4.1. Jurisdictional (National and Sub-National) Dialogue, Processes, and Action Surrounding REDD+ Social Safeguards
All three countries in our study are signatories to most international agreements related to the forestry sector including the UNFCCC and the CBD (Safeguard #1), suggesting REDD+ policy should not contradict those agreements. Several conventions have statements on social impacts; for example, the CBD has its own statements on social safeguards. Tanzania is the only country that conducts cross-sectoral discussions, including reconciling specific provisions related to forests in legally-binding and non-binding instruments related to various international agreements (
Table 1). Notably, Brazil and Tanzania are not signatories to Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) of the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) a European Union led initiative to curb the trade of illegally harvested timber. VPAs are a policy mechanism that is relatively well-aligned with the overall objectives of REDD+.
At the national level, the potential for strengthening existing forestry institutions was a major theme of policy dialogues surrounding complementarities with existing national forest programs (Safeguard #1) in all three countries. In Brazil and Indonesia, competing claims on forests that extend beyond REDD+ were also discussed. Oil palm plantations (Indonesia) and livestock (Brazil) involve large-scale deforestation, putting them in direct conflict with fulfilling the objectives of REDD+. Policy actors representing large-scale agriculture and timber harvesting have an active voice in REDD+ debates in Brazil and Indonesia, and actors engaged in biofuel development participate in national REDD+ policy discussions in all three countries.
Deficiencies of decentralized forest governance (e.g., lack of funding, weak capacity for implementing programs, corruption in local government, and weak enforcement of forestry laws at the local level) was identified as a major issue in all three countries and relates to maintaining transparent governance (Safeguard #2). However, policy makers expressed hope that REDD+ might provide the resources to build capacity and address challenges central to effective forest governance at both national and sub-national scales.
Table 1.
Policy dialogues, processes and actions.
Table 1.
Policy dialogues, processes and actions.
| Safeguard 1: | Safeguard 2: | Safeguard 3: | Safeguard 4: | Safeguard #5: |
---|
Synergy with National Policies and International Conventions | Transparent Governance | FPIC and Land Tenure | Participation | Enhanced Social Benefits (Benefit Sharing) |
---|
Brazil | Policy actors representing large-scale industries with competing claims to forests have a voice in REDD+ (e.g., agriculture, mining, biofuels) | Competing interest of federal and state governments with notable REDD+ advancements and both levels but challenges for harmonization | Civil society very vocal on FPIC Land tenure highly contested despite positive history of devolving land rights to communities and smallholders Legal framework in place to give recognition to indigenous lands | Coordination of the Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB) has a permanent seat on the executive committee of the Amazon Fund CSOs developed process to create social and environmental principles and criteria for REDD+ programs Acre and Mato Grosso have structured forums to encourage participation of key stakeholders (but participation by indigenous people is weak) Media gave considerable attention to participation in REDD+ design, notably the role of indigenous people in forest conservation | No official proposal for benefit sharing; No clear statement on what share of compensation mechanisms will be related to social aspects of REDD+ Greater focus on equity vs. sharing of revenues/benefits at local level |
Indonesia | Concern about other forest sector policies contradicting REDD+ Policy actors representing large-scale industries with competing claims to forests have a voice in REDD+ (e.g., agriculture, mining, biofuels) | Competing interest of federal and state governments | UN-REDD and National Forestry Council have developed FPIC materials and guidelines; National REDD+ Strategy has discussion of FPIC CSOs have focused on FPIC promoting involvement of customary and local communities in all aspects of REDD+ design and implementation National government has initiated major tenure reforms through the One Map initiative and Constitutional Court decision 35 on indigenous ownership rights CSOs let by AMAN have lobbied strongly for recognition of indigenous ownership rights in follow-up to the Constitutional decisions but have failed | Environmental Impact Assessments (AMDAL) as an important instrument for assessing community participation and involvement; Community participation required in drafting of legislation (but largely normative vs. operational); Community participation is one of 5 pillars of National REDD+ Architecture, but no penalties for failing to comply Major focus of CSOs, including concern about lack of operational rules for institutionalizing participation Media focused on participation by regional governments, but not on local participation | UN-REDD led process on benefit sharing system Government regulation on benefit sharing between government, communities and project developers Concern that corruption will threaten equitable benefit sharing |
