Directrices de ONU-REDD para elConsentimiento Libre, Previo eInformado
Proceso de ConsultaJunio 2010 – Enero 2011: 3 consultas regionales con Pueblos Indígenas(PI) y sociedad civil en Vietnam (...
Usuarios de las Directrices• Países Socios del Programa ONU-REDD.• Pueblos indígenas y comunidades que dependen de los  bo...
Objetivos de las Directrices• Marco Normativo• Marco Político• Marco Operativo
Marco Normativo• Concepción Común de las Naciones Unidas acerca del Enfoque  Basado en los Derechos Humanos para el Desarr...
Alcance•   Requiere que los Estados reconozcan y apliquen el derecho de los Pueblos    Indígenas al CLPI.•   Requiere que ...
Alcance + Finalización del PN /                  Formulación de la R-PPEl PN/R-PP debe delinear la propuesta del Programa ...
Implementación /                      Preparación del PN• Incorporar Directrices/Metodología de CLPI nacional en una  estr...
¿Cuándo es Requerido un CLPI?• Es para que los países socios y los tenedores de derechos  relevantes determinen cuáles act...
Ejemplos de Actividades                  que Requieren un CLPI• Desalojo de sus tierras/territorios tradicionales o habitu...
¿A qué nivel es aplicado                          el CLPI?• Nivel Comunidad: A menudo concierne a una actividad  específic...
Marco Operativo para                    buscar el CLPI a Nivel                        Comunidad• Revisión del Alcance del ...
Prueba de CLPI, Sulawesi Central         (Marzo 2012)         Provincia de                                 Sulawesi       ...
Prueba de CLPI, Sulawesi Central                     (Marzo 2012)• 20 facilitadores reclutados de las 2 aldeas y  otras ce...
Prueba de CLPI, Sulawesi CentralAldea Lembah Mukti  (MarzoAldea Talaga                            2012)Los aldeanos acorda...
Prueba de CLPI, Provincia Lam Dong• Vietnam fue el primer país en realizar un piloto de CLPI para REDD+ en el  Programa ON...
Prueba de CLPI, Provincia Lam Dong         Los interlocutores explican acerca         del cambio climático, REDD,         ...
Lecciones de Indonesia y Vietnam• Balance: recepción de información suficiente y también muchas  reuniones• Voto individua...
Mecanismos Nacionales                       de ReclamoA nivel nacional, se exige que los Programas Nacionalesestablezcan l...
Pasos Siguientes• Respaldar a los países para desarrollar Directrices de CLPI  a nivel nacional o subnacional;• Respaldar ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Directrices de ONU-REDD para el Consentimiento Libre, Previo e Informado

725 views

Published on

Directrices de ONU-REDD para el Consentimiento Libre, Previo e Informado.
-----------------------
Taller Regional: Participación, consulta y consentimiento de actores interesados en la fase de preparación de REDD+ en los países socios del Programa
Lima, Perú
1 y 2 de febrero 2013

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
725
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • In order to solicit input from a range of indigenous peoples and civil society, between June 2010 and January 2011, the UN-REDD Programme held three consultations in the three main regions where the UN-REDD Programme works. Following the synthesis of input, we consulted UN-REDD Programme staff, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, and several other independent experts, including from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR); the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL); the Indian Law Resource Center (ILRC); Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP); Tebtebba Foundation; The Center for People and Forests (RECOFTC); The Forest Dialogue; and World Wildlife Fund (WWF).   The Guidelines are currently in ‘Working Final’ form, which means that there will be periodic updates to this version based on the application of these Guidelines, increased information and experience related to the application of Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) more generally, and continued input and feedback from governments, indigenous peoples and forest dependent communities, practitioners and experts, partners and colleagues. In the meantime, the application and interpretation of the Guidelines in their current form is encouraged, in order to test usability and improve on a continual basis.
  • The primary users of the Guidelines will be UN-REDD Programme partner countries (who as States are the ultimate duty bearers in this context under international law) and the indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities in those countries, including those with National Programmes as well as those receiving targeted support. The Guidelines apply to national level activities supported by the UN-REDD Programme. They also apply to activities supported by the UN partner agencies to the UN-REDD Programme in their role as a Delivery Partner under the FCPF Readiness Fund (FAO and UNDP). That being said, all countries engaged in REDD+ activities are welcome and encouraged to utilize and apply these Guidelines and provide the UN-REDD Programme with feedback on their use. Partner countries and UN organizations are responsible for implementing National Programmes with technical and financial backstopping from the three founding UN partner agencies (FAO, UNDP, UNEP).
