This document discusses similarities and differences between safeguards mechanisms for REDD+ and how they can support the development of a country's safeguards system. It outlines key aspects such as why safeguards are needed, when in the process they are relevant, what they should address, and who should be involved. The main steps for developing a national safeguards system are identified as understanding risks and gaps, developing policies/regulations, identifying indicators, and establishing monitoring, reporting and grievance processes. Potential inputs from international organizations, countries and stakeholders are also noted.
Rising Above_ Dubai Floods and the Fortitude of Dubai International Airport.pdf
Elements & steps of a national safeguards system
1. Understanding similarities and
differences of safeguards
mechanisms for REDD+ and how
they support development of a
country safeguards system
2. Understanding similarities and differences of
safeguards mechanisms for REDD+
• WHY?
– to promote effective design and adaptive management (that addresses
safeguards effectively - avoiding harm and generating benefits)
– to access and maintain funding
– to demonstrate compliance with national law and with international
obligations
– to build and maintain support among stakeholders
• interest groups/NGOs
• general public
• local people affected by REDD+ activities
3. • WHEN?
– Design-readiness phase
– Implementation phase
• WHAT?
– Governance:
coherence, participation, disclosure, accountability, grievance
mechanisms
– Rights: respect for rights, Indigenous Peoples and local communities
– Impacts: social and environmental, negative and/or positive, for
different stakeholder groups
– Actions to avoid or mitigate negative & enhance positive impacts
• WHO?
– Defines what information is to be collected
– Collects, reviews and reports information
– Participates in governance of safeguards mechanisms
– Ensures implementation of agreed mitigation/enhancement actions
4. Design - Readiness Implementation
Why: improve design, build support ,
Strategic Environmental & Social required for funding
What: governance, rights,
Assessment (SESA) positive & negative impacts,
An iterative process of analysis and Who: multi-stakeholder, participatory
consultation to improve design based on
World Bank safeguards and issues
identified through the process
Why: required for
funding, improve design Environmental & Social
What: WB Management Framework (ESMF)
safeguards, negative Framework for development of plans to
impacts, rights, complian mitigate and manage risks with respect to
ce monitoring World Bank safeguards
Who: government and
World Bank, possibly
other delivery partners
5. Design - Readiness Implementation
Social & Environmental Principles & Criteria (SEPC)
Guiding framework for addressing social and environmental issues in UN-REDD National
Programmes and to support countries in developing a national approach to safeguards in line
with UNFCCC. BeRT and other tools to be developed for application
Benefit and Risks Tool (BeRT) Why: improve design
Guides design of UN-REDD National What : governance, rights, positive/negative
programs. Principles, criteria and questions impacts
Who: national UN-REDD program design
for comprehensive consideration of risks and
team
benefits.
Participatory Governance
Assessment (PGA) Why: improve design, build stakeholder
Inclusive multi-stakeholder process support
What: priority governance issues
identifies priority governance issues, identified for the country
defines indicators, collects information, Who: multi-stakeholder, participatory
to feedback into design. No predefined identification of indicators and
content. assessment
6. Design - Readiness Implementation
REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards (REDD+ SES)
Inclusive, multi-stakeholder process uses a comprehensive
framework to define country-specific indicators and to review
performance for monitoring and reporting of process and impacts
throughout implementation
Why: monitoring & reporting, build stakeholder support, improve design
What: governance, rights, positive & negative impacts, adapted to country context
Who: multi-stakeholder, participatory identification of indicators, assessment & review
7. Potential elements of a national safeguards system for REDD+
Policies, Law Policy and legal framework that defines and operationalizes country-specific safeguards
s and interpretation for REDD+
Regulations - Existing policies, laws and regulations
- REDD+ specific polices, laws and regulations
Institutions Institutional framework that defines roles, responsibilities and interrelations of those
responsible for the safeguards system
- Institution(s) to ensure fair, effective and transparent processes for design and implementation
- Institutions to implement policies, laws and regulations
- Institutions to collect and process information for monitoring and reporting on safeguards
Processes Processes and procedures that are followed to implement the safeguards system
and - Consultations
procedures - Capacity building
- Action plans to mitigate harm and support benefits
Monitoring Country-specific monitoring and reporting framework
and - Indicators for process and outcomes related to country-specific safeguards interpretation
reporting - Monitoring methodologies
- Reporting frameworks to address different information needs (for adaptive management, for national