Tanzania | Cross-sectoral discussions on reconciling provisions in legally-binding instruments related to various agreements | Lack of transparency and accountability re: forest related crimes, and conflict of interest between forest officials and illegal forest product producers | Forest and tree carbon tenure highly contested and viewed as major obstacle to successful REDD+ implementation; Carbon rights a major focus at national scale Land tenure related to biofuels and land grabs fueling national debate on long-term land and forest rights CSOs skeptical about progress on land and carbon rights Major focus of media especially concern over vague treatment of land tenure and resolving conflicts between villagers, private companies, and NGOs | High level of donor engagement in focused on awareness raising and capacity building at local-level Local NGOs (e.g., Tanzania Natural Resources Forum (TFCG) working to raise awareness of REDD+ safeguards Media highlighted concerns about lack of participation of key stakeholders including NGOs, private companies and communities; interviews with NGO leaders focused on need for collaboration between government and civil society or risk REDD+ failure | No formal system, but likely to be managed REDD+ Trust Fund Government has agreed to have 80% of REDD+ payments go to communities Some confusion due to pre-existing arrangements under JFM and CBNRM Benefit sharing under decentralization interpreted in different ways Some projects linking of REDD+ co-benefits with other schemes (e.g., Forest Stewardship Council certification) while REDD+ still in nascent stages |
The evolution of REDD+ in Brazil and Indonesia is strongly influenced by competing interests between the federal and state governments. Brazil has a highly decentralized system of forest governance, which includes granting licensing and enforcement responsibility to Amazonian states and municipalities. State and municipal councils are responsible for environment and forestry issues and assume responsibility for ensuring transparency and accountability among local government agencies that have taken on REDD+. While understaffing, lack of sustained funding, corruption, elite capture, and lack of transparency are major problems within government agencies at all scales, some Amazonian states have taken the lead on forest conservation strategies. Lessons from jurisdictional REDD+ programs at the subnational level, such as Acre’s State System of Environmental Services (SISA) and early forest carbon projects including the Bolsa Floresta Program and Juma, indicate the need for alignment between federal and subnational initiatives, which is essential to guarantee their legality and efficiency, as well as potentially help promote the participation of those directly affected. Similar patterns regarding concerns about governance, and sub-national capacity to manage REDD+ were voiced in Indonesia, though the role of national government in policy setting and new initiatives directly related to REDD+ appears to be stronger. In Tanzania, there were also concerns about transparent governance. Lack of accountability for forest-related crimes, and conflicts of interest between forest officials and illegal forest product producers were identified as a major concern. Despite differences in sub-national capacity, in all three countries transparent governance was viewed as a necessary condition for successful REDD+ implementation.
We operationalize “respecting the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and communities” (Safeguard #3) by considering dialogues, processes, and actions surrounding free prior and informed consent (FPIC) and land, tree and carbon tenure. FPIC refers to consent that has been granted freely, prior, and in an informed manner, has been obtained without coercion, in advance of project authorization and commencement, and that the affected parties fully understand the scope, duration, and potential impacts of the activities [
34]. Discussions surrounding FPIC have taken place in various national and sub-national forums in Brazil and Indonesia. For example, as part of building consensus on REDD+ safeguards, civil society organizations in Brazil at both the national and sub-national levels have been vocal in arguing that FPIC should be carried out among traditional populations affected by REDD+ projects in their territories and adjacent lands (this process is elaborated below).
