UN-REDD

Transcription

UN-REDD

UN-REDD
P R O G R A M M E
PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO ENSURING THE
FULL AND EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION OF
INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN REDD+
Workshop Report — 10-12 September 2013, Weilburg, Germany
Prepared by Lisa Ogle — February 2014
The Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) works to encourage sustainable economic
development in its partner countries through bilateral cooperation and multilateral partnerships. The German Government has
played an active role in the establishment of the FCPF and is a significant financial contributor to the Partnership. BMZ finances
more than 40 bilateral projects globally in the context of REDD+, including the REDD+ for Early Movers Programme. In 2011,
BMZ launched its Human Rights Strategy, which applies to all relevant actors in bilateral development cooperation. It aims for
a cross-sectoral approach, with special attention to recognising and respecting indigenous peoples’ rights.
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) is a federally owned enterprise that supports the German
Government in achieving its objectives in the field of international cooperation for sustainable development. GIZ was
commissioned to organize the Weilburg Expert Workshop on behalf of BMZ and in cooperation with FCPF and UN-REDD.
The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) is a global partnership, housed within the World Bank’s Carbon Finance Unit,
which became operational in June 2008. The FCPF provides technical assistance and supports countries in their efforts to
develop national strategies and systems for REDD+ in developing forest countries. The FCPF further assists countries to test
approaches that can demonstrate that REDD+ can work, and provides them with performance-based payments for emission
reductions programs. The support to countries for engaging in REDD+ activities is provided through two mechanisms within
the FCPF, the Readiness Fund and the Carbon Fund.
UN- REDD
P R O G R A M M E
The United Nations Collaborative Programme
on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
The
UN-REDD Programme is the United Nations collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest
Forest Degradation in Developing Countries
Degradation (REDD+) in developing countries. The Programme was launched in 2008 and builds on the convening role and
technical expertise of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The UN-REDD Programme supports nationallyled
P RREDD+
O G processes
R A M and
M Epromotes the informed and meaningful involvement of all stakeholders, including indigenous
peoples and other forest-dependent communities, in national and international REDD+ implementation.
UN- REDD
The United Nations Collaborative Programme
Forest Degradation in Developing Countries
The views expressed in this Report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of any of the
organisations or individuals involved in the Workshop.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was commissioned by the organisers of the Weilburg Workshop – BMZ, FCPF and the UN-REDD
Programme – and was written by Lisa Ogle (Environmental Legal Consultant). Any comments or observations on
the Report should be directed to GIZ ([email protected]).
The author would like to thank the following people for their assistance in preparing this report: Ms. Ulrike Haupt,
Mr. Iven Schad and Mr. Martin Ondrejka (BMZ); Ms. Ute Sonntag and Ms. Annika Korte (GIZ); Mr. Kennan W. Rapp
(FCPF); Mr. Charles McNeill and Ms. Jennifer Laughlin (UNDP/UN-REDD Programme); Ms. Gaya Sriskanthan and Ms.
Celina Yong (UN-REDD Programme); and the workshop participants who gave their input on specific case studies:
Mr. Josh Liechtenstein (Bank Information Center), Mr. Onel Masardule (FPCI Guna - Foundation for Promotion
of Indigenous Knowledge), Mr. Steve Nsita (Consultant, Cameroon), Mr. Sébastien Snoeck (Consultant, Derecho,
Ambiente, y Recur-sos Naturales), and Ms. Catherine Traynor (Rights-Based REDD+, Natural Justice).
She would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the editorial team who helped to develop the key messages
during the Workshop: Mr. Johnson Cerda (Conservation International, Ecuador), Mr. Hugo Che Piu Deza (Derecho,
Ambiente, y Recursos Naturales, Peru), Mr. Joshua Lichtenstein (Bank Information Center, United States) and Mr.
Augustine B. Njamnshi (Bioresources Development and Conservation Programme, Cameroon).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Acronyms
1
Executive Summary
2
Key Messages
5
1
Purpose of Workshop
7
1.1
Are We Talking About Participation, Consultation or FPIC?
9
1.2
What Are We Trying to Achieve?
10
1.3
Input Papers
10
2
Local-Level Experiences with Participation
11
2.1
Understanding Indigenous Peoples’ Cultural Values
11
2.1.1
“It’s not about the money…”
11
2.1.2
Early Agreement on Consultation Protocols Can Build Trust
12
Participating in an FPIC Process Can Empower Local Communities
14
2.2.1
15
2.3
Consent to What? Using a Staged Approach to FPIC
16
2.4
Who Gives Consent?
17
2.5
Should Non-indigenous Forest-Dependent Communities Have the Same Participation
Rights as Indigenous Peoples?
18
2.6
Including Indigenous Women in REDD+ Decision-Making
19
3
National-Level Experiences with Participation
22
3.1
Conditions That Enable Full and Effective Participation
22
3.1.1
Mutual Trust and Respect
22
3.1.2
Thorough National-Level Stakeholder Identification and Mapping
23
3.1.3
Reaching a Common Understanding of the Consultation Process to be Followed
23
2.2
FPIC Processes for REDD+ Can Be Applied to other Forestry Uses
3.2
Supporting Capacity to Participate: Indigenous Peoples’ Representative Bodies
24
3.2.1
Examples of Indigenous Peoples’ Representative Bodies
24
3.2.2
Advisory and Technical Support for Representative Bodies
25
3.2.3
Legitimacy of Indigenous Peoples’ Representatives and Representative Bodies
26
Do Indigenous Peoples Have an Obligation to Self-organise to Facilitate
Consultation?
27
3.2.4
3.3
What Does FPIC Look Like at the National Level?
27
3.3.1
Who Gives Consent at the National Level?
28
3.3.2
When Must FPIC Be Done at the National Level?
29
Ensuring Opportunities to Participate in REDD+ Decision-Making Structures
30
3.4.1
30
3.5
Measuring and Monitoring Full and Effective Participation
4
Key Messages from the Workshop
33
4.1
Moving Toward a Common Understanding of UNDRIP as the Guiding Model
33
4.2
National Governments have Primary Responsibility for Full and Effective Participation
34
4.3
Using Multilateral and Bilateral Leverage More Effectively with National Governments
35
4.4
Long-Term Institutional Support for Indigenous Peoples’ Representatives and Institutions
35
4.5
Request for Revision and Harmonisation of Multilateral Guidelines on Participation
36
4.6
“Information Overload” and “Information Deficit”
37
4.7
Wider Dissemination of Lessons Learned, Calling on other Experience
37
4.8
Participation Requires Time and Money
37
3.4
Indigenous Peoples’ Representation on National REDD+ Steering Committees
32
5Annexes
39
5.1
List of Workshop Participants
39
5.2
Workshop Agenda
44
References
46
46
Workshop Papers and Presentations
Global Report
46
Regional Reports
46
Guidelines on Participation
46
Other Useful Resources
46
International Instruments Cited
47
Treaties, Conventions and Protocols
Declarations
47
47
List of Boxes
Box 1: What Is REDD+?
7
Box 2: Comments from Participants
8
Box 3: Article 25, UNDRIP
11
Box 4: Case Study - Proposed REDD+ Project in Guna Yala Territory, Panama
11
Box 5: Community Protocols and the Nagoya Protocol
13
Box 6: Article 32(2), UNDRIP
14
Box 7: Case Study - Lore Lindu National Park, Indonesia
14
Box 8: FPIC Guideline for REDD+ Becomes a Social Safeguard for Other Forestry Uses
15
Box 9: Seima REDD+ Project, Cambodia
16
Box 10: Case Study - Guna Yala Congress, Panama
18
Box 11: UNDRIP Provisions on Women
19
Box 12: Case Study - Gender Issues in Village-REDD+ Demonstration Activity, Papua New Guinea
20
Box 13: Case Study - Protected-Area Use and the Benet People at Mount Elgon, Uganda
23
24
Box 15: Case Study - The Guna General Congress, Panama
25
25
Box 17: Observations on Legitimacy - Indigenous Peoples Representatives and Higher-Level
Consultations in Uganda
26
Box 18: Participants’ Comments on Enabling Factors for Participation
27
27
Box 20: Framing Question (No. 5) that Was Posed to Workshop Participants
28
Box 21: Case Study - Paraguay and the Federation for the Self-Determination of Indigenous Peoples
28
Box 22: The UN Special Rapporteur on the Duty of a State to Consult
29
30
Box 24: Case Study - Indigenous Peoples’ Representation on Cameroon’s REDD+ Steering Committee
30
Box 25: Case Study - COONAPIP and the UN-REDD Panama National Programme
31
Box 26: Article 26 (1), UNDRIP
33
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AMAN
Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance of the Archipelago
BMZ German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity (1992)
COONAPIP
National Coordinator of Indigenous peoples of Panama
COP
Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC
CSO
Civil-society Organisation
DANIDA
Danish International Development Agency
FAPI
Federation for the Self-Determination of Indigenous Peoples
FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (of the World Bank)
FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consent
GIZ Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH
ILO 169
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (1989) of the International Labour Organization
NEFIN
Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities
NGO
Non-Governmental Organisation
NORAD
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation
REDD+
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in developing countries
and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest
carbon stocks
R-PP
FCPF Readiness Preparation Proposal
TAP
FCPF Technical Advisory Panel
UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples (2007)
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992)
UN-REDD United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest
Degradation in developing countries
VCS
Voluntary Carbon Standard
WCS
Wildlife Conservation Society
1
Practical Approaches to Ensuring the Full and Effective Participation of Indigenous Peoples in REDD+: Workshop Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Report seeks to capture the main lessons, issues and key messages generated by the Joint Expert Workshop1 (Workshop)
held at the Castle of Weilburg, Germany, on“Practical Approaches to Ensuring the Full and Effective Participation of Indigenous
peoples in REDD+: Assessing Experiences and Lessons to Date”. The Workshop took place from 10-12 September 2013 and
was hosted jointly by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the UN-REDD Programme. Over 80 people attended the Workshop, drawn from a wide
range of backgrounds, including indigenous peoples’ communities and civil-society organisations, academia, international
and national non-governmental organisations, national governments and development partners.
In a very practical sense, the participation of indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities will be
essential to the success of REDD+.2 It is estimated that 350 million of the world’s poorest people live within or adjacent to dense
forests on which they depend for their subsistence and income, and that of the 500 million forest-dependent people in the world
about 200 million are indigenous peoples (Chao 2012: 3). Moreover, the various Conference of the Parties (COP) decisions
of the UNFCCC, which establish the international framework for REDD+, expressly request developing country Parties
to ensure “the full and effective participation of … indigenous peoples and local communities” when developing and
implementing their national REDD+ strategies or action plans, and when undertaking REDD+ activities.3
While a lot has been achieved over the past five years to facilitate the participation of indigenous peoples and
other forest-dependent communities in REDD+ decision-making, resulting for example in the development and use
of guidelines such as the FCPF/UN-REDD Programme Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement in REDD+ Readiness and
the UN-REDD Programme’s Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent, in practice, significant barriers remain
which are preventing the full and effective inclusion of indigenous peoples in the full spectrum of REDD+
decision-making. This is particularly true at the national policy-making level, where critical decisions on the design and
implementation of national REDD+ programs and benefits distribution systems are made. While progress in realising
indigenous peoples’ participation has been made at the local level, these insights have not been fully translated to the
national level. And even at the local level, indigenous peoples’ participation remains a work in progress.
Accordingly, the overarching purpose of the Workshop was to explore the central question: “How can we encourage
and enable full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in REDD+ decision-making?”
The picture that emerged from the Workshop was that for the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples
to be achieved in REDD+, engagement with indigenous peoples must be firmly grounded in their broader rights to
participation and consultation, and their rights to land, territories and natural resources, which together give effect
to the right of indigenous peoples to determine their own development. Many workshop participants repeatedly
made reference to the need for States and development partners to adopt UNDRIP as the underlying framework for
indigenous peoples’ participation.
1
For clarification, the term “experts” refers to the invited participants at the Workshop other than the organisers.
2
There was discussion during the Workshop as to whether indigenous peoples’ rights to participation, consultation and FPIC should be
extended to non-indigenous forest-dependent communities (see the discussion in para. 2.5 below). For the sake of brevity, and without
adopting a particular view, this report simply uses the term “indigenous peoples”.
3
See COP Dec. 1/CP.16, Para. 72, and the safeguards listed in Appendix 1, Para. 2 of the Decision, which oblige developing countries to promote
and support the ”full and effective participation of … indigenous peoples and local communities” when undertaking REDD+ activities (Para.
2(d)), and to ensure “[R]espect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, by taking into
account relevant international obligations, national circumstances and laws, and noting that the United Nations General Assembly has
adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples” (Para. 2(c)). See also Dec 4/CP. 15, which “[E]ncourages the
development of guidance for effective engagement of indigenous peoples and local communities in monitoring and reporting” (Para. 3), and
Dec. 12/CP. 17, which contains guidance on systems for providing information on how safeguards are addressed.
2
Section 2 of this Report describes some of the local-level experiences of indigenous peoples with REDD+ that
were shared during Day 1 of the Workshop. There was a focus on whether lessons learned at the local level could be
scaled up or be applied to the national level. Important lessons included the observation that a lack of understanding
of indigenous peoples communities and their cultural values on the part of REDD+ proponents can undermine and
ultimately derail effective consultation (Panama). Further case studies were shared that illustrated the potential for
participation to empower local communities, particularly if it is the first time they have been consulted (Central Sulawesi,
Indonesia). Participants also shared experiences on the question of how to ensure that women’s voices are heard in
consultation and FPIC processes. A recurring issue that arose during the Workshop was the question of whether nonindigenous forest-dependent communities should have the same rights to consultation, participation and FPIC as
indigenous peoples, with many agreeing that this was most appropriately determined by each national government.
Section 3 of this Report focuses on how to address consultation, participation and consent at the national
level, noting that giving effect to these obligations in practice is currently presenting significant challenges
in many REDD+ countries. This is due to a combination of various factors, including:
■■
An absence of conditions that set the foundations for full and effective participation, such as the presence
of mutual trust and respect, and thorough national-level stakeholder mapping.
■■
An absence in many REDD+ countries of bodies that represent indigenous peoples’ interests above the
local level – these simply do not exist, or are very fragile or weakly connected to their local constituents.
Examples are given from Nepal and Panama of indigenous peoples’ representative bodies that operate effectively
at the national or sub-national level that can be looked to as possible models.
3
■■
