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.

1. STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL
AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT
(SESA)
of REDD+ STRATEGY, NEPAL
Barry Dalal-Clayton

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. REDD+
STRATEGY
SESA
INTEGRATED PROCESSESMERGED PROCESSES
OPTIONS FOR SESA
SESA AFTER STRATEGY SESA BEFORE STRATEGY

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. 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. 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. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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)

15. 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”

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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),

19. 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)

20. For your attention !