The Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment or SESA is used in the design or readiness phase for countries participating in the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, and aims to improve design of the REDD+ program by combining analytical work and consultations in an iterative fashion. The multi-stakeholder, participatory approach helps to build support among stakeholders and ensures that it covers a full range of issues including governance, rights and positive and negative social and environmental impacts. One of the outputs of the SESA is the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) that aims to mitigate and manage risks with respect to existing World Bank safeguards. It focuses on World Bank safeguards so does not cover full and effective participation or other governance related issues in the Cancun safeguards and it does not cover positive benefits or equitable benefit sharing.It is important to note that ESMF is a framework that defines how specific mitigation plans will be developed later in the process before activities are actually implemented. In the World Bank process, if the Indigenous Peoples Operational Policy 4.10 (safeguard) is triggered, then an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework is developed as a step towards the development of a full Indigenous Peoples Plan which outlines mitigation actions and must be in place before implementation of an activity. The ESMF is composed of all the relevant safeguards frameworks and should include separate chapters depending on which safeguards may be triggered including an Environmental Management Framework if the safeguards relating to Natural Habitats, Forests, Pest management, Physical Cultural Resources are triggered, an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework and a Resettlement Policy Framework/Restriction of Access Framework if the Involuntary Resettlement safeguard is triggered. The content of the ESMF may be quite general at the end of the readiness phase depending on the extent to which future REDD+ investments are identified but must lead to development of full mitigation plans for relevant safeguards by the time REDD+ activities are implemented. Development, approval and adherence to the ESMF are the main mechanism for demonstrating compliance of REDD+ programs with the World Bank safeguards and something ‘substantially equivalent’ is required for the other delivery partners as agreed under the ‘Common Approach’. Since the ESMF provides a framework for defining mitigation action it acts to improve design. The ESMF and the ensuing mitigation plans are typically developed by the government of the country concerned with support, review and approval by the World Bank.
The REDD+ SES provides a framework for assessment of social and environmental performance of a government-led REDD+ program both during readiness and throughout implementation that aims to build stakeholder support, nationally and internationally, and also supports adaptive management to feed back into design. The principles, criteria and indicators of the REDD+ SES were developed through broad stakeholder consultation so the framework reflects the full range of safeguards issues identified by stakeholders in countries implementing REDD+ and internationally (governance, rights, positive and negative social and environmental impacts, mitigation actions). The REDD+ SES are used through a clearly-defined, country-led, multi-stakeholder process. The use of the standards in each country is overseen by a multi-stakeholder committee representing a balance of government and civil society. There is a participatory approach to interpretation of indicators and to development of an assessment report, which must be reviewed by stakeholders before approval by the multi-stakeholder committee.
Morten Fauerby Thomsen CARE
Safeguards and Co-benefits in NepalPrepared by: Dil Raj Khanal, FECOFUN Morten Fauerby Thomsen, CARE Denmark
Major initiatives in Nepal1. Preparation of R-PP through FCPF (World Bank)2. Social & Environmental Strategic Assessment (SESA)3. Preparation of country specific REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards (REDD+ SES)4. Forming a civil society alliance on REDD+5. Piloting REDD+ activities • Capacity Building • Community based carbon monitoring • Benefit sharing mechanism
Safeguard mechanisms• The R-PP includes 2 key safeguard mechanisms: • Social & Environmental Strategic Assessment – SESA (comp. 2d) • Social & Environmental Standards - REDD+ SES (comp. 4b)• Coordination between the 2 processes is important – but increase complexity
Design - Readiness Implementation Strategic Environmental & Social Why: improve design, build support Assessment (SESA) What: governance, rights,An iterative process of analysis and positive/negative impacts,consultation to improve design Who: multi-stakeholder,No predefined content participatory Environmental & Social Management Framework (ESMF) Framework for development of plans to mitigate and manage risks with respect to World Bank Why: required for funding, improve safeguards design What: WB safeguards, negative impacts, rights Who: government and delivery partner?
Design - Readiness Implementation REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards (REDD+ SES) Inclusive multi-stakeholder process uses comprehensive framework to define country-specific indicators, monitoring plan, review by stakeholders for ongoing monitoring and reporting of process and impactsFacilitation Team Technical Assessment Standards (REDD Working report Committeecell/FECOF Group (from 2013) UN) Why: monitoring & reporting, build stakeholder support, improve design What: governance, rights, positive/negative impacts, adapted to country context Who: multi-stakeholder, participatory identification indicators, assessment, review
Equitable benefit sharingPilot project by FECOFUN, ICIMOD and ANSAB• Established methods for monitoring carbon stocks in community forest• Established an equitable benefit sharing mechanism: • The first years increase in carbon is only weighed 40%, the remaining 60% is calculated based on social criteria such as poverty levels, number of indigenous people (Dalits). • Payment based on plan from forest user groups specifying how they intend to use the funds. • Funds are administered through a Forest Carbon Trust Fund to ensure transparency and participation. • The system is based on national and district level advisory committees, who decides on how much money each watershed and forest user group should receive. • A Watershed REDD Network, consisting of forest user groups, then act as a bridge between district level actors and local forest user groups, and also channel the funding.
Experiences and recommendationsCommunities:• Clarity on land/forest rights is important. In Nepal government owns the land, but the communities own forest resources (or 50/50 in Collaborative systems). Who owns the carbon rights?• Strategy to increase carbon stocks might conflict with local interests in forest products (firewood, construction material). How does this inflict on poor peoples income generation opportunities. How can REDD+ compensate?• Empower communities to make their own management plans that consider the needs of the poor and marginalised (ownership)• Ensure a transparent and equitable benefit sharing with, and also within, indigenous and local communities (avoid elite capture)• Monitoring systems should be kept simple and prioritise local involvement, and reward mechanisms should consider social factors.
Experiences and recommendationsCivil society:• Participation of civil society is crucial, both in developing REDD strategies and safeguards (REDD working group), but also their involvement in implementation• Build capacity of civil society/local communities to actively engage in REDD+ strategy development processes (REDD+ alliance in Nepal), and ensure wide consultation processes.