Insufficient experience and capacities of REDD+ country governments to effectively include indigenous
peoples in decision-making processes, as well as insufficient donor insistence on partner countries to
tackle these issues. Concerted efforts are required to support the capacity of indigenous peoples’ representative
bodies to operate at the sub-national and national levels. In addition to sustained funding support, this should
also include support to develop advisory and technical bodies, as well as support for the development of open
and transparent internal governance processes. Greater efforts must be made to ensure that indigenous peoples’
representatives have opportunities to participate in REDD+ decision-making structures, such as national REDD+
steering committees, and that they are able to exert a real influence on decision-making.
■■
Insufficient recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights by other stakeholders, particularly government
officials, and where capacity exists, a failure to seek out the particular contributions that indigenous peoples
can make to REDD+ planning and decision-making processes. This is often linked to poor recognition of the
political relevance and of the dominion that indigenous peoples have over their native lands.
■■
Obstacles to the full application of existing participation guidelines provided by development partners,
the international community and national governments to implement effective participation and consultation
processes at sub-national and national levels.
Section 4 of this Report concludes with eight key messages that emerged from the Workshop. This set of
key messages was the primary output of the Workshop and highlights the most important points that emerged
from the two and a half days of Workshop discussions. The eight key messages described below are included as
consolidated version in Annex 5.3. It is hoped that these messages will be used by those who have an interest in
promoting the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in REDD+.
An overarching message from the experts attending the Workshop is that working toward the full and
effective participation of indigenous peoples “is not just about REDD+”, but is about building trust and
mutual respect. There was a clear call for national governments, multilateral organisations and bilateral donors to
pursue a deeper engagement with indigenous peoples based on trust and mutual respect, of which discussions on
REDD+ are but one part.
Many participants recognised that REDD+ can be a catalyst for improved dialogue and relationships between
indigenous peoples and national governments. In many respects, REDD+ provides a unique window of opportunity
to support the efforts of national governments to recognise and respect the rights of indigenous peoples to full and
effective participation in decisions that affect them, and for all parties to embark upon a much deeper and sustained
engagement with one another.
4
KEY MESSAGES
Experts call for the deeper engagement of governments, multilateral organisations and bilateral
donors with indigenous peoples, in which REDD+ is based on a broader recognition of, and respect for,
indigenous rights.
This is the central message from the Workshop. The overarching call by indigenous and non-indigenous experts
participating in the Workshop for a deeper and more sustained engagement with governments, multilateral
organisations and bilateral donors, was accompanied by the following key messages:
1. Many Workshop participants emphasise the need for a common understanding that the legal and
political framework for the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in REDD+ decisionmaking is the recognition of, and respect for, the human rights of indigenous peoples, as embodied
in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including the
recognition and implementation of indigenous peoples’ rights to lands, territories and resources, as well as
the right to free, prior and informed consent. A common understanding of the differences and linkages of
participation, consultation and FPIC among all stakeholders is needed.
2. National governments have the primary responsibility to recognise and implement international
obligations to provide for the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples through the
establishment of legal frameworks, mechanisms and bodies that should be designed collaboratively
with indigenous peoples. The limited resources, knowledge and capacity of national governments in
participatory processes remain obstacles to the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in
REDD+. Past failures to recognise and respect indigenous peoples’ rights should be addressed.
3. Multilateral organisations and bilateral donors are encouraged to use their leverage more effectively
with national governments to ensure the protection of collective rights as embodied in international and
national agreements, including UNDRIP, within national REDD+ programmes.
4. A greater commitment is required from national governments, multilateral organisations and bilateral
REDD+ donors to provide long-term institutional support to indigenous peoples’ representatives
and institutions, and to ensure that indigenous peoples are fairly represented on national REDD+ decisionmaking bodies. Indigenous peoples have a corresponding responsibility to self-organise and identify their
own representative institutions and to be accountable to their own communities.
5. FCPF and UN-REDD Programme are requested to revise, harmonise and simplify existing stakeholder
engagement guidelines, in a participatory way, in accordance with UNDRIP. The harmonised guidelines
should enable indigenous peoples to exert real influence in decision-making and must be made operational.
6. There is both an “information overload” and an “information deficit”, which can create barriers to the full and
effective participation of indigenous peoples in REDD+ decision-making. Information should be provided on
a continuous basis on both the benefits and risks of REDD+, as well as information on indigenous peoples’
rights to enable consultation and participation to take place in a more equitable and open manner.
7. There should be a wider dissemination of well-documented lessons learned, experiences and good
practice for all stakeholders and at all levels on practical approaches for ensuring the full and effective
participation of indigenous peoples in REDD+, taking into account relevant experience in other contexts.
This should include documentation of the role of indigenous peoples in conserving their forests through
local wisdom, traditional knowledge and practices.
5
8. Full and effective participation of indigenous peoples requires time and money to happen
successfully. To date, the investment of resources in REDD+ readiness processes has been inequitable,
with a tendency towards supporting the measurement, reporting and verification of carbon. Governments,
multilateral organisations and bilateral donors should prioritise budget support for indigenous peoples’
capacity development, consultation and participation. This support also should help ensure that REDD+
decision-making processes are gender inclusive.
The Workshop also discussed some of the more contentious issues surrounding participation in REDD+ decisionmaking, such as whether non-indigenous forest-dependent communities should have the same rights to
participation as indigenous peoples. Many of the experts, including indigenous peoples participants, were of the
view that non-indigenous forest-dependent communities should be identified at the national level in order to
determine which rights should be accorded to them.
The Workshop recognised that REDD+ can be a catalyst for improved dialogue and relationships between indigenous
peoples and national governments. REDD+ provides a unique window of opportunity to support the efforts of
national governments to recognise and respect the rights of indigenous peoples to full and effective participation
in decisions that affect them and for all parties to embark upon a much deeper and sustained engagement.
6
1. PURPOSE OF WORKSHOP
This Report seeks to capture the main lessons, issues and key messages generated by the Joint Expert Workshop4
(Workshop) held at the Castle of Weilburg, Germany, on “Practical Approaches to Ensuring the Full and Effective
Participation of Indigenous Peoples in REDD+: Assessing Experiences and Lessons to Date” (see Box 1: What Is
REDD+?).
Box 1: What Is REDD+?
“REDD+” is an acronym for “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation”. REDD+ is an
emerging international mechanism designed to provide developing countries with positive incentives to
reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The “+” part of REDD+ refers to activities
which increase carbon stored in the forest through forest conservation, sustainable forest management and
the enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
Source: UNFCCC, Dec. 1/CP.16 (The Cancun Agreements), Paras. 68 – 69.
The Workshop took place from 10-12 September 2013. It was hosted jointly by the German Federal Ministry for
Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the UN-REDD
Programme. Over 80 people attended the Workshop, drawn from a wide range of backgrounds, including indigenous
peoples’5 communities and civil-society organisations, academia, international and national non-governmental
organisations, national governments and development partners. Annex 5.1 contains a list of Workshop participants.
Annex 5.2 contains the Workshop Agenda.
In a very practical sense, the participation of indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities will be
essential to the success of REDD+. It is estimated that 350 million of the world’s poorest people live within or adjacent to dense
forests on which they depend for their subsistence and income, and that of the 500 million forest-dependent people in the world,
about 200 million are indigenous peoples (Chao 2012: 3). Moreover, the various Conference of the Parties (COP) decisions
of the UNFCCC, which establish the international framework for REDD+, expressly request developing country parties
to ensure “the full and effective participation of … indigenous peoples and local communities” when developing and
implementing their national REDD+ strategies or action plans, and when undertaking REDD+ activities.6
While a lot has been achieved over the past five years to facilitate the participation of indigenous peoples and
other forest-dependent communities in REDD+ decision-making, resulting for example, in the development
and use of guidelines such as the joint FCPF/UN-REDD Programme Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement in
4
For clarification, the indigenous peoples participants who were present at the Weilburg Workshop do not purport to speak on behalf of all
indigenous peoples, and the term “experts” refers to the invited participants at the Workshop other than the organisers.
5
This Report uses the term “indigenous peoples” without capitalisation so as to be consistent with the use of the term in UNDRIP and ILO
169. For clarification, it is noted that the World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.10 on indigenous peoples uses the term “Indigenous Peoples”
with capitals, as it is a defined term under paragraph 4 of that Policy.
6
See COP Dec. 1/CP.16, Para. 72, and the safeguards listed in Appendix 1, Para. 2 of the Decision which oblige developing countries to promote
and support the “full and effective participation of … indigenous peoples and local communities” when undertaking REDD+ activities (Para.
2(d)), and to ensure “[R]espect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, by taking into
account relevant international obligations, national circumstances and laws, and noting that the United Nations General Assembly has
adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples” (Para. 2(c)). See also Dec 4/CP. 15, which “[E]ncourages the
development of guidance for effective engagement of indigenous peoples and local communities in monitoring and reporting” (Para. 3), and
Dec. 12/CP. 17, which contains guidance on systems for providing information on how safeguards are addressed.
7
REDD+ Readiness and the UN-REDD Programme’s Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent, in practice,
significant barriers remain which are preventing the full and effective inclusion of indigenous peoples in
the full spectrum of REDD+ decisions. This is particularly true at the national policy-making level, where critical
decisions on the design and implementation of national REDD+ programs and benefit distribution programs are
made. While progress in realising indigenous peoples’ participation has been made at the local level, these insights
have not been fully translated to the national level. And even at the local level, indigenous peoples’ participation
remains a work in progress.
Accordingly, the overarching purpose of the Workshop was to explore central question: “How can we encourage
and enable full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in REDD+ decision-making?”
To focus discussions on the main challenges in achieving full and effective participation, the Workshop organisers
posed the following five framing questions:
1. Aspiration: What does “full participation” of indigenous peoples in national REDD+ processes entail? What does
this look like in practice? What is the desired outcome of full participation?
2. Analysis: What are the current indigenous peoples’ participation gaps?
3. Balance: How do we reconcile the need for participatory approaches to be practical, effective and legitimate?
4. Guidance: How can the current FCPF/UN-REDD and national guidelines best be implemented to enable full,
effective, and feasible indigenous peoples’ participation?
5. Representation: Who represents indigenous peoples in national processes? Who is participating?
Box 2: Comments from Participants
The biggest success we can celebrate on our way to supporting the participation of indigenous peoples
in REDD+ is ….
… realising indigenous peoples’ own vision of development.
… the development of FPIC guidelines.
… the emergence of indigenous REDD+ proposals in the Amazon.
… that it has fundamentally changed our approach.
… now we can talk.
Source: Comments made by Workshop participants during the “open-ended sentence” session of the Weilburg
Workshop, 10-12 Sept 2013.
These framing questions, each of them further elaborated and split into more questions, served as an inspiration
for reflection during the Workshop. For many of these questions, no clear answer emerged during the Workshop;
however, it became clear that even though these questions are the same for all REDD+ countries, no set of experts
at the global scale will be able to provide acceptable answers to them, as answers need to be shaped to fit each
national context. Yet, it is hoped that these framing questions will serve as guidance to REDD+ stakeholders
for a systematic approach to setting up or improving national participation frameworks.
8
Further, the Workshop did not seek to establish consensus on views or positions between participants, nor did it
purport to be representative of indigenous peoples’ views regionally or globally. Rather, the aim was to bring together
a wide range of experts to exchange views in an open and constructive way with the objective of generating ideas on
how participation for indigenous peoples in REDD+ could be improved. In particular, the Workshop was organised
in response to a perceived need to identify how participation can be better supported at the country level,
drawing where possible on early experiences with participation in REDD+ at the local level and considering whether
these could (or could not) be scaled up to the national level.
1.1 Are We Talking About Participation, Consultation or FPIC?
At the outset of the Workshop, some participants reflected on how far the discussion regarding indigenous peoples’
participation in REDD+ has evolved from the early debates during COP-15 in Copenhagen, which revolved around
whether indigenous peoples should have a role in REDD+,7 to those debates taking place only three years ago where
discussions in international fora were more likely to be focused on “What is Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)?”
(see Box 2 for some reflections from participants). We are now moving into the “how” phase of developing and
implementing consultation frameworks in which both national governments and multilateral organisations
are seeking guidance on how FPIC can be done, not just at the local or project level, but at the national level
as well for legislative and administrative measures.
And indeed, as discussions at the Workshop showed, it is not “just about FPIC”. Indigenous peoples’ representatives
and many other experts attending the Workshop were clear that FPIC is only part of the story. The picture that
emerged from the Workshop was that for the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples to be achieved in
REDD+, engagement with indigenous peoples must incorporate not only the right to FPIC, but must be firmly