Indonesia has made considerable progress at the national and sub-national scales in developing policies and processes for addressing FPIC. The UN-REDD Programme in cooperation with National Forestry Council (DKN) developed FPIC materials and guidelines, and the recent draft of the National REDD+ Strategy includes discussion of FPIC with Pillar 5 calling for “Effective involvement of the community through implementation of FPIC, safeguards, and fair and transparent benefit sharing” [
35]. Civil-society organizations have also provided critical input in various national and sub-national forums, promoting the idea that involving customary and local communities in the design, implementation and other management aspects of the national REDD+ strategy is essential. Despite these advances, there is a lack of clarity regarding who will give consent and how FPIC will be operationalized. Lessons learned from FLEGT and other forest governance reform processes suggest that it is not possible to fast track FPIC, but rather that it is a slow process that requires building trust and capacity. There was no explicit mention of FPIC in the Tanzania country report or media analysis, but this does not mean that this issue is irrelevant there.
Uncertainty of land, tree, and carbon rights was noted in all country reports as a major challenge for REDD+ implementation. Land tenure is a highly contested issue in Brazil despite the country’s positive record of devolving ownership and access rights to communities and smallholders [
36]. Settlement of smallholders in the Brazilian Amazon, through government-sponsored colonization or redistribution of land invaded by smallholders [
37], has resulted in violent conflicts and deforestation as a way to establish property rights [
38,
39]. Such tenure insecurity translates into inequities in potential REDD benefit-sharing arrangements. For example, since inhabitants of non-designated public lands (~24% of Brazilian Amazon) and strict protected areas (~7%) do not hold exclusive rights to land, they would likely not qualify for payments for ecosystem services [
40]. That said, recent advances in linking forest tenure reform and environmental compliance through the
Terra Legal Program and implementation of the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) hold promise for REDD+ [
41]. There is also currently a legal framework in place to give appropriate recognition to indigenous lands (Federal Constitution of 1988 chapter VIII). Indigenous groups occupy ~22% of the Brazilian Amazon, and 77% of indigenous lands have completed a formal process of recognition. Indigenous lands are under pressure from loggers, ranchers, and miners, but borders have been largely respected due to monitoring by the groups themselves and with legal assistance from indigenous organizations [
42].
Compared to Brazil, the percentage area of the forest estate under statutory ownership and access rights for indigenous people and communities in Indonesia is relatively small [
36]. With forests used historically for political and economic leverage by elites, indigenous and other forest dwelling people have been marginalized and dispossessed of their forest resources and livelihoods (various sources in [
43]). Although Indonesia has had decentralized forest governance since 1999, provincial and district governments have issued licenses for agriculture and mining development in forest areas that have indiscriminately affected forest communities [
44]. In the era of REDD+, there have been several national policy changes that aim to clarify forest tenure and, at least in part, lay an appropriate foundation for the implementation of REDD+. For example, Indonesia’s One Map Initiative, which begun in 2010, aims to resolve longstanding overlapping land claims among ministries and departments [
45]. Beginning in May 2011, implementation of the Indonesia Forest Moratorium postponed the issuance of new concession licenses in natural forests and peatlands [
46]. In May 2013, a landmark decision by Indonesia’s Constitutional Court laid the groundwork for acknowledging statutory ownership rights of indigenous people to a significant portion of the forest estate [
47]. These major advances notwithstanding, there remain large obstacles to recognizing the rights of indigenous people and communities in Indonesia. Since the landmark Constitutional Court decision, very little progress has been made toward formalizing those rights.
Forest and carbon tenure are highly contested in Tanzania and viewed as a major obstacle to the successful implementation of REDD+. Although decentralization of forest tenure rights has been ongoing in Tanzania since the early 1990s, by 2008 only 10% of forests were owned or managed by communities [
36]. Speeding up the process of legitimate decentralization is a focus of Tanzania’s national REDD+ strategy [
48]. Policy makers and other key stakeholders expressed concerns about the inability of the national government to define and enforce property rights resulting in some forests being treated as open access resources. Issues including biofuel development and land grabs also raise concerns about medium to long-term land and forest rights. Additionally, the issue of carbon rights is gaining attention in national policy dialogues, and concerns have been expressed about how the Tanzanian government will interpret existing land and forest laws which may exclude communities from realizing significant carbon benefits.
