implemented.

The ESMF is completed and presented, to the extent possible, as part of the REDD+ country’s R-Package. However, if REDD+ investments have not yet been specifically identified, the ESMF remains a general principles-based document, leaving specific details for later.

1.2.3 Introduction to the UN REDD Programme

UN REDD Programme Background

The UN- REDD Programme was launched as a collaboration between the UNDP, the UNEP and the FAO in 2008. The programme began by supporting 9 countries (including Vietnam) and now currently supports activities in 64 countries.

UN-REDD Programme Objective

According to UN-REDD Framework Document, UN-REDD was established in order to “generate the requisite transfer flow of resources to significantly reduce global emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.”

The UN-REDD programme strategy for 2011-2015 defines its focus as “supporting countries to develop and implement their REDD+ strategies efficiently, effectively and equitably so as to speed up their REDD+ readiness and sustainably transform their land-use and forest management.

Following its adoption in May 2015, the UN-REDD Programme strategy for 2016-2020 outlined the overall development goal of the Programme as being: to reduce forest emissions and enhance carbon stocks from forests while contributing to national sustainable development. In other words, while focusing on REDD+ opportunities and the potential for emissions reductions and enhanced forest carbon stocks as agreed in the UNFCCC, the UN-REDD Programme will be consistent with and contribute to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

For the 2016-2020, the UN-REDD Programme will support changes that impact both: i) how countries meet the requirements of the UNFCCC, progressing from REDD+ readiness to RBPs; and, ii) the implementation of national REDD+ policies and measures that produce carbon and non-carbon benefits.

Forming part of the UN, the UN REDD programme does not create additional safeguard requirements, instead focusing on supporting countries to meet the UNFCCC requirements (including the safeguard requirements outlined above)

22 R-PP Template, Component 2d, p. 44. 23 Common Approach, p. 47, para. 23.


14

Module 2: Introduction to the Design of a Country Approach to Safeguards

Module Learning Objective:

By the end this module participants will have a good understanding of the performance and conceptual framework for the design of a Country Approach to Safeguards (CAS) Additionally, they may identify the elements and steps required to develop a CAS.

Module 2 is divided into two lessons:

2.1: Justification for the design of a Country Approach to Safeguards and introduction to its main elements and characteristics

2.2: Guidance on the steps to develop a Country Approach to Safeguards


15

Lesson 2.1: Justification for the design of a Country Approach to Safeguards and introduction to its main elements and characteristics

2.1.1 Context and justification for the design of a Country Approach to Safeguards

International requirements on safeguards

As outlined in Component 1, the UNFCCC has developed a series of rules and guidance, for developing countries looking to receive results-based payments including provisions on safeguards. Countries seeking to implement national REDD+ programmes must meet three requirements relating to safeguards to access results-based financing:

1) Implement REDD+ measures in a manner consistent with the Cancun safeguards;

2) Establish a system to provide information on how the Cancun safeguards are being addressed and respected; and

3) Provide a summary of information on how the safeguards are being addressed and respected throughout the implementation of REDD+.

These three requirements have represented a challenge for REDD+ countries, as the UNFCCC has not developed extensive guidelines that determine how countries should respond to these three requirements.

Furthermore, due to the variety of sources of REDD+ finance and the fact that implementing REDD+ often requires access to finance from more than one source, many countries are dealing with multiple safeguard frameworks. This situation might lead to:

• Overlapping activities,

• Increased transaction costs and, finally,

• Hindering countries efforts to ensure compliance with the safeguards and the sustainability of REDD+.

A Country Approach to Safeguards (CAS) provides countries with a possible structure to meet these multiple safeguard requirements in a way that suits its own context and circumstances.

2.1.2 Introduction and Characteristics of a Country Approach to Safeguards

What is a Country Approach to Safeguards?

A ‘Country approach to safeguards’ (CAS) is a general term that describes the elements and processes undertaken, by countries to meet safeguard requirements for REDD+ under the UNFCCC, and other relevant initiatives and institutions. Country approaches are characterized by identification, application and improvement of existing governance arrangements for REDD+ – such as policies, laws, regulations (PLRs); institutional arrangements and information systems and sources - to meet the different safeguards requirements a country may choose to adopt.

Over the past five years it has been demonstrated that 'a CAS is emerging as a practical, yet

16

strategic, model for meeting UNFCCC (and other relevant) REDD+ safeguards requirements, as well as serving as a vehicle for all-important country ownership and relevance'.

Country approaches typically aim to ensure, inter alia, that24:

ü Safeguards are addressed through the existence of relevant governance arrangements, including policies, law and regulations through which the rights and obligations embodied in the safeguards are to be recognized, protected and promoted throughout the implementation of the proposed REDD+ actions (regardless of their type of funding source);

ü Safeguards are respected through the implementation and enforcement of those relevant governance arrangements, by government and (where relevant and appropriate) non-government actors, throughout the implementation of REDD+ actions (regardless of their type of funding source);

ü A SIS is in place to provide information that is accessible to all stakeholders on how the safeguards are being addressed and respected; and

ü Summaries of information on safeguards are submitted periodically to the UNFCCC and other applicable donor or funder (e.g. FCPF).

It is important to note that by building upon the country’s existing governance system, a CAS promotes the effective use of a country’s governance arrangements. A CAS can support countries’ efforts to respond to applicable international safeguard commitments, as well as taking the opportunity to significantly improve governance for domestic policy purposes irrespective of REDD+.

Moreover, a CAS can support countries in meeting the expectations of REDD+ funding agencies and donors, donors, in particular those of the FCPF. Countries receiving FCPF funding for readiness preparation through the World Bank are required to ensure compliance with the FCPF Readiness Fund’s common approach to environmental and social safeguards for multiple delivery partners (Common Approach).25 This also applies to countries seeking to obtain results based funding from the FCPF Carbon Fund.26 According to the Common Approach, participating countries are expected to achieve “substantial equivalence” to the “material elements” of the World Bank’s environmental and social safeguard policies and procedures applicable to the FCPF Readiness Fund.27

As noted in the section above, according to the World Bank, its own safeguards policies, procedures and practices are “consistent” with the Cancun safeguards for REDD+,28 which means that a country approach developed to address and respect the Cancun safeguards could be understood substantively at least, to be “consistent” with the FCPF safeguard requirements. The two procedural requirements of the FCPF: i) Strategic Environmental and

24 Rey, et al, (2015) Country Approaches to REDD+ Safeguards A Global Review of Initial Experiences and Emerging Lessons, UN-REDD programme.

25 UN REDD FCPF (2012) R-PP Template Annexes Version 6, for Country Use p. 44 26 FCPF (2013) Carbon Fund Methodological Framework. Final. P. 17 27 FCPF (2011) Readiness Fund Common Approach to Environmental and Social Safeguards for Multiple Delivery Partners. https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Nov2011/FCPF%20Readiness%20Fund%20Common%20Approach%20_Final_%2010-Aug-2011_Revised.pdf 28 FCPF Carbon Fund (2013) World Bank Safeguard Policies and the UNFCCC REDD+ Safeguards. FMT Note CF-2013-3 https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/june2013/FMT%20Note%20CF-2013-3_FCPF%20WB%20Safeguard%20Policies%20and%20UNFCCC%20REDD%2B%20Safeguards_FINAL.pdf

17

Social Assessment (SESA), and ii) Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) can also be linked to the CAS.