  • Three main components to the Guidelines… Partner countries are responsible for implementing National Programmes with technical and financial backstopping from the three founding UN partner agencies (FAO, UNDP, UNEP).
  • UN Common Understanding on the Human Rights-Based Approach to Development Cooperation (2003). The Common Understanding reiterates the UN commitment to further the realization of human rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments by ensuring that these instruments guide all development cooperation and programming. ILO Convention 169 (1989) is a legally binding document and requires, among other things, that States Parties obtain the FPIC of indigenous and tribal peoples before resettling them. CBD (1992) - Article 8 (j) of the Convention requires that the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities may only be used with their approval. UNDRIP (2007): IPs right to FPIC and States and UN obligation to uphold the Declaration UNDG Guidelines on Indigenous Issues (2008): Policy and operational framework for implementing a HRBA to development for and with indigenous peoples. Included as a key result of such an approach is the application of the principle of free, prior and informed consent in development planning and programming.  Cancun Agreements - decision on REDD+ (2010): Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, by taking into account relevant international obligations…and noting that the United Nations General Assembly has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples International courts and human rights commissions in the African and Americas region in particular have also made it clear that binding regional human rights treaties and conventions such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Banjul Charter) (1981) as well as the American Convention on Human Rights (1969) and the American Declaration on the Rights and Duties of Man (1948), all recognize a right to FPIC.
  • Guidelines require States to recognize and carry out their duties and obligations to give effect to the requirement of FPIC as applicable to indigenous peoples.   The Guidelines acknowledge the right of forest-dependent communities to effectively participate in the governance of their nations. To ensure this, at a minimum the Guidelines require States to consult forest-dependent communities in good faith regarding matters that affect them with a view to agreement .   Appreciating that international law, jurisprudence and State practice is still in its infancy with respect to expressly recognizing and requiring an affirmative obligation to secure FPIC from all forest-dependent communities, the Guidelines do not require a blanket application of FPIC to all forest-dependent communities.   That said, the Guidelines soberly recognize that in many circumstances, REDD+ activities may impact forest-dependent communities, often similarly as Indigenous peoples, and that the circumstances of certain forest-dependent communities may rise to a threshold such that it should be seen as a requirement of States to secure FPIC when an activity may affect the communities' rights and interests. As such, these Guidelines require States to evaluate the circumstances and nature of the forest-dependent community in question, on a case by case basis, through among others a rights-based analysis, and secure FPIC from communities that share common characteristics with Indigenous peoples and whose underlying substantive rights are significantly implicated .
  • Note: In cases where the NPD or R-PPs have already been approved, partner countries should incorporate a proposal for these activities retroactively into their NPD/R-PP, as part of their stakeholder engagement plans and/or SESA, for review by the National Programme Steering Committee (or equivalent).
  • Given that an FPIC process , and that consent is given or withheld collectively by the community, FPIC is most often applied at the community level.   As mentioned in the table above, however, components of a national REDD+ strategy may have implications on the rights of Indigenous Peoples or Other Forest Dependent Communities (e.g., proposed legislation related to changes in land tenure or agreements on benefit sharing etc.) and therefore at least those components require some form of consent. Therefore, in the development of national REDD+ strategies, Partner Countries must guarantee effective, good faith consultations with indigenous peoples with a view to reaching agreement in the validation phase. However, where specific policies and determinations are being formulated in the development of the national strategy and may affect indigenous peoples rights, especially their rights to own, use and control their lands, resources and territories, to ensure their traditional livelihoods or survival, or to be free from forced relocations, FPIC of Indigenous Peoples other Forest Dependent Communities through representative institutions shall be required under these Guidelines.   Where specific policies and determinations are being formulated in the development of the national strategy and may have more direct impact on specific indigenous communities, representation of these communities should be ensured. Consent at the national level (e.g. for a national REDD+ strategy) does not remove the right to give or withhold consent at the community level for a specific proposed activity (after the approval of a national REDD+ strategy). Consultative mechanisms could be identified and/or created and consent could be given through duly designated indigenous peoples representatives for certain issues. These mechanisms would need to be based on local level self-selection. National level representatives would need to be validated externally and with communities they claim to represent to ensure their legitimacy.
