WRI Publications Feed: The Governance of Forests Initiative

Putting the Pieces Together for Good Governance of REDD+: An Analysis of 32 REDD+ Country Readiness Proposals

Sarah Parsons — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:05:45 -0400

Executive Summary

Developing countries are receiving new financial and technical support to design and implement programs that reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degrada¬tion (referred to as REDD+). Reducing emissions from forest cover change requires transparent, accountable, inclusive, and coordinated systems and institutions to govern REDD+ programs. Two multilateral initiatives— the World Bank-administered Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the United Nations Collaborative Pro¬gramme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in developing countries (UN-REDD Programme)—are supporting REDD+ countries to become “ready” for REDD+ by preparing initial strategy proposals, developing institutions to manage REDD+ programs, and building capacity to implement REDD+ activities.

This paper reviews 32 REDD+ readiness proposals sub¬mitted to these initiatives to understand overall trends in how eight elements of readiness (referred to in this paper as readiness needs) are being understood and prioritized globally. Specifically, we assess whether the readiness proposals (i) identify the eight readiness needs as relevant for REDD+, (ii) discuss challenges and options for addressing each need, and (iii) identify next steps to be implemented in relation to each need. Our analysis found that the readiness proposals make important commit¬ments to developing effective, equitable, and well-governed REDD+ programs. However, in many of the proposals these general statements have not yet been translated into clear next steps.

Key Findings:

Discussions of stakeholder participation, non-carbon monitoring, and cross-sectoral coordination are the strongest in terms of the number of readiness proposals that identify issues as relevant for REDD+, discuss key challenges and options, and propose clear next steps (e.g., studies, processes, institutional support costs).
Few REDD+ countries consider specific design op¬tions or challenges related to REDD+ benefit sharing, conflict resolution, or revenue management systems, although most include plans to address these issues as readiness activities move forward.
Relatively few readiness proposals identify specific next steps to address land tenure challenges or estab¬lish mechanisms to coordinate with local institutions during REDD+ planning and implementation.
Cross-cutting issues such as vertical coordination of REDD+ programs and coherence of proposed new REDD+ bodies with existing forest sector institutions have not been explicitly considered in most readiness proposals to date.

Delivering on the commitments made in the readiness proposals will be crucial to building stakeholder confidence and scaling up financial support for REDD+ programs. We make three recommendations that can help countries make short-term progress on REDD+ objectives and ultimately develop effective and equitable REDD+ programs:

REDD+ countries, donors, and civil society stakehold¬ers should consider gaps identified by our analysis and work to ensure that readiness activities promote comprehensive and integrated approaches to designing REDD+ strategies, systems, and institutions.
REDD+ countries should improve efforts to prioritize and sequence readiness activities to enhance transpar¬ency on how readiness financing is allocated to differ¬ent readiness needs.
REDD+ countries should develop transparent and ac¬countable domestic systems for tracking progress on readiness activities to ensure that readiness proposal commitments to well-governed REDD+ programs are carried out in practice.

Tuning In: Tracking Wood from Honduran Forests to U.S. Guitars

Sarah Parsons — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:30:14 -0500

Executive Summary

This study focuses on two supply chains for mahogany that originate in remote biodiversity-rich forests in Honduras. These supply chains were selected because they involve small forest community cooperatives that, compared with industrial operations, have a lower capacity to respond to market requirements for legal wood, including the U.S. Lacey Act.

The study describes two approaches used to minimize the risk of sourcing illegal wood. The first approach was to establish strong relationships with the suppliers and the second was to prefer certified wood. The main lessons from this study are:

The Lacey Act requirements had little or no impact on the way the buyers managed risk for these specific supply chains, because the buyers established supply chain control systems prior to 2008 to (a) secure a long-term supply of the product, and (b) implement corporate environmental/ social responsibility policies.
Supply-chain control systems, such as barcode tracking and chain-of-custody certification, are useful tools for enhancing assurances of legality. Long-term relationships with suppliers and commitments from buyers have been important for the successful implementation of these approaches, and critical to minimizing the risk of illegal wood.
Intermediaries and facilitators play a key role in building and strengthening the technical and administrative capacity of the cooperatives to harvest and process timber.
The community cooperatives in these supply chains face various challenges: inadequate law enforcement, competing land-use pressures, drug trafficking, and competition with illegal logging. Yet the sustained demand for high-value species such as mahogany provides a powerful incentive to maintain and strengthen forest community operations.
The supply-chain control approaches highlighted in this study work, in part, because of the high value of the end product, and, because of the financial assistance of external donors that have invested in building the technical capacity and social development of the community cooperatives. In-depth analysis to understand the financial viability of the operations without such support is needed.
Although the long-term financial sustainability of the community cooperatives is unclear, the perceived community and biodiversity benefits, along with the buyers’ interest in securing a long-term supply of legal wood, are strong incentives for all stakeholders to ensure their continued viability.

This issue brief is based on a review of relevant documents, visits to the field sites and processing facilities, and a series of interviews with stakeholders. A complementary video is available at the Forest Legality Alliance website.

Case Study: IKEA's Response to the Lacey Act--Due Care Systems for Composite Materials in China

Sarah Parsons — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:05:57 -0500

Executive Summary

This study focuses on IKEA and the company’s production of composite products (board materials such as particleboard, Medium Density Fiber Board (MDF), etc.) in China. The study describes the internal systems of IKEA and how they work to ensure that the material sourced can be shown to have been purchased with an adequate level of due care to help ensure legality. Specifically, the study looks at how composite products made up of a large percentage of waste material supplied by diverse small producers within a weak governance context can be imported into the USA while showing that a high level of due care was attained.

The study shows how IKEA is adapting its operations to meet the requirements of a challenging procurement situation and the company’s understanding of how they can show adequate levels of due care.

Four main lessons have been identified and are explored in this paper:

Lesson 1: The implementation of the Lacey Act means that responsible procurement is no longer voluntary but is now mandatory.
Lesson 2: Each company must understand the supplying country’s laws and associated risks so that it can define its own level of appropriate traceability.
Lesson 3: A risk assessment can help determine the level of traceability required to ensure confidence in any forest product supply and ensure that a reasonable level of due care can be shown.
Lesson 4: To be able to complete the declaration form, a company needs to understand its supply chain fully. Good information management is key, and a proactive approach to the management of the supply chains is required. It is no longer enough to just rely on trust: a company must now ask questions and back this up with on-the-ground audits.

Safeguarding Forests and People: A Framework for Designing a National System to Implement REDD+ Safeguards

Sarah Parsons — Mon, 26 Nov 2012 13:41:12 -0500

Executive Summary

Background

Around the world, members of governments, civil society, and the private sector are grappling with how to design and implement initiatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions by slowing, halting, and reversing forest loss. These efforts have been spurred at least in part by the agreements onlong-term cooperative action (LCA) that Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have made since 2007 in Bali, Cancun, and Durban. In these agreements, Parties stated that reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks, and sustainable management of forests in developing countries should be recognized as mitigation actions. Parties also agreed that these actions should be at least partially supported by Annex 1 countries. This series of actions, and the related global mechanism for recognizing and supporting them, comprise the global initiative known as REDD+.

REDD+ has attracted significant attention from governments, the private sector, and civil society, with particular interest in its potential for increasing the resources available for protecting forest ecosystems and promoting sustainable development.

However, to contribute to the sustainable management of forests, REDD+ actions will need to be implemented effectively, equitably, and sustainably. In a 2010 UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP) in Cancun, Parties recognized the importance of good governance to successful implementation of REDD+ actions. The Parties agreed on seven UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards, among them transparency, participation, protection of biodiversity, and protection of the rights of local people. If implemented correctly, the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards can help ensure that REDD+ does not inadvertently harm communities and ecosystems by exacerbating existing inequalities.

The UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards provide broad guiding principles. It is now up to those designing, funding, and implementing REDD+ initiatives to determine how those principles should be put into practice. One option is to put in place a system at the national level. A national system to implement the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards brings opportunities to strengthen the rules and institutions that currently govern forested lands. These opportunities, however, come with challenges and will require balancing of different costs and benefits. This report lays out a framework to help REDD+ countries develop a national system to implement the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards. The framework presented here does not provide a ready-made solution, but it does provide a roadmap for navigating some of the choices that can arise during the design and implementation of national systems. The report also provides examples of how Brazil, Indonesia, and Mexico are progressing along this path.

A Framework for Designing a National System

The framework laid out in this report comprises four components: goals, functions, rules, and institutions. Safeguard goals define what the safeguards are meant to achieve. Safeguard functions are the processes by which those goals are achieved. A complete safeguard system supports each goal by:

anticipating potential risks and opportunities associated with national and/or subnational REDD+ actions, such as REDD+ strategies, activities, and projects;
planning to avoid harm and produce benefits to ecosystems and people by addressing social and environmental considerations in the design of REDD+ actions;
managing REDD+ actions by implementing safeguard plans and procedures that will help ensure desired social and environmental goals;
monitoring REDD+ processes and outcomes to demonstrate the achievement of goals, make course corrections, and deal with unanticipated impacts; and
responding to problems and grievances related to the social and/or environmental effects of REDD+ actions.

Safeguard rules and institutions ensure that safeguards are put into practice. A safeguard system’s rules outline the parameters of the system by defining what should or should not occur. In addition to ensuring that the parameters are designed in a transparent and participatory manner, the system’s institutions also ensure that they are thoroughly followed.

Creating a National REDD+ Safeguard System

If a REDD+ country chooses to develop a national system, the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards provide an initial set of goals for that system. Governments, in collaboration with stakeholders, can add to these goals to meet national needs. They will then need to define how their established goals should be implemented. This task will necessitate defining the rules and institutions responsible for ensuring that all functions of the system are met, including everything from anticipating risks to responding if something needs to be changed.

Before putting in place new rules and institutions for a national system, a government should, together with stakeholders, (a) assess the degree to which existing rules and institutions already provide for the goals and functions of a REDD+ safeguard system and (b) assess risks to achieving safeguard goals given current gaps. After gaining an understanding of existing rules and institutions, a government and stakeholders can determine how to best fill those gaps. As part of any initial assessment, it may also be beneficial to consider the safeguard policies of potential funders in order to enhance coordination and coherence.

Many options are available to fill any gaps identified—in some cases, assessments may show that reforming existing rules, or empowering and strengthening existing institutions, may be the best solution. Alternately, new rules and institutions may need to be developed. Under that scenario, new national laws or policies could be created, new regulations put in place, or new procedures instituted by government agencies. Rules can be specific to REDD+ or apply more broadly. In terms of institutions, new government agencies or new positions within existing agencies could be created, or new responsibilities could be given to nongovernmental or private actors. Responsibility for implementing several of the functions of the safeguard system can be consolidated with one body, or spread out across multiple institutions.

Choices related to rules and institutions come with different sets of costs and benefits. For example, putting in place a new law may provide more long-term stability and greater buy-in from multiple sectors. However, new laws can take time to be approved or require a level of political support in the legislature that does not exist. Consolidating responsibility with one agency can help ensure effectiveness by reducing the need for coordination between agencies, but it may place too heavy a burden on one player and reduce the political buy-in often obtained by having multiple government agencies involved.

The right choice of rules and institutions for implementing the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards will depend on a nation’s circumstances and may change over time. Evaluating options strategically in a transparent and participatory manner can help actors better utilize resources and plan for the future.