Benefits of a CAS

A CAS has several advantages; among them it allows countries to:

• Effectively respond to the UNFCCC and other relevant requirements related to REDD+ safeguards taking into consideration its national and international policy, and bilateral and multilateral contractual commitments, and in a way that fits their own context and circumstances.

• Achieve long-term governance-based benefits beyond results-based payments. A CAS can contribute to national priorities beyond reducing emissions, such as poverty reduction, sustainable development and green growth strategies. This is in line with the global emphasis on ‘country ownership’ over development processes as stated by the Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action on aid effectiveness, and promoted by the relevant financial institutions, such as the World Bank and newly established Green Climate Fund under the UNFCCC.29

• Cost-effectiveness and coherency. Once established, a CAS can be a cost-effective approach to responding to the requirements of multiple investors, new programmes or initiatives, with more efficient intervention inception and implementation, whilst ensuring a coherent standard of application of the safeguards.

• Build the confidence of investors. A robust CAS will provide confidence to an international constituency of donors and investors that the major environmental and social risks of REDD+ will be addressed and mitigated through national governance structures and systems rather than being left to piecemeal implementation by individual project developers.

• Build confidence in domestic stakeholders. The CAS demonstrates government’s commitment to address safeguards in a uniform and effective manner to a domestic constituency comprising civil society organisations, land and forest resource owners and users, and indigenous peoples and local communities.

CAS Elements and its linkage with safeguards

As mentioned above, the CAS builds upon the country’s existing governance system – it’s legal, institutional and compliance frameworks - that combined can be used to respond to national and international safeguard commitments.

1. The legal framework.30 Comprised primarily of national policies, laws, and regulations (PLRs), in addition to operational plans and programmes to implement the PLRs. Given that the legal framework of the country generally protects and regulates many of the objectives enshrined in the Cancun Safeguards, the legal framework is crucial to define which set of safeguards will be adopted by the country (the Cancun

29 UNFCCC Decision 3/CP.17 30 made up principally of national policies, laws, and regulations, as well as the plans and programs for these laws and policies, and applicable rules. This framework includes relevant international agreements and treaties applicable in the country.

18

Safeguards and any additional safeguards adopted or defined), their scope, and how these will be implemented during the implementation of the proposed REDD+ actions.

2. The institutional framework.31 Comprised of the institutions, their capacities, and the procedures for implementing the legal framework. Given that the country already has the institutional framework responsible for applying the legal framework relevant to safeguards, these institutions would be responsible for ensuring the implementation of the safeguards in the context of REDD+ activities.

3. The compliance framework.32 Comprised of three elements required to guarantee and demonstrate the effective implementation of the legal framework. It serves to ensure compliance with the safeguards (the Cancun Safeguards or any others adopted or defined by the country). The compliance framework is made up of three sub-elements:

i) Conflict resolution mechanisms: These mechanisms will help to address conflicts or disputes among individuals or groups whose rights (protected by the safeguards) may be affected by the implementation of REDD+ activities.

ii) Information, monitoring, and/or reporting systems: These systems will serve to provide information on how the safeguards are addressed and respected during the implementation of REDD+ activities, and will serve as the basis of the set-up of the SIS.

iii) Enforcement mechanisms: These mechanisms will serve to address/deal with any failure to respect the rights and obligations embedded in the safeguards during the implementation of REDD+ activities.

It is important to highlight that in order to best explain the elements that comprise the compliance framework, they are presented separately from the legal framework. However, the compliance framework is intrinsically linked to the legal framework and should not be considered as separate or optional. This is because the elements that make up the compliance framework serve as the means to guarantee and demonstrate the effective implementation of a country’s legal framework. Without them, the legal framework cannot be effectively implemented and its effective implementation cannot be demonstrated.

Fig 1: Relevant governance arrangements for a country approach to safeguards

31 made up of the institutions in charge of implementing the legal framework. 32 made up of three sub-elements needed to ensure and demonstrate the effective enforcement of the legal framework: i) information systems, including monitoring and reporting systems or mechanisms; ii) grievance redress mechanisms, and; iii) mechanisms to address non-compliance.

19


20

Lesson 2.2: Key components and processes of a country safeguards approach

There is no fixed and linear approach to adopting a country approach to safeguards, as it will depend significantly on the context and circumstances of the country and the progress they have made with the overall REDD+ chosen approach. However, drawing on insights and the learning process from pioneering countries33, the following six key components may be used by all countries in considering the adoption of the CAS and SIS design:

1. Engaging stakeholders in country approaches to safeguards 2. Setting safeguard goals and scope 3. Clarifying the Cancun safeguards in accordance with national context 4. Identifying, assessing and strengthening existing governance arrangements 5. Articulating how the country's safeguard goals will be achieved 6. Designing the safeguard information system

Fig 2: Key Components in Adopting the CAS and Designing the SIS

In this lesson, each component of adopting a CAS and designing the SIS is structured as follows:

a) Overview: outlining the rationale for undertaking each component

b) Objectives: reminding the reader the purpose for each component

33 Drawn from UN REDD (2015) Framework for supporting the development of country approaches to safeguards; Rey, D. & Swan, S.R. (2014) A Country-led Safeguards Approach: Guidelines for National REDD+ Programmes. SNV REDD+ Programme, Ho Chi Minh City; and Rey D., Shah, W.P. & Swan S.R. 2015. Country Approaches to REDD+ Safeguards: A Global Review of Initial Experiences and Emerging Lessons. UN-REDD, Geneva. Pioneering countries include among others: Mexico, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, Peru, Papua New Guinea, and Vietnam.

1. Engaging stakeholders in

country approaches to safeguards

2. Setting safeguard goals and scope

3. Identifying, assessing and strengthening

existing governance arrangements

4. Clarifying the Cancun safeguards in accordance with

national circumstances

5. Articulating how the country's

safeguard goals will be achieved

6. Developing the safeguard

information system

21

c) Key Considerations: early lessons and best practices aimed at assisting with the implementation of the component, including how to ensure synergies with overall REDD+ approach and FCPF safeguard related processes.

d) Country Case Studies: reflecting real world examples of how pioneering countries have approach and implemented these components.

e) Status of the Component in Vietnam: a description of the activities and outputs linked to this component already achieved in Vietnam.

f) Desired outcomes: what would result from this component in an ideal situation

2.2.1 Engaging Stakeholders in Country Approaches to Safeguards

a) Overview: There is broad agreement that stakeholder engagement will be essential in developing an inclusive and transparent country approach to safeguards34. The success of a country’s approach to safeguards, and its resultant products – SIS, summaries of information and any other domestic reporting - will depend on stakeholder ownership across a wide range of constituencies, particularly government bodies, civil society, ethnic minorities and local communities. Early lessons are emerging from countries’ initial experiences in engaging stakeholders in their country approaches to safeguards.

b) Objective: The objective of this 'component' is for countries to consider and determine the means through which they will ensure the inclusiveness and effectiveness throughout the adoption of the CAS and the implementation of their SIS.

c) Key Considerations: Three main issues are emerging from countries’ initial experiences in engaging stakeholders in their CAS:

i) The need for raising awareness and building capacities regarding/in relation to the safeguards requirements and REDD+ overall, and building capacities to engage in safeguards processes. In particular:

– Determining the appropriate content, timing and format of awareness raising and capacity building activities are critical to the success of any stakeholder engagement process.

