Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) of REDD+ strategy, Nepal

1,003 views

Published on

The presentation of Barry Dalal-Clayton, senior fellow of IIED, to the IIED-hosted Moving ahead with Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+) workshop on 9-10 April 2014.

The presentation, made during the fifth session on social and environmental safeguards of REDD+, focused on Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) and safeguards, using issues and lessons from IIED's work in Nepal.

Read more on Dalal-Clayton's work: http://www.iied.org/users/barry-dalal-clayton.

Further details of the workshop and IIED's work on REDD+ are available via http://www.iied.org/coverage-moving-ahead-redd-prospects-challenges-workshop.

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,003
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
28
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) of REDD+ strategy, Nepal

  1. 1. STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT (SESA) of REDD+ STRATEGY, NEPAL Barry Dalal-Clayton
  2. 2. R-PP Draft REDD strategy REDD 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
  3. 3. REDD+ STRATEGY SESA INTEGRATED PROCESSESMERGED PROCESSES OPTIONS FOR SESA SESA AFTER STRATEGY SESA BEFORE STRATEGY
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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
  6. 6. 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 information particularly documents, several studies in parallel – difficulty in getting documents
  7. 7. 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.
  8. 8. 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, he alth 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. production Forests devalued Loss of revenues to State Social conflict Negative impacts
  9. 9. 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
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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 –ve impacts, 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)
  14. 14. 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”
  15. 15. Legislative & Policy Framework Laws/Policies/Plans ClimateChangePolicy, 2011 ForestAct1993 HydropowerPolicy,2001 Irrigation,Electricityand WaterResourcesActof 1967 LeaseholdForestryPolicy 2002 LocalSelf-Governance Act,1999 MasterPlanforthe ForestrySector,1989 MinesandMineralsAct, 1985 NationalParksand WildlifeConservationAct 1973 PublicRoadAct,1974 RevisedForestrySector Policy,2000 SoilandWatershed ConservationAct1982 NepalBiodiversity Strategy,2002 WaterResources Strategy,2002 Climate Change Policy, 2011 O N N N N O N N N N N O O Forest 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 C C 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 C Revised Forestry Sector Policy, 2000 O O C Soil and Watershed Conservation Act 1982 O C Nepal Biodiversity Strategy, 2002 C Water Resources Strategy, 2002 O- Overlaps C- direct contraction N- neutral
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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),
  18. 18. 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)
  19. 19. For your attention !

×