STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL

AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT

(SESA)

of REDD+ STRATEGY, NEPAL

Barry Dalal-Clayton

R-PPDraft REDD

strategyREDD

strategy

SESA

SESA needs a starting point

to identify social and environmental risks

Ideally, SESA should be ongoing process with strategy development

Consultations

Experience from REDD pilotsResearch, studies, etc.

ESMF

ESMF SESA

Safeguards, SES, etc

REDD+

STRATEGY

SESA

INTEGRATED PROCESSESMERGED PROCESSES

OPTIONS FOR SESA

SESA AFTER STRATEGY SESA BEFORE STRATEGY

1. REDD+ strategy options paper

• Review of RPP and other key documents and approaches

• Identification of Strategic options

2. Baseline Studies

• Current environmental & social situation in forestry sector

• Review of legislative, regulatory and policy regime

• Analysis of climate change issues and links

• Institutional needs and capacity

3. Stakeholder analysis

4. Consultations:

• National-level: national workshop, meetings, interviews

• District level: visit pilots, meetings

5. Assessment of environmental & social impacts

6. Reports: SESA & ESMF (drafts, public review, final)

STEPS IN NEPAL REDD+ SESA

National consultations

• National – workshops, meetings (individuals, organisations)

• Expert workshop – scoping impacts

District visit (2 physiographic regions – Tarai & Mid Hills; group of districts)

• Regional workshop (Chitwan, Makawanpur, Bara, Parsa districts)

• Kayar khola REDD+ pilot sites

• District consultations (Chitwan, Makawanpur, Bara) - meetings with CFUGs, CSO/IPOs

Limitations of SESA

• Dislocated from actual Strategy – so no linkage

• Resource limitations• Limited consultations

• Unable to undertake some important tasks (eg focus groups, experts workshops, linkage diagrams)

• Lack of clarity on REDD+ institutional structures –makes difficult to design some ESMF elements (assessment & monitoring bodies, capacity building, costs, etc)

• So SESA is still effectively initial

• Misunderstanding what SESA is all about

• Lack of informationparticularly documents, several studies in parallel – difficulty in getting documents

Strategic options – in brief

SO1 Land tenure, carbon rights and benefit sharing;

SO2 Community-based forest management (formal and customary);

S03 Promotion of private forestry;

SO4 Government managed forests for conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of fragile ecosystems and land;

SO5 Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services outside Protected

Areas;

SO6 Payment for ecosystem services;

SO7 Agriculture productivity and food security for small and marginalIsed farmers;

SO8 Energy access and efficiency;

SO9 Environmentally-friendly infrastructure planning, construction and

maintenance;

SO10 Forest and non-forest enterprises;

SO10 Law enforcement;

SO12 Good governance and anti-corruption;

SO13 Land use planning for each of the physiographic regions; and

SO14 Institutional architecture.

10: Promoting forest and non-forest enterprises

Elite capture

Illegal logging

Forest degradation

Conflicts over eligibility for

finance

Marginalised may not benefit

Gender un- friendly enterprises

Limited employment opportunities for poor

Exclusion/token participation of

women & vulnerable groups

Women & marginalised lose access to forest products/NTFPs

Technology displaces IK

Local enterprises displaced

Loss of livelihoods

Toxic chemicals

Increased pressure on

forests

Loss of ecosystems

diversity

Reduced income & livelihoods

Impoverishment

Malnutrition, health problems

Limits child education

Pressure on health services

Loss of tourism

Loss of employment

Pollution (soil & water)

Loss of groundwater

Loss of carbon stocks

Impedes irrigation &

agric. productionForests

devaluedLoss of

revenues to State

Social conflict

Negative impacts

Social impacts – positive

Improved Rights and Access• Improved rights & access to land / forests• Increased supply of , access to, & value of forest products• Improved benefit-sharing• Improved market access / surplus products for markets• Better access to forest products / NTFP

Improved Livelihood and Poverty Reduction• Improved health• Poverty reduction• Investment in alternative livelihoods• Improved livelihoods, income, economic opportunities, enterprise

development• Increased employment• Potential for cooperatives• Improved food security

Social Inclusion and Gender Empowerment• Empowerment• Increased voice for women / powerless• Social inclusion (gender balance)• Reduced workload/drudgery (women)• Gender friendly technology introduced• Reduced social gaps

Social impacts – positive (Cont.)

Increased Participation, Knowledge and Ownership

• Maintain/strengthened cultural norms/services

• Increased knowledge / capacity for forest management

• Increased use of local, indigenous/ & traditional knowledge & practices

• Increased participation / ownership

• Environmental & social awareness

• Strengthened local organisations

Enhanced Accountability

• Reduced corruption / bribery

• Reduced conflict

• Reduced illegal activities

Social impacts – negative

Social Exclusion and Displacement

• Exclusion of landless, poor & marginalised eviction, loss of land/property

• Social exclusion

• Exclusion/devaluation of women

• Exclusion/elimination of cultural / spiritual values & traditional practices

• Ignoring/displacing traditional/ indigenous knowledge

• Small farmers & local enterprises out-competed, displaced

Leading to Inequity

• Inequity in benefit-sharing (loss of)

• Elite capture (of resources, benefits, access, etc)

• Inequitable/loss of access to forest resources/products

• Increased costs (transaction, labour, time)

• Land grabbing

Loss of Livelihood

• Reduced food production

• Loss of/ limited access to, employment

• Loss of livelihoods, income, economic opportunities

Social impacts – negative (Cont.)