grounded in the broader rights of indigenous peoples to participation and consultation in political decisionmaking, and the rights to land, territories and natural resources, which together give effect to the right of indigenous
peoples to determine their own development. Reference was made repeatedly by many workshop participants to
the need for States to adopt UNDRIP as the underlying framework for indigenous peoples’ participation in order to
emphasise the origins of FPIC and its original intentions in international law.8
Notwithstanding this, it also became clear that many stakeholders in REDD+ lack a common understanding
regarding both the terminology and approach to the elements of participation, consultation and FPIC, with these
terms often being used inconsistently. There is clearly much more work to do to build a common and consistent
approach to full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in REDD+.
7
See Dec. 4/CP. 15 on methodological guidance for activities relating to [REDD+] which recognised in its preamble “the need for full and
effective engagement of indigenous peoples and local communities in, and the potential contribution of their knowledge to, monitoring and
reporting of activities relating to [REDD+].”
8
Reference was also made to the potential to adopt the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (1989) (“ILO 169”) as the framework
for rights and participation, although unlike UNDRIP it does not have universal application as only 22 countries have ratified ILO 169, 15
of which are in Latin America. As at September 2013, the following countries had ratified ILO 169: Argentina, (the Plurinational State of)
Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominica, Ecuador, Fiji, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nepal,
Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Spain and (the Bolivarian Republic of) Venezuela.
9
1.2 What Are We Trying to Achieve?
One of the initial framing questions that Workshop organisers asked participants to consider was “What is the desired
outcome of full participation of indigenous peoples in REDD+?” Some workshop participants took a very pragmatic
approach to what we should be trying to achieve. Many recognised that REDD+ is not yet firmly embedded as a
permanent fixture in the international climate change architecture and still faces an uncertain future, prompting
the following question from one participant: “If in the next five years REDD+ disappears, what will it leave behind?”
Many are hoping that regardless of the future for REDD+, it will have been the catalyst for the creation of permanent
legal and policy frameworks which recognise and give effect to the rights of indigenous peoples to full and effective
participation within the decision-making structures of their respective countries, and that these frameworks will
apply not only to REDD+ and forest management but to broader policy-making and the management of land,
territories and natural resources.
1.3 Input Papers
To provide participants with some practical examples of cases involving consultation, participation and FPIC, BMZ/
GIZ commissioned the following four Input Papers prior to the Workshop:
■■
Input Paper I: National REDD+ Processes, Participation and Consultation Standards, Guidelines and Country
Experiences (Birgitte Feiring)
■■
What does it take to make local consultation a success?
——
Input Paper II: African Region (Steve Nsita)
——
Input Paper III: Asia-Pacific Region (Lisa Ogle and Celina Yong)
——
Input Paper IV: Latin American Region (Sébastien Snoeck)
The Input Papers provided a starting point for group and plenary discussions. While Input Paper I focused on
the national-level dimension of participation, including comments on international and national guidelines for
participatory processes, Input Papers II, III and IV explored some local-level cases for lessons that could also serve for
the implementation at national scale. All input papers are available on the BMZ website.
10
2.LOCAL-LEVEL EXPERIENCES WITH PARTICIPATION
This section describes some of the local-level experiences of indigenous peoples that were shared during Day 1 of
the Workshop regarding experiences with participation in REDD+ at the local level. There was a focus on whether
lessons learned at the local level could be scaled up or adapted to the national level.
“Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their distinctive spiritual relationship with
their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands … and to uphold their responsibilities to
future generations in this regard”.
2.1 Understanding Indigenous Peoples’ Cultural Values
2.1.1 “It’s not about the money…”
Lack of understanding of indigenous peoples’ communities and their cultural values can undermine effective
consultation. For example, many case studies and experiences shared by indigenous peoples during the Workshop
showed that using money can sometimes be a poor entry point for REDD+. Emphasising the financial incentives that
REDD+ might bring can be inconsistent with, or even undermine and offend, the cultural and spiritual connection
that indigenous peoples have with their land and forests. This was clearly demonstrated, e.g., in the case study of
the proposed REDD+ project in the Guna Yala territory, Panama (see Box 4).
For consultations to “get off on the right foot” and to be successful, those approaching indigenous communities
should invest the time beforehand to understand their way of life, values and development aspirations, which are
often reflected in community protocols or communities’ life plans. Article 25 of UNDRIP reminds us that indigenous
peoples have the right to maintain and strengthen their traditional connection with their lands (Box 3), an objective
that REDD+ activities should seek to support, not undermine.
Box 4: Case Study - Proposed REDD+ Project in Guna Yala territory, Panama
The Guna People (formerly known as “Kuna”) are one of the seven indigenous peoples living in the Republic of
Panama.9 With a population of 80,526, they are the second largest indigenous group in the country.
In October 2011, Wildlife Works, a US-based company, proposed a REDD+ project in Guna Yala, one of the
comarcas (districts) controlled by the Guna People. Wildlife Works had been invited to prepare the proposal
by Earth Train, a US/Panama-based NGO working with the Guna People since 2005. The Guna People were
seeking to protect their land from external threats, such as mining, hydroelectric projects and the use of Guna
land for military bases.
9
Material for this case study was drawn from an oral presentation given at the Weilburg Workshop by Mr Onel Masardule, Executive
Director, Foundation for Promotion of Indigenous Knowledge, Kuna Peoples, Panama, as well as Input Paper IV: Latin American Region,
prepared for the Workshop by Mr. Sebastien Snoeck, which contains a much more detailed description of the Guna Yala REDD+ project
(pp. 24-32).
11
The REDD+ project area would potentially affect 33,109 people living in 49 communities in the Guna Yala
indigenous territory. Wildlife Works proposed a 30-year contract to sell VCS credits on the voluntary market,
with an initial investment of US$1 million. The project would respect international standards (e.g. UNDRIP)
and proposed to incorporate benefit-sharing arrangements and support for local projects. The proposal was
considered over an 18-month period by the Guna National Congress, a representative body created by the
Guna people to approve and regulate development on Guna land, with the technical aspects of the proposal
being reviewed by the Guna Yala Research and Development Institute, an expert body advising the Congress.
Despite a number of positive expert assessments, the Guna General Congress formally rejected the REDD+
proposal in June 2013 (Res. No. 5 of 9 June 2013). The General Congress decided that it was not yet prepared to
enter into this type of agreement given the international uncertainty surrounding REDD+, and prohibited its
members from participating in REDD+ discussions. Several members of the General Congress were concerned
about the potential loss of control over land, which no offer of compensation could address, and expressed
concerns about the notion that a price could be put on environmental protection.
Speaking more broadly about the recent experience of the Guna People with REDD+ in Panama, a representative
from the Guna People at the Weilburg Workshop put it this way: “When people talk about REDD+, they talk about
money, and they put a price on trees – but this is contrary to Guna culture. In meetings with government institutions
they don’t understand this, and it is offensive. In Guna culture, trees belong to the family, but the government does
not understand this.” 10
The experience of the Guna People with REDD+ illustrates that talking about the economic incentives that
REDD+ might deliver can be a poor entry point for initiating discussions with indigenous communities. Before
engaging in discussions with indigenous peoples about REDD+, governments and those proposing REDD+
projects should seek a better understanding of the cultural values of local communities, such as the cultural
respect shown to forests. Other co-benefits from REDD+, such as biodiversity protection, improved forest
governance and improved security of land tenure, could be a better starting point.
2.1.2 Early Agreement on Consultation Protocols Can Build Trust
Consultation protocols, mutually agreed with representative institutions, can help to ensure the legitimacy and
ownership of the consultation and FPIC process. Determining which people, bodies or institutions will participate in
which phases of the consultation should be discussed in pre-consultation meetings, although there is still a need to
identify with whom the protocol will be agreed.
One practical method of adopting this “bottom up” approach to consultation is for communities to develop their
own “Community Protocols” to describe the community’s own rules for how they wish to be consulted (if at all) and
how consent will be given or withheld. Box 5 describes how Community Protocols are used under the CBD’s Nagoya
Protocol.
10 Mr Onel Masardule, Executive Director, Foundation for Promotion of Indigenous Knowledge, Kuna Peoples, Panama.
12
Box 5: Community Protocols and the Nagoya Protocol
Indigenous and local communities11 often have their own orally held rules and procedures, informed by
customary laws and rights (protocols), which regulate interactions within the community and with outsiders,
and have helped to sustain their biocultural heritage and natural resources for generations.12 Articulating
and developing these protocols in forms that can be understood by outsiders are referred to as “Community
Protocols” or “Biocultural Community Protocols”. Community Protocols can be used both proactively to set out
locally determined visions and priorities, and defensively to ensure that outsiders fully recognise and respect
communities’ procedural, substantive and customary rights and processes.
Community Protocols are now being recognised within international law. For example, the Nagoya Protocol
on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing (2010)13 requires States to take Community Protocols into
account when designing domestic measures to ensure the prior, informed consent of indigenous and local
communities for access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge held by them, and in designing fair
and equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms.14
The Nagoya Protocol also requires States to endeavour to support indigenous and local communities (including
women within these communities) to develop Community Protocols on access to traditional knowledge
associated with genetic resources and on the sharing of benefits arising from the use of such knowledge.15
In the context of REDD+, Community Protocols could be used by indigenous peoples to:
■■
Define themselves, their representative structures, how they want to be consulted and their processes for
free, prior and informed consent (FPIC);
■■
Outline their territories and lands, their customary rights and how they are recognised by national and
international laws, and to highlight any traditional knowledge relevant to REDD+;
■■
Set out their terms of engagement (including any decision not to engage or to withhold consent),
expectations concerning benefit-sharing mechanisms, and their own monitoring and reporting
requirements.
The development of Community Protocols for REDD+ would contribute toward meeting the safeguards in the Cancun
Agreements to promote the full and effective participation of communities (Appendix I, Para. 2(d)) and to promote
respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities (Appendix I, Para. 2(c)).
Information on guidance for developing Community Protocols, including best practice and key principles, is
available on the Community Protocols website, which includes a Toolkit for Community Facilitators.16
11 The Nagoya Protocol uses the phrase “indigenous and local communities”.
12 The information on Community Protocols was kindly provided by one of the Workshop participants, Dr Catherine Traynor from Natural
Justice: Lawyers for Communities and the Environment.
13 The Nagoya Protocol is made under the auspices of the Convention on Biodiversity (1992). It provides a legal framework, including
domestic legislation and regulatory provisions, for States that wish to provide or use genetic resources.
14 Articles 6 and 12, Nagoya Protocol.
15 Article 12(3), Nagoya Protocol.
16 Further information on community protocols can be found in Biodiversity and culture: exploring community protocols, rights and consent (PLA 65), uest edited by Krystyna Swiderska with Angela Milligan, Kanchi Kohli, Harry Jonas, Holly Shrumm, Wim Hiemstra, Maria
Julia Oliva. 2012. International Institute for Environment and Development.
13
2.2 Participating in an FPIC Process Can Empower Local Communities
Some early experiences with FPIC processes involving REDD+ activities have demonstrated that participation in
FPIC activities can empower local communities, particularly those that have not experienced a consultation process
before. Thus, participation in FPIC activities can foster broader participation in governance processes and natural
resource management, as is demonstrated in the Lore Lindu National Park case study from Indonesia (Box 7). In this
case, consent was not the ultimate goal for both parties. Rather it was the opportunity for the provincial forestry
authorities and the local communities of Pakuli and Simoro villages to effectively engage with one another on an
equal basis, based on relationships built and strengthened through good-faith consultations.
Box 6: Article 32(2), UNDRIP
“States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own
representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development,
utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources”.
Box 7: Case Study - Lore Lindu National Park,
Indonesia
This case study examines the recent experiences of
consultation processes between provincial forestry
authorities and the people in Pakuli village (population
3,786) and Simoro village (population 832), located in the
Lore Lindu National Park, Province of Central Sulawesi,
Indonesia.17
As part of the UN-REDD Programme Indonesia’s REDD+ pilot
province, the provincial government of Central Sulawesi
produced a draft provincial FPIC guideline in December
2011, with the assistance of a multi-stakeholder Working
Group. The guidelines were piloted as part of some forestand land-rehabilitation activities in Lore Lindu National Park,
which sought to rehabilitate areas of Lore Lindu National
Park by replanting areas of degraded forests with species of
value to the local communities, namely rubber (karet) and/
or jabon, in return for local communities’ agreement to carry
out forest conservation activities.
Map 1: Location of Central Sulawesi Province, Indonesia
Lore Lindu National Park When the Working Group began its work in 2011, there
was a lack of common understanding of what FPIC was,
which led to varying interpretations over how FPIC could
be applied in the context of Central Sulawesi Province. The
Map Eof
rror! No Lindu
text of National
specified sPark
tyle iin
n dCentral
ocument.: Location Map 2: Location
Lore
Sulawesi
Province of Lore Lindu National Park in Central Sulawesi Province 17 For a more extensive description of this case study, on which
this extract is based, see Ogle and Yong, 2013.
14
Central Sulawesi chapter of the Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN) assisted the process
to build capacity in FPIC.
During the preparatory stage of the FPIC pilot process, the Working Group discovered that local communities were
not always consulted before a project is carried out, and that, as a result, there was often underlying tension between
villagers and the provincial authorities. In the Lore Lindu National Park, the villagers of Pakuli and Simoro had inhabited
and cultivated parts of the land in Lore Lindu even before it was demarcated as a national park. They continued to plant
cacao in areas adjacent to and within park boundaries, as there were limited alternative sources of livelihoods. They
were fearful that the proposed forest- and land-rehabilitation activities would jeopardise these sources of livelihoods.