– Awareness raising and capacity building activities need to be conducted at all stages of the CAS development

ii) The importance of ensuring consultation and participation, cost-effectively throughout CAS. In particular:

– Ensuring a balanced representation from all interested and relevant stakeholders that may be potentially affected by REDD+ activities. Key stakeholder groups whose representation is considered important include: government departments, non-governmental organizations, academia and

34 Indeed, a number of both REDD+ and donor countries cite UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 72, -

developing country Parties, when developing…their NS/APs, [are requested to ensure] the full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders… - as a requirement for full and effective stakeholder participation to apply to REDD+ readiness processes, as well as the implementation of REDD+ actions

22

research organizations, indigenous people's groups, local communities, and the private sector.

– Participation and consultation activities need to be carried out with adequate time and through appropriate methods, in order to ensure stakeholders can provide effective and necessary feedback. This applies to all activities, but in particular, to activities around the clarification of the Cancun safeguards, together with structuring the information in a SIS, both which are deemed highlight iterative processes.

– Consultation and participation processes under FCPF should be linked (if not integrated) into the CAS. In particular, advantage should be taken of stakeholder analyses and mapping exercises undertaken as part of R-PP formulation, followed by a more structured and detailed stakeholder analysis during the Preparation phase (Phase 2 of the SESA)35.

iii) The importance of defining appropriate institutional arrangements to generate the technical and political support that are needed for the country approach to safeguards.

– Identifying, establishing new, or strengthening existing platforms to enable the effective inclusion and participation of key stakeholders in the design and implementation of the country approach to safeguards and generate technical and political support. Building on existing structures or platforms is key, in particular those that have political support, strong mandates and links with the different agencies relevant to safeguards. In the cases where a multi-stakeholder body exists (e.g. such as REDD+ technical working groups developed under FCPF or REDD+ SES), countries will need to assess if the existing body could be utilised for the purposes of guaranteeing participation in the CAS and generating the necessary technical and political support. If countries determine it would be appropriate and beneficial to create a dedicated multi-stakeholder safeguards body, they should seek to build upon and liaise with the existing multi-stakeholder body. In particular, countries should seek to determine which stakeholders already participating in the existing relevant fora should be part of a multi-stakeholder safeguards body

– Establishment of a small technical multi-stakeholder committee for decision-making in addition to a larger multi-stakeholder body.

– Determining the role and responsibilities of the platforms/multi-stakeholder safeguards body is important. Composition, role, and functions of such coordinating bodies need to be clear (and best captured in a document, such as a terms of reference, for example) if they are to gain the trust of the key different stakeholder constituencies represented in the group’s membership, as well as efficiently drive the safeguards process forward.

35 FCPF (2010) FMT Note 2010-9 “Incorporating Environmental and Social Considerations into the Process of Getting Ready for REDD plus” p.5


23

d) Country Case Study:

Box 1: Engaging stakeholders, awareness raising and capacity building in Guatemala

With the support of REDD+ SES, Guatemala created a National Committee on Environmental and Social Safeguards (CNSAS). It was renamed the 'National Multi-sectorial REDD+ Safeguards Committee' (CMSREDD+) in 2015. Representatives from government, civil society, indigenous peoples groups, local communities, private sector and academia integrate the CNSAS. Although the CNSAS was originally created to support the use of REDD+ SES and to develop a SIS in the country, its members agreed to expand its role to be able to support the design and implementation of a country safeguard system. Today the CNSAS is a multi-stakeholder group in charge of supervising, legitimising and validating the design of a CAS in an inclusive and transparent manner. Since 2013 the Committee members have benefited from several training and capacity building activities to ensure all of its members can effectively participate, including dedicated and in depth capacity building workshops for all their members. These will continue as one of the CMSREDD+ objectives is to act as a multi-sectorial communications link to ensure the full participation of all stakeholders. Source: Enfoque Nacional de Salvaguardas de Guatemala en el marco de la Estrategia Nacional REDD+ (2016)

e) Status of the Component in Vietnam: The National REDD+ Network was established by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) in 2009. Thereafter, recognizing the need for thematic technical working groups, six Sub-Technical Working Groups have been established under the National REDD+ Network, with one dedicated to safeguards. The Sub-Technical Working Group on Safeguards (STWG-SG) was established as a multi-stakeholder platform to contribute coordinated technical assistance to government-led efforts to address and respect the Cancun safeguards and other relevant international and national policy commitments. In doing so, the STWG-SG’s ultimate goal is to contribute to promoting social and environmental co-benefits from REDD+ at national, subnational and local levels. The STWG-SG is chaired by the government through the Vietnam Administration of Forestry and co-chaired by SNV. The STWG-SG has met regularly throughout 2016 and has engaged substantively on a number of safeguard issues with support from the Delivering Multiple Environmental and Social Benefits from REDD+ (MB-REDD) project implemented by SNV as well as the UN-REDD programme. Work to date has included the development of a REDD+ Safeguards Roadmap, assessment of safeguard relevant PLRs, institutions, the clarification of the Cancun safeguards in accordance with Vietnam’s national circumstances, the identification of information needs for the SIS and the identification of relevant existing information sources for the SIS. Capacity building of the STWG-SG is an ongoing process, which will continue throughout the development of Vietnam’s CAS and SIS.

f) Desired Outcomes

ü A defined multi-stakeholder safeguard platform/body, whose members have the capacities and clear responsibilities to facilitate the design and implementation of the country approach to safeguards

ü Awareness raising and capacity building activities identified and planned throughout the country approach to safeguards

ü Participation and consultation activities are identified and planned throughout the country approach to safeguards

24

ü The creation/strengthening, of terms of reference and internal rules of the multi-stakeholder safeguards body.

2.2.2 Setting Safeguard Goals and Scope

a) Overview: These two interrelated components are emerging as fundamental to framing country approaches to safeguards:

i) Setting goals - determining which safeguards a country seeks to apply for REDD+ - Cancun safeguards by default, and any other additional safeguards requirements chosen by the country; and

ii) Setting scope - determining what interventions - REDD+ actions, again by default, and other actions in forestry and land-use sectors – that the chosen safeguards will be applied to.

In setting their safeguards goals, perhaps the most important consideration to keep in mind is that the Cancun safeguards constitute the default, not minimum, safeguards to be applied.36 The Cancun safeguards were negotiated under the UNFCCC to ensure all countries looking to implement REDD+ apply this essential set of safeguards to their REDD+ actions, and in this case countries may choose to include additional safeguards in accordance with their national and international policy and funding commitments (e.g. bilateral commitments to delivering REDD+ results in return for payments).

