bridging local perspectives and global environmental ... · key ideas discussed during the seminar...
Post on 04-Aug-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Organisers Partners
IGES REDD+ Seminar 2014
Bridging local perspectives and global environmental agendas in
forest management
Seminar report
The IGES REDD+ Seminar “Bridging local perspectives and global environmental agendas in
forest management” was held on Tuesday 21st October 2014 in Tokyo at The International
House of Japan. Sixty-nine people listened to and discussed presentations from international
experts on the importance of fully and constructively engaging with indigenous peoples and
local communities when developing and implementing forest management initiatives for
climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation. The Ministry of Environment of
Japan funded the seminar, which was hosted by the Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies (IGES) and supported by the Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, the
Global Canopy Programme and the Asia Pacific Network for Global Change Research.
Seminar rationale
The theme of the seminar – the need for bridging local
perspectives and global environmental agendas in forest
management – was identified from the following
considerations: (i) Around the World, millions of people
live on the fringes of and in forests and depend on them
for at least part of their livelihoods and wellbeing; (ii) If
the customary claims of forest-dependent people to forest
lands and resources are ignored by initiatives to mitigate
climate and conserve biodiversity, then these initiatives
will not be successful; (iii) To achieve global
environmental objectives requires moving away from a
narrow focus on single objectives (mitigate climate change,
conserve biodiversity, etc.) to a broader approach of building the resilience of
2
forest-dependent communities through investing in leadership, rights security, capacity,
institutions, and livelihoods.
Background
The background to the seminar includes a shared understanding of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) that the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities is key to
the success of the conventions. The participation of indigenous people and local communities
is one of seven REDD+ (actions by developing countries to conserve and enhance forest
carbon stocks) safeguards, while the Convention on Biological Diversity recognises that many
indigenous and local communities have traditional dependence on biological resources, and
thus that successful implementation of the convention requires their participation. Both the
UNFCCC and CBD also make reference to the knowledge of indigenous people and local
communities. Respect for this knowledge is a REDD+ safeguard, while the Intergovernmental
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services (IPBES) will include indigenous and local
knowledge (ILK) in its assessments on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Seminar objectives
Share practical ideas on how communities can participate in the realisation of the global
agendas on climate change and the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
through forest management;
Highlight forms of participation that contribute to global environmental objectives as well
as community development and resilience;
Discuss community participation in REDD+ and the contribution of communities to
realising the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as the relevance
of locally managed forests to enhancing community adaptive capacity.
Discussion points
The seminar addressed the following questions:
3
What are the challenges to bridging local perspectives and global agendas for climate
change and the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity in forest management?
How is community participation in REDD+ being promoted, what lessons have been
learned, and how can these be reflected in REDD+ actions, national strategies and global
REDD+ architecture?
What tools/strategies for participation, including participatory mapping and monitoring,
exist and what are effective ways to use these?
How can local management of forests contribute to community adaptive capacity?
Key ideas discussed during the seminar
Rights and knowledge
Land tenure conflicts and struggles for the recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights
constitute barriers to collective decision-making on forest management. Securing
forest tenure rights for communities and backing these with government support is an
effective climate change and biodiversity conservation strategy. Recent studies indicate
that deforestation rates are significantly lower in areas under community tenure with
government support than other areas.
Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPs/LCs) are continuously monitoring
what is going on around them and often have intimate knowledge of forest resources.
However, decision-makers rely heavily on knowledge generated by consultants from
short site visits, and too little effort is made to engage with ILK. ILK can make an
important contribution to global environmental agendas, both in terms of assessments
and for designing and monitoring conservation and REDD+ actions, but appropriate
processes to engage with ILK must first be established. These processes include
ensuring sensitivity to local customs and institutions, allowing IPs/LCs to decide what
knowledge should be shared and how, etc.
4
Diversity and complexity
The diverse interests and tensions between various stakeholders involved in REDD+
need to be understood to ensure the sustainability and resilience of the local social
structures, and successes need to be measured based on information from the
community that is directly impacted by the activities.
There is tremendous diversity between IPs/LCs in terms of their “readiness” for and
interest in REDD+. Some IPs/LCs express a strong interest in protecting forests, have
intimate knowledge of forests and have developed strong traditional institutions for
sustainable resource management. Their main interests in REDD+ include legal/formal
recognition of their customary claims to land and resources and their management
institutions. In other cases, IPs/LCs may be seeking financial and other gains from the
conversion of forests to agriculture and other land uses; this can particularly be the
case with more recently settled areas. For these people, the short-term opportunity
costs of community-based monitoring may outweigh its long-term benefits, driving
deforestation and degradation through forest clearing for land sales, conversion to
high export value crop lands, illegal logging, etc. Approaches to engage with IPs/LCs
on REDD+ must be able to recognise and work with this diversity in contexts and
interests.
Policy coordination and governance
Synergies not only exist between biodiversity conservation and REDD+ strategies, but
also between these strategies and climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction,
and sustainable development. Impacts on the ground can be maximised by recognising
and making full use of the synergies between initiatives on REDD+, adaptation,
biodiversity, poverty, illegal logging, and watershed management.
While preparing for REDD+ in weak governance settings is fraught with difficulties,
public consultation, multistakeholder and multi-sector processes can be observed in
some REDD+ readiness processes. These may provide examples and experience for
more participatory and transparent decision-making outside of REDD+.