stakeholders, for donor agencies, for UNFCCC etc)
Grievance National-level mechanism to receive and address grievances related to the national
mechanism safeguards system
8. Main steps for development of a country safeguards system
The ‘system’
Development process
Policies,
Laws and
Regulations
Country Gap Gap Identificati Developm Developm
interpretat analysis and analysis on of ent of ent of
ion of developme and indicators monitoring grievance
Institutions
REDD+ nt of new developme for and mechanis
safeguards PLRs and nt of new social/envi reporting m
institutions processes ronmental methodolo
and performan gy Processes
procedures ce and
procedures
-What are - What -What - What are What are the - How will
the potential existing existing the key data needs grievances
soc/env risks PLRs/instituti processes/pr indicators to and gaps? relating to Monitoring
of the ons help to ocedures determine if - How will REDD+ and
REDD+ meet REDD+ help to meet safeguards monitoring be safeguards reporting
strategy? safeguards REDD+ are met and carried out? be heard
-- What -Where are safeguards? performance - How will and
should be the gaps ? -What new with respect data be responded
protected or - What ones are to country reported? to? Grievance
supported PLRs/institutio needed? interpretatio - Who should - Who mechanism
when doing ns are needed n of be should be
REDD+? to fill gaps? safeguards? responsible? responsible?
9. Potential country inputs
Existing PLRs Existing PLRs Existing Biodiversity, Biodiversity, Existing
(statutory and processes/pr social and social, forest grievance
and institutions ocedures forest monitoring mechanisms The ‘system’
customary) (statutory and indicators
Policies, Law
customary)
s and
Regulations
National Gap Gap Identificati Developm Developm
interpretat analysis and analysis on of ent of ent of
ion of developme and indicators monitoring grievance
Institutions
REDD+ nt of new developme for and mechanis
safeguards PLRs and nt of new social/envi reporting m
institutions processes ronmental methodolo
and performan gy Processes
procedures ce and
procedures
- Cancun SG - FCPF SESA - FCPF ESMF -REDD+ SES - REDD+ SES
- Donor Ops - UN-REDD (for WB OPs) - UN-REDD
- Internati’l BeRT -UN-REDD PGA (for Monitoring
conventions - UN-REDD BeRT governance) and
agreements PGA (for - PGA (for -Governance reporting
- UN-REDD governance) governance) of Forests
SEPC - UN-REDD Indicators
-REDD+ SES guidelines (for
-FCPF SESA on FPIC governance) Grievance
(for risks/ mechanism
opportunitie
s)
Potential international inputs
10. Durban decision on safeguards information
2. Agrees that systems for providing information on how the safeguards [in
Cancun agreement] are addressed and respected should,
• taking into account national circumstances and respective capabilities,
• recognizing national sovereignty and legislation, and
• relevant international obligations and agreements, and
• respecting gender considerations:
(a) Be consistent with guidance [in para 1 Cancun agreement];
(b) Provide transparent and consistent information that is accessible by all
relevant stakeholders and updated on a regular basis;
(c) Be transparent and flexible to allow for improvements over time;
(d) Provide information on how all of the safeguards [in Cancun agreement] are
being addressed and respected;
(e) Be country-driven and implemented at the national level;
(f) Build upon existing systems, as appropriate;
The safeguards mechanisms vary according to when they are applied – during design/readiness or during implementation – for adaptive management, to maintain support of stakeholders and funding, to demonstrate compliance.They also differ in what they cover: covering in different levels of detail the different types of safeguards: governance, rights, positive and negative social and environmental impacts, the development and implementation of actions to avoid or mitigate negative impacts and enhance positive impacts.Finally, and importantly, they also differ with respect to who is involved, for example in defining what information is to be collected, who is involved in collecting, reviewing and reporting information and who is involved in the governance of the safeguards mechanisms itself, who ensures effective and fair application and who ensures impartiality of grievance/recourse mechanisms
The Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment or SESA is used in the design or readiness phase for countries participating in the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, and aims to improve design of the REDD+ program by combining analytical work and consultations in an iterative fashion. The multi-stakeholder, participatory approach helps to build support among stakeholders and ensures that it covers a full range of issues including governance, rights and positive and negative social and environmental impacts. One of the outputs of the SESA is the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) that aims to mitigate and manage risks with respect to existing World Bank safeguards. Though it is based on World Bank safeguards, which were not developed with REDD+ in mind, it could potentially cover full and effective participation or other governance-related issues in the Cancun safeguards and could also potentially cover positive benefits or equitable benefit sharing.It is important to note that ESMF is a framework that defines how specific mitigation plans will be developed later in the