In terms of defining the scope of the safeguard application, a clear idea of what REDD+ actions (policies and measures) the country might implement is vital. The scope of safeguard application refers to anchoring the application of the safeguards to the proposed REDD+ actions (and other actions in forestry and land-use sectors that the chosen safeguards will be applied to). The UNFCCC requirement is to apply the Cancun safeguards to all REDD+ actions to be implemented under the NS/APs.37

b) Objective: The objective of this 'component' is for countries to consider and determine what set of safeguards (Cancun and any additional chosen ones) will be applied to the REDD+ actions (and other actions in forestry and land-use sectors – that the chosen safeguards will be applied to).

c) Key Considerations: Two main issues are emerging from countries’ initial experiences in setting the scope and the goals of their CAS:

i) The safeguard goals need to be set in full consideration of the country's national and international policy and funding commitments. In particular:

– Determining the safeguard goals in light of the country's policy and funding commitments requires understanding the extent of these commitments, and how they relate to the Cancun safeguards. Countries participating in the FCPF are required to adhere to the Operational Policies (OPs) of the World Bank (or equivalent from the Delivery Partner). However, adherence to these Policies, as part of the FCPF readiness process or Carbon

36 Under the UNFCCC, developing countries should ensure that REDD+ actions, regardless of the source and type of funding, are implemented in a manner consistent with the Cancun safeguards. Decision 1/CP.16, Appendix II, Decision 2/CP.17 paragraph 63 37 Ibid

25

Fund, does not necessarily constitute a different or additional set of safeguards. Each country’s clarification of the Cancun safeguards (see component 4), according to their national circumstances, presents an opportunity to cover all relevant safeguard requirements (including the OPs).

– Setting safeguard goals is an iterative process, linked to the adoption of the National REDD+ Action Plan and the clarification of the safeguards. Countries may start simply by outlining their safeguard goals (e.g. commitment towards ensuring the Cancun safeguards apply to the proposed REDD+ actions), within their NRAPs; and as their REDD+ actions are further defined and the process of clarification of the Cancun safeguards progresses, they might further specify the country's safeguards goals.

ii) The safeguards scope will be heavily influenced by the overall strategic approach to REDD+ (project-based, broader sectoral reforms etc.).

– Determining the scope of the safeguards application is important in managing stakeholder perceptions and expectations. Many stakeholders, particularly domestic civil society and grassroots-level actors, can hold high expectations of REDD+ in general, and safeguards in particular. In the latter case, some domestic stakeholders may expect the safeguards to be applied more broadly, than just to REDD+ actions. To provide clarity to all relevant stakeholders, is important to clearly articulate the scope of REDD+ safeguards application within the relevant document(s), such as the NRAP and the Articulation of CAS (see component 5).

– Setting safeguard scope is an iterative process, linked to the adoption of the REDD+ actions. Countries may start simply outlining their commitment towards ensuring the Cancun safeguards are applied throughout the implementation of the proposed REDD+ actions, within their NRAP; and as their REDD+ actions are further defined and PaMs are identified, link them specifically to the latter.

d) Country Case Study

Box 2: Ecuador's experience determining safeguards scope in relation to the proposed REDD+ actions

The preparation process for REDD+ in Ecuador involved significant efforts in identifying, mapping and prioritizing of social and environmental benefits in addition to climate change mitigation, while ensuring consistency with national objectives and priorities. From the beginning, priority was given to addressing safeguards according to country circumstances.

The experience with the national interpretation of REDD+ SES (2009-2013), enabled the country to identify, through a participatory process, priority issues regarding safeguards to address the potential risks and social and environmental benefits associated with the implementation of REDD+. The priority themes (e.g. participation of priority groups, respect for the rights of indigenous peoples, capacity building, among others) constituted inputs for the definition of a national safeguards scope. A key element to clarify and define the scope of the safeguards was the identification of REDD+ Measures and Actions (MyA REDD+)38, as well as the identification of opportunities and challenges to consider in the "REDD+ Action Plan (PA REDD+)" of Ecuador.

38In Ecuador they are called REDD+ Measures and Actions (MyA REDD+) as all initiatives that in an articulated and integrated manner, allow to avoid deforestation and forest degradation, promote conservation or the increase of carbon stocks and / or promote sustainable forest management, contributing this way to reducing

26

Source: Ministry of Environment Ecuador (2016)

e) Status of the Component in Vietnam

In June 2012 the Prime Minister approved the National REDD+ Action Programme: 2011-2020 (NRAP).39 The NRAP requires that “solutions and measures applicable for implementing the NRAP should be systematic, coordinated, phased and focused, and consistent to the specific conditions of the country, the provisions of the UNFCCC, as well as the technical and financial support from the international community.”40 This indicates that Vietnam has the intention to ensure consistency with the Cancun safeguards as well as the FCPF safeguard requirements. In addition to the relevant provisions of the NRAP, it is important to highlight the commitments taken through the STWG-SG and the Safeguards Roadmap for the NRAP41 in terms of seeking to take a country-led approach for meeting REDD+ safeguard related requirements.

In terms of setting the safeguards scope, although not explicitly stated in any stand-alone policy document, on-going discussions among the STWG-SG have made it clear that the scope of application of the CAS in Vietnam will cover all REDD+ PaMs.

f) Desired Outcomes

ü A clear identification of what are the safeguard goals the country seeks to implement/fulfil. As this is an iterative process, and depending on the stage, it could be embedded, in the country's workplan/roadmap for the adoption of the CAS, in the NS/APs, in the clarification of the Cancun safeguards, in the 'Articulation of the CAS', etc.

ü Determine the scope of application of the safeguards, by outlining what ‘activities’ (REDD+ actions and any other additional ‘activities’) will be subject to the safeguards goals. As this is an iterative process, and depending on the stage, it could be embedded, in the country's workplan/roadmap for the adoption of the CAS, in the NS/APs, in the 'Articulation of the CAS', etc.

2.2.3 Identifying, assessing and strengthening existing governance arrangements

a) Overview It is now generally considered by most countries that identifying, assessing, and strengthening existing governance arrangements for safeguards (e.g. PLRs, institutional frameworks, information systems, etc.) provide a fundamental framework

emissions from the forest sector, while seeking to maximize existing multiple environmental and social benefits in specific territories. These MyA REDD+ correspond to the term "Policies and Measures - PAMS" 39 Prime Ministerial Decision No. 799/QD-TTg, dated 27.07.12, on Approval of the National Action Programme on Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions through Efforts to Reduce Deforestation and Forest Degradation, Sustainable Management of Forest Resources, and Conservation and Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks: 2011 – 2020. 40 Chapter I, paragraph A (d). 41 STWG-SG (2014) Safeguards Roadmap for the National REDD+ Action Plan (v2.0). Sub-Technical Working Group - Safeguards (STWG-SG), Vietnam National REDD+ Network, Hanoi.

27

through which they can address and respect the Cancun safeguards throughout the implementation of their REDD+ actions.