5
Conservation and REDD+ initiatives should as far as possible be aligned with the
existing mandates and objectives of local governments. This will increase support for
the initiatives and result in greater impacts through the realization of synergies with
existing local government programmes.
In transboundary conservation and REDD+ programmes, monitoring systems should
be agreed by the participating countries early on in the design of the activities. When
the capacities of the countries participating differ greatly, consideration should be
given to the potential of sharing good practices across the countries.
Scaling up community-based and participatory forest monitoring
Pilots in many countries have concluded that with adequate training and support,
communities are highly capable of implementing reliable and cost-effective
monitoring activities for carbon and biodiversity assessment. Scaling up of existing
initiatives and linking them with national forest monitoring systems (NFMS) is a
second generation challenge for community-based forest monitoring that now requires
attention.
The challenges to scaling up are many. Effective community-based forest monitoring
requires ownership and collaboration. Multiple stakeholders from village to national
levels need to be engaged in all processes, with clear roles and responsibilities, and
sharing of benefits. Significant investment in developing local level trainers with both
technical and facilitation capacities is needed. It is also essential for community-based
forest monitoring to be integrated into higher policies; a few important examples are
emerging where pilots are engaging with national governments, with the aim of having
community-based forest monitoring recognised under NFMS.
The effective use of collected data is impeded by the inability of governments to
understand them, the fragmentation of data originating from various projects, the
absence of centralised bodies to coordinate the findings, as well as the difficulty in
identifying uses at subnational level. The evolving NFMS themselves need to be closely
examined to understand exactly where and how community-based forest monitoring
6
fits in. Strong advocacy and resources will be required to elaborate existing data
gathering and management processes to accommodate participatory forest monitoring,
and ensure community involvement in monitoring is integrated with higher strategies
and action plans.
There are clear synergies between the CBD and REDD+ in terms of their monitoring
requirements. Pilots demonstrate how participatory monitoring can be organised to
simultaneously contribute to the design of actions and reporting for both biodiversity
conservation and REDD+. A challenge to scaling up pilots that combine biodiversity
and carbon stock monitoring can be lack of effective coordination between the
national agencies responsible for planning and reporting on biodiversity conservation
and carbon stock management (forest inventory).
At national level it is important to identify and to demonstrate how governments can
develop national REDD+ safeguards information systems (SIS) based on existing
resources and frameworks. The potential for community-based monitoring to integrate
with these systems can then be explored. IPs/LCs can readily observe location-specific
impacts of REDD+ actions and have good understanding of local forest values,
suggesting that community-based monitoring can make an important contribution to
SIS; however, scaling up of participatory monitoring on safeguards beyond pilots will
require considerable advocacy and investment.
The scope of community-based monitoring can include both monitoring levels of
forest carbon and biodiversity as well as monitoring the impacts of actions for forest
carbon and biodiversity. There are a large range of indicators that can and are being
used in community-based monitoring, and there is now a need to identify consistency
across exiting indicators and develop simple and compatible indicators that can be
applied to different projects and programmes. Monitoring indicators must be kept
simple in order for decision-makers to understand outcomes.
While pilots have demonstrated success in engaging communities in forest monitoring
for biodiversity and carbon assessments, less progress has been made on linking
community-based monitoring with incentive schemes. In part, this situation has arisen
because the global REDD+ mechanism is still under development; hence, it is difficult
to link community-based forest monitoring with results-based payments (other than
7
through the relatively small voluntary market). Further piloting on linking
community-based monitoring with incentives is desirable.
Maximising community resilience benefits of REDD+ and conservation
While the focus of REDD+ is on climate change mitigation, many actions associated
with REDD+ readiness and implementation can be tailored in ways to maximise
outcomes for community resilience. For example, a REDD+ action that secures
forest/land tenure rights for IPs/LCs will not only contribute to climate change
mitigation, it can also contribute to strong local institutions for resource management
and provide the foundations for socio-economic development of IPs/LCs. Likewise,
engaging local communities in forest field surveys not only provides data for designing
and reporting on conservation and REDD+ actions, it also builds community
institutions and increases understanding of biodiversity values, the carbon cycle, and
how results-based payments are generated. Communities can also be engaged in
mapping to assist remote sensing experts interpret features in satellite images and with
map accuracy assessment (“ground truthing”), and the mapping can extend to land use
maps created by the communities themselves for them to better control their use of
forests.
Conservation initiatives are only successful when they promote development of local
economies. The concept of “conservation economy” can be used to ensure that
conservation initiatives are designed to be integrated into local economic development
in ways that provide meaningful incentives for their longevity.
Support for community-based monitoring should not just be limited to carbon and
biodiversity. As some pilots are demonstrating, IPs/LCs can be encouraged to consider
monitoring socio-economic and other issues that they have identified as important to
them.
8
Annex 1: Record of presentations and discussions
Opening Messages, Dr. Yuji Mizuno, Ministry of the Environment of Japan
Dr. Yuji Mizuno, Ministry of the Environment of Japan (MOEJ), made the opening remarks to
this seminar, welcoming the speakers to the event and thanking the
audience for their participation. He highlighted the loss of forests across
the world, and the importance of REDD+ measures for the mitigation of
climate change. In this context, he introduced the Warsaw Framework,
which serves as the basis for the implementation of REDD+ actions. Dr.