Conclusion

A national system for implementing the REDD+ safeguards can help ensure that all REDD+ activities within a country are covered by adequate safeguard policies. It can be more sensitive to unique national circumstances. It can help national governments coordinate REDD+ activities and their associated safeguard policies. While there will be many, sometimes difficult, decisions to be made by governments and stakeholders about how to design and implement a system that builds trust between all the actors involved in REDD+, the value of undertaking such a process will have benefits well beyond REDD+. This is perhaps the most important reason to invest the time and energy in designing a national system to implement the REDD+ safeguards. Many governments and stakeholders have already expressed the intent to go down this path, supporting them is the intent of this document and hopefully will lead to further enthusiasm and interest in exploring the options for developing national systems.

Getting Ready: A Review of the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Readiness Preparation Proposals

admin — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 10:43:01 -0400

The World Bank administered Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (UN-REDD Programme) are two leading multilateral efforts currently supporting developing countries to become ―ready‖ to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and enhance carbon stocks (REDD+).

This working paper is the eighth in a series of regular updates reviewing the Readiness Preparation Proposals (R-PPs) submitted by REDD+ Country Participants to the FCPF and the National Programme Documents (NPDs) submitted by UN-REDD Programme countries to the UN-REDD Programme. The analysis is based on a desktop review of each R-PP and NPD in order to understand how countries are considering fundamental issues of forest governance during the readiness phase. We assess whether the documents identify major governance challenges contributing to forest loss, and whether principles of transparency, accountability, participation, and coordination are being applied in the development of REDD+ institutions, systems, and plans.

The 7th meeting of the UN REDD Programme Policy Board and the 10th meeting of the FCPF Participants Committee will be held in Berlin, Germany, from 13-14 October and 17-19 October, respectively. This paper evaluates R-PPs from Central African Republic and Colombia submitted for formal consideration by the FCPF Participants Committee. Draft R-PPs from Guatemala and Mozambique were submitted for informal review, but are not analyzed in this paper. We also review Nigeria’s NPD, which will be considered for funding by the Policy Board.

Map of SBSTA Submissions: REDD+ Safeguard Information System

Kevin Lustig — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:27:01 -0500

Summary

In December 2010, the 16th Conference of the Parties (COP 16) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) requested the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technical Advice (SBSTA) to develop guidance relating to paragraph 71(d) of the Cancun Agreements in time for COP 17 in Durban, December 2011.

Paragraph 71(d) speaks to a system to provide information on how the safeguards in Annex 1 of the Cancun Agreements are being addressed and respected (termed the “safeguard information system” or SIS).¹

In June 2011, SBSTA discussed the development of a guidance document on the SIS, and invited Parties and accredited Observers to submit their views on such guidance.² Submissions were welcomed on: characteristics; design; provision of information; potential barriers, if any, to providing information on addressing and respecting safeguards; and other relevant issues.

SBSTA received 26 submissions in total, 14 from Parties and 12 from Observers. Several submissions represent the view of more than one Party or Observer. While most submissions followed the structure suggested by SBSTA in June, they often covered substantively different topics under each heading. In an effort to bring greater clarity to discussions surrounding the SIS, ClientEarth and the World Resources Institute (WRI) have divided the information in the submissions into four categories:

The Role of the Safeguard Information System
The Type of Information that Parties Should Provide
How to Collect and Provide Information
Other Elements of the International Safeguard System

A summary of our key findings for each category is provided below. Tables of the specific language from Party submissions make up the rest of the document. In some cases it was difficult to be certain of the exact meaning of the language included in the submissions.³ Every effort has been made to accurately reflect, in this abbreviated format, the views contained in the submissions. ClientEarth and WRI regret any misrepresentation of those views that may have occurred in an effort to achieve brevity, clarity and comparability.

This paragraph speaks to “a system for providing information on how the safeguards referred to in appendix I to [the Cancun] decision are being addressed and respected throughout the implementation of the activities referred to in paragraph 70 above, while respecting sovereignty.” ↩
SBSTA also invited input on other elements of REDD, including reference levels and MRV. Please note that document only reviews submissions related to the safeguard information system. ↩
For example, it was sometimes difficult to know when reading the submission if Parties/observers envisaged activities (like reviews) happening at the national and/or the international level. ↩

Investing in Results: Enhancing Coordination for More Effective Interim REDD+ Financing

Maggie