Several countries have embarked on the identification and assessment of their safeguards-relevant governance arrangements. The understanding and scope of the term ‘governance arrangements’ differs from country to country, but the key elements countries are considering include:

– Policies, laws and regulations (PLRs)

– Institutional arrangements

– Conflict resolution mechanisms

– Enforcement mechanisms

b) Objective: Identifying relevant aspects of the governance arrangements through which the country specific safeguards will be achieved, and offering recommendations to address identified gaps or weaknesses that could hinder the implementation of the country specific safeguards.

c) Key Considerations: Two main issues are emerging from countries’ initial experiences in identifying, assessing and strengthening existing governance arrangements:

i) Importance of adopting a robust methodological and participatory approach for carrying out the assessments

– Following robust methodologies and clear parameters against which the governance arrangements are to be identified and assessed, are key to ensuring the sought outcomes of the analyses are achieved. As the Cancun safeguard principles are very broad they do not provide enough guidance as to what thematic elements might be covered by the gap analysis, international assessment frameworks have been widely used. When selecting and employing an international assessment framework it will be important that it allows for systematically unpacking the Cancun safeguard’s broad principles, into criteria and potentially indicators, providing a clear indication of what thematic elements need to be identified and assessed.

Analyses should be carried out on ‘paper’ (identifying and assessing what is articulated in formal government documents) and in ‘practice’ (identifying and assessing how the relevant aspects of the governance arrangements actually function, or not, in reality). It is important to note that the gap analysis of each governance arrangements may take considerable resources (particularly time), and is best carried out in a phased approach (starting with the legal gap analysis, moving to analysis of compliance aspects, and finally institutional assessment), building upon each gap analysis as it is undertaken.

– Defining appropriate consultative activities to gather feedback and validate findings of the assessments. Gathering stakeholder inputs and feedback can be most efficiently obtained through consultation around draft products of assessments led by technical specialists. It is important to note the products of these analyses will be technical documents, which need to be

28

unpacked and made accessible to the relevant stakeholders. Appropriate consultative activities (including format) will need to be identified and carried out.

ii) Identifying and taking action to address identified gaps and weaknesses

– Summarizing and systematizing the findings and gaps. The systematization of the findings and gaps will provide a clear "picture" of the current state of the relevant governance arrangements. However, it is also likely that there will be certain gaps, weaknesses, or possible inconsistencies that need to be adequately dealt with. It will be important this is clearly identified and discussed with relevant stakeholders.

– Crafting politically and timely feasible recommendations. When crafting recommendations, it will be important to consider what is politically and timely feasible. For example, in certain cases carrying out reforms to existing laws that apply broadly in the country (e.g. law on access to information) may be feasible, but in other cases it might be easier to create new and specific ordinance that is to be applied in the context of REDD+.

– Defining appropriate consultative activities to gather feedback and validate recommendations of the assessments. It is important to consider gathering stakeholder inputs and feedback on what are the appropriate recommendations to address identified gaps. Appropriate consultative activities (including format) will need to be identified and carried out.


Box 3: The Clarification of the Cancun Safeguards in Mexico The clarification of the Cancun Safeguards to the context of Mexico has been identified as a crucial step in the articulation of the National Safeguards System (NSS) and Safeguards Information System (SIS). To develop the clarification of safeguards, the National Forest Commission (CONAFOR) led a process that consisted on the following steps: 1. A preliminary clarification document was elaborated identifying:

• The elements of each safeguard in the context of Mexico, in accordance with the relevant legal framework.

• The scope of the implementation of safeguards (the National REDD+ Strategy)

• How each one of the constitutive elements of the safeguards are recognized and regulated by the applicable national and international legal framework.

• A narrative proposal combining all the constitutive elements to define each safeguard in accordance with the context of Mexico.

2. The preliminary clarification document was shared with relevant stakeholders and a webinar was conducted to explain its purpose and content and to receive feedback from the stakeholders.

3. A participatory workshop was carried out to present the clarification and gather feedback from stakeholders. Fifty three (53) people attended this event.

4. The comments received directly from stakeholders or through the webinar and workshop were gathered and systematized and CONFAOR elaborated a document explaining how the comments were addressed in the final version of the clarification document.

29

5. The clarification document was adjusted to reflect the inputs received and a final version was elaborated and shared with the participants from the webinar and workshop (it is expected to be published CONAFOR’s webpage in August 2016).

It is important to highlight that the clarification of the safeguards in Mexico will also be used to align different processes in the country. For example, the draft SESA report includes a risk analysis based on the preliminary clarification of safeguards and will be finalized once the final clarification document is released. Additionally, the clarification document will be an input for the development of the ESMF which will provide inputs for the articulation of the NSS and reporting through the SIS. Source: CONAFOR (2016)


30

Box 4: Sample draft interpretation of Cancun Safeguard (c) by Mexico, Vietnam and Papua New Guinea in accordance with their national context

Mexico, Vietnam and Papua New Guinea have developed draft documents clarifying what the Cancun safeguards mean to the country context using their country's legal framework as the key input. Although these documents are still in a draft stage, this text box illustrates distinctions that can be appreciated with regards to the clarification of Cancun safeguard 'c' due the country's particular legal obligations and national context. In Mexico: The legal framework recognizes three key stakeholder groups: indigenous peoples, ejidos and communities. The draft interpretation of this safeguards states that recognition and respect for the rights of indigenous peoples, ejidos and communities is guaranteed in the context of implementation of the REDD+ strategy ('ENAREDD+'), in adherence to national and international legal framework applicable, in particular the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution of the United Mexican States. In Vietnam: Vietnam is a nation comprising 54 ethnic groups. The term ‘indigenous peoples’ is not used in Vietnam, although it is recognised that ‘ethnic minorities’ are distributed throughout the country, mostly living in the mountainous regions. In the context of REDD+, the recognition of, and the criteria utilised to determine 'who are' ethnic minorities and local communities in accordance to the relevant PLRs is expected to be applicable to the implementation of the National REDD+ Action Plan (NRAP) and Provincial REDD+ Action Plans (PRAPs). In Papua New Guinea: The National Constitution of PNG provides a standard criteria for defining who are ‘indigenous people’ in PNG which is consistent with international law. However, the term ‘indigenous people’ is not used in the Constitution or in relevant PLRs. This is replaced with the term ‘customary landowners.’ PNG has identified that the recognition of, and respect for the rights of customary landowners, local communities and vulnerable groups in accordance to the relevant PLRs is applicable to the implementation of the National REDD+ Strategy; including the rights to non-discrimination, traditional knowledge and culture, self-determination, benefit sharing and collective tenure rights. Source: Draft clarification of the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards of Mexico, Vietnam and PNG (2016)


Vietnam carried out a comprehensive gap analysis of existing safeguards-relevant PLRs as a contribution to the Safeguards Roadmap42 under the NRAP. The latest version updated in June 2014 has incorporated additional analytical findings together with feedback from stakeholders, via the STWG-SG43. The identification and detailed analysis of Vietnam’s legal framework demonstrated that Vietnam’s PLRs are largely consistent with, and can satisfactorily address most aspects of, the Cancun safeguards (from an international legal best practice perspective). However, a number of specific legal gaps were identified and recommendations provided. These gap-filling measures need to be addressed in order to ensure Vietnam’s legal framework is fully consistent with the Cancun safeguards. Due to a number of legislative developments since the completion of the gap analysis, the findings will need to be updated as a next step.