Mizuno also explained that the Japanese government has been promoting
the Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM), which supports advanced
technologies for the mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Japan currently has 12
JCM country partners across the world, some of which have high potential for REDD+ actions.
Dr. Mizuno closed his remarks by expressing his hopes for an active exchange of ideas at the
seminar towards further progress on REDD+.
Session 1: Framing the topic and updates on UNFCCC
REDD+ and CBD (Moderator: Mr. Taiji Fujisaki, IGES)
“Framing the topic” Dr. Henry Scheyvens, IGES
Dr. Henry Scheyvens, IGES, thanked the MOEJ and key partners for their support towards
local community involvement in REDD+, then introduced the audience to the topic of the
day’s discussions. He explained that IGES is currently in the process of developing guidelines
9
for implementing REDD+ on the ground, and outlined the reasons
for advocating local community involvement. Given that about an
eighth of the world’s forests are community-owned, and that local
communities hold a significant amount of knowledge on the forests
and their functions on which they strongly rely, their inputs would be
essential for the success of REDD+ activities. Further, there is
evidence that forests managed by communities with legal forest tenure and government
support have a considerably lower rate of deforestation than other forms of management. Dr.
Scheyvens presented a video of one community in Papua New Guinea (PNG) explaining that
this community is determined to manage their forests sustainably in the face of pressure from
logging companies and other developers. The video captured community members explaining
the importance of retaining control over their land and forest resources for the betterment of
the community, as well as for climate change mitigation. Dr. Scheyvens also explained that not
all communities have this same depth of commitment to the sustainable management of
natural resources and that there are challenges in reconciling local interests with global
environmental agendas.
“Update on UNFCCC REDD+ negotiations” Dr. Makino Yamanoshita, IGES
Dr. Makino Yamanoshita, IGES, outlined the concept of
REDD+ and explained the recent progress in REDD+
negotiations at UNFCCC meetings. The 19th Conference of
the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC adopted the Warsaw
Framework, which outlines the requirements for receiving
results-based payments for REDD+. Dr. Yamanoshita
explained that REDD+ has thus moved close to the implementation phase in terms of having
the necessary global REDD+ architecture in place, but countries still have a long way to go
before they will be REDD+ ready, and clear decisions are still lacking on financial
arrangements.
10
Dr. Yamanoshita also introduced the IGES Community Carbon Accounting Project, which
contributes to enhancing “local participation” as outlined in UNFCCC agreements. Under the
Project, IGES and its collaborators are conducting action research in Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia,
Indonesia and PNG on community-based monitoring. Dr. Yamanoshita underlined the
important steps in the implementation of community-based monitoring, such as clearly
outlining the roles and responsibilities of experts and community members. The Project has
demonstrated that community-based monitoring is credible, with no significant difference in
the reliability of data collected by experts and communities. Dr. Yamanoshita underlined the
importance of local level trainers skilled on both technical matters and community facilitation,
and introduced the IGES Community-Based Forest Biomass Monitoring Manual, which
provides guidance on how to develop such trainers.
“Update on CBD and thoughts on how community‐based monitoring can contribute to
REDD+ and biodiversity reporting requirements of the UNFCCC and CBD” Ms Lucy
Goodman, Global Canopy Programme (GCP)
Ms. Lucy Goodman, GCP, began her presentation by reflecting on the
importance of ILK for the sustainable management of natural
resources, as well as on the possibility of combining ILK with
technologies such as global positioning systems (GPS) to enrich
exiting scientific data through collaboration with indigenous and local
people. Ms. Goodman then provided an overview of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, and
explained the associated mandates for Parties in planning and reporting actions such as
through the National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans. In parallel to this process, the
International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity has been requested to identify specific
indicators of progress in the implementation of the CBD Strategic Plan, such as the status and
trends in land use and land tenure of indigenous and local communities. Parties are
encouraged to make effective use of information collected by indigenous communities and
also for decision-making on future strategies and action plans. Ms. Goodman highlighted the
overlaps between the CBD and REDD+ requirements such as monitoring and reporting,
11
emphasising the high possibility for seeking win-win situations through working together with
communities on the ground. She gave an example of such win-win solutions in GCP’s existing
initiative for REDD+ in Guyana, where the monitoring of “linguistic knowledge” among
communities has been useful as an indicator of progress under the CBD.
Discussion
Prof. Khondoker M. Hossain (Bangladesh Open University): Regarding the concept of
good governance, how is the governance system of REDD+ effective in mobilising
community members for sustainable forest management?
Dr. Scheyvens: Governance in PNG is poor across the country. Introducing REDD+ in
weak governance settings is risky, but on the other hand, REDD+ readiness could
potentially strengthen governance beyond REDD+ processes by providing examples
and experience with multi-sector and multistakeholder consultations. Progress on
REDD+ readiness was particularly difficult in PNG in the first few years, but the
situation has improved. In terms of actions, a major achievement was the investigation
by a commission of inquiry into special agriculture and business leases, which posed a
major threat to the country’s forests, and the decision to suspend the leases and reform
the laws behind the leases.
Ms. Awano (WWF Japan): Potential synergies between CBD and REDD+ have been
highlighted, but in practice, how can such synergies take place, and what are the
barriers?