However through the FPIC process, both the authorities and local communities were able to resolve this conflict by
identifying mutual interests in the implementation stage, i.e. healthy forests as a source of food security. A series of
negotiations between both parties resulted in the local communities agreeing not to expand or diversify the cacao
plantation in the national park in exchange for receiving technical and financial support to implement and monitor
the rehabilitation activities.
To these local communities, it was a new experience playing the role of active contributor to the design and
implementation of the rehabilitation activities.
2.2.1 FPIC Processes for REDD+ Can Be Applied to other Forestry Uses
Some participants pointed to the need for FPIC procedures to be integrated into administrative processes, not only
for REDD+, but for the forestry sector more broadly. The case study below (Box 8) from Central Sulawesi, Indonesia,
in which the application of a provincial FPIC guideline for REDD+ activities successfully triggered full disclosure of
the potential impacts of a logging project, provides an example of how FPIC guidelines can be used to ramp up
social safeguards in relation to other forest uses.
Box 8: FPIC Guideline for REDD+ Becomes a Social Safeguard for Other Forestry Uses
During 2011–2012, the provincial government in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, supported the development of a
provincial FPIC Guideline for REDD+ activities. After testing the draft Guideline in a number of villages engaged in forest
rehabilitation activities in the Province (see the related Case Study in Box 7 on Lore Lindu National Park, Indonesia),
the governor of Central Sulawesi Province adopted the FPIC Guideline as a regulation (Regulation No. 37/2012) and
decreed that all REDD+ activities in the province must follow the guideline.
Following the adoption of Regulation No. 37/2012, a private developer approached some villages in the sub-district
of Kulawi, in Central Sulawesi Province, with a proposal to develop over 400 hectares of their forests. During the
awareness-raising process for the project, conducted by the developer, there was no disclosure about the intention
to construct a sawmill in the area. This was later discovered by some members of the provincial Working Group that
had helped to develop the FPIC Guideline for REDD+. Based on the failure of the developer to fully disclose all the
necessary information, the villagers referred to Regulation No. 37/2012 as a basis for objection, and consequently the
developer was prevented from proceeding with its sawmill project.
This example illustrates the potential for FPIC guidelines for REDD+ activities to be applied to other forestry activities.
In Central Sulawesi, Regulation No. 37/2012 is thus emerging as an important social safeguard for the communities in
relation to natural resource development in the province.
15
2.3 Consent to What? Using a Staged Approach to FPIC
Early experiences piloting FPIC at the local level show that it is important that consent is best sought in relation to concrete
proposals (Ogle 2012: 12). Seeking consent for abstract proposals, policies or an overarching programme of activities,
can be difficult for indigenous communities to conceptualise, so that consent, if given, may not be fully informed. To
overcome this difficulty, the Seima REDD+ Project in Cambodia used a staged approach for seeking consent to a REDD+
project by identifying the various activities for which consent would be sought in the future (Box 9).
Box 9: Seima REDD+ Project, Cambodia
Phnong
house
in Seima
REDD+
ProjectParea:
photo
courtesy
Phnong house in Seima REDD+ roject area; photo of
Edward
Pollard
courtesy of Edward Pollard The Seima REDD+ Project started development in 2009 and
is jointly implemented by the Wildlife Conservation Society
(Cambodia) and the Forestry Administration of Cambodia
(FA). 18 The project covers approximately 180,513 hectares,
seeking to protect the core area of the vast and remote Seima
Protection Forest in Mondulkiri Province in the northeast of
Cambodia. Approximately 12,900 people in 2,624 families live
in the Project Area across 20 villages. The majority of people in
the Project Area are indigenous peoples of the Bunong ethnic
group. The Bunong are animist with very strong cultural links to
the forest (e.g. through “spirit forests” and “spirit pools”).
Local communities in the Project Area are very poor and are
highly
dependent upon the resources of the forest for their livelihoods, particularly for the farming of cash
crops, collection of liquid resin and subsistence shifting agriculture. The consent of local communities is
therefore required for the planned REDD+ project activities that will seek to limit the expansion of farmland, to
reduce the likelihood of clearing for land speculation and to reduce clearing by smallholder farmers migrating
to Seima from elsewhere.
Consultation with the communities took place over a twoyear period between December 2010 and January 2013 and
was implemented in three phases:
■■
Phase 1: Awareness-raising on climate change and
REDD+.
■■
Phase 2: Discussions on draft consent agreements.
■■
Phase 3: Signing of consent agreements. The agreements
provide that the REDD+ Project will continue for 60 years
from January 2010.
Consultation
in Seima
REDD+
ProjectParea
over
communal
Consultation in Seima REDD+ roject area over boundaries;
photo
courtesy ofpWCS
communal boundaries; hoto Cambodia
courtesy of WCS Cambodia 18 The author wishes to thank WCS Cambodia for providing background material from the Seima REDD+ Project for this case study. A
short summary of the FPIC process used for the Seima REDD+ Project can be found in Erni, C., et. al. (2012). Briefing Paper on REDD+,
Rights and Indigenous, Peoples Asia Indigenous Peoples: Lessons from REDD+ Initiatives in Asia, published by Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact
and International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, Thailand, at pp. 14-19.
16
The general terms of the agreement between the Forestry Administration and each village were set out in a
legal contract (referred to in the singular as a “Consent Agreement”). The Consent Agreement provided the
overarching terms of the agreement under which the Forestry Administration received ownership of all carbon
credits generated by the project in return for undertaking to assist the villagers to protect the forest resource
from external encroachment, e.g. through improved law enforcement and assistance with land titling.
The Consent Agreement uses a staged approach to FPIC with each Agreement setting out further project
activities that will require FPIC, and from whom, as follows:
Consent of all communities required for:
■■
Regulations for forest use
■■
Mapping and demarcation of Strictly Protected Zones
■■
Overall site management plan
Input from community representatives will be requested for:
■■
Recommendations to the government of Cambodia on the model for benefit-sharing
■■
Annual evaluation and improvement of grievance procedures
■■
The process and priorities for distributing project benefits at the community level
Village-level consent will be required for the following location-specific activities:
■■
Establishing community-based patrolling and monitoring systems
■■
Creation of community land-use zones
■■
Registration of communal lands of indigenous communities
Source: Ogle and Yong, (2013). Input Paper III: Asia-Pacific region, prepared for the Weilburg Workshop.
2.4 Who Gives Consent?
Where REDD+ activities trigger an FPIC process, questions will need to be addressed as to who gives consent and at
which level. For example, should consent be sought at the individual household level, village or commune/district
level? The level selected is likely to have significant time and cost implications, with time and cost both increasing
as consultations devolve to lower levels.
To identify the appropriate level for consent, and where decision-making power lies, it is necessary to carry out
thorough stakeholder mapping before consultation begins, with care being taken to distinguish between
representative structures and decision-making structures. For example, in the Guna Yala territory in Panama, while
local communities should be consulted about projects with local impacts, under the Guna Yala Fundamental Law
the General Guna Congress has the final decision-making power (see Box 10).
17
Box 10: Case Study - Guna Yala Congress, Panama
In the Panamanian indigenous territory of Guna Yala, it would be insufficient to merely engage with the
authorities of the communities directly affected by a given project. According to the Guna Yala Fundamental
Law, which is binding on all communities from Guna Yala, project approval entails a discussion process within
the General Guna Congress where representatives of all the communities take position. Final decision will
also be taken by this institution, and not only by the affected communities. Consultation on a project with
a broader territorial scope, but that impacts the Guna Yala territory, would have to follow the same process.
Source: Sébastien Snoeck, Consultant, Derecho, Ambiente, y Recursos Naturales (2013): Input Paper IV: Latin
American region, prepared for the Weilburg Workshop.
2.5 Should Non-indigenous Forest-Dependent Communities Have
the Same Participation Rights as Indigenous Peoples?
A recurring issue that arose during the Workshop was the question of whether non-indigenous forest-dependent
communities should have the same rights to consultation, participation and FPIC as indigenous peoples.19
On the one hand, it was argued that non-indigenous forest-dependent people should be afforded the same
rights, as both groups often face common problems, such as dealing with the effects of deforestation and forest
degradation, and community poverty, and that in practical terms the success of REDD+ activities is likely to depend
on the cooperation of people living in or depending on forest resources regardless of their ethnicity. On the other
hand, the alternative view was that indigenous peoples’ rights had developed specifically to address their historic
and systemic marginalisation and that these rights should not therefore be automatically afforded to all forestdependent people.
Many participants were of the view that it was a matter for each country to identify its non-indigenous forestdependent communities and to determine which rights should be accorded to them. There are already many
examples where national and sub-national governments have taken a very pragmatic approach to this issue and
have decided to extend their FPIC process to all forest-dependent communities, regardless of their ethnicity.
For example:
■■
Vietnam: In the context of its national REDD+ programme, the government of Vietnam has decided to extend
the right to FPIC not only to ethnic minorities and forest-dependent communities, but to other affected rights
holders. Vietnam is currently finalising its safeguards framework and national FPIC guidelines, which are
expected to reflect this decision (Ogle and Yong 2013).
19 The emerging international framework for REDD+ adopts a number of different formulations in terms of the types of communities that
must be consulted. For example, the UNFCCC’s Cancun Agreements refer to “indigenous peoples and local communities”; the joint FCPF/
UN-REDD Programme Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement in REDD+ Readiness (20 April 2012) apply to “indigenous peoples and other
forest-dependent communities”; and the World Bank’s Operational Policy 4.10 applies to “Indigenous Peoples”. The UN-REDD Programme’s
Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent (January 2013) distinguishes between the two: where indigenous peoples are concerned,
states are required to give effect to the FPIC requirement, but where forest-dependent communities are involved, states need only consult
them (in good faith) with a view to agreement (p. 11).
18
■■
Indonesia: As a pilot province under the UN-REDD Indonesia Programme, the provincial government of Central
Sulawesi, Indonesia, has developed an FPIC guideline for REDD+ activities (see Box 8). The provincial governor
established a Working Group which guided the process to develop the Guideline. Before being adopted by
the governor as a Regulation (Reg. No. 37/2012), the draft FPIC Guideline was trialled in a number of villages,
including highly diverse multi-ethnic and trans-migrant groups. As a result of the initial capacity-building
exercises carried out for FPIC, the provincial authority and the FPIC Working Group decided that all communities
potentially affected by REDD+ or other forest rehabilitation activities would be provided with equal rights to
give or withhold their consent (Ogle and Yong 2013).
For brevity, and without adopting a position on this issue, this Report simply uses the term “indigenous peoples” and
notes that further discussion and guidance is required to assist national governments to address this issue.
2.6 Including Indigenous Women in REDD+ Decision-Making
Recognising the widespread political, economic and socio-cultural marginalisation of indigenous women, many
participants emphasised the need to ensure that indigenous women are fully included in REDD+ decision-making.
This approach is consistent with the provisions of UNDRIP, which provides that particular attention should be
given to the rights and special needs of women, and that all rights in the Declaration must be equally enjoyed by
indigenous men and women (Box 11).
Box 11: UNDRIP Provisions on Women
Art. 22(1): Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and needs of indigenous elders, women, youth,
children and persons with disabilities in the implementation of this Declaration.
Art. 44: All the rights and freedoms recognized herein are equally guaranteed to male and female indigenous
individuals.
The presentation on Gender Perspective on Full and Effective Participation of Indigenous Peoples in REDD+ on Day 1
by Victoria Tauli-Corpuz (Tebtebba) highlighted that women’s heavy domestic, subsistence and income-generating
responsibilities mean they have an increased vulnerability to REDD+ activities. The presenter cited some practical
steps that can be taken to ensure that women’s needs are recognised, such as:20
■■
Assessing gender-related risks and opportunities in REDD+ programming and implementation;
■■
Building institutional capacity for gender-equitable REDD+ programmes, such as providing funds and technical
assistance to facilitate women’s participation in decision-making;
■■
Ensuring women’s participation in community monitoring and information systems on REDD+, including
gender indicators.
Participants identified particular examples that illustrate some of the challenges of ensuring gender inclusion in
REDD+ decision-making. For example, in Uganda, consultations with communities from Mt. Elgon showed that
married women will often reflect the views of their husbands when it comes to issues of land and property, and in
20 Presentation on Day 1, Weilburg Workshop by Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Executive Director, Tebtebba, “Gender Perspective on Full and Effective
Participation of Indigenous Peoples in REDD+”, 10-12 September 2013.
19
the interests of domestic harmony may be reluctant to speak out about their own needs. Representation of women’s
views at a higher level may alleviate this problem and add value to the consultative process.21
A case study from the Village-REDD+ Project in Manus, Papua New Guinea, illustrates a further challenge for gender inclusion
in indigenous communities, namely, how to ensure that women’s voices are heard in the consultation and FPIC process
without undermining traditional decision-making structures and the authority of traditional (male) representatives (Box 12).
Box 12: Case Study: Gender Issues in Village-REDD+ Demonstration Activity, Papua New Guinea
The Village-REDD+ Demonstration Activity on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea (PNG), is managed by the
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) in PNG, with funding from AusAID. The project currently covers an area
of approximately 52,000 hectares (see Figure 1), or about one quarter of the total land area of Manus Island
(2,100 km²), and contains the largest remaining patch of intact forest on the island (Project Area). 22
While the Village-REDD+ Project is yet to clearly identify its strategy for reducing deforestation and forest
degradation, the REDD+ activities for which consent will be sought are likely to include undertakings from
landowners to reject industrial-scale logging and large-scale plantation development (such as rubber), reject
road encroachment and place restrictions on clearing for subsistence agriculture. About 10,000 people live
in the Project Area, spread across 19 villages (Landowners). There are approximately 48 major clans, most of
which can be divided further into sub-clans (minor clans).
Figure 1. Manus Island, Papua New
Guinea, showing the location of the
proposed REDD+ demonstration
activity (right, ‘Block 7’ shaded red)
and the Provincial capital, Lorengau.