All three countries have specific national and sub-national processes aimed at increasing participation at in REDD+ (Safeguard #4). At the national-level in Brazil, the Brazilian Forum on Climate Change, Brazilian Forum of NGOs and Social Movements, and the Climate Observatory are examples of spaces where national legislation and other relevant issues are discussed and members of civil society participate. In 2009, several civil society organizations initiated a process to develop social and environmental principles and criteria for REDD+ programs and projects in Brazil. The main objectives were to strengthen forest governance and management of natural resources by indigenous peoples and local communities, encourage public participation in the policy-making process, coordinate action among all stakeholders involved, increase information transparency, and generate respect for and awareness and recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities for their territories, lands, natural resources, and traditional livelihoods and cultures [
49]. The final version of Brazil’s social and environmental principles and criteria for REDD+ (
i.e., safeguards framework) was developed in May 2010, addressing all comments received during the public consultation process.
At the sub-national level, participatory councils and other institutional spaces for policy dialogue between government and stakeholders exist in the Legal Amazon. For example, Acre and Mato Grosso have structured state-level forums in which stakeholders affected by REDD+ can participate, and there are also forums in other Amazonian states (e.g., Tocantins State Forum for Climate Change and Biodiversity; Amazonas State Forum for Climate Change, Biodiversity, Environmental Services and Energy; Pará State Working Group on REDD+), but most lack participation by indigenous peoples. That said, some indigenous group organizations (e.g., Coordination of the Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB) have a permanent seat on the executive committee of the Amazon Fund.
Indonesia has several national-level policies relevant to or directly addressing the issue of participation in REDD+. For example, Environmental Impact Assessments (AMDAL) is an important instrument for assessing community participation and involvement. Evidence of community participation is required before carbon permits are issued, although concerns about the seriousness with which community involvement is addressed were raised by the Indonesian Center for Environmental Law, which found that community participation requirements were only met by applicants with large amounts of capital. A new law in 2008 (Law No. 14/2008) on Public Access to Information could facilitate effective community participation in policy making if implemented correctly. Community participation in drafting legislation and policy is regulated by Law No. 10/2004 in “Procedures for Making Legislation” but it is normative in nature, greatly restricted, and lacking operational rules. Finally, participation is one of five pillars of National REDD+ architecture (Number 4) with the stated aim of a shift in paradigm and working culture towards inclusive participation by community groups, including women and vulnerable communities, in developing policy programs and protocols [
35].
Several recent national initiatives have focused on engaging civil society in the safeguards policy process including roles for civil society as members of the steering and writing committees during development of the draft National REDD+ Strategy, engagement in UN-REDD workshops on strengthening multi-stakeholder participation, and general consultations among civil society and customary community representatives in UN-REDD activities. At the sub-national level, civil-society has also engaged in REDD+ policy implementation. For example, the Civil Society Forum for Climate Justice held workshops in Central Kalimantan, Jambi and Aceh finding that community knowledge of and participation in REDD+ was extremely limited. Overall there is a general feeling that the level of participation by stakeholders has increased, but it remains unclear as to how much input from stakeholders is influencing actual policy development and change. Concerns were also expressed about the lack of operational rules for institutionalizing participation, and the inconsistency of legal provisions granting community participation in legislation.
Tanzania’s REDD+ Readiness initiatives have involved a high level of donor engagement which has facilitated the development of a cohesive strategy regarding awareness raising and capacity building at the local-level. In addition to high levels of donor engagement, long standing local non-governmental organizations (e.g., the Tanzania Natural Resources Forum and the TFCG) have been working on awareness raising of REDD+ at all levels, including specifically focusing on social and environmental safeguards. These two factors have led to a relatively high level of awareness and participation in REDD+ design at both the national and local-levels.