Ms Goodman: The synergy happened in Guyana by chance, as “linguistic knowledge”
was chosen by the community members as an indicator for REDD+, and an indigenous
community organisation called TEBTEBBA also happened to select the same indicator
for the CBD.
12
Session 2: Indigenous and local knowledge:
Participatory monitoring and role of trees and
forests in community-based adaptation
(Moderator: Dr. Kimihiko Hyakumura, Kyushu
University)
“Demonstrating Indigenous Peoples’ Self-Determined Development in
Community-based Monitoring and Information Systems” Ms. Jo Ann L. Guillao,
TEBTEBBA, Philippines
Ms. Jo Ann L. Guillao, TEBTEBBA, shared experiences of TEBTEBBA in working with
indigenous communities. She introduced the Community-Based Monitoring and Information
Systems (CBMIS), which is a bundle of research and monitoring approaches on biodiversity,
ecosystems, land, and waters, combined with other resources. Ms. Guillao explained the
importance of monitoring for indigenous communities, for whom monitoring is an intrinsic
part of life allowing them to be aware of the changes in their
environment and to manage their production activities as well as
customs and traditions. Monitoring has long served communities to
establish agricultural calendars, historical stories on the environment,
traditional ceremonies, etc. Ms. Guillao illustrated the diversity of
TEBTEBBA’s activities in a landscape composed of forests, valleys,
and human settlements, and the relevance of traditional knowledge
to climate change and biodiversity through an example of the Kalanguya Territory
Management activity based on the Ecosystem Approach. She highlighted the decisions of the
CBD and UNFCCC that recognise indigenous knowledge, and emphasised their importance
for achieving the objectives of these conventions given that the most biodiverse areas of the
world are found within indigenous territories. Ms. Guillao also introduced the Global
Indigenous Peoples’ Partnership on Climate Change, Forests, and Sustainable Development of
which TEBTEBBA is a member. Through these channels, TEBTEBBA is seeking to enhance
capacities for climate change mitigation and adaptation, to ensure effective national
13
implementation of the CBD, to promote the implementation of the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and to empower indigenous peoples. Finally, Ms. Guillao
illustrated the complexities of indigenous communities’ interests and the need for this
complexity to be understood within the implementation of REDD+.
“The Role of Homestead Forests to Community Resilience and Adaptive Capacity to
Climate Change: Experiences from Bangladesh” Prof. Khondoker M. Hossain,
Bangladesh Open University, Bangladesh
Prof. Khondoker M. Hossain, Bangladesh Open University, presented on the paradigm shift
towards community-based adaptation in Bangladesh, which recognizes local people’s
participation and contribution associated with them being the main actors in forest resource
use. Prof. Hossain explained that Bangladesh is prone to extreme climate events such as
tropical cyclones and described the severe destruction caused by one cyclonic event to the
Sundarban forests, which in turn affected the livelihoods of many local people. Changes in the
frequency and magnitude of tropical cyclones associated with climate
change are expected to increase their toll on life and property. Prof.
Hossain explained the importance of homestead and community
forestry to livelihoods and household adaptive capacity, but noted that
because forests are located in limited geographical areas, benefits are
spread unevenly and that land tenure conflicts and tensions between
the main ethnic group (Bengali) and indigenous communities remain a
problem. Prof. Hossain explained that the national adaptation strategy recognises the
important roles forests have to play in adaptation, especially in coastal areas, where they can
provide communities with some protection from extreme weather events. Prof. Hossain
highlighted the important role that NGOs are playing in involving local communities in the
management and regeneration of forest resources, but argued that they now need to
implement a phasing-out strategy to promote the self-sufficiency of their target communities.
He also proposed changes to the national adaptation strategy to ensure full incorporation of
forestry for effective community-based adaptation.
Clarification questions
14
Dr. Scheyvens: What is the difference between homestead and community forests?
Prof. Hossain: Homestead forests are grown within homesteads, and are owned by
individual households, whereas community forests are owned and managed by a group
of community members or organisations.
Discussion
Richard Rastall (UNU/Nippon Koei): REDD+ or any PES schemes would restrict local
communities’ self-determined development in one way or another, so how should we deal
with situations where indigenous communities are not interested in preserving standing
forests, or are no longer applying traditional resource uses?
Ms. Guillao: There is indeed a challenge to exercise full participation and self-determined
development. There needs to be restrictions and enforcement of these restrictions, but
this can be done through different approaches. For example, an indigenous community in
Ifugao was engaged in commercial agriculture, but they realised that their ecosystem has
become degraded as a result of these activities, and decided on their own that they should
commit to the restoration of these areas. Some of these cases have been documented
under the Global Indigenous Peoples’ Partnership on Climate Change, Forests, and
Sustainable Development.
Prof. Hossain: In Bangladesh, the situation is different because the indigenous peoples
have lost their traditional rights to the land, leading to conflicts and the lack of
opportunities for self-determined development.
Ms. Awano: The engagement of women as well as other safeguards is not necessarily
secured on the ground, so NGOs tend to be opposed to REDD+, but I think REDD+ could
be used to secure the rights of indigenous communities and traditional norms. What are
your observations and expectations towards REDD+ stakeholders?