Loss of Authority/Autonomy and Induced Risk and Dependency

• Loss of user/traditional rights, or access to forest products & resources

• Health risks

• Lack of awareness / information

• Not accessible to poor, marginalised (cant afford)

• Dependence on external inputs

• Monopolies setting prices (eg timber)

• Token participation

• Politicisation of community decisions

Social Conflict and Violence

• Violence against women

• Conflict

• Human-wildlife conflict

Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF)

ESMF objective is to

“provide GUIDING PRINCIPLES for management of strategic environmental and social issues of the REDD+ strategy”. [Not a management ‘plan’]

Specifically

• Outline process for identifying and assessing potential environmental and social impacts of REDD+ activities/projects;

• Guidelines/measures for enhancing +ve impacts, mitigation of –veimpacts, and monitoring plans to address predicted impacts

• Ensure that environmental and social issues are evaluated and necessary interventions are incorporated in planning, decision-making, and implementation;

• Mechanism for consultation and disclosure of information

• Ensure compliance and due diligence with GON’s environmental and social requirements and other safeguard policies (eg UNFCC Cancun, WBank)

Limitation of the ESMF

• Linkage with actually REDD+ Strategy is not established

• ESMF is based on SESA carried out for REDD+ Strategic Options prepared by the SESA team

• Formal institutional set up for REDD+ implementation is not in place, the structure proposed by ER-PIN (Emissions Reduction Programme Idea Note) has been adapted

• ESMF is therefore “Indicative”

Legislative & Policy Framework

Laws/Policies/Plans

Clim

ate

Ch

ange

Po

licy,

2

01

1

Fore

st A

ct 1

99

3

Hyd

rop

ow

er P

olic

y, 2

00

1

Irri

gati

on

, Ele

ctri

city

an

d

Wat

er R

eso

urc

es

Act

of

19

67

Leas

eho

ld F

ore

stry

Po

licy

20

02

Loca

l Sel

f-G

ove

rnan

ce

Act

, 19

99

Mas

ter

Pla

n f

or

th

e Fo

rest

ry S

ecto

r, 1

98

9

Min

es a

nd

Min

eral

s A

ct,

19

85

Nat

ion

al P

arks

an

d

Wild

life

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Act

1

97

3

Pu

blic

Ro

ad A

ct, 1

97

4

Rev

ised

Fo

rest

ry S

ecto

r P

olic

y, 2

00

0

Soil

and

Wat

ersh

ed

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Act

19

82

Ne

pal

Bio

div

ersi

ty

Stra

tegy

, 20

02

Wat

er R

eso

urc

es

Stra

tegy

, 20

02

Climate Change Policy, 2011 O N N N N O N N N N N O OForest Act 1993 C C O C O C O C O O O C

Hydropower Policy, 2001 O N C C C C N C C C O

Irrigation, Electricity and Water Resources Act of 1967

N N C CC C C I C O

Leasehold Forestry Policy 2002 C O C O C O C O C

Local Self-Governance Act, 1999

C C C N C C C N

Master Plan for the Forestry Sector, 1989

C O C O O O C

Mines and Minerals Act, 1985 C C C C C C

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973 C O O O C

Public Road Act, 1974 C C C CRevised Forestry Sector Policy, 2000 O O C

Soil and Watershed Conservation Act 1982 O CNepal Biodiversity Strategy, 2002 CWater Resources Strategy, 2002

O- OverlapsC- direct contractionN- neutral

KEY POINTS 1

IF REDD+ implemented effectively, efficiently & equitably – then +ve impacts:

• Increased incomes, benefit-sharing, more empowerment & reduced conflicts.

• Reduced workloads & drudgery for women –+ve health impacts, improved family well-being, time saved

• Increased participation & sense of ownership

KEY POINTS 2

• REDD+ strategy alone not enough. • Need to change governance & social behaviour to be effective,

efficient or equitable. • Need coordination & integration with much broader legislative

and policy reform, general awareness-raising, attitude changes and strengthened institutional capacity.

• Needs to reach out – address externalities (eg agriculture, industries, infrastructure, trade)

• Overall, REDD+ appears is positive concept, but likely environmental and social impacts (+ve and -ve) – some likely perverse feedbacks.

• Forest loss with increased access

• Climate change higher temperatures in lowlands, drier, - impact on forest distribution, composition and productivity over time, but no precise predictions possible.

• Forest dependency will remain but types/amounts of forest products used will change – some –ve impacts, eg more biogas = more forest degradation.

• Forestry-agriculture (intimate) link will continue (but -ve impacts of agric intensification - pollution),

What more is needed• SESA has limitations:

• dislocated from actual REDD+ Strategy, • resource limitations, • lack of clarity on REDD+ institutional structures

• Needs more work, eg• more consultations at district/local level• More interaction with stakeholders• More analysis: eg impacts linkages, special studies (eg encroachment,

PES, benefit-sharing)• Focus group work• Case studies• Public hearings• Develop indicative ESMF to fit actual REDD+ strategy elements

• Integrate further work with real REDD+ strategy development process

• Beyond SESA/ESMF: • Adapt ESMF into REDD+ implementation modalities (responsibility:

REDD+ Coordinating Division)

For your attention !