  • FPIC Scoping Review : A description of the proposed policy or activity; A description of the rights-holders, their governance structures and how they wish to be engaged, including the institutions that are empowered to represent them; A description of the legal status of the land, territory and resources concerned, including a description of the geographical area under formal, informal and/or customary use by the rights-holders, including maps and methodology used to establish the maps; An assessment of the social, environmental, and cultural impacts of the proposed policy/ activity on the rights-holders, including the specific impacts that have required the partner country to seek FPIC and how these impacts will be mitigated; and Resources allocated for seeking FPIC. Special attention should be made by partner countries to support community efforts to describe many of these items in their own terms, including traditional uses of natural resources and community-based property rights. FPIC Proposal : Capacity and information needs of the National Implementing Partner and/or rights-holders that need to be addressed before the FPIC process can take place; A designation of whether the process will require a facilitator, and if so, who it should be; Where and how the consultations will take place; A timeline for the proposed consultation process to seek FPIC; The appropriate language and media for information sharing and distribution; How decisions will be taken by the community; The geographical territory and communities that the decision will cover; How FPIC will be given, recognized and recorded; The role of others in the process (if any), including local government officials, UN agencies, institutions, donors, independent observers (strongly recommended) and other stakeholders; Methods of verifying the process, including, where relevant, participatory monitoring arrangements; Terms and frequency of review of the agreement(s) to ensure that conditions are being upheld; and Process for voicing complaints and seeking recourse on the FPIC process and proposed policy or activity. Independent evaluation should be undertaken by an institution, to be mutually agreed by all relevant rights-holders, to verify that the process was aligned with the definition of each of the terms of FPIC outlined in section 2 of the Guidelines.
  • Colleagues in the room may have much more to add! December 2011 – provincial REDD+ Working Group produced draft FPIC guidelines for Central Sulawesi In March 2012, these were trialed in two villages Interesting because two cases with very different outcomes…Lembah and Talaga Process led by local Forest Management Unit (FMU) FMU proposed replanting of degraded forest area with rubber and jabon trees In return, community was asked to: help to stop illegal logging prohibit hunting activities plant in steep areas to stop landslides make a village regulation about forest conservation and management. Photos: Participant reports back to Working Group on proposed consent conditions, FPIC trial, Lembah Mukti Village, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, March 2012; and Negotiators representing Lembah Mukti village and the Forest Management Unit exchange a Letter of Agreement following negotiations in Lembah Mukti Village, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, March 2012. (Photo credit: UN-REDD Indonesia Programme)
  • In the case of Lembah Mukti village: The villagers of Lembah Mukti agreed to implement the forest rehabilitation programme conditional upon changes… In return they agreed to: let FMU carry out replanting program, stop illegal logging activities, establish regulations to prohibit poaching and address forest conservation, plant trees on slopes to reduce natural disasters. Result: A Letter of Agreement was signed by the negotiators representing the village and the FMU; A platform was established to manage complaints and feedback. Demonstrates how FPIC can lead to a two-way discussion, with communities having a say in the proposed activity to take place on their lands. In the case of Talaga village , the community did not wish to consult on REDD+. An NGO, Pokja Pantau , had previously been to the village and told villagers that: ”REDD+ will take the forest by force and will destroy the socio-cultural values of the community”. About 50% of the villagers grow cocoa, coffee and chilli and were concerned that REDD+ would stop them from entering the forest area. Result: The FPIC process was discontinued; The NGO, Pokja Pantau , subsequently requested further consultation with the Forest Management Unit and the UN-REDD Programme. Demonstrates how misunderstandings, lack of communication over what is being proposed can derail an entire process – with potential loss of benefits to both the FMU and community. Small snapshot – with a lot of take away