In relation to the assessment of the institutional framework, Vietnam has carried out an analysis of the key implementation challenges linked to ‘issue clusters’ that reflect the most likely risks arising from REDD+ implementation in Vietnam. This assessment, and its

42 Rey, D., Hoang Ly Anh, Doan Diem, Le Ha Phuong & S.R. Swan (2014) Safeguards Roadmap (v2.0) for Vietnam’s National REDD+ Action Plan: a contribution to a country-led safeguards approach. SNV Netherlands Development Organisation, REDD+ Programme, Ho Chi Minh City. 43 p. 57, Rey D., Shah, W.P. & Swan S.R. 2015. Country Approaches to REDD+ Safeguards: A Global Review of Initial Experiences and Emerging Lessons. United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD), Geneva

31

recommendations will be presented to the STWG in August. This assessment was undertaken prior to the finalisation of the proposed REDD+ PaMs in Vietnam and will need to be revised once these are finalised, in order to clearly identify the institutions that will be responsible for ensuring consistency with the safeguards throughout REDD+ implementation. The assessment of relevant conflict resolution and enforcement mechanisms has yet to be undertaken.

f) Desired Outcomes:

ü A technical document(s) that identifies the aspects of the governance arrangements that could be used to operationalize the safeguards, and the recommendations for addressing the identified gaps and weaknesses.

2.2.4 Clarifying the Cancun safeguards in accordance with national context

a) Overview: Rather than defining a detailed set of safeguards provisions for REDD+, Parties to the UNFCCC agreed to a set of seven broad safeguards that are expected to be applied in accordance with national circumstances. Consequently, REDD+ countries are expected to ‘clarify’44 what the Cancun safeguards mean in their country, and the ‘clarification’ of the Cancun safeguards can be expected to vary significantly from country to country.

As noted above, as part of its safeguard-related guidance adopted at COP 21, the COP “strongly encourages” developing country Parties, when providing the summary of information on how the Cancun Safeguards are being addressed and respected, to include, inter alia: “A description of each safeguard in accordance with national circumstances.”45

It is important to note that the clarification of the UNFCCC REDD+ Safeguards in accordance with national circumstances is an essential element of a CAS for two reasons:

– It is one of the foundations of the SIS as it is key to determining the 'information needs' (i.e. types of information that are to be gathered by the SIS); and

– It is central to the preparation of the summary of information, as it helps to determine the information that should be provided to the UNFCCC to demonstrate how the safeguards are being addressed and respected.

b) Objective: The purpose of the clarification is to 'clarify' what the Cancun safeguard broad goals/objectives/principles mean to the country context. In other words, the clarification is expected to contextualize the general principles outlined in the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards into specific principles and objectives the country commits to fulfilling in the context of the application of the REDD+ actions. We must note that the specific objectives/goals/principles are largely determined and informed by the existing legal obligations of the country.

44 Synonymous terms used in the literature and practitioners include: ‘contextualizing’, ‘elaborating’, ‘interpreting’,’ specifying’ and ‘unpacking’ the Cancun safeguards. 45 Decision 17/CP.21 paragraph 5(b) see also UN-REDD brief on summaries of information for further analysis

32

c) Key Considerations Two main issues are emerging from countries’ initial experiences in clarifying the Cancun safeguards to the country context:

i) Adopting a robust methodological and participatory approach for clarifying the Cancun safeguards

– Selecting the key inputs that should be considered as part of the methodological approach, including the findings of the legal gap analysis (see component 4). Many stakeholders, particularly domestic civil society and grassroots-level actors, can hold high expectations over this process, and in particular over which inputs will be used. Is therefore important to choose and communicate the chosen methodological approach.

– Clarifying the Cancun safeguards is a highly iterative process with multiple revisions. As such, it is best carried out in a consultative manner with relevant stakeholders. It will be important to determine and carry out specific and appropriate consultation activities. Multiple cost effective methods and formats can be considered for carrying out consultations and gathering the feedback from stakeholders, including a mixture of online consultations, webinars and workshops.

– Selecting the format/structure for the clarification document is central for managing expectations over the scope of the clarification. The appropriate format can vary from country to country, but it will need to respond to the needs of the country in terms of the essential information that needs to be conveyed. For some countries it will involve unpacking 'core' interpretative elements of the Cancun safeguards to the country context and determining the legal basis for each. For others it might be going beyond and to offer explanations over the country context that justify the clarification.

ii) The importance of basing the ‘clarification’ of the Cancun Safeguards on the country's legal framework (i.e. PLRs)

– Utilizing the country's legal framework is key for ensuring the ‘clarification’ of the Cancun Safeguards is consistent with the country’s particular national context and managing stakeholders’ expectations. Countries legal framework may already recognize the rights and obligations embodied in the Cancun safeguards, but may articulate them differently in their domestic context. For instance, Cancun safeguard (c) requires that countries respect “the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities”, and while some countries have important populations of indigenous peoples, and therefore recognize their rights and knowledge through domestic laws, others may not recognize the term in their legal frameworks, instead referring to and protecting the rights of ‘vulnerable groups’ or ‘ethnic minorities’.

– Clarifying the scope of the clarification and the use of the legal framework is important in managing stakeholder perceptions and expectations. The clarification is not intended to determine how the relevant legal framework (e.g. PLRs) will be used to ensure the REDD+ actions are carried out in consistency with the safeguard goals, nor is the clarification a gap analysis of the PLRs. The legal framework is used to provide a 'legal basis' for the clarification based on national circumstances

33


Box 5: Best practice methodological steps for the identification and assessment of governance arrangements

Some common and best practice methodological of three (3) key steps countries have taken include: 1) Identification of relevant governance arrangements (e.g. legal framework-PLRs, information

systems, conflict resolution mechanisms, etc.). Early lessons and best practices have shown that the assessment of the legal framework should be the first assessment to be carried out, as it will serve as to inform the remaining analysis. In order to identify 'what' are the relevant aspects of the legal framework, countries have used international frameworks of interpretation of the Cancun safeguards46, which can serve to identify the relevance and thematic resemblance of the provisions of the legal framework with each of the Cancun safeguards. The identification should include PLRs, plans and programmes, with their specific articles and provisions.

2) Analysis of the identified relevant and applicable governance arrangements. In the case of the legal analysis, once the legal framework has been identified and confirmed with the relevant stakeholders, best practices are to complete a dedicated legal matrix (see Figure 3 above for an example) through desk based research, and later confirm the findings through interviews with relevant stakeholders.

3) Recommendations for addressing gaps and weaknesses. Subsequently to gathering feedback on the completed methodological matrix, best practices are to: a) summarize and systematize the findings and gaps in a technical paper. The systematization of the findings and gaps will provide a clear "picture" of the current state of the relevant legal framework (or governance arrangements); b) identifying appropriate recommendations for addressing gaps and weaknesses.

e) Status of the Component in Vietnam: The process of clarifying what the Cancun safeguards mean in accordance with Vietnam’s specific national circumstances has already begun. An initial draft clarification was prepared in early 2016 based on the findings of the PLR gap analysis following a structure developed based on international best practices. This draft was reviewed by the STWG-SG core group in May 2016, who made significant recommendations for revising this draft, both substantive and structural. Following this consultation, the document was revised by a Vietnamese legal expert to reflect the inputs of the core group. This draft was once more subjected to consultation in July 2016 and is currently undergoing a new round of revision.

f) Desired Outcomes

ü A clear identification and agreed understanding of how the key terms, general principles, rights and duties embodied by the Cancun Safeguards are reflected in the national context.