Manus Islands is 2100 km2 and due to
its isolation from mainland New Guinea,
has the highest percentage of endemic
species in the Bismarck Archipelago. Of
accessible forests on this island, 45%
were deforested or degraded from
1972-2002 (below, areas in brown and
light green have been degraded by
subsistence farming in the east and
industrial logging in the west).
(Forest map from Shearman et. al. (2008)
and PNG maps ©2009 Google)
21 Nsita, S. and Mersmann, C., (2013What Does It Take to Make Local Consultation a Success? Input Paper II: African Region, prepared for the
Weilburg Workshop.
22 Approximately 25,000 hectares of the 52,000-hectare forest in the project area are commercially accessible timber.
20
In the Project Area on Manus Island, customary decision-making structures are still largely in place by which
the chief of a major clan makes decisions on behalf of his community, in consultation with other minor chiefs.
Many important decisions affecting the community are made in the “haus-boi”, a building where men meet,
mostly in the evenings, to discuss and decide upon issues that affect the village, such as a bride price, a death
or whether to permit certain land uses or boundary changes. Culturally, the haus-boi is a restricted area only for
men, although in some parts of the Project Area (e.g. north coast) this is slowly changing due to the influence
of Christianity. Women may be permitted to sit in or near a haus-boi while a meeting is being held if they have
some knowledge regarding the particular issues that are being discussed, such as the location of customary
land boundaries (e.g. a tree, ridge or hill), or sometimes they may be permitted to stand at the windows of the
haus-boi to listen in. Women from another clan, such as wives, are never allowed into a haus-boi.23
Initial strategies identified by WCS field staff to ensure
that women’s voices are included in the FPIC process
include conducting awareness-raising on climate change
and Village-REDD+ through existing women’s groups
(e.g. church groups) and holding small group meetings
for women only where women feel they can speak freely.
An early response by WCS has been to provide the WCS
PNG field staff with training on gender-awareness.
Source: Ogle and Yong, (2013). Input Paper III: Asia-Pacific
Region, prepared for the Weilburg Workshop.
Haus-‐boi in Pelipowai, south coast of Manus Island; photo courtesy of Wendy Lee. 23 Interviews with WCS PNG field staff.
21
3. NATIONAL-LEVEL EXPERIENCES WITH PARTICIPATION
This section of the Workshop Report describes some of the national-level experiences of indigenous peoples
regarding their participation in REDD+ that were shared during the Workshop on Day 2. The discussion sought
to build on the discussions about local-level experiences from Day 1, with participants being asked to consider
whether lessons learned from local-level consultations could (or could not) be scaled up to inform participation
frameworks at the national level. However it was also recognised that simply scaling up local-level mechanisms to
the national level may not always be practical due to logistical and cost constraints – with other solutions being
required that incorporate some economies of scale.
3.1 Conditions That Enable Full and Effective Participation
Participants identified that there were a number of enabling conditions that needed to be present in the national
system in order to facilitate full and effective participation, noting that these are also applicable to facilitating locallevel participation.
3.1.1 Mutual Trust and Respect
Many participants emphasised the importance of building mutual trust and respect as the foundation for full and
effective consultation. Indeed, as a case study from Mount Elgon in Uganda showed (see Box 13), building mutual
trust between parties may be more important and effective in achieving positive outcomes from consultations than
relying on legal frameworks, which may themselves ultimately be ignored by either party, particularly where law
enforcement is weak. However in contrast to this example from Africa, many participants from the Latin America
region highlighted the importance of clear legal frameworks in order to ensure full and effective participation –
indicating there may be regional variation on this point.
Box 13: Case Study - Protected-Area Use and the Benet People at Mount Elgon, Uganda
Mt Elgon is an extinct shield volcano covered with tropical high forest on the border of Uganda and Kenya.
The Benet people (also called Ndorobo) are indigenous people (referred to in Uganda’s R-PP dated June 2011
as “Forest Dependent People”), some of whom live in and around the Mount Elgon National Park in the eastern
region of Uganda.24
In 1993, the boundaries of the Mount Elgon National Park and adjacent Namatale Central Forest Reserve
(Protected Areas) were resurveyed, but the boundaries were disputed by the local Benet people and their
political leaders, who accused the managing institutions (the National Forest Authority and the Uganda
Wildlife Authority) of changing the boundaries in a bid to take their land. However the Uganda Wildlife
Authority and the National Forestry Authority considered the land to be part of the Protected Areas upon
which the communities had encroached.
Following lengthy negotiations, the Uganda Wildlife Authority agreed that the disputed areas could be used
by the local communities to grow their own trees and plant crops between the rows, but that no human
settlements would be allowed. The disputed area was re-categorised as a “Sustainable Utilisation Zone”.
24 Material for this case study was drawn from the paper prepared by Nsita, S. and Mersmann, C., (2013), Input Paper II, African Region,
prepared for the Weilburg Workshop.
22
However it is unclear whether the Uganda Wildlife Authority can
uphold its end of the agreement, as there is no legal basis for
establishing the “Sustainable Utilisation Zone”. Nevertheless, the
negotiated agreement has calmed down the boundary conflicts,
although a permanent solution has not yet been agreed.
In Mount Elgon, local communities see consent as being based on
reciprocity, in the spirit of “If you do your bit, I will do mine”. The case
illustrates that building mutual trust between parties may be more
important for effective consultation with sustained outcomes than
relying on legal frame-works.
Source: Source: Nsita, S. and Mersmann, C., (2013), Input Paper II,
African region, prepared for the Weilburg Workshop.
Protecting saplings at Mt Elgon Uganda; photo courtesy of Steve Nsita/IUCN A number of participants and input papers noted that mutual trust can easily be lost if expectations are not met
following an initial round of consultations. Examples were given from Uganda (Nsita 2013) and Panama (Feiring
2013), where indigenous peoples felt that consultations were undertaken for the sake of legitimising individual
or organisation interests rather than in a genuine spirit of seeking ongoing engagement. This is particularly so if
indigenous peoples’ participation fails to yield tangible results, or promised support to indigenous peoples and
their organisations is not forthcoming. Such events can discourage indigenous peoples from further participation
and may ultimately lead to outright withdrawal from a consultative process (see, for example, Box 25: Case Study on
COONAPIP and the UN-REDD Panama National Programme).
3.1.2 Thorough National-Level Stakeholder Identification and Mapping
As is the case at the local level, thorough stakeholder mapping of indigenous peoples’ representative institutions
at the national level can set the foundation for effective consultations. Understanding the legitimacy and
representativeness of indigenous peoples’ representative bodies is key here. Failure to invest time in this step can
result in delays and misunderstandings later in the consultation process.
Care should be taken to distinguish between the representative institutions, decision-making bodies, and their
respective constituencies (e.g. from where do they draw their authority? and to whom are they accountable?).
For example, the indigenous representative organisation that has “jurisdiction” over the geographic scope of the
measure may be a starting point for consultation, but may not necessarily have decision-making power over a
particular issue.
3.1.3 Reaching a Common Understanding of the Consultation Process to be
Followed
Mutually agreed consultation protocols, determined before the consultation process starts, can provide a firm
foundation for the process. While some regions (e.g. Latin America) showed a preference that a concise legal
framework should be in place to ensure effective consultation and FPIC processes, many participants were of the
view that this was not strictly necessary. The “bottom line” described by many experts at the Workshop is that the
best way to ensure legitimacy and ownership of the consultation process is for agreement to be reached on the
consultation protocol before consultations begin (Snoeck 2013).
23
3.2 Supporting Capacity to Participate: Indigenous Peoples’
Representative Bodies
UNDRIP (Art. 18) provides that indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making through
representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures (Box 14). Related to this is a further
and more specific obligation for States to consult with indigenous peoples through their own representative
institutions to obtain their free, prior and informed consent for legislative or administrative measures that may
affect them (Art. 19, UNDRIP; discussed further in para. 3.3 below).
“Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their
rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to
maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions”.
However giving effect to these obligations in practice, particularly at the national level, currently presents a
significant challenge in many REDD+ countries (see Box 13 and Box 17), with both multilateral organisations and
governments highlighting significant bottlenecks at this level. This is due partly to the fact that in many REDD+
countries, bodies that represent indigenous peoples’ interests above the local level simply do not exist, or are very
fragile. There are only a few examples of indigenous peoples’ representative bodies that operate effectively at the
national or sub-national level and that can be look to as possible models.
3.2.1 Examples of Indigenous Peoples’ Representative Bodies
The Workshop was presented with a number of examples where indigenous peoples have self-organised to establish
effective representative institutions at the national or sub-national level. These include:
■■
Nepal: The indigenous peoples in Nepal are known as Adivasi Janajati. They comprise 59 distinct ethnic groups,
constituting about 37 percent of Nepal’s population. The 59 indigenous peoples groups are organised in a national
group, the Nepal Federation of Indigenous Nationalities (NEFIN) (Feiring 2013). Through funding support from
NORAD (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation) and DANIDA (Danish International Development
Agency) for its Climate Change and REDD+ Program, NEFIN was able to carry out nationwide awareness-raising
and capacity-building with Nepal’s indigenous peoples on the proposed Social and Environmental Standards
for REDD+ in Nepal. As a result, NEFIN was able to provide a well-informed submission to the government on
behalf of its constituents on the proposed Social and Environmental Standards for REDD+ in Nepal.25
■■
Panama: The creation by the Guna People in Panama of the Guna General Congress represents a highly
developed system of self-government through which effective consultation and participation can take place
(see Box 15).
25 The work of NEFIN to assist the development of the social and environmental standards is described in detail in Erni, C., et al, (2012). Briefing
Paper on REDD+, Rights and Indigenous Peoples, pp. 10-13.
24
Box 15: Case Study - The Guna General Congress, Panama
The Guna People (formerly known as “Kuna”) are one of the seven indigenous peoples living in the Republic of
Panama (also see Box 4: Case Study - Proposed REDD+ Project in Guna Yala Territory, Panama). 26
In 1995, the Guna People adopted their own regulations, the Guna Fundamental Law (Anmar Igar) and the
Statute of Guna Yala. These regulations effectively codify customary law, and are binding on the communities.
Under the Fundamental Law, the Guna People have established their own political-administrative
representative body, the Guna General Congress, which meets every six months. Every community has its
own local assembly, which elects its representative, called the saila, who represent his/her community in the
Congress. Sailas are both political and spiritual leaders. The sailas also meet every three months in the General
Congress of Guna Culture, the highest body for cultural and spiritual matters. Decisions in both Congresses
are generally taken by consensus. The General Congress is assisted by a subsidiary advisory body, the Guna
Yala Research and Development Institute, which can provide expert advice on development proposals.
Through the Guna General Congress, the Guna People lead their own development projects, such as those
relating to tourism and inter-cultural education, with all projects requiring approval from the Congress.
Although the State has not formally recognised the Fundamental Law or the Guna General Congress, it is
reported to consult the Congress in practice.
3.2.2 Advisory and Technical Support for Representative Bodies
The need for support for awareness-raising and capacity-building on REDD+ to enhance the capacity of indigenous
peoples to participate effectively in consultations was widely recognised at the Workshop. In addition, it was noted
that access to specialist advisory and technical assistance may often be required in order for indigenous peoples’
representative bodies to participate effectively in consultation processes, particularly where the topic of consultation
is highly technical and complex, such as REDD+.
“Indigenous peoples have the right to have access to financial and technical assistance from States and
through international cooperation, for the enjoyment of the rights contained in this Declaration”.
Indeed UNDRIP expressly recognises that indigenous peoples have a right to such assistance from States and
through international cooperation (Box 16). Provision of advisory and technical support on REDD+ to indigenous
peoples’ bodies would enhance the quality of participation and the value of consultations for all parties. It was
also observed that indigenous peoples’ capacity to participate and assert their rights would benefit from improved
access to legal support. An example of an indigenous peoples’ representative body that incorporates a technical
assistance component is the General Guna Congress in Panama (see case study in Box 15), which is assisted by its
own subsidiary advisory body, the Guna Yala Research and Development Institute.
26 El material para este estudio de caso fue tomado de una presentación oral realizada durante el Taller de Weilburg, por el Sr. Onel
Masardule, Director Ejecutivo, Fundación para la Promoción del Conocimiento Indígena, Pueblo Kuna, Panamá, y también del Informe
de Aportes: Región America Latina, preparada por el Sr. Sebastien Snoeck, que contiene una descripción mucho más detallada del
proyecto REDD+ de Guna Yala.
25
Technical support need not necessarily be delivered within the indigenous institution itself. For example, donor
support for independent technical NGOs whose specific purpose is to provide technical support to all indigenous
communities, such as legal support, could also enable more effective participation.
3.2.3 Legitimacy of Indigenous Peoples’ Representatives and Representative
Bodies
A further challenge is how to determine whether national or sub-national indigenous peoples’ representatives,
or representative bodies, are legitimately representing their constituents’ views and interests. In many countries
that have national indigenous peoples’ representative bodies, national representativeness of all indigenous peoples
may be disputed by other organisations (Feiring, 2013). It was also noted that indigenous peoples representative
institutions may have little or no experience with consultation processes and may therefore require time to develop
their own internal processes for consultation and accountability as part of the national consultative process.
The experience of consultation processes between the State and indigenous peoples in Uganda also identified that
the risk of loss of legitimacy can increase as representation moves from the local to higher levels (Box 17).
Box 17: Observations on Legitimacy - Indigenous Peoples’ Representatives and Higher-Level
Consultations in Uganda
In Uganda, indigenous peoples’ representation at the local level generally takes place through local
leaders who are elected through the local councils, or from community-based organisations. Local council
representatives have tended to replace the traditional chiefs as decision-makers. Local leaders can usually
mobilise local communities at the village level and normally participate in consultation processes: the
