Report on Working Group Discussion on Stakeholder Engagement

1. Report on Working Group Discussion on Stakeholder Engagement Thailand and Lao PDR

2. I. Awareness raising and information dissemination a) Key issues 1) Awareness raising for whom? • Policy makers (politicians) • political will in supporting REDD+ both policy and implementation is needed. • Government officers / agencies • IPs • LCs • Private sectors • Etc.

3. 2) Funding used for awareness raising – where to source from 3) What kind of information needed for awareness raising and in what forms 4) Ways and methods used for information dissemination

4. b) General remarks • Who is the decision making body of REDD+ programme (WB or Govt. or communities) • We may shoulder burden from developed countries on reducing emissions • Is REDD happening yet? • Laos – yes • Thailand – not yet still in the preparatory process • REDD concept is not new - Protection of forests (by the state and communities)

5. C) Recommendations • Awareness raising should be undertaken for policy makers at different levels – national, provincial, district and communities levels as they are the one who can help pushing forward the implementation of activities on the ground. • Awareness raising should also be undertaken for govt. officials and IPs • On information sharing and capacity building for communities: a neutral organization accepted by both govt. agencies and IPs should be identified to take responsibility for information dissemination to communities. • Information used for dissemination to communities should be simplified (e.g 1 or 2 pages information)

6. Use various forms of information dissemination (internet, e-mail, community theatre (Laos), etc.) • To have policy and laws changes: a strong grassroots community-based organizations should be established and receive support from policy makers. • Attitude changes: to build cooperation among involved stakeholders rather accusing each other

7. On information dissemination: a joint working group (between govt., Ips and other stakeholders) should be established to determine what kind of information and in what form to be distributed. • Each constituency will be responsible for disseminating of information to their own network.

8. II. Consultation a) Key issues • How to translate existing tools into implementation? E.g. stakeholder engagement guidelines • Consultation can be done through existing networks • Financial resources needed?

9. b) Recommendations • effective coordinating mechanism among involved stakeholders should be established • certain amount of budget should be channeled directly to communities

10. III. Representations a) Key issues • Lack of IP representatives in both national and local level structure • representatives selected by IPs may not be accepted by the govt. – as in Laos • Language barrier and travel expenses of leaders • IP reps with decision making authority

11. b) Recommendations • Request WB to facilitate discussion between govt and IPs about representation of IPs at different levels • Roles of selected representatives should be made clear. • Representatives should cover all involved stakeholders • Decision making process should be on consensus building , not voting, since IPs are very small and not equal in number. • Formal invitation is requested for those who represent local authorities.

12. Coordination through existing mechanisms and networks • Thailand: • Network of Indigenous Peoples in Thailand (NIPT) • IPF was proposed to liaise on REDD+ issue under NIPT • Rakthai Foundation • Sustainable Development Foundation (SDF) • Community forestry networks • Watershed networks • Laos: • NPAs network • REDD+ network • IP Leaders • Government agencies related to the issue