Ms. Guillao: I agree that the REDD+ mechanism could be used to secure rights for IPs.
There have been some cases where REDD+ has been used as a means to obtain
recognition of forest ownership rights for IPs. As for women’s rights, their participation is
indispensable for effective forest management.
15
Session 3: Linking stakeholders and jurisdictions and
scaling up in participatory approaches to forest
monitoring (Moderator: Ms. Naoko Tsukada, FFPRI)
“Participatory Forest Monitoring- How our work is informing REDD+ in Vietnam” Mr.
Nguyen Trung Thong, SNV, Vietnam
Mr. Nguyen Trung Thong, SNV, introduced SNV’s work on delivering
social and environmental benefits for REDD+ in Southeast Asia. He
gave a brief introduction to the MB-REDD project in Vietnam,
explaining that MB-REDD operates at various levels, ranging from
research, local, subnational, national to the global level planning and
production of knowledge on REDD+, and the mainstreaming of
multiple benefits. Mr. Thong outlined the context for promoting a
participatory approach in forest monitoring, where the forestry sector in tropical regions is
shifting from single management purposes to multiple management objectives. He explained
that participatory forest monitoring (PFM) engages multiple stakeholders from village to
national government, and is centered on sharing responsibilities and resulting benefits among
various stakeholders. PFM informs REDD+ via ground-truthing as part of MRV (monitoring,
reporting, verification), allows local stakeholders to generate information on carbon and
non-carbon benefits at the subnational level to inform the REDD+ action plan, and acts as a
direct participation payment mechanism at the local level. Mr. Thong explained that PFM can
also inform the CBD by providing data on carbon and biodiversity to measure progress
towards achieving the Aichi Targets.
Mr. Thong introduced the PFM model in Lam Dong province, where it is being piloted in
collaboration with district and province governments as well as local communities, forestry
16
Mr. Luong Ba Nguyen
Vice Director, Forest Protection Dept.,
Lam Dong Province, Vietnam
boards, and private companies. Establishment of sample plots, mapping, and fieldwork have
been conducted by consultants working with local people. Mr. Thong explained the
institutional challenges in operationalising PFM, such as
identifying the responsible agency for data management,
reporting and sharing, the legitimacy of data, including
reliability and usefulness, as well as the operational
challenges, such as providing economic incentives for
communities (especially when the forest is not under their
tenure), and building sufficient human resources. Other challenges include establishing
linkages with existing forest monitoring systems, supporting stakeholders’ duties, providing
meaningful data for wider use, and promoting ownership. Further capacity building and
institutionalisation of local monitoring groups, as well as promoting linkages to payment
schemes and integration with monitoring systems at national level, are all required.
“The challenges and opportunities of incorporating community data into a national
REDD+ MRV system” Ms Lucy Goodman, GCP
Ms. Lucy Goodman, GCP, introduced the activities of the Global Canopy Programme, which
seeks to tackle the root causes of deforestation. Ms. Goodman works on the Forest COMPASS
project, which aims to support community-based forest monitoring through advocacy,
connection, and support to communities in collecting data through accessible technologies,
enabling understanding of trends in forest biomass and drivers of deforestation. She explained
that REDD+ countries are required to establish National Forest Monitoring Systems to
monitor and report on REDD+ activities, and are going to need a significant amount of data to
fulfil this requirement. They are also required to develop Safeguard Information Systems.
Communities can support these systems by providing complementary information to fill the
gaps in remote sensing data, as well as by providing feedback on safeguards. In Guyana,
farmers have complemented satellite data on deforested areas using smartphones by
confirming disturbance, and by providing ground data on the causes of deforestation (farming,
fires, etc.). There is also evidence suggesting that involving communities in monitoring can
reduce costs, though training costs can be high at the beginning of a project. However,
17
barriers to incorporating community data under NFMS exist, including the inability of
governments to understand them, and the dispersion and fragmentation of data originating
from disparate projects.
Clarification questions
Ms. Awano: What happens to the smartphones distributed to communities treated
once the project ends? How can we provide incentives for communities to participate
in data collection?
Ms. Goodman: Community members sign a contract at the beginning of the project
promising to take care of the smartphones so that they can be used for the original
purpose of data collection, and they can keep the smartphones once the project is
completed. This in itself is an incentive that attracts community members, so we have
avoided imposing very strict rules on the uses of the smartphones.
Prof. Hossain: What was the data-sharing protocol on the information collected by
community members on these smartphones?
Ms Goodman: The data belongs to the community. The village’s self-regulating body
decides on the sharing of the data using a traffic light system (green: good to share
outside of village / red: not to share outside of village) to protect sensitive information
that the community may have decided to collect.
18
“Avoidance of deforestation and forest degradation in the border area of southern Laos
and central Vietnam for the long-term preservation of carbon sinks and biodiversity
and livelihoods” Mr. Fanie Bekker, WWF Greater Mekong, Laos
Mr. Fanie Bekker, WWF Greater Mekong, made his presentation on
the CarBi project, which is a transboundary conservation project that
spans part of Laos and Vietnam. The project aims to determine the
REDD+ feasibility in the CarBi domain, and to develop a shared vision
between government, NGOs and beneficiaries for a “conservation
economy”. CarBi is a four year project with a budget of 11 million euros.
