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