  • The FPIC process was implemented over a period of five months between January and June 2010 and covered 5,500 people in 78 villages. The village FPIC meetings were divided into three phases (first phase = 22 villages; second phase = 31 villages; third phase = 25 villages). This allowed the FPIC process to be reviewed and allowed lessons from earlier phases to be incorporated into revised procedures for later phases. The FPIC activity itself was delivered by 24 FPIC facilitators (interlocutors), selected from 35 candidates, who all received training in climate change, REDD+ and FPIC techniques
  • The outcome of the process was that the communities concerned gave their consent to UN-REDD Viet Nam activities at the field level. The question actually posed to villagers during the consultations was: “Do you agree with the proposed UN-REDD activities and want to participate in these activities?” with the relevant activities being indicated using a poster showing four field activities. However, an independent review of the process shows that there was some level of confusion among villagers as to what the UN-REDD Programme was, and to what was actually being proposed, with the recollection of many villagers being that they gave their consent to “forest protection”. This appears to indicate some of the difficulties involved in clearly explaining the role of the UN-REDD Programme in REDD+, as well as the difficulties in seeking consent for a program of activities rather than for a concrete project or planning proposal. Products: A full report by the UN-REDD Vietnam Programme on the FPIC pilot An independent audit of the FPIC pilot by an NGO, RECOFTC A Manual for Interlocutors to Conduct FPIC Village Consultation meetings (local facilitators) Examples of the communication materials used, such as posters, leaflets, and flyers. Evaluation and Verification of the Free, Prior and Informed Consent Process under the UN-REDD Programme in Lam Dong Province, Viet Nam, RECOFTC. … all being incorporated into UN-REDD FPIC Guidelines and shared with other countries interested in piloting … field testing is the best way to improve our Guidelines.
  • At the national level, National Programmes are required to establish grievance mechanisms. This requirement is already outlined in the FCPF and UN-REDD Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) Template.
  • Directrices de ONU-REDD para el Consentimiento Libre, Previo e Informado

    1. 1. Directrices de ONU-REDD para elConsentimiento Libre, Previo eInformado
    2. 2. Proceso de ConsultaJunio 2010 – Enero 2011: 3 consultas regionales con Pueblos Indígenas(PI) y sociedad civil en Vietnam (Jun 2010); Panamá (Oct 2010); Tanzania .(Ene 2011): • Rep de 76 PI y organizaciones de la sociedad civil de 32 países • Rep de 47 organizaciones internacionales y regionales • Personal nacional ONU-REDDFeb – Jul 2011: Síntesis de aportes al borrador de las DirectricesAgo – Nov 2011: Revisión interna por parte del personal global y regional deONU-REDDDic 2011 – Ene 2012: Período de comentario públicoFeb 2012: “Taller de Expertos” para revisar las Directrices del CLPIMar 2012: Actualización presentada a la Junta Normativa del ONU-REDDAbr 2012: Taller de Lecciones Aprendidas del CLPI, Región Asia-PacíficoAbr – Dic 2012: RevisiónFeb 2013: Lanzamiento y publicación de la versión Final de Trabajo
    3. 3. Usuarios de las Directrices• Países Socios del Programa ONU-REDD.• Pueblos indígenas y comunidades que dependen de los bosques en los Países Socios.• También aplicado a las actividades respaldadas por las agencias de la ONU socias del Programa ONU-REDD (FAO y PNUD) en su función como Socio Principal bajo el FCPF.• Todos los países y organizaciones involucrados en REDD+ son bienvenidos para realizar el piloto de las Directrices.
    4. 4. Objetivos de las Directrices• Marco Normativo• Marco Político• Marco Operativo
    5. 5. Marco Normativo• Concepción Común de las Naciones Unidas acerca del Enfoque Basado en los Derechos Humanos para el Desarrollo Cooperativo (2003)• Convención 169 de la OIT (1989); CDB (1992); ONUDRIP (2007)• Directrices del GNUD acerca de los Asuntos Indígenas (2008)• Acuerdos de Cancún (2010)• Los tratados y convenciones de derechos humanos regionales vinculantes reconocen un derecho al CLPI: Carta Africana de Derechos Humanos y de los Pueblos (Carta de Banjul) (1981); Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos (1969); Declaración Americana de los Derechos y Deberes del Hombre (1948)
    6. 6. Alcance• Requiere que los Estados reconozcan y apliquen el derecho de los Pueblos Indígenas al CLPI.• Requiere que los Estados consulten de buena fe con una perspectiva de acuerdo a las comunidades que dependen de los bosques.• No requiere una aplicación general del CLPI a todas las comunidades que dependen de los bosques.• Las Directrices les exigen a los Estados que evalúen las circunstancias y la naturaleza de las comunidades que dependen de los bosques en cuestión, en una base caso por caso, a través entre otros de un análisis basado en los derechos, y obtener el CLPI de las comunidades que comparten características en común con los pueblos indígenas y aquellos cuyos derechos fundamentales subyacentes están significativamente implicados.