communities tend to trust them to represent their interests. However local-level leaders may not always be
able to act as representatives at higher levels if they lack the education, technical knowledge or confidence to
represent their constituents and to negotiate in these forums.
It has been observed, however, that as consultations move higher within the government’s administrative
hierarchy, indigenous peoples’ representation in Uganda tends to become captured by the educated or
political elite, and is therefore open to manipulation. Indigenous peoples’ representatives at higher levels are
also more likely to work in government agencies or to depend on government for their businesses (e.g. as
contractors), thereby increasing the chance of conflict of interest. A further issue is that at higher representative
levels, political party loyalty begins to have effect and can take precedence over the representation of locallevel concerns.
To address these risks, steps should be taken to initiate consultations at the grassroots level (e.g. in local-level
workshops), and decisions made at the national level should be promptly reported back to constituents (e.g.
through various media such as radio and television) and validated through community-based workshops.
Source: Nsita, S. and Mersmann, C. (2013): Input Paper II, African Region, prepared for the Weilburg Workshop.
Steps that can be taken to mitigate this risk include:
■■
Thorough stakeholder mapping of national representative institutions at the outset of consultation processes, to
understand whether a particular institution is considered to be truly representative or whether it lacks support
from certain indigenous groups within a country.
26
■■
Providing support to indigenous peoples’ representative bodies to develop processes to ensure transparency
and accountability.
3.2.4 Do Indigenous Peoples Have an Obligation to Self-organise to Facilitate
Consultation?
Do indigenous peoples have a corresponding responsibility to self-organise in order to facilitate consultation and
participation at the sub-national and national levels? While one participant expressed the view that “Indigenous
peoples don’t have to organise if they don’t want to”, many others were of the view that if indigenous peoples wished
to be consulted and to participate in REDD+ decision-making above the local level, this implied an obligation to
self-organise to allow this to happen, and that furthermore they should be supported to do so (this position is
expressed in Key Message 4).
Box 18 contains some of the comments made by workshop participants on this issue.
Box 18: Participants’ Comments on Enabling Factors for Participation
In order to be able to participate in national REDD+ processes, indigenous peoples should …
… mobilise and network at the local, provincial and national levels, and communicate widely and inclusively.
… collectively build a vision on how REDD+ fits into the sustainable development plans of their people, village
and community.
… build our capacity and actively work to push the government to really implement FPIC.
… be given support to reestablish or strengthen self-governing institutions.
… have their customary rights to land, forests and resources recognised nationally.
Source: Comments made by workshop participants during the “open-ended sentence” session of the Weilburg
Workshop, 10-12 Sept 2013.
3.3 What Does FPIC Look Like at the National Level?
An area that clearly requires further discussion and clarification is how and when States must obtain the free, prior
and informed consent of indigenous peoples at the national (or sub-national) level, particularly where legislative
or administrative measures are concerned. This obligation flows from Article 19 of UNDRIP (see Box 19). In some
respects, how to implement this element of participation is presenting a greater challenge for multilateral institutions
and States than doing FPIC at the local or project level.
“States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own
representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and
implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them”.
27
3.3.1 Who Gives Consent at the National Level?
A number of questions as to “who represents indigenous peoples in national processes” was posed to Workshop
participants (see Box 20), to which the only clear answer that emerged was a global expert workshop cannot provide
a blueprint answer.
This Report has already described the relative weakness, or in some cases complete absence, of indigenous peoples’
representative bodies at the national level (para. 3.2), which is creating one of the first bottlenecks in carrying out
FPIC at the national level: there may simply be no pre-existing institution that can be consulted.
Box 20: Framing Question (No. 5) That Was Posed to Workshop Participants
Who represents indigenous peoples in national processes? For local issues that relate to a particular
geographic area, the issue of indigenous peoples’ representation may be fairly clear. But at the level of national
policy, where many different indigenous peoples’ organisations may claim a legitimate interest, the question
of representation is more complex. Who speaks for the diversity of indigenous peoples’ voices in national
processes?
One participant observed27 that collective decisions made by affected peoples in accordance with their own customs
and traditions may be easy where binding decisions are taken by one community, but where the consultation
involves multiple communities and multiple levels of decision-making, it can become difficult to make decisions on
the basis of indigenous customs and traditions.
Box 21: Case Study - Paraguay and the Federation for the Self-Determination of Indigenous
Peoples
When the Government of Paraguay first presented its proposal for a national UN-REDD Programme, it did not
mention indigenous peoples.28 Although the Federation for the Self-Determination of Indigenous Peoples
(FAPI)29 did not have any previous knowledge of REDD+, it decided to engage in the process from the outset.
FAPI became one of the main counterparts to the government, working to involve indigenous peoples through
REDD+ awareness-raising and capacity-building. It has developed Guidelines for the Implementation of the
National Programme in Indigenous Peoples’ Territories, which stipulate the need for all REDD+ activities to
recognise and respect the human rights of indigenous peoples, including UNDRIP, and that legal recognition
of lands is a precondition for the implementation of REDD+ activities in indigenous territories.
Beyond the activities supported by UN-REDD, FAPI has sustained institutional funding from the Rainforest Foundation Norway, Forest Peoples Programme and the Spanish NGO Almáciga, for participation in
international REDD+ events and for the capacity-building of its constituents.
27 Nsita, S. and Mersmann, C., (2013), Input Paper II, African Region.
28 Information for this case study was drawn from the Input Paper I: National REDD+ Processes, prepared for the Workshop by Birgitte
Feiring.
29 Also referred to in English as the Coordinating Committee for Indigenous peoples (CAPI).
28
3.3.2 When Must FPIC Be Done at the National Level?
It is clear from the provisions in UNDRIP that States must consult and cooperate with indigenous peoples at the
national level to obtain their free, prior and informed consent to legislative and administrative measures that
may affect them. Such measures might, for example, concern changes to forest- or land-tenure legislation, the
introduction of legislation on carbon rights or proposed benefit-sharing arrangements.30
Determining the impact of national laws on indigenous peoples, and thus when this obligation is triggered, remains
a challenge. It requires a two-step decision to be made:
■■
Who will be affected (e.g. all indigenous peoples, or a limited geographic group of indigenous peoples)?
■■
What is the potential impact of the decision on those people?
Although some discussion took place in an attempt to tease out answers to how UNDRIP Article 19 might work in
practice, on the whole this challenge remained unresolved by those attending the Workshop.
Further discussion and guidance are are clearly required for all stakeholders to build a common understanding as
to how and when FPIC must be carried out at the national level. For example, although the UN-REDD Programme’s
Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent require States to carry out FPIC through representative institutions
at the national level (para. 3.3), the Guidelines should be supplemented to provide guidance as to how this might
be done in practice (Feiring, 2013). James Anaya, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
has provided some clarification to assist States to in identifying when the duty to undertake consultations aimed at
consent is triggered (see Box 22).
Box 22: The UN Special Rapporteur on the Duty of a State to Consult
The Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/HRC/12/34) has noted that the obligation is
not triggered by legislative and administrative decisions that affect indigenous peoples of the State along
with the rest of the population generally, but only “applies whenever a State decision may affect indigenous
peoples in ways not felt by others in society” (para. 43). The Special Rapporteur cites as an example land- or
resource-use legislation that may have broad application, but may nevertheless affect indigenous peoples’
interests in particular ways because of their traditional land tenure or cultural patterns.
The Special Rapporteur has also clarified that Article 19 of UNDRIP “should not be regarded as according
indigenous peoples a general ‘veto power’ over decisions that may affect them, but rather as establishing
consent as the objective of consultations, and that consultations should be “in the nature of negotiations
towards mutually acceptable arrangements” (para. 46).
Source: Anaya, J. (2009). Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, presented to the Human Rights Council, 15 July
2009, A/HRC/12/34.
30 For a more detailed discussion on this topic, see Feiring 2013.
29
3.4 Ensuring Opportunities to Participate in REDD+ Decision-Making
Structures
3.4.1 Indigenous Peoples’ Representation on National REDD+ Steering
Committees
Both FCPF and the UN-REDD Programme provide for the participation of civil society and indigenous peoples at the
global level and promote participation in steering committees at the national level. Although this has been followed
in most cases, it is not clear whether indigenous peoples’ representatives have been able to exert a real influence on
decision-making, particularly in circumstances where they are marginalised numerically on committees (see Case
Study in Box 24). Even where national REDD+ decision-making bodies include CSO representatives, this may still
not constitute adequate representation of indigenous peoples’ interests, with some Workshop participants noting
that it was inappropriate for indigenous peoples’ representatives to be “lumped together” with CSO representatives.
“The United Nations, its bodies … and specialized agencies, including at the country level, and States shall
promote respect for and full application of the provisions of this Declaration and follow up the effectiveness
of this Declaration”.
Box 24: Case Study - Indigenous Peoples’ Representation on Cameroon’s REDD+ Steering
Committee31
The term “indigenous peoples” is considered controversial by the government of Cameroon. There is a general
understanding that the term applies to two main groups: the pastoralist Mbororo people, who are nomadic herders,
and the hunter-gatherer Pygmy people. The Mbororo’s land area is not densely forested, but the forest is important for
the conservation of water resources and for cattle. Through their community associations, the Mbororo are organised
in the Mbororo Social and Cultural Development Association (MBOSCUDA). The pygmies, comprising the Baka, Bagyéli,
Bedzang and Bakola groups, have a non-hierarchical structure and do not have a national-level representative institution.
Cameroon presented its R-PP to the FPCP in October 2012. In February 2013, the FCPF approved a grant to
implement a revised R-PP (dated January 2013).32 Indigenous peoples in Cameroon have participated in the
REDD+ readiness process, including the preparation and validation of the R-PP, mainly through the REDD+
and Climate Change Civil Society National Platform (CSO Platform), which was created in July 2011.
In 2012 Cameroon established a REDD+ Steering Committee (Order No. 103/CAB/PM of June 13, 2012) as the
national decision-making body for the REDD+ process. However there are concerns about the composition
of the Committee. Of the 19 members of the Steering Committee, 14 are government representatives – with
only one indigenous representative and one representative from the CSO Platform.
31 The material for this case study was drawn from a presentation given at the Workshop by Dr Haman Unusa, Sub-Director for Environmental Planning, Ministry of Environment, Protection of Nature Protection on Participation of Indigenous People in the REDD+ Process
(in Cameroon): A REDD+ government perspective, and Sustainable Development, Cameroon; and Birgitte Feiring’s paper, Participation
and Consultation Standards, Guidelines and Country Experiences: Input Paper I, National REDD+ Processes.
32 REDD Readiness Progress Fact Sheet, Country: Republic of Cameroon, June 2013, source: FCPF website.
30
In its review of Cameroon’s REDD+ R-PP, the team of experts from the FCPF’s Technical Advisory Panel (TAP)
raised a concern about “the numerical marginalization in the committee structures, of both civil society groups
and indigenous peoples’ groups. They are greatly outnumbered on the committees and will find it hard to
make their voices heard” (p. 3), and further that “the interests of indigenous peoples have got buried under
the more general rubric of ‘civil society’, an area of dialogue that is not well suited to the needs and habits of
expression of the indigenous peoples of Cameroon’s forests” (p. 5).
In response to lobbying from civil society and the concern expressed by the TAP team, Cameroon’s revised
R-PP States that decision-making will follow “a consensus process” and notes that “the Government is willing
to revise this structure to make it as inclusive and participatory as possible” (p. 9).
Despite this shortcoming, REDD+ has created an opportunity to open a dialogue between the government
and indigenous peoples in Cameroon. The Ministry of Environment, Protection of Nature and Sustainable
Development has little previous experience with the consultation of indigenous peoples, but through the
REDD+ process it is demonstrating its openness to engagement. The Ministry has recently agreed to a joint
initiative by GIZ, the World Wife Fund and the Centre for Environment and Development to develop national
guidelines on free, prior and informed consent – a process that has not been widely applied in Cameroon. As
one workshop participant observed: “Cameroon has come far … but the government needs further education
and socialisation to understand indigenous peoples … there is still a lot of work to be done.”
The CSO Platform has received two grants from the World Bank, totalling US$140,000, to strengthen its
capacities. The CSO Platform currently has 10 regional coordinators of which 35% are indigenous people and
30% are women. It has developed a five-year work programme on REDD+ but has not secured funding for its
implementation. Access to long-term sustainable funding is a key challenge for the platform, as most funds
from the FCPF will be channelled to the government.
The recent experience of the UN-REDD Panama National Programme has provided some important lessons on engagement
with indigenous peoples’ representative bodies, such as the need for clarity in terms of the future support that will be offered
to indigenous peoples’ representative bodies following initial consultations so as not to unreasonably raise expectations, and
the need to clearly separate the obligations of multilateral organisations from those of the State (see Box 25).33
Box 25: Case Study - COONAPIP and the UN-REDD Panama National Programme
Over a period of three years, the UN-REDD Programme worked with representatives of the National Coordinator
of Indigenous Peoples of Panama (COONAPIP) to ensure that indigenous peoples’ concerns were included in
Panama’s REDD+ proposal. The national UN-REDD Programme was validated by COONAPIP and the proposal
was approved by the UN-REDD Policy Board in October 2010, and initiated in January 2011.
However, during 2012, COONAPIP became increasingly disillusioned, as its expectations for engagement
were not met. These included expectations that the State would ratify ILO-169 and give legal recognition to
and titling of indigenous territories, and that funding support would be forthcoming. The end result was that
COONAPIP, in February 2013, announced its withdrawal from the UN-REDD National Programme, alleging a
lack of respect for indigenous peoples’ rights.
33 Material for this case study was drawn from Input Paper I: National REDD+ Processes, prepared for the Workshop by Birgitte Feiring.