Mr. Bekker explained that the conservation economy concept looks
beyond fauna and flora to promote local economic development, community involvement and
ownership, and support local government mandates. Cross-cutting requirements include
leadership, strategic approaches and partnerships. The CarBi project’s high impact strategy
consists of identifying biodiversity hotspots, poverty nodes, illegal logging, watershed
challenges, and other projects with which synergies and maximization of impacts can be
sought. Mr. Bekker explained how CarBi’s investments in infrastructure development and
forest patrols led to the elimination of more than 50,000 snares and almost a thousand
poacher camps. He pointed out that representation from various ethnic minorities was
considered when recruiting for the forest patrol teams. Mr. Bekker illustrated the positive
impacts of a well-managed programme through the discovery of the saola (Asian biocorn),
which had been presumed extinct, and which has opened up new venues for advancing
conservation in Vietnam. CarBi has benefitted almost 4,000 people, generating income
through participation in project activities based on conservation agreements, and has also
provided transboundary benefits from the sharing of best practices between Laos and Vietnam.
Mr. Bekker explained that REDD+ feasibility for the area covered by CarBi is low, so the
project focus shifted to payment for ecosystems services (PES) through engagement of a
hydropower company. The project also comprises a restoration component, gender
component, and timber trade component for tracking illegal logging. Mr. Bekker concluded
his presentation by underscoring the need to seek synergy between community benefits and
conservation.
19
Discussion
Dr. Scheyvens: Who are the parties to the conservation agreements? What are they
committing to and what are their incentives?
Mr. Bekker: Conservation agreements are signed with villagers based on prior
discussions on incentives and penalties in case agreements are not honoured. Income
generating activities promoted under the project include improvement of rice
production methods.
Prof. Hossain: Is the CarBi a pilot project, or is it being replicated nationwide?
Mr. Bekker: It is a combination of both. Certain innovative components are being
piloted, whereas others consist of replicating good practices at the provincial level.
Richard Rastall: Are there are areas where not only REDD+ activities but also PES is
being implemented? Are there any issues of bundling of the monitoring activities for
both PES and REDD+?
Mr. Thong: In contexts where large REDD+ projects have already been put into place
but have not yet yielded concrete benefits to the community members, it would be
difficult to introduce additional measures at the community level.
Mr. Bekker: Monitoring is not a strength of these on-the-ground activities, but the
maintenance of the credibility of these projects, as well as showing evidence of their
“value for money” are vital to maintain a sustainable source of income.
Mr. Fujisaki (IGES): Are there any differences in the experiences in scaling-up
community monitoring activities?
Ms Goodman: A large area in Guyana is currently being monitored but it is done by
several different communities, so the challenge is in convincing the government
institutions to adopt the collected data. A solution can be to encourage reliable data
collection by switching teams between areas and by rewarding the team that has the
highest data reliability.
Mr. Thong: An institutional challenge has been faced at subnational level in trying to
identify where the collected data can be used as a useful input. Ensuring the accuracy
20
of the data as well as getting the stakeholders and institutions to work together has
also been a challenge.
Mr. Bekker: Laos and Vietnam differ significantly, but are common in certain aspects.
The challenge is to share lessons learnt between them without giving the impression
that they are being dictated. It has also been essential to mandate transboundary
collaboration in the original contract with these governments.
Session 4: Voluntary carbon markets, global
environmental agendas and community participation in
forest management (Moderator: Dr. Jintana Kawasaki,
IGES)
“Community Forestry REDD+ Projects in Indonesia” Dr. Ahmad Kusworo, Flora and
Fauna International (FFI), Indonesia
Dr. Ahmad Kusworo, FFI, presented on the rationale for community forestry and on
small-scale REDD+ projects in Indonesia. Dr. Kusworo explained that community forestry can
bridge the gap between local perspectives and the international environmental agenda by
allowing the integration of scientific and local knowledge, strengthening forest governance,
and promoting sustainable commodity production. The key steps for implementing REDD+
through community forestry include securing land tenure, strengthening institutions,
developing forest management plans, promoting sustainable livelihoods, and developing PES
or result-based incentives. Dr. Kusworo pointed out that community forestry should be
incorporated within subnational and national GHG emission reduction or REDD+ strategies
and action plans. He gave an example of community engagement in the protection of
carbon-rich peat forests through the revision of the local spatial plan based on
community-mapping of fishing and wild honey collection spots. Another example was in
21
Pematang Gadung block, where the spatial plan was revised to avoid
conversion of high conservation value areas. Dr. Kusworo listed
various tools and strategies for community participation, including
land use planning, ecosystem services assessment, biodiversity
assessment and carbon measurement, conceptual modelling,
well-being assessment, and designing of PES or performance-based
incentive mechanisms. He explained that the Government of
Indonesia allows the use of several voluntary standards for REDD+ demonstration activities,
and introduced some cases of credits issued under the Plan Vivo scheme for avoided planned
deforestation and improved agroforestry. It is expected that by next year these FFI pilot
projects will lead to a full scale REDD+ project based on lessons learned.
Clarification questions
Ms. Awano: Are there any disputes related to indigenous peoples in these pilot
projects? The main characteristic of Plan Vivo has been its focus on agriculture
activities, so who are the buyers of these credits?