    7. 7. Alcance + Finalización del PN / Formulación de la R-PPEl PN/R-PP debe delinear la propuesta del Programa Nacional parallevar a cabo la siguiente Fase de Preparación: Un proceso para consultar acerca de temas clave relacionados con la aplicación nacional del CLPI; Un proceso para determinar quién otorga el consentimiento (por ejemplo, mediante la identificación de tenedores de derechos); Un proceso para determinar cuándo se requiere un CLPI (por ejemplo, mediante evaluaciones relevantes de impacto); Un proceso para determinar los pasos operativos para aplicar el CLPI (por ejemplo, desarrollar una metodología/directrices nacionales para la aplicación del CLPI).
    8. 8. Implementación / Preparación del PN• Incorporar Directrices/Metodología de CLPI nacional en una estrategia REDD+ Nacional;• La Estrategia REDD+ Nacional debe reconocer los derechos de los PI/comunidades que dependen de los bosques;• La Estrategia REDD+ Nacional debe delinear cuáles actividades requerirán el CLPI, de quién y el proceso para aplicarlo;• Se requiere el CLPI mediante instituciones representativas cuando la Estrategia propone medidas políticas/administrativas que afectarán a los Pueblos Indígenas/comunidades que dependen de los bosques (previo a finalizar la Estrategia REDD+ Nacional).
    9. 9. ¿Cuándo es Requerido un CLPI?• Es para que los países socios y los tenedores de derechos relevantes determinen cuáles actividades requieren el CLPI consistente con los deberes y obligaciones del Estado bajo el derecho internacional.• Un primer paso es considerar si la actividad/política propuesta afectará en forma significativa a las tierras, territorios y/o recursos de los PI/comunidades que dependen de los bosques.• Si así será, probablemente se requerirá el CLPI.
    10. 10. Ejemplos de Actividades que Requieren un CLPI• Desalojo de sus tierras/territorios tradicionales o habituales;• Remoción de la propiedad cultural, intelectual, religiosa y espiritual;• Confiscación, ocupación, uso o daño de las tierras, territorios y/o recursos;• Tala;• Reubicación;• Arreglos para la distribución de beneficios; derechos de uso• Decisiones relacionadas con la tenencia de tierras.
    11. 11. ¿A qué nivel es aplicado el CLPI?• Nivel Comunidad: A menudo concierne a una actividad específica propuesta con impactos potenciales sobre una comunidad específica a nivel comunidad.• Nivel Nacional: Algunas veces concierne a la política nacional, a la decisión legislativa o administrativa que podría afectar a muchos PI no específicos/comunidades que dependen de los bosques – Consentimiento por parte del cuerpo representativo (pasos para garantizar la legitimidad)
    12. 12. Marco Operativo para buscar el CLPI a Nivel Comunidad• Revisión del Alcance del CLPI: política propuesta; tenedores .de derechos; marco legal; impactos y medidas de mitigación;presupuesto propuesto.• Propuesta de CLPI: necesidades de capacidad; facilitador;ubicación; marco de tiempo; idioma; proceso de toma dedecisiones; documentación; otros participantes; verificación;consentimiento a qué; mecanismo de recursos; proceso deconsulta.• Evaluación independiente: revisión contra la definición deCLPI como criterio y acuerdo en la Revisión delAlcance/Propuesta de CLPI.
    13. 13. Prueba de CLPI, Sulawesi Central (Marzo 2012) Provincia de Sulawesi Central
    14. 14. Prueba de CLPI, Sulawesi Central (Marzo 2012)• 20 facilitadores reclutados de las 2 aldeas y otras cercanas;• Los facilitadores fueron capacitados;• Visita inicial para explicar la propuesta de la UGF;• Los facilitadores regresaron dos semanas más tarde a Lembah Mukti para realizar talleres sobre el programa propuesto de rehabilitación de los bosques.
