How to ensure that REDD+ delivers social and environmental co-benefits Ivar Jørgensen, Norad Copenhagen, November 8th 2012
Nov 07, 2014
How to ensure that REDD+ delivers social and environmental
co-benefitsIvar Jørgensen, Norad
Copenhagen, November 8th 2012
Roles in Norwegian REDD+ assistance
• MFA is responsible for the development budget• Our embassies are involved in implementation of many of the
REDD+ programmes• Ministry of Environment is responsible for the strategic
management of the Government of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI)
• Norad is an advisory body to MFA and NICFI – providing technical advice and quality assurance
• Norad manages funds to research institutions and NGOs for REDD+ programmes
• Norwegian NGOs are active and influential in Norwegian REDD+ policy
Norwegian investments in REDD+
• Active contributor to the UNFCCC negotiations• Major source of funding for UN- REDD, FCPF, FIP• Bilateral programmes with e.g. Brazil, Indonesia,
Guyana, Tanzania, Ethiopia• Major contribution to Congo Basin Forest Fund (with
UK)• REDD+ research• Civil Society programmes globally and in around 25
countries • Total available budget NOK 3 bill/year
Official position on safeguards
• Norway see safeguards to be a critical part of REDD+ architecture to ensure social and environmental integrity of REDD+ results and raise financing to pay for these results
• Summary of information of how safeguards are addressed should be in national communication and biennial updates
• Further guidance is needed on types and characteristics of information reported, and how information is collected and reviewed
• UNFCCC guidance is needed on content of summary to define a core set of information
REDD+ and co-benefits
• Conserving biodiversity
• Protecting ecosystem services
• Synergies with adaptation needs
• Economic benefits
• Community benefits (livelihoods and social capital)
• Benefits to governance and rights agenda
National policy options to enhance co-benefits
• Include forest co-benefits in low carbon development strategies
• Include forest co-benefits in national monitoring systems• Require spatial planning as basis for land use decision• Promote FPIC• Clarify land tenure and user rights to forest • Develop REDD standards and safeguard information
systems - and include them in national reporting
(The last bullet will be key for funding agencies)
What should be the basis for funding?
• In Phase 3 we will pay for documented reduction of emissions
• Policies and measures (PAMs) may be agreed as basis for payment in Phase 1 and 2
• The international community should agree on requirements to safeguard systems for payments to be released
• Some national funds have defined safeguard systems (e.g. FREDDI/Indonesia has an elaborate safeguard system)
How to make progress on safeguards?
• Safeguards have been a sensitive element in negotiations• Both COP 16 and 17 made positive steps, including Cancun
decision on safeguards• Durban did not reach a comprehensive result on reporting
systems • We see development of Safeguard Information Systems as
an opportunity to make progress:- SIS can improve overall REDD+ implementation- SIS can build confidence in REDD+ at local and
international levels- SIS can facilitate the flow of finance
Side/Page 808.04.2023
How to make progress on safeguards – contd.
• REDD+ countries should implements SIS – this will enhance funding opportunities and it will inform the global process
• Global processes should learn from national experiences• Consistent international guidance will lead to efficiency and
reduce confusion of multiple initiatives• SIS development processes will enhance quality of national
REDD+ policies• Safeguards should be included in reporting from countries
Side/Page 908.04.2023
What is the role of indigenous peoples and other forest dependent communities in
REDD?
Safeguards are more than just standards
• Capacity and willingness to implement and monitor safeguards
• Resources put aside to make sure safeguards are followed
• Ability to communicate safeguards and interact with relevant stakeholders
• Co-benefits are only ensured through national policy processes – REDD+ cannot solve all problems. The international community can not dictate national policy
• A global REDD+ system will put pressure on parties to adopt and implement safeguards
• Countries with good SIS will attract funding• Countries with good SIS will be more successful in
sustainable reduction of deforestation• REDD+ nay-sayers increase the risk of REDD+ failure and
loss of opportunities for REDD+ funding streams
Final comments