31
An independent investigation and evaluation team was engaged to assess the complaints made by COONAPIP
against the UN-REDD Panama National Programme. The team released its preliminary investigation report in
June 2013 and a draft Mid-Term Evaluation Report was produced in August 2013.
Some of the lessons learned include the following:
■■
Although the Joint UN-REDD and FCPF Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement in REDD+ Readiness
validated the national REDD+ programme and ensured that indigenous peoples were initially consulted,
they did not adequately address the programme design, including the delineation of roles and
responsibilities between UN agencies, government institutions, indigenous peoples and civil society.
■■
In particular, UN agencies should be careful to separate their roles and responsibilities from those of the
State in order to avoid the expectation that the REDD+ programme can deliver gains in areas that are the
responsibility of the State.
■■
From the outset, the processes for continuous consultation should be made clear, including whether any
support for institutional strengthening and capacity-building will be provided.
3.5. Measuring and Monitoring Full and Effective Participation
One of the framing questions for the workshop asked what it is that we aspire to in terms of full and effective
participation. In particular, it asked “What does ‘full participation’ look like in practice? What does this look like with
respect to national REDD+ processes? And how do we know when we have succeeded?”
Many participants noted that there was a need for participatory norms and guidelines to be operationalised,
including the adoption of better-quality indicators and monitoring mechanisms (milestones) to assess progress
in achieving full and effective participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in all phases of REDD+,
as required by the safeguards set out in the Cancun Agreements. A starting point for this can be found in the COP
decision from Durban (Dec. 12/CP.17, Paras. 1–6), which obliges REDD+ countries to establish systems for providing
information on how all of the safeguards (including indigenous peoples’ full and effective participation) are being
addressed and respected.
Although there has been some recent progress in this area,34 further guidance is required at the international level
to assist States to develop specific indicators that measure how full and effective participation is playing out at the
national level, and to identify how that information will be collected and reviewed, for example through participatory
monitoring instruments as part of country Safeguard Information Systems.
34 For example, see the Guide to the FCPF Readiness Assessment Framework (June 2013).
32
4.KEY MESSAGES FROM THE WORKSHOP
The primary output of the Workshop was a set of key messages highlighting the most important points that emerged
from the two and a half days of Workshop discussions. The eight key messages are set out below. A consolidated
version is included in Annex 5.3.35 It is hoped that these messages will be used by those who have an interest in
promoting the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in REDD+.
The overarching message from the experts at the Workshop is that working toward the full and effective
participation of indigenous peoples “is not just about REDD+”, but is about building trust and mutual respect.
There was a clear call for national governments, multilateral organisations and bilateral donors to pursue a deeper
engagement with indigenous peoples based on trust and mutual respect, of which discussions on REDD+ are but
one part.
Many participants recognised that because REDD+ brings together a critical cross-section of interests (land tenure,
forest protection, indigenous peoples’ rights etc.), REDD+ can be a catalyst for improved dialogue and relationships
between indigenous peoples and national governments. In many respects, REDD+ provides a unique window
of opportunity to support the efforts of national governments to recognise and respect the rights of indigenous
peoples to full and effective participation in decisions that affect them, and for all parties to embark upon a much
deeper and sustained engagement with one another.
35 The key messages were developed using the following process: An initial set of key messages was presented to Workshop participants by
the author for discussion in the final plenary session on Day 3. The Key Messages as presented to the plenary are available at the BMZ
website. Due to time limitations, the Key Messages were not able to be finalised by the end of Workshop. Consequently, both Workshop
participants and organizers were invited to send their comments on the draft Key Messages to workshop organisers. These comments were
then incorporated, with the final version being included as Annex 5.3 to this report.
33
4.1 Moving Toward a Common Understanding of UNDRIP as the
Guiding Model
Many Workshop participants emphasised the need for a common understanding that the legal and political
framework for the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in REDD+ decision-making is the recognition
of, and respect for, the rights of indigenous peoples, as embodied in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples. This includes the recognition and implementation of indigenous peoples’ rights to lands,
territories and resources, as well as the right to free, prior and informed consent. Rights to land, territories and
natural resources is a key issue in most countries, and even countries that have strong constitutional or legislative
provisions, such as the Philippines, Papua New Guinea and many Latin American countries, still face significant
implementation challenges.
Box 26: Article 26 (1), UNDRIP
“Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned,
occupied or otherwise used or acquired”.
It was also emphasised that FPIC, as a form of participation in REDD+ processes, should not be compartmentalised
as a separate process. Many country cases showed that there is a need to firmly embed the FPIC process at the
project level into broader national provisions for consultation, participation and capacity-building, which was more
broadly described as a “governance approach” to FPIC (Feiring, 2013).
Key Message 1
Many Workshop participants emphasise the need for a common understanding that the legal and
political framework for the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples in REDD+ decisionmaking is the recognition of, and respect for, the human rights of indigenous peoples, as embodied in
the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including the recognition
and implementation of indigenous peoples’ rights to lands, territories and resources, as well as the
right to free, prior and informed consent. A common understanding of the differences and linkages of
participation, consultation and FPIC among all stakeholders is needed.
4.2
National Governments have Primary Responsibility for Full and
Effective Participation
While multilateral institutions and donor governments play an important role in helping to effect positive change
within States, real change ultimately depends on the commitment of national governments to recognise and
respect indigenous peoples’ rights to land, territories and resources, and to consultation, participation and consent.
Indeed, international law makes clear that the State, and not those funding or implementing projects, has primary
responsibility for adopting and ensuring the implementation of national frameworks for indigenous peoples’ rights
and participation. The question of “How do we push national governments to change?” was a constant refrain from
many attending the Workshop.
34
It was also recognised that it is not just an attitudinal change that is required of governments; lack of capacity is also
a problem. Many governments have weak capacity for stakeholder engagement and their experience of consulting
with indigenous peoples’ representative bodies may often be very limited. Many indigenous and non-indigenous
experts expressed the view that in order for indigenous peoples and governments to build their relationship,
governments should expressly recognise the historical discrimination and marginalisation of indigenous peoples.
Key Message 2
National governments have the primary responsibility to recognise and implement international
obligations to provide for the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples through the
establishment of legal frameworks, mechanisms and bodies that should be designed collaboratively
with indigenous peoples. The limited resources, knowledge and capacity of national governments in
participatory processes remain obstacles to the full and effective participation of indigenous peoples
in REDD+. Past failures to recognise and respect indigenous peoples’ rights should be addressed.
4.3 Using Multilateral and Bilateral Leverage More Effectively with
National Governments
The frustration with the slow pace of change by national governments (Key Message 2) was accompanied by a
call for multilateral organisations and donor countries to use their leverage more effectively to drive this change.
However multilateral organisation and donor countries have a limited scope to do so, with their main role being to
facilitate dialogue between national governments and indigenous peoples. It was also noted that the uncertainty of
long-term funding for REDD+ may reduce the political leverage that can be applied (Feiring, 2013: 58).
Key Message 3
Multilateral organisations and bilateral donors are encouraged to use their leverage more effectively
with national governments to ensure the protection of collective rights as embodied in international
and national agreements, including UNDRIP, within national REDD+ programmes.
35
4.4 Long-Term Institutional Support for Indigenous Peoples’
Representatives and Institutions
The relative absence of bodies representing indigenous peoples at the national level indicates the need for support to be
given to their creation and maintenance. It is clear that further support is needed for these institutions in order to facilitate
effective consultation. Time, money and resources, provided on a sustained basis, are required to assist indigenous
peoples’ representative bodies to develop processes to ensure that they operate transparently and can communicate
effectively with their own constituents, particularly where they must relay information back to those in rural areas. It was
also noted that support for stakeholder engagement should be provided from the outset of REDD+ programs, preferably
before the finalisation of broader grant agreements to facilitate timely capacity-building (Feiring, 2013).
Key Message 4
A greater commitment is required from national governments, multilateral organisations and bilateral
REDD+ donors to provide long-term institutional support to indigenous peoples’ representatives and
institutions, and to ensure that indigenous peoples are fairly represented on national REDD+ decisionmaking bodies. Indigenous peoples have a corresponding responsibility to self-organise and identify
their own representative institutions and to be accountable to their own communities.
4.5 Request for Revision and Harmonisation of Multilateral
There are a multitude of guidelines and procedures from the FCPF and UN-REDD Programme that deal with the processes
and procedures for engaging with indigenous peoples in the context of REDD+.36 Despite ongoing efforts by the FCPF and
UN-REDD Programme to develop a common approach to consultation with indigenous peoples (e.g. the Joint UN-REDD and
FCPF Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement in REDD+ Readiness with a Focus on the Participation of Indigenous Peoples and
Other Forest-Dependent Communities, April 20, 2012), many Workshop participants expressed a desire for further efforts
to harmonise and simplify these guidelines, with the important caveat that this be done in accordance with UNDRIP.37
One implication of the complex FCPF and UN-REDD Programme’s architecture is that it requires time and expert knowledge
to fully understand the commitments, obligations, gaps and procedures, overlaps and different requirements. This not only
poses a challenge for staff and partner countries in terms of operationalisation but also constitutes a real hindrance for
indigenous peoples and civil society in their attempts to participate in and monitor REDD+ programmes (Feiring, 2013).
In a similar vein, participants also noted that States require further guidance on how to operationalise the guidelines from
multilateral institutions, including guidance on how to adapt these international standards to national circumstances.
36 Key documents include: FCPF and UN-REDD Programme joint Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement; FCPF and UN-REDD template for
Readiness Preparation Proposal; the Common Approach to Social and Environmental Safeguards for Multiple Delivery Partners under the
FCPF Readiness Fund; the UN-REDD Programme Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent; the UN-REDD Programme Social and
Environmental Principles and Criteria; and the FCPF’s Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA).
37 A recent report by AIPP and IWGIA makes a number of recommendations to improve implementation of the joint Guidelines on Stakeholder
Engagement: see Erni, C., et al, (2012). Briefing Paper on REDD+, Rights and Indigenous Peoples Asia Indigenous Peoples: Lessons from
REDD+ Initiatives in Asia, published by Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact and International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, Thailand.
36
Key Message 5
FCPF and UN-REDD Programme are requested to revise, harmonise and simplify existing stakeholder
engagement guidelines, in a participatory way, and in accordance with UNDRIP. The harmonised
guidelines should enable indigenous peoples to exert real influence in decision-making and must be
made operational.
4.6 “Information Overload” and “Information Deficit”
Participants noted that indigenous peoples and their representative institutions could be overloaded with information
on REDD+, while still experiencing an information deficit. They pointed to the need for clearer guidance on what is
communicated about REDD+, with a focus on providing an appropriate quantity and quality of information. There should
be a clear distinction between information sessions and those where opportunities are made available for participation.
In many cases, information about REDD+ is delivered through workshops, which often take place over a relatively short
period of a day or two. However consideration should be given to whether this is the most appropriate or effective means
of delivering information for a complex topic such as REDD+. More effective delivery methods should be considered.
Key Message 6
There is both an “information overload” and an “information deficit”, which can create barriers to the full and
effective participation of indigenous peoples in REDD+ decision-making. Information should be provided
on a continuous basis on both the benefits and risks of REDD+, as well as information on indigenous peoples’
rights to enable consultation and participation to take place in a more equitable and open manner.
4.7 Wider Dissemination of Lessons Learned, Calling on other
Experience
Many participants reiterated the need to continue to share experience and disseminate information on how
participation and consultation on REDD+ can be made more effective. This included a call to draw on experience
from other national and international initiatives, such as the experience of developing Community Protocols under
the Nagoya Protocol (Box 5 above).
Key Message 7
There should be a wider dissemination of well-documented lessons learned, experiences and good
practice for all stakeholders and at all levels on practical approaches for ensuring the full and effective
participation of indigenous peoples in REDD+, taking into account relevant experience in other
contexts. This should include documentation of the role of indigenous peoples in conserving their
forests through local wisdom, traditional knowledge and practices.
37
4.8 Participation Requires Time and Money
Most case studies noted that participation and FPIC processes took more time and money than expected, at
both the local and national levels. Investment at the beginning of the process may serve to avoid delays due to
misunderstandings between parties later on. Participants noted the need for specific budget allocations for capacity
development of indigenous peoples and their representative institutions (Feiring, 2013), as well as a reallocation of
funding priorities to support indigenous peoples’ participation.
Key Message 8
Full and effective participation of indigenous peoples requires time and money to happen successfully.
To date, the investment of resources in REDD+ readiness processes has been inequitable, with a
tendency towards supporting the measurement, reporting and verification of carbon. Governments,
multilateral organisations and bilateral donors should prioritise budget support for indigenous