    15. 15. Prueba de CLPI, Sulawesi CentralAldea Lembah Mukti (MarzoAldea Talaga 2012)Los aldeanos acordaron implementar el Esta aldea no quiso realizar consultas acercaprograma de rehabilitación de los bosques de REDD+.Bajo condición de: Anteriormente, una ONG, Pokja Pantau, había estado en la aldea y les había dicho a los•Ayuda para resolver disputas limítrofes aldeanos que: ”REDD+ tomará los bosques por la fuerza y destruirá los valores socioculturales•Ayudar a aclarar la situación de las tierras de la comunidad.”privadas de propiedad de la aldea v. la tierra Aproximadamente el 50% de los aldeanosde propiedad de la UGF cultivan cacao, café y chile y les preocupaba que REDD+ impidiera que ellos entren en el•Provisión de capacitación en gestión área boscosa. This village did not wish toforestal consult on REDD+.•Provisión de semillas de nuez moscada y Resultado:durian •El proceso de CLPI fue discontinuado.Resultado: •La ONG, Pokja Pantau, posteriormente solicitó otra consulta con la UGF y el Programa ONU-•Los negociadores que representaban a la REDD. The FPIC process was discontinued.aldea y la UGF firmaron una Carta Convenio•Se estableció una plataforma para manejarlas reclamaciones y las opiniones.
    16. 16. Prueba de CLPI, Provincia Lam Dong• Vietnam fue el primer país en realizar un piloto de CLPI para REDD+ en el Programa ONU-REDD (2010)• 5 meses; 5.500 personas; 78 aldeas, 24 facilitadores entrenados en CLPI• CLPI para las personas locales/migrantes pertenecientes a una minoría étnica, pueblo migrante Kinh
    17. 17. Prueba de CLPI, Provincia Lam Dong Los interlocutores explican acerca del cambio climático, REDD, actividades planificadas de ONU- REDD y responden/registran Mediante el voto con la Mediante el voto con la mano / voto secreto mano / voto secreto preguntas y facilitan las 5. 6. Registro discusiones Reuniones de las de la Aldea decisiones El registro de consentimiento o no consentimientoSe comunican con eljefe del pueblo y los 4. 7. Documento yaldeanos para Preparación Reporteprepararlos para la de la reuniónreunión de consulta de la aldea Verificación yy evaluación Verificación evaluación independiente independiente 2&3 8. Reclutamiento Reclutan, entrenan, y Verificación practican y preparan entrenamiento 1. y lecciones para estar listos de los Generación Evaluación para las reuniones de la interlocutores de aldea (3 rondas) conciencia local Talleres generadores de conciencia a nivel local (16?) 0. Preparación: Distribución de folletos, colocación de pósters y •Un resumen del fundamento legal para comprometer a la comunidad local y discusión con los aldeanos materiales • Consulta con las autoridades locales
    18. 18. Lecciones de Indonesia y Vietnam• Balance: recepción de información suficiente y también muchas reuniones• Voto individual, no mediante los representantes• Documentar el proceso completo del CLPI, incluso las preocupaciones/quejas• Reportar los resultados del CLPI a la comunidad• Las consultas deben ser "previas", pero no deben ocurrir con tanta anticipación a una actividad como para que los aldeanos pierdan el interés en una propuesta.• Balance: temor a presentar documentos firmados v. acuerdos verbales abiertos a la interpretación.• Las directrices del CLPI se prueban mejor con una propuesta concreta.• Utilizar facilitadores entrenados de la propia comunidad de la aldea, puede acelerar la comprensión: idioma/comunicación de conceptos complejos, generación de confianza.
    19. 19. Mecanismos Nacionales de ReclamoA nivel nacional, se exige que los Programas Nacionalesestablezcan los mecanismos de reclamo.El Programa ONU-REDD está desarrollando Directrices pararespaldar esta tarea.Estos mecanismos serán útiles para tratar lasreclamaciones /conflictos que pudieran surgir en un procesode CLPI. .
    20. 20. Pasos Siguientes• Respaldar a los países para desarrollar Directrices de CLPI a nivel nacional o subnacional;• Respaldar a los países para dirigir los aspectos operativos de las Directrices;• Continuar recibiendo opiniones y revisar las Directrices en base a las experiencias y aportes.

    ×