2.2.5 Articulating how the country's safeguard goals will be achieved

46 Such as those provided by Rey, D., Roberts, J., Korwin, S., Rivera., & Ribet, U. (2013) A Guide to Understanding and Implementing the UNFCCC, ClientEarth, London, United Kingdom. Available from: http://www.clientearth.org/reports/a-guide-to-understanding-and-implementing-unfccc-redd+-safeguards.pdf

34

a) Overview: Identifying and assessing existing governance arrangements can significantly contribute to demonstrating how the Cancun safeguards are to be addressed and respected. The identified relevant governance arrangements are associated with demonstrating how the Cancun safeguards are being addressed; whilst information about how these governance arrangements are working in practice, together with the resultant outcomes of their implementation, has been associated with demonstrating how the Cancun safeguards are being respected. Consequently, information drawn from the articulation, can be used to demonstrate how the Cancun safeguards are being addressed in the summary of information to the UNFCCC or other reporting requirements.

b) Objective: Formally determine what aspects of the country's governance arrangements (e.g. PLRs) will be used to ensure the safeguards are 'addressed' throughout the implementation of the REDD+ actions.

c) Key Considerations: Two main issues are emerging from countries’ initial experiences in articulating their country approach to safeguards. However, it is important to note countries are only now just beginning to work on this component and there is insufficient experience and knowledge to draw out clear emerging themes and messages from this aspect at this juncture.

i) Linking the proposed governance arrangements to the country specific safeguards. It will be important for countries to determine how each of the governance arrangements that are to be used as part of the country approach to safeguards will be used to ensure the Cancun safeguards are addressed and respected throughout the implementation of the proposed REDD+ actions, including the following:

– How safeguards are to be adhered to when implementing REDD+ actions (how the relevant aspects of the legal framework will be utilised to operationalize the safeguards);

– Which existing institutions/institutional arrangements will be used to oversee and guarantee the safeguards implementation when implementing REDD+ actions and how;

– Which existing information systems and sources will be used to gather information on the safeguards implementation when implementing REDD+ actions and how. This aspect of the articulation will be essential for setting up a system for providing information on the safeguards (see component 6-SIS below);

– Which existing conflict resolution mechanisms will be used to deal with grievances associated with the safeguards implementation (or lack of) when conducting REDD+ actions and how; and

– Which existing enforcement mechanisms will be used to deal with any failure to address and respect the safeguards when implementing REDD+ actions and how.

– Clarify how identified gaps and weaknesses will be dealt with. In cases where the legal, institutional or compliance framework are determined to have gaps/weaknesses, adopted recommendations (yet to be fulfilled) and

35

commitments should also be considered and outlined. For example, in cases where existing conflict resolution mechanisms have been determined not to be ideally applicable for dealing with grievances concerning the country specific safeguards, countries may decide to commit to the creation of a dedicated REDD+ GRM.

ii) Outlining how additional measures beyond the existing governance arrangements will be used to address/mitigate/minimize identified risks and maximize identified benefits

– It is important to acknowledge that in some cases it might be necessary to develop additional and new governance arrangements (e.g. protocols, institutional structures, etc.) to deal with specific risks and benefits of proposed PaMs. However, is worth noting these will in any case be linked and anchored under the relevant legal framework of the country.

– Ensuring linkages with SESA and ESMF under FCPF. As the articulation outlines how the relevant governance arrangements will be used to meet and fulfil the country specific safeguards, it will be important to consider these inputs when developing the ESMF and safeguards plans under the FCPF. Conversely, the outputs of the SESA process should be considered when undertaking the articulation, to ensure it is able to also outline how the identified risks and benefits will be dealt with.

d) Country Case Study: Given the extensive nature of the assessment of relevant governance arrangements coupled with the need to ensure appropriate stakeholder inputs, no REDD+ country has yet fully articulated a CAS. There are no clear examples of this component yet.

e) Status of the Component in Vietnam: As Vietnam is still currently carrying out the assessments of its relevant governance frameworks, the articulation has not yet begun. This activity, as well as the summary of gaps and revised recommendations are expected to be undertaken throughout 2017.

f) Desired Outcomes

ü A technical document(s) that identifies the aspects of the governance arrangements that could be used to operationalize the safeguards, and the recommendations for addressing the identified gaps and weaknesses.

2.2.6 Designing the safeguard information system

a) Overview: The SIS is generally understood to be a domestic institutional arrangement responsible for providing information as to how the country specific safeguards are being addressed and respected in the context of the implementation of the proposed REDD+ actions.

The SIS would be designed and developed according to each country’s national circumstances, and be built upon existing national information systems and sources. The SIS does not necessarily require establishing novel and tailored information systems, but rather deciding how to utilize existing information systems and sources.

36

The main new aspect that may need to be put in place, is an institutional arrangement that is to be responsible for collecting, aggregating and providing the relevant information and presenting it to meet the different reporting needs of the relevant national and international stakeholders.

It is important to note that at the moment many countries, are still in the early stages of designing their national REDD+ strategies (through which REDD+ actions should be defined), which means that there is currently a lack of clarity regarding the specific REDD+ actions due to be implemented. Therefore, the design and construction of the SIS is likely to be an iterative process that evolves as greater clarity is reached regarding the specific REDD+ actions planned in each country.

b) Objective: The objective of a SIS, from a UNFCCC requirement perspective is to provide information that is accessible by all relevant stakeholders to demonstrate that the seven Cancun safeguards are being addressed and respected throughout REDD+ implementation.

c) Key Considerations: Five main issues are emerging from countries’ initial experiences in defining their SIS design framework. However, it is important to note countries are only now just beginning to work on this component and there is insufficient experience and knowledge to draw out clear emerging themes and messages from this aspect at this juncture.

i) Setting objectives of the SIS: The role of this aspect of the SIS design is to determine if the SIS will serve as means to provide information for other purposes beyond meeting the UNFCCC requirements (i.e. supporting domestic policy development and/or monitoring). Countries thinking about this step should consider:

– Identifying national and international commitments. When determining what objectives the SIS should be expected to fulfil, it is important to consider the relevant national and international commitments (e.g. national objectives, bilateral commitments) that may benefit from the SIS, beyond responding to the UNFCCC requirements.

– Allowing for expansions over time. It is important to restate that the design of a SIS is an iterative process. Countries may, over time, wish to consider additional objectives for their SIS, for example to ensure that REDD+, through the application of safeguards, contributes to broader sustainable development policy goals.

ii) Determining safeguard information needs: A key SIS design consideration countries have identified is determining 'what type' of information is needed to demonstrate whether the Cancun safeguards (or country specific safeguards) are being addressed and respected. This is usually referred to as the process of determining the 'information needs'.

– Drawing on the clarification of the Cancun safeguards. Given that the clarification of the Cancun safeguards outlines what the general principles of the safeguards mean in accordance with the country’s national context, the clarification outlines the country specific rights and duties associated with each safeguard. These will be key to identifying the types of information to be

37

provided to demonstrate how the Cancun safeguards are to be addressed and respected.