Dr. Kusworo: The first two cases presented are not for carbon trading, but only for
climate mitigation. Regarding disputes, the free, prior, informed consent (FPIC)
process has been followed. The buyers of the credits from these specific pilot projects
cannot be disclosed, but overall, Nike and Tetrapak are some examples of buyers of
Plan Vivo’s credits.
Prof. Hossain: Has land tenure caused problems in the cases presented?
Dr. Kusworo: One of prerequisites of Plan Vivo is that land tenure has to be attributed
to the community or to small-holders. So the tenure issues have to be sorted out first
before beginning the project.
Dr. Yamanoshita: Under the Plan Vivo standard, how far can local communities be
engaged in the process of project development, compared to CCBA or VCS for
example?
22
Dr. Kusworo: For Plan Vivo all project designs should be done by the communities. In
the case of FFI it took seven years of work with the local community to develop the
design. The plan has to be owned by the community, which makes Plan Vivo more
laborious to implement than other standards.
“Community Participation on REDD+ in Oddar Meanchey Province” Mr. Smeun
Boreyroth, CDA, Cambodia
Mr. Smeun Boreyroth, CDA, introduced CDA and explained its
involvement in community-based natural resource management,
REDD+, agriculture value chains, and livelihoods. He described a
REDD+ project in Oddar Meanchey that CDA is involved with,
explaining that the project spans 13 community forestry sites. Under
the project, CDA facilitated meetings with forestry stakeholders from
village to national levels, supported communities in organising forest
committees as well as patrolling, promoted community livelihoods through sustainable
non-timber forest product (NTFP) production, and facilitated partnership between the
communities and the authorities. CDA also provided education on forest carbon and climate
change, supported the identification of reforestation sites, and organised biodiversity surveys.
Unforeseen challenges have arisen and include the granting of concessions to military bases
and to economic interests in the project area. Mr. Boreyroth also introduced the history and
structure of the Community Forestry Network, which facilitates meetings of local
communities and authorities, leads forest patrolling and monitoring activities, shares
experiences on community forestry management from local to national levels, and provides
capacity building for community forestry.
Discussion
Ms. Goodman: Who are establishing anarchic settlements in the community forests?
Mr. Boreyroth: In some areas military camps are being set up within community
forests.
23
Mr. Thong: What activities are conducted for the strengthening of community forestry
groups?
Mr. Boreyroth: The members of the community forestry management committees
rotate every five years and need to secure funding to ensure that processes are
effectively implemented.
Ms. Awano: You explained that benefits of the Oddar Meanchey REDD project are to
be used among the 13 community forestry groups, so how are they distributed and how
are activities coordinated among villages?
Mr. Boreyroth: Details of activities are agreed to by the community members through
prior consultations.
Rauf Prasojo (Tokyo University): What is the difference between community forestry
projects and large scale REDD projects?
Dr. Kusworo: The scale of the projects matters, as when it is a small-scale community
project, it is easier to obtain approval from authorities, whereas when the scale is
larger there are more interests involved. Technical difficulties also exist. VCS for
example requires robustness in MRV using advanced technologies such as remote
sensing, but Plan Vivo may be more flexible in terms of the methodology.
Mr. Boreyroth: As a result of the project, REDD+ is now understood by communities as
adding additional value to community forestry above that derived from NTFPs.
Mr. Rastall: How can the allocation areas of REDD+ forests be defined? Also, how can
this be reconciled with indigenous tenure issues?
Dr. Kusworo: Plan Vivo’s approach is to start small and then to expand. One of the
barriers to expansion is overlapping land tenure claims with concessions. The village
administrative territory is a cross between traditional tenure areas and administrative
territories, so when they are not congruent, there is a problem. For agroforestry
projects we rely on small-holder tenure, but there are indeed areas where jurisdiction
is unclear, and there is a long way to go before the problem is solved.
24
Mr. Thong: What were the challenges in developing REDD+ projects especially in the
readiness phase?
Dr. Kusworo: The challenge is in the land tenure system, but the paradox is that if the
tenure system is sorted out, there will be no need for REDD+ projects and thus no
additionality. A second challenge is in finding a buyer. Although Norway’s funding for
REDD+ should be enough for project development, the Government requires the
identification of a buyer. However, buyers of these REDD+ credits are usually not
seeking carbon credits but rather biodiversity and community benefits.
Mr. Boreyroth: The challenges include organising participation, dealing with
conflicting land use interests, e.g. conversion of forests to cropland for export-oriented
cassava cultivation, and organising collaboration with the Forestry Administration.
Session 5: Panel discussion (Moderator: Dr. Henry Scheyvens, IGES)
Dr. Scheyvens: Today we have spoken about the importance of working with
communities, which is a complex and challenging endeavour. What are the key
challenges that need to be met?
Ms. Guillao: The challenges include establishing respect for indigenous rights,
developing relationships with stakeholders, in particular with the Government, for
various laws and international agreements, and gender equity. Despite the good
policies we have in place, they are yet to be implemented effectively on the ground.
Prof. H0ssain: Achieving REDD+ readiness in the context of various social challenges
facing our country is difficult. Establishing community ownership and combining
indigenous wisdom and scientific knowledge are also challenges that need to be met.
Mr. Boreyroth: Community forestry groups need to be involved in all the steps of
REDD+ project development, though there are components of REDD+ that community
forestry groups cannot handle, such as remote sensing technologies.
