1. 1/29/2010
Emerging lessons from the
Ground with REDD-
REDD-
Readiness
FPP presentation to the Chatham House and Rights
and Resources Initiative Third Dialogue on Forests,
Governance and Climate Change
Friday 22nd January 2010
Chatham House, 10 St James’s Square, London
Questions to be addressed
• What are governments and international
climate funds doing to improve forest
governance, address tenure and promote
rights?
• Will climate policies in developed
countries promote forest governance and
other forest sector reforms in tropical
forests?
1

2. 1/29/2010
Who is doing REDD readiness?
World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
(FCPF) – 37 countries: 5 RPPs submitted (2
approved with recommendations – despite
failure to meet required safeguards and other
shortcomings)
UN REDD Programme – 9 countries (6
countries with readiness programme approved
by Policy Board)
bilateral initiatives and regional forest and
carbon funds
private sector and NGO voluntary initiatives
Information blockage
Consultations are not reaching indigenous
peoples and vulnerable forest communities
(e.g. Nepal, Thailand, DRC, Nicaragua)
“the grass roots know nothing about the
(REDD) issue” (COICA, December 2009)
“There is a need to bring more information to
the community level – we have 17 different
indigenous peoples and proper consultation
will take time” (CAPI, Paraguay)
2

3. 1/29/2010
rushed and delayed consultations
RPPs submitted with little or no consultation with rights
holders in forests (e.g., Indonesia, Suriname, Panama)
info bias on potential ‘benefits’, with minimal attention to
risks/costs (e.g. Panama, Mexico)
No information on problems with offsets and carbon markets
info is not tailored to community needs
readiness funds like the World Bank FCPF are postponing
consultation requirements (delay in triggering safeguards)
incorrect assumptions are being made in readiness plans
without community consultation (e.g. Guyana R-PP definition
R-
of “Amerindian lands”)
there are questions marks over claims of “best practice”
consultation e.g. UNREDD in DRC
No mechanisms for free, prior and
informed consent (FPIC)
no practical measures yet in place to
implement FPIC (Guyana, Vietnam, DRC)
Indigenous peoples are being encouraged to
“support” or agree to REDD and carbon
markets without adequate information –
violating FPIC
tendency to focus on a few prominent leaders
and umbrella organisations (e.g. Panama)
Indigenous peoples are challenging
government claims that they “support” REDD
and carbon trading (Colombia, Panama,
Guatemala)
3

4. 1/29/2010
Weak plans to clarify and respect
land and carbon rights
international human rights obligations (including
property rights) have not been built into initial
readiness planning (e.g., Indonesia - CERD)
there may be commitments to rights on paper, but
not in practice (e.g. Nepal and ILO Convention 169)
few proposals for robust measures to clarify tenure,
respect customary rights and tackle underlying
causes
confusion remains over World Bank due diligence
for readiness grants – what about international
obligations commitment in FCPF Charter?
Business as usual?
reluctance among governments to accept
the need for forest sector and policy/legal
reforms
States are asserting ownership over forests
and carbon (e.g. Suriname and Indonesia)
planned reforms focus on facilitation of the
carbon market and setting up systems to
monitor carbon
Territorial claims and calls for resolution of
land rights issues being sidelined (e.g.
Peru, Suriname, Guyana)
4

5. 1/29/2010
Traditional livelihoods still targeted
rotational agriculture is still blamed as being a
major driver of deforestation (January 2010,
draft R-PP, Suriname)
R-
mixed messages on potential livelihood
impacts (e.g. Guyana)
no discussion of rules, criteria and definitions
– yet these are central to potential rights and
livelihood impacts
sketchy information on benefit-sharing
benefit-
arrangements (What about FPIC?) FPI
Voluntary initiatives
Carbon cowboys seeking fraudulent contracts
with indigenous peoples (e.g. Colombian
Amazon)
Intimidation and violence against community
leaders – being pressured to sell carbon rights
in forests (e.g. PNG)
Displacement and restrictions on communities
(e.g. Kenya)
Voluntary standards (implementation and
verification problems and not binding!)
5

6. 1/29/2010
Some improvements…
Paraguay (after complaints): a delay in the REDD
readiness process until indigenous peoples are
able to make informed inputs and decisions
Indonesia: (after complaints) government has
recently entered into dialogue with indigenous
organisations on land and customary rights
Guyana has committed (on paper) to use UNDRIP
as a guide to REDD design and implementation
(but what this means in practice is unclear)
unclear)
UNREDD is working with indigenous
organisations in Indonesia to develop FPIC
mechanism
Key lessons (1)
Implementation mechanisms are required to put
rights-
rights-based approaches, safeguards and
guidelines into practice
Forest and climate funds and initiatives need to
pay much closer attention to fulfilment of rights
commitments in due diligence e.g. FCPF Charter
More effective measures, resources and
incentives are needed to ensure meaningful
consultation, respect for rights and equitable
benefits (C/B, FPIC, governance reforms, land
tenure work etc):
6

7. 1/29/2010
Key lessons (2)
Measures and actions required include:
FPIC mechanisms, including independent verification
Provision of capacity building and more balanced
information
Bodies to clarify and secure land and territorial rights
Legal framework analysis and plan for forest sector
and related reforms
Mechanisms to put international obligations and
standards into practice e.g. UNDRIP
Robust mechanisms for rights and risks assessments
Information sources:
Country updates on REDD from members of
International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on
Climate Change (IIPFCC Preparatory meeting
for COP15, December 2009)
Draft country Readiness proposals
FPP field work
REDD related scientific and advocacy literature
7

8. 1/29/2010
Thank you
8