– Allowing for expansions over time. It is important to emphasise that defining the 'information needs' is an iterative undertaking. Because many countries are still in the early stages of designing their national REDD+ strategies (through which REDD+ actions should be defined), defining their PaMs and assessing their potential risks and benefits, it is important for countries to allow for expansions over time. Worth noting, the UNFCCC does not explicitly require provision of information about how risks have been addressed, but the FCPF does.

iii) Determining the sources of information: According to the UNFCCC guidelines in relation to the design of the SIS, countries should to the extent possible, build upon 'existing systems' that are deemed relevant for providing information on the REDD+ safeguards. This key design consideration aims to determine 'which' are the existing and relevant information systems and sources, and assess to what extent they can be used for SIS purposes.

– Identifying and assessing existing information systems and sources that are linked to the relevant legal framework. As examined in component 3, the country's relevant legal framework is expected to be used to operationalize the country specific safeguards. Also, existing information (including monitoring and reporting) systems of a country provide information about how the legal framework is being implemented. Consequently, it is important for countries to consider and focus on identifying and assessing information systems and sources that have a legal basis, and are therefore linked and aimed at providing information about the implementation of the relevant legal framework. Otherwise, there is a risk of building the SIS on systems and sources that have no long term sustainability, as they may have no legal mandate, allocated budget and institutional support to maintain the systems in the long term.

– Ensuring linkages with the safeguard 'information needs'. This input is essential in order to be able to 'assess' to what extent existing information systems and sources can be used to provide information on the application of the safeguards, and to determine what recommendations are appropriate.

iv) Determining the functions of the SIS: The UNFCCC does not offer any guidance on what specific functions the SIS should perform, e.g. information compilation, analysis, validation, dissemination, etc., beyond the need to ‘provide transparent and consistent information that is accessible by all relevant stakeholders and updated on a regular basis’ on how all the Cancun safeguards are being addressed and respected. This key design consideration aims to determine what functions the SIS should perform

– Defining the core functions of the SIS and allowing for expansions over time. It is important to emphasise that defining the functions of the SIS is an iterative undertaking. Countries may start by identifying the core functions, and over time, may wish to expand to consider additional functions. Core functions countries are considering so far include:

38

o Integration/aggregation of information: Aim is to integrate/aggregate information collected through the existing information systems and sources, since information is expected to be 'collected' by multiple relevant systems and sources.

o Analysis of aggregated information: Aim is to assess the aggregated information and offer an assessment as to how the country specific safeguards are being 'addressed and respected'.

o Dissemination of information: Aim is to provide and disseminate the information through appropriate means (e.g. online platform, reports and/or periodic summaries on a regular and proactive basis)

– Identifying and considering the functions that the relevant information systems and sources perform. It is important to consider that it is likely that the existing information systems and sources in the country perform already several functions that are being considered for the SIS. For example, in many countries, information systems and sources have quality and control (Q&C) procedures to measure and control the quality of information as it is being compiled, managed and analysed. Consequently, it might not be necessary to include a Q&C function for the SIS.

v) Exploring the institutional arrangements for the SIS: This design element involves determining who (for example, government institutions and / or specific institutional arrangements between governmental and non-governmental actors) will be involved in the operation of the SIS, and in particular in performing the different functions of the SIS. In practical terms, it may involve determining/creating an institutional platform for the SIS. Additionally, this design element involves considering and exploring information exchange agreements (between the institutions responsible for the relevant information systems) to ensure that information can be made available and shared with those responsible for the SIS.

– Determining 'who' will be responsible for the functions of the SIS. It will be important to consider 'who' is already responsible for the information systems and sources of the country when identifying who will be responsible for the functions of the SIS. In addition, countries may want to consider different institutional arrangements per each SIS function. For example, specific and relevant government institutions will be in charge of 'integration/aggregation of information', whilst multi-stakeholder arrangements will be in charge of the 'analysis of the information'.


Given the extensive nature of the assessment of relevant governance arrangements coupled with the need to ensure appropriate stakeholder inputs, no REDD+ country has yet fully developed their SIS. There are no clear examples of best practices for this component yet.


i) Objectives of the SIS: Vietnam has already made significant progress on this component. The STWG-SG have proposed that the objective of the SIS should, in the short term, be to provide the information on how the country specific

39

safeguards are being addressed and respected throughout the implementation of REDD+. The short-term objective of the SIS in Vietnam is therefore to meet UNFCCC reporting requirements and produce the SOI. The possibility of the SIS serving broader policy purposes such as improving law enforcement and supporting policy development have been discussed as longer term objectives.

ii) Identification of information needs an existing systems and sources: An initial draft of the information needs of the SIS has been developed based on the PLR gap analysis and clarification of the Cancun safeguards in accordance with national circumstances. This draft is currently being revised, following the revision of the clarification. An initial identification of relevant information systems and sources for the SIS has also been undertaken, which is currently being refined.

iii) Possible functions and institutional arrangements for Vietnam’s SIS have also been considered and discussed by the STWG-SG core group, with the following conclusions being drawn:

Function 1: Collection and management of information

Information to be collected by the SIS was split up into 4 levels/types:

• Information on how safeguards are being addressed by the country’s governance arrangements

• 3 different scales of information to demonstrate how safeguards are being respected:

o National scale information/statistics to report how safeguards are broadly respected at the national level as a whole

o Information on REDD+ implementation in the provinces

o Project-level information

The Core Group generally agreed that data collection should be implemented by a state agency. The information division managing FORMIS was deemed to be an appropriate agency to collect and manage the SIS data. As a first step in SIS development, the focus would be on National level data.

Possible Institutional arrangements: VNFOREST’s current mandate is adequate for the gathering of forest sector data, however for safeguard relevant data beyond the forest sector, participants suggested that the responsibility to draw certain additional information could be placed on the General Statistics Office (GSO) operating under the Ministry of Public Information (MPI). The GSO currently has a legal mandate to obtain information from the various sectoral ministries and information systems identified in the preliminary identification of information systems. However, in order to operationalize such an institutional arrangement, some form of legal agreement would need to be developed to ensure that FORMIS can obtain safeguard-relevant information from the appropriate existing information systems and sources via the GSO.

Function 2: Information analysis and interpretation

The Core Group generally agreed that VRO would be the entity in charge of the analysis of the information gathered by VNFOREST. VRO should also be in charge of preparing reports linked to SIS information (i.e. the SOI).

40

Function 3: Quality control

It was agreed that quality control of information would be the responsibility of each one of the institutions providing the information (no extra QC measures).

Function 4: Dissemination

Internal (national) dissemination: VNFOREST would be in charge of internal dissemination of information. Some information from the SIS would be public, other information would be reserved for the managers of the system (details not discussed). It is expected that the SOI would be subject to public consultation prior to submission. The degree of consultation was not discussed. Concerns were raised of the ability to provide effective feedback without being able to access the data used to prepare the SOI.

External (international) dissemination/submission:

Although VRO would be responsible for the preparation of SOI, it was agreed that MONRE (entity responsible for submission of national communications to the UNFCCC) would submit the SOI to the UNFCCC.

The design document for the SIS framework in Vietnam is due to be finalized in October 2016.

f) Desired Outcomes: an SIS design framework document or SIS terms of reference, which can allow for expansions and improvements over time