Countries have articulated benefit-sharing arrangements to varying degrees (Safeguard #5). Brazil has no official proposal for benefit sharing mechanisms, though several ideas have been put forward. Nepstad
et al. considered the key organizational components of sharing benefits and costs for REDD+ including developing three funds: one that compensates indigenous and traditional communities to increase the viability of forest-based livelihoods; a second that offers private landowners partial compensation of 20% of the opportunity costs of any forest reserve on their land; and a government fund that covers additional costs for monitoring, protection and management of public forests [
50]. A more recent report by Brazilian organizations [
51] focuses on two structural models for a national REDD+ system. One model proposes REDD+ implementation at the state level, but regulated with federal government enforcement. A second model focuses on reducing emissions from deforestation for different land use categories. Funds related to each land use would be managed within Brazil’s federal system by a committee or commission comprised of civil society organizations. A major issue yet to be resolved is what share of any compensation mechanism will be related to social aspects of REDD+.
At the sub-national level in Brazil, the main form of benefit sharing is incentives for maintaining conservation practices and compensation to cover REDD+ implementation costs at the property or community-level (i.e., payments for ecoystem services) (e.g., Acre and Amazonas). Despite the lack of a clear position on benefit-sharing, most pilot REDD+ projects have a primary focus on poverty reduction mechanisms rather than meeting UNFCCC voluntary agreements for reduced deforestation. For example, the Bolsa Floresta Program in Amazonas, which has implemented compensations, incentives/rewards, and interventions at the property or community level have a strong focus on equity rather than scale of deforestation.
Benefit sharing is an explicit focus of policy dialogues and the REDD+ policy process in Indonesia, with a focus on developing legal frameworks, equity, and concerns about corruption and transparency. Led by UN-REDD facilitated consultations on institutions for MRV, RELs and a benefit sharing system in 2009, Indonesia is a leader with respect to benefit-sharing The current version (2012) of the National REDD+ Strategy discusses funding instrument efficiency and equity in benefit sharing, but serves only as a reference rather than providing guidance on the technical aspects of benefit sharing. Guidance for the distribution of benefits from REDD+ is provided in Ministry of Forestry Regulation Number 36/Menhun-II/2009), which stipulates that benefits should be shared amount government, communities and project developers. Under the regulation, communities get anywhere from 20% (natural forest timber concessions) to 70% (community or customary forest) of benefits associated with carbon sequestration and/or storage. However, it is not clear whether this regulation will be followed due to uncertainty about the effectiveness of Ministerial degrees
vs. higher government regulation, and directives that come from the Ministry of Forestry
vs. the Ministry of Finance. Civil society has expressed concerns regarding benefit sharing [
52], including worries about corruption, which undermines permit processes and law enforcement, tenure, and a past history of forest-related conflict [
53].
Issues of benefit sharing are not-yet formalized in Tanzania although is likely that a national REDD+ Trust Fund will be established through which the central government will receive and distribute REDD+ payments. Such a system requires high levels of transparency and accountability. Due to the strong influence of Norway, the major REDD+ donor in Tanzania on community-level benefit sharing (primarily PES schemes), and pressure from key stakeholder groups, the government has agreed to have 80% of REDD+ payments go to communities. Challenges for equitable benefit sharing include past experience with forest sector decentralization and equitable benefit sharing under PFM and JFM arrangements, linkages between benefit sharing and forest and carbon tenure security, and elite capture. Greater than 50% of REDD projects are taking place in village forest reserves that fall under community-based natural resource management (CBNRM). In those areas, benefit sharing is expected to follow CBNRM guidelines; meaning communities will receive 100% of revenues. On state lands governed under JFM the plan for benefit distribution between states and communities is not clear, in part because benefits JFM guidelines for benefit sharing have not been finalized. A major problem is that under decentralization benefit sharing agreements are often interpreted in different ways and not all communities have received a flow of benefits under existing PFM and JFM structures, raising serious questions about how REDD+ would be any different. Related to Safeguard #3, there is a general feeling among policy makers and key stakeholders that without secure tenure rights, benefit sharing mechanisms cannot work equitably. An interesting development in Tanzania is that some REDD+ proponents have linked REDD+ co-benefits with other schemes (for example, Forest Stewardship Council certification) to ensure that benefit-sharing is institutionalized while REDD+ is still in a nascent stage.