Andy White and Jeff Hatcher 15 June 2009 Second UN-REDD Programme Policy Board Meeting Montreux, Switzerland

1. Governance, Safeguards and Accountability: How to ensure that REDD investments are effective in reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation? Andy White and Jeff Hatcher 15 June 2009 Second UN-REDD Programme Policy Board Meeting Montreux, Switzerland

2. Outline • Why governance, safeguards and accountability to reduce emissions? • Lessons from previous interventions to reduce deforestation and degradation • What is the status of safeguards and mechanisms for accountability? • What can be done? Emerging recommendations • Moving forward: Questions for our discussion today

3. Why focus now on governance, safeguards and accountability? • We know “good governance” necessary to keep forests and attract investment; • Governance: rules of the game; “good governance”: fairness, inclusive, participation, transparence, accountability at national and international levels • We know that achieving “good governance” is a challenge in forest areas and substantial risk of things going wrong: • Donors don’t want the blame, want to do good • Governments don’t want blame, want to do good • Thus: safeguards – guidelines/standards with teeth, can be/are enforced • We know that “accountability” and redress mechanisms key part of good governance – and especially necessary to put in place now, with REDD readiness investments • Why now? • Programs moving forward and funds being disbursed – need for clear, well-known, operational guidance • Need to take advantage of the REDD funding to establish good governance - before funds expire and exposed to the market

4. Some lessons from history (1) • Previous global attempts to address deforestation have bad track record (in terms of impact) (e.g. Tropical Forest Action Plan; ITTO Objective 2000; UNFF) • Dominant forestry models inadequate: conservation without human rights, industrial concessions without development; social forestry without enterprises and market access • What we have NOT done: invested in developing institutions and governance, enabling local people to pursue their aspirations, forests have always been object of central, public control • Establishing governance, clarifying property rights very complicated and politically contentious • A national, development issue, requires action by other ministries (land, finance); far beyond capacity/competence of forest agencies usually not a national priority; • Yet, forestry usually not a national priority, a “sunset” industry, other ministries often not interested • Vested interests hard to deal with (e.g. industrial concessions, environmentalists) • The World Bank, UN, ODA, International NGOs don’t have the answer: it is up to the country government and people, yet institutions not in place for this new, national “social contract” over land and rights

5. Some lessons from history (2) • The major drivers of deforestation are outside of the forest sector (e.g. subsidies for agriculture, state-sponsored deforestation) • Money is not the major problem, policy alone can do it: • Where is “unfunded” protection taking place? Brazil (IPs’); Mexico, Guatemala, Panama, Philippines (IPs’, communities) • Where is “unfunded” restoration taking place? Nepal (communities); China, Vietnam (households) • All where local rights recognized and enforced, and this is cheap $3/hectare vs $400/ha/year expected REDD payment • Forestry small sector, trumped by larger domestic and global politics – short attention spans, limited commitments – thus easy to exploit and abuse, hard for bureaucracies to maintain standards: why would this not continue? • Multiple actors in the same sector risks/facilitates gamesmanship, often collapse: • Thus critical to adopt same standards, set up strong accountability mechanisms, everyone hold everyone else’s feet to the fire – only, ultimate safeguard is strong civil society, responsive government • Strong efforts in some countries, growing CSO participation, all countries have lessons to share: investments in “learning and sharing” pay off (not between international ‘experts’ but between public, community, local NGOs)

6. One last lesson: the situation is dire • Poverty is extreme • Conflicts are common • Violation of human rights are commonplace • Governments claim 63% of tropical world’s forests – illegal conservation, dispossession and refugees • Limited accountability, judicial redress, lack of basic services • Increasing pressure from biofuels, agriculture, population – • i.e. all this getting worse – forested countries vulnerable and fragile

7. Violent conflict common in tropical forests In the past twenty years 30 countries in the tropical regions of the world have experienced significant conflict between armed groups in forest areas. Source: D.Kaimowitz ETFRN NEWS 43/44

8. Weak governance common – worse in forested countries Sources:

9. Forested countries – low, slow economic growth • Extensive, chronic, poverty in forest areas • “growth” located in urban, coastal areas • “forest rich” countries doing significantly worse; • ITTO producer countries doing significantly worse • Most forested countries fallen to the “resource curse”

10. Corruption a key, pervasive problem “Corruption is the main reason why resource-rich countries perform badly in economic terms. Corruption in resource-rich countries takes two main forms: rent-seeking and patronage” (Ivar Kolstad and Tina Soreide, CMI, Norway, Resources Policy, 2009)

11. The status of safeguards (1) UN-REDD Programme • must abide by UN decisions and declarations: • UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples • Universal Declaration of Human Rights • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights • But what do these mean in practice? • There are emerging “guidelines”, but no enforcement mechanisms, no grievance mechanisms at national or international levels • How to put these in place?

12. The status of safeguards (2) World Bank FCPF * has policies and safeguards and an accountability mechanism: • OP 4.01 on environmental assessments • OP 4.1 on Indigenous Peoples • OP 4.11 on physical cultural resources • OP 4.12 on involuntary resettlement • Inspection Panel can be triggered upon “threat of harm” • Question: when and how do these apply? • To R-PIN, R-Plan, Bank Project? • Many research organizations examining this issue, beginning to, or getting ready to assess implementation • CIFOR – global research program; • WRI (paper); • FPP, CIEL; Global Witness; Indigenous Peoples organizations

13. Three Emerging Recommendations • REDD “Readiness” – all about establishing governance in forest areas • All must take full advantage of this funding to do what we have not been doing – establish informed national level participation processes, reform property rights, establish accountability • To reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation: need: • Recognize indigenous, community property rights, and enforce • Establish enabling policy context for community, local management and enterprises; • Stop/reverse government programs that drive deforestation

14. Emerging Recommendations • If payments are going to be made, need to clarify “readiness”. Governments and investors will know when countries are “ready” to receive payments/funds when there is: • Clear, enforced, and widely supported, legal framework for forest property rights (land, forests, carbon, other ecosystem services); • Social agreement on who gets compensated; • MRV system (carbon, social and environmental) is credible and transparent at national and global levels; • Independent mechanisms for law enforcement and accountability exist and function at national and international levels * i.e. no major conflicts, low corruption, and when there are disagreements there are credible remedial processes to deal with them

15. Questions for discussion today • Governments: What do your citizens expect you to put in place in terms of governance, safeguards, accountability? • UN-REDD – what should they do to fulfill their obligations? • Moving from principles/guidelines to enforceable safeguards • Establishing mechanisms for accountability – national and international levels • UN-REDD proposal to create a grievance mechanism: complaints to the UN-REDD co-chairs and the UN country office. Is that sufficient? • FCPF – when and how to apply their safeguards, and for what duration? • Apply in preparation of R-Plan, or only to Bank carbon project? • What’s basis for only applying to “readiness” and not to full global market/payment program?