Ms. Goodman: One challenge that needs to be overcome is the scepticism towards
REDD+ and the ability of communities to undertake monitoring. Another is funding,
which tends to be temporary and always from the same type of donors.
25
Mr. Thong: The high opportunity cost of REDD+ forest monitoring is a key challenge.
REDD+ funding is still a future prospect, whereas land conversion can provide
immediate income, which is likely to direct communities’ choices away from REDD+
activities.
Dr. Kusworo: In many cases, hard-core conservation is not in line with the interests of
communities, so we need to move beyond them and reconcile conflicting interests of
communities and conservation.
Mr. Bekker: The issue of trust can be a big challenge in implementing REDD+.
Establishing trust with communities is not an easy task. Furthermore, actions tend to
focus on easy targets such as local villagers, rather than tackling the bigger (and more
politically sensitive) drivers of deforestation, such as military policies.
Dr. Scheyvens: Imagine that a CEO wants to invest in REDD+ to offset his/her
company’s emissions. What would be the one piece of advice you would give him/her
to engage with local community leaders in a constructive way?
Ms. Guillao: Ensure that the sustainability and resilience of the existing systems can be
secured, and that new conflicts can be avoided, as communities already have enough
conflicts of interest to deal with.
Prof. Hossain: Make sure that he/she understands the complex issues and tensions
between various stakeholders involved in REDD+ actions on the ground.
Mr. Boreyroth: Involve the community in all processes of developing the REDD+
project, especially women.
26
Ms. Goodman: Make sure the information that you are using is coming from the
community that will be impacted by the project, especially in measuring the success of
your project.
Mr. Thong: Make sure that the activities on the ground are used to make policy inputs.
Dr. Kusworo: Give money directly to the community, not to the authorities or to
non-governmental organisations.
Mr. Bekker: The CEO should have the guts to stop doing whatever activities that are
causing negative impacts, instead of trying to offset it elsewhere.
Closing remarks
Dr. Scheyvens concluded the event by underscoring the need to support communities in
achieving sustainability objectives in diverse contexts. He recalled the rich discussions that
were held on the challenges and opportunities of involving indigenous peoples and local
communities in REDD+ implementation, pointing out that this is a topic that is rarely raised
under climate change discussions in Japan, despite its global significance. He finally expressed
the hope that some of these discussions would inform the future Japanese JCM strategy, and
also informed the audience of a three-day workshop to be held in Vietnam which will be
another occasion to further disseminate the ideas and lessons exchanged through this event.
27
Annex 2: Programme
Opening (Doors Open at 9:30)
10:00 Opening Messages, Dr. Yuji Mizuno, Ministry of Environment
Session 1: Framing the topic and updates on UNFCCC REDD+ and CBD (Moderator: Mr. Taiji
Fujisaki, IGES)
10:10 “Framing the topic” Dr. Henry Scheyvens, IGES
10:20 “Update on UNFCCC REDD+ negotiations” Dr. Makino Yamanoshita, IGES
10:30 “Update on CBD and thoughts on how community‐based monitoring can contribute
to REDD+ and biodiversity reporting requirements of the UNFCCC and CBD” Ms
Lucy Goodman, GCP
10:40 Q & A
Session 2 Indigenous and local knowledge: Participatory monitoring and role of trees and
forests in community-based adaptation (Moderator: Dr. Kimihiko Hyakumura, Kyushu
University)
10:50 “Demonstrating Indigenous Peoples’ Self-Determined Development in
Community-based Monitoring and Information Systems” Ms. Jo Ann L. Guillao,
TEBTEBBA, Philippines
11:15 “The Role of Homestead Forests to Community Resilience and Adaptive Capacity to
Climate Change: Experiences from Bangladesh” Prof. Khondoker M. Hossain,
Bangladesh Open University, Bangladesh
11:40 Discussion
Lunch break (12:00-13:30)
Session 3: Linking stakeholders and jurisdictions and scaling up in participatory approaches to
28
forest monitoring (Moderator: Ms. Naoko Tsukada, FFPRI)
13:30 “Participatory Forest Monitoring- How our work is informing REDD+ in Vietnam” Mr.
Nguyen Trung Thong, SNV, Vietnam
13:55 “The challenges and opportunities of incorporating community data into a national
REDD+ MRV system” Ms Lucy Goodman, GCP
14:20 “Avoidance of deforestation and forest degradation in the border area of southern
Laos and central Vietnam for the long-term preservation of carbon sinks and
biodiversity and livelihoods” Mr. Fanie Bekker, WWF Greater Mekong, Laos
14:45 Discussion
Coffee Break (15:05-15:30)
Session 4: Voluntary carbon markets, global environmental agendas and community
participation in forest management (Moderator: Dr. Jintana Kawasaki, IGES)
15:30 “Community Forestry REDD+ Projects in Indonesia” Dr. Ahmad Kusworo, FFI,
Indonesia
15:55 “Community Participation on REDD+ in Oddar Meanchey Province” Mr. Smeun
Boreyroth, CDA, Cambodia
16:20 Discussion
Session 5: Panel discussion (Moderator: Dr. Henry Scheyvens, IGES)
16:40 Discussion
17:00 Closing
29
Annex 3: Poster
30
top related