process before activities are actually implemented. The ESMF is composed of all the relevant safeguards frameworks and should include separate chapters depending on which safeguards may be triggered including an Environmental Management Framework if the safeguards relating to Natural Habitats, Forests, Pest management, Physical Cultural Resources are triggered, an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework and a Resettlement Policy Framework/Restriction of Access Framework if the Involuntary Resettlement safeguard is triggered. In the World Bank process, if the Indigenous Peoples Operational Policy 4.10 (safeguard) is triggered, then an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework is developed as a step towards the development of a full Indigenous Peoples Plan which outlines mitigation actions and must be in place before implementation of an activity. The content of the ESMF may be quite general at the end of the readiness phase depending on the extent to which future REDD+ investments are identified but must lead to development of full mitigation plans for relevant safeguards by the time REDD+ activities are implemented. Development, approval and adherence to the ESMF are the main mechanism for demonstrating compliance of REDD+ programs with the World Bank safeguards and something ‘substantially equivalent’ is required for the other delivery partners as agreed under the ‘Common Approach’. Since the ESMF provides a framework for defining mitigation action it acts to improve design by ensuring that appropriate social and environmental sustainability standards are upheld during implementation of a country’s REDD+ strategy, while also providing a system for monitoring and reporting on progress of implementation of the agreed mitigation actions. The ESMF and the ensuing mitigation plans are typically developed by the government of the country concerned with support, review and approval by the World Bank.
The UN-REDD programme has developed Social and Environmental Principles and Criteria as a guiding framework to aid with (1) addressing social and environmental issues in UN-REDD National programmes and other UN-REDD Programme funded activities, and (2) supporting countries in developing their national approaches to REDD+ safeguards in line with the UNFCCC. The SEPC covers the full range of REDD+ safeguards issues including governance, rights, positive and negative social and environmental impacts. A Benefits and Risks Tool (BeRT) has been developed, which will be further developed along with other tools to support the application of the SEPC.UN-REDD has developed a Benefits and Risk Tool (BeRT) which is a question-based decision support tool that has been developed in the first instance to help countries to apply the SEPC in the formulation of UN-REDD National programmes. It is a series of questions designed to help a working group tasked with development of a national UN-REDD program document to identify and assess potential risks and opportunities and to identify ways to adjust program design to minimize risks and build on opportunities. There are plans to further develop BeRT to support application of SEPC in other contexts, including programme implementation, monitoring and evaluation (not yet developed so not shown on the graphic on this slide). The BeRT is intended for use by national teams for internal use to help them improve the design of national UN-REDD programs. There is no guidance on or requirement for stakeholder participation.In addition, UN-REDD is also developing Participatory Governance Assessment (PGA) and guidance that provide a framework for a participatory process for identification of indicators to provide information for stakeholders to analyse governance structures and systems and make recommendations for policy reform. This mechanism aims to feed back into design and build stakeholder support by providing information to encourage policy reform related to REDD+. It is focussed only on priority governance issues that are identified for the country through the participatory process and does not aim to be comprehensive. Indicators and the assessment process are adapted to the country context. PGA has been developed to support a one-time assessment but could be used by countries to develop indicators and a participatory process for ongoing assessment.
The REDD+ SES provides a framework for assessment of social and environmental performance of a government-led REDD+ program both during readiness and throughout implementation that aims to build stakeholder support, nationally and internationally, and also supports adaptive management to feed back into design. The principles, criteria and indicators of the REDD+ SES were developed through broad stakeholder consultation so the framework reflects the full range of safeguards issues identified by stakeholders in countries implementing REDD+ and internationally (governance, rights, positive and negative social and environmental impacts, mitigation actions). The REDD+ SES are used through a clearly-defined, country-led, multi-stakeholder process. The use of the standards in each country is overseen by a multi-stakeholder committee representing a balance of government and civil society. There is a participatory approach to interpretation of indicators and to development of an assessment report, which must be reviewed by stakeholders before approval by the multi-stakeholder committee.