peoples’ capacity development, consultation and participation. This support also should help ensure
that REDD+ decision-making processes are gender inclusive.
38
5.ANNEXES
5.1 List of Workshop Participants38
Name
Position, Organisation
Country
E-Mail Contact
EXPERTS
Indigenous Peoples Representatives
Mr.
Daniel Charles
Project Coordinator, WCS - Wildlife
Conservation Society
Papua New
Guinea
[email protected]
Mr.
Eric Parfait
Essomba
Project Manager Climate Change and Forests,
Centre for Environment and Development
Cameroon
[email protected]
Ms.
Espérance Binyuki
Nyota
Coordinator, UEFA - Union pour
l’Emancipation de la Femme Autochtone
Democratic
Republic of
Congo
[email protected]
Ms.
Joan Carling
Secretary General, AIPP - Asia Indigenous
Peoples Pact
Thailand
[email protected]
Mr.
John Ray Libiran
Regional Attorney, NCIP - National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples
Philippines
[email protected]
Mr.
Johnson Cerda
Indigenous & Traditional Peoples Program, CI
- Conservation International
Ecuador
[email protected]
Mr.
Kittisak
Rattanakrajangsri
Executive Director, IPF - Indigenous Peoples’
Foundation
Thailand
[email protected]
Ms.
Rukmini Paata
Toheke
REDD Working Group IV, Central Sulawesi;
AMAN National Board of Central Sulawesi
Indonesia
[email protected]
Ms.
Sheila Kartika
Independent Interpreter
Indonesia
[email protected]
CSO and Indigenous Peoples Observers to FCPF and UN-REDD
Mr.
Adrien Sinafasi
Makelo
Secretary General, REPALEF - Réseau des
Populations Autochtones et Locales
Democratic
Republic of
Congo
[email protected]
Mr.
Augustine B.
Njamnshi
Executive Secretary, Bioresources
Development and Conservation Programme
Cameroon
[email protected]
Mr.
Bhola Bhattarai
Chairman, NAFAN - National Forum for
Advocacy
Nepal
[email protected];
[email protected]
Mr.
Hugo Che Piu Deza
Executive Director, DAR - Derecho, Ambiente,
y Recursos Naturales
Peru
[email protected]
Mr.
Joshua Lichtenstein
Forest Campaign Manager, Bank Information
Center
United States
[email protected]
38 The Weilburg Workshop was intended to be a “Joint Expert Workshop”. For clarification, the term “experts” refers to the invited participants
attending the Workshop other than the organisers.
39
Name
Country
E-Mail Contact
Mr.
Onel Masardule
Executive Director, Foundation for Promotion
of Indigenous Knowledge, Kuna Peoples
Panama
[email protected]
Mr.
Tunga Bhadra Rai
Program Officer, Nepal Federation of
Indigenous Nationalities
Nepal
[email protected]
Mr.
Victor A. Lopez
Illescas
Executive Director, Community Forestry
Association of Guatemala Ut’z Che’
Guatemala
[email protected]
REDD+ Government Representatives
Ms.
Carolina Schneider
Comandulli
Deputy Director, FUNAI - Fundação Nacional
do Índio
Brazil
[email protected]
Mr.
Dr. Haman Unusa
Sub-Director For Environmental Planning,
MINEPDED - Ministry of Environment
Cameroon
[email protected]
Ms.
Dr. Miriam Miranda
Coordinator of the REDD+ Strategy, FONAFIO
- The National Forestry Financing Fund
Costa Rica
[email protected]
Ms.
Dr. Suchitra
Changtragoon
Expert on Forest Conservation Research,
National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation
Department
Thailand
suchitra.changtragoon@
gmail.com
Mr.
Kamnap Phan
Chief of Community Forestry Office, Ministry
of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Cambodia
[email protected]
Mr.
Lucas Dourojeanni
Safeguards and Communication Manager,
MINAM - Ministerio del Ambiente
Peru
[email protected].
pe
Civil-Society Representatives
Ms.
Edna Maguigad
Policy Adviser on REDD+, Non-Timber Forest
Products Exchange Programme
Philippines
[email protected]
Mr.
Edwin Usang
Executive Director, NGO Coalition for
Environment
Nigeria
[email protected]
Mr.
Gustavo Sanchez
Chair, REDMOCAF - Red de Organizaciones
Campesinas Forestales
Mexico
[email protected]
Ms.
Naw Carol Aye
Advisor, Spectrum - Sustainable Development
Knowledge Network
Myanmar
[email protected]
Mr.
Noah Zimba
Chairperson, Civil Society Climate Change
Network
Zambia
[email protected]
Mr.
Samuel Nnah
Independent Resource Consultant on
Sustainable Development
Cameroon
[email protected]
Mr.
Sopha Sokun
Narong
Program Associate, WCS - Wildlife
Conservation Society
Cambodia
[email protected]
Research and Advocacy
Mr.
Christian Erni
Program Coordinator, IWGIA - International
Work Group on Indigenous Affairs
Denmark
[email protected]
Ms.
Dr. Catherine
Traynor
Associate, Rights-Based REDD+, Natural
Justice
South Africa
[email protected]
40
Name
Country
E-Mail Contact
Mr.
Dr. Paulo Moutinho
Executive Director, IPAM - Instituto de
Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia
Brazil
[email protected]
Ms.
Florence Daviet
Co-Manager of the Governance of Forests
Initiative, WRI - World Resource Institute
United States
[email protected]
Ms.
Gretchen Gordon
Researcher, Indian Law Resource Center
United States
[email protected]
Ms.
Huyen Thi Thu
Nguyen
Independent Consultant on FPIC
Vietnam
thuhuyen.nguyen6688@
yahoo.com
Mr.
Jesse K. Gerstin
Project Manager – Forestry, Clinton Climate
Initiative
Indonesia
jgerstin@clintonfoundation.
org
Ms.
Liliam Landeo
ILO - International Labour Organisation
Peru
[email protected]
Ms.
Marine Gauthier
Programme Coordinator Central Africa,
Rainforest Foundation Norway
Norway
[email protected]
Ms.
Sabine Schielmann
Coordinator, Forum Umwelt und Entwicklung
Germany
[email protected]
Mr.
Sébastien Jodoin
Doctoral Candidate, Yale University
United States
[email protected]
Mr.
Thomas Brose
Executive Director Cooperation with
Indigenous Peoples, Climate Alliance
Germany
[email protected]
Input Paper Authors
Ms.
Birgitte Feiring
Charapa Consult
Denmark
[email protected]
Ms.
Lisa Ogle
Environmental Legal Consultant
Australia
[email protected]
Mr.
Sébastien Snoeck
Independent Consultant, DAR - Derecho,
Ambiente, y Recursos Naturales
Belgium/Peru
[email protected]
Mr.
Steve Nsita
Independent Consultant and Advisor on
REDD+
Uganda
[email protected]
Mr.
Iven Schad
Mr.
Martin Ondrejka
Ms.
Ulrike Haupt
Mr.
Volker Hey
Ms.
Britta Krüger
Mr.
Peter Saile
Ms.
Ragna John
ORGANISERS and SUPPORT STAFF
German Government*
Advisor on Forestry, BMZ - Ministry for
Germany
Economic Cooperation and Development
Advisor on Human Rights, BMZ - Ministry for
Germany
Head of Environment Division, BMZ - Ministry Germany
for Economic Cooperation and Development
Advisor World Bank Division, BMZ - Ministry for Germany
German Development Cooperation*
Advisor on Indigenous Issues, GIZ
Germany
- Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit
Advisor, GIZ - Gesellschaft für Internationale
Germany
Zusammenarbeit
Advisor Forest Governance Program,
Germany
GIZ - Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
41
Ms.
Ute Sonntag
Ms.
Christiane
Ehringhaus
Ms.
Afshan Khawaja
Ms.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Alexandra Bezeredi
Daniel Miller
Haddy Sey
Juan Martinez
Mr.
Julius Thaler
Mr.
Mr.
Kennan Rapp
Luis Felipe Duchicela
Ms.
Madhavi Pillai
Ms.
Miriam Bae
Mr.
Roger Muchuba
Buhereko
Mr.
Simon Whitehouse
Mr.
Soikan Meitiaki
Mr.
Stephen Lintner
Ms.
Anne Martinussen
Ms.
Celina Yong
Mr.
Charles McNeill
Mr.
Christian Mersmann
Ms.
Gaya Sriskanthan
Advisor REDD for Early Movers Program,
GIZ - Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit
Advisor, KfW - Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau
The World Bank Group*
Lead Social Development Specialist, WB Africa
Region
Regional Safeguards Advisor, WB Africa Region
Consultant, PROFOR/WB Forests Team
Senior Social Development Specialist, FCPF FMT
Senior Social Scientist, WB East Asia & Pacific
Region
Counsel, WB Environmental & International
Law Unit
Senior Social Development Specialist, FCPF FMT
Senior Social Development Specialist, WB
Social Development Department
Natural Resources Management Specialist, WB
FIP
Senior Social Development Specialist, WB Latin
America & Caribbean Region
Social Specialist Consultant, Africa Region
(Francophone countries)
Germany
[email protected]
Germany
christiane.ehringhaus_extern@
kfw.de
United States [email protected]
United States
United States
Thailand
Indonesia
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Democratic
[email protected]
Republic of
Congo
Acting Coordinator, FCPF, WB Carbon Finance
Unit
Social Specialist Consultant, Africa Region
Kenya
[email protected]
(Anglophone countries)
Senior Safeguards Adviser, WB Operational
Risk Management Unit
UN Organisations*
UN-REDD Regional Stakeholder
Kenya
[email protected]
Engagement Specialist, African Region,
UNDP - United Nations Development
Programme
Thailand
[email protected]
Engagement Specialist, Asia-Pacific
Region, UNDP - United Nations
Development Programme
Senior Policy Advisor, Environment and United States
[email protected]
Energy Group, UNDP - United Nations
Development Programme
Special Advisor on REDD+, FAO - Food Germany
[email protected]
and Agriculture Organisation
Advisor on Stakeholder Engagement,
United States
[email protected]
UNDP – United Nations Development
Programme
42
Ms.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Ms.
Ms.
Ms.
Ms.
Ms.
Mr.
Ms.
Ms.
Ms.
Ms.
Mr.
Jennifer Laughlin
Advisor on Stakeholder Engagement,
United States
UNDP – United Nations Development
Programme
Jose Arturo Santos
Panama
Engagement Specialist, Latin America
& Caribbean Region, UNDP - United
Nations Development Programme
Patricia Serrano
UNEP - United Nations Environment
Ecuador
Programme
Workshop Moderators
Dr. Jürgen Blaser
Prof. of Forestry and Consultant on
Switzerland
Climate Change and Forestry
Susanne Willner
Independent Consultant and
Germany
Moderator
Victoria Tauli-Corpuz Executive Director, Tebtebba Philippines
Indigenous Peoples’ International
Centre
Workshop Interpreters
Ana Hernanz
Germany
Aude-Valérie Monfort Independent Interpreter
Germany
Cathrine Gay
Germany
Ignacio Hermo
Germany
Workshop Logistics
Annika Korte
Workshop Secretariat (Coordinator)
Germany
Corina Ungeheuer
Workshop Secretariat
Germany
Janin Kriesel
Germany
Kirstin Hücking
Germany
Nico Wittmann
Germany
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]; vtcorpuz2006@
yahoo.com
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
43
5.2 Workshop Agenda
Day 1: Orientation and Lessons from Local-Level Participation
Time
Activity
Content
9.00
Welcome and Introduction to the
Workshop
■■
Ms. Ulrike Haupt, BMZ; Mr. Simon Whitehouse, FCPF FMT; Mr.
Charles McNeill, UN-REDD
■■
“Check-In” with participant
10.00
Exhibition of Perspectives
incl.
coffee
break
Input from selected participants; groups complement and discuss
a. An indigenous peoples’ perspective
b. A REDD+ governmental perspective
c. A non-IP forest-dwellers’ perspective
d. A woman’s perspective
e. FCPF and UN-REDD perspective
13.00
Lunch
14.00
Lessons from the ground
incl.
coffee
break
Local participation in REDD+/natural
resource governance processes
a.
b.
17:30
End of Day 1
17.30
Institutional working group
19.00
Evening Reception
Input by regional input paper authors
■■
Africa (Steve Nsita, Christian Mersmann)
■■
Asia (Lisa Ogle, Celina Yong)
■■
Latin America (Sébastien Snoeck)
Regional groups work on specific questions
Representatives of BMZ/BMU, FCPF, WB and UN-REDD meet to share
their insights from the working groups
Day 2: National-Level Participation and National Enabling Environment
Time
Activity
Content
9.00
9 o’clock News
a. Working groups rapporteur(s) report back from case clinics
b. Institutional experts rapporteur(s) respond, give feedback, report
from their meeting
10.00
Input Paper I - “From Concepts to
Implementation – Challenges and
Key Questions for Integrating IPs in
REDD+ Processes”
10.45
Coffee break
Birgitte Feiring: presentation of main findings of Input Paper I
44
Time
Activity
Content
11.15
Guidance / Orientation for viable,
legitimate and effective nationallevel participation
a. Field trial
Interactive dialogue with all participants
b. Practitioners´ panel
Insights from some REDD+ countries
12:30
Lunch
14.00
Enabling conditions for
participation
Topic framework for all open space workshops: enabling conditions for
participation of IP in REDD+
Open Space
e.g. IP representation, land tenure, overarching governance structures
etc.
16:00
Coffee break
16.30
Open Space News
17:00
End of Day 2
19.00
Boat tour and/or visit of historical city centre
Rapporteurs of workshop report back to plenary
Day 3: Synthesis of Findings and Key Messages
Time
Activity
Content
9.00
The way forward
a. Interview with Joan Carling, Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Pact (AIPP)
Keys to full, effective and feasible IP
participation in REDD+ - an appeal
for constructive solutions
b. Fishbowl debate with all participants
10.30
Coffee break
11.00
The Weilburg key messages
Presentation of draft key messages of the group, collected by an
editorial team;
Responses and additions from plenary
11.45
Closing Ceremony
a. Reflection and feedback from participants
b. Closing address
12:30
Lunch and Departure
45
REFERENCES
Workshop Papers and Presentations
Global Report
Input Paper I: National REDD+ Processes, Participation and Consultation Standards, Guidelines and Country
Experiences (Birgitte Feiring)
Regional Reports
What does it take to make local consultation a success?
■■
Input Paper II: African Region (Steve Nsita and Christian Mersmann)
■■
Input Paper III: Asia-Pacific Region (Lisa Ogle and Celina Yong)
■■
Input Paper IV: Latin American Region (Sébastien Snoeck)
Joint UN-REDD and FCPF Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement in REDD+ Readiness with a Focus on the
Participation of Indigenous Peoples and Other Forest-Dependent Communities, April 20, 2012.
UN-REDD Programme Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent and associated Legal Companion (2013).
World Bank OP 4.10 on Indigenous Peoples.
Other Useful Resources
Accra Caucus (2013). REDD+ safeguards: more than good intentions? Case studies from the Accra Caucus, Accra
Caucus on Forests and Climate Change.
Anaya, J. (2009). Promotion and Protection of all Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
Including the Right to Development, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and
fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, presented to the Human Rights Council, 15 July 2009, A/HRC/12/34.
Chao, S., (2012). Forest Peoples: Numbers across the world, Forest Peoples Programme, Moreton-in-Marsh, United
Kingdom.
Crippa, L.A., and Gordon, G. (2013). International Law Principles for REDD+: The Rights of Indigenous Peoples and
the Obligations of REDD+ Actors (updated Sept 2013), Indian Law Resource Center, Washington, D.C.
46
Doyle, C. and Carino, J. (2013). Making Free, Prior & Informed Consent a Reality, Indigenous Peoples and the Extractive
Sector. Indigenous Peoples Links, Middlesex University School of Law and the Ecumenical Council for Corporate
Responsibility [www.piplinks.org/makingfpicareality].
Erni, C., Sherpa, P. D., Hean, N. V and B., Truong, L. T., Maharjan, S. K., Rana, E. B., Sherpa, L. N. and Carling, J. (2012).
Briefing Paper on REDD+, Rights and Indigenous Peoples Asia Indigenous Peoples: Lessons from REDD+ Initiatives in Asia,
published by Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact and International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, Thailand.
FCPF, (2013). Guide to the FCPF Readiness Assessment Framework.
Gargett, A. and Kiss, K. (2013). The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: A Manual for National
Human Rights Institutions, published by Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions and the Office of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Krystyna Swiderska, L. and Milligan. A. (eds), with Kanchi Kohli, Harry Jonas, Holly Shrumm, Wim Hiemstra, Maria Julia
Oliva, (2012). Biodiversity and culture: exploring community protocols, rights and consent (PLA 65). International
Institute for Environment and Development.
Ogle, L. (2012). Free, Prior and Informed Consent for REDD+ in the Asia-Pacific Region: Lessons Learned, UN-REDD
Programme.
International Instruments Cited
Treaties, Conventions and Protocols
Convention on Biodiversity (1992)
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their
Utilization to the Convention on Biodiversity
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention (1989) of the International Labour Organization (ILO 169)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992)
Declarations
UNDRIP, adopted by the 61st session of the United Nations General Assembly on 13 September 2007
47
48
Cover photos: Top left: J. Kriesel/GIZ; U. Sonntag/GIZ; J. Kriesel/GIZ; U. Sonntag/GIZ
Interior Photos: p. 3: Sebastian Koch; p. 6: L.Wahl/GIZ
Back photo: GIZ
Website: www.bmz.de
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.forestcarbonpartnership.org
Email: [email protected]
UN-REDD
UN- REDD
P R O G R A M M E
Website: www.un-redd.org
PEmail:
R O [email protected]
G R A M M E
Blog:
http://unredd.wordpress.com
The United Nations
Collaborative Programme
Follow
us
on
Twitter
and YouTube
Forest Degradation in
Developing
Countries

UN-REDD

Transcription

Similar documents

contents - Botanical Society of South Africa

What is a REDD + community carbon pool?

the world symposium

Aboriginal Territories in Cyberspace

Apresentação do PowerPoint

México 2006 IV Foro Mundial Del Agua

PDF

Perception of Environment Among Kenyan Pastoralists: Implications

Non dialogue of Myths: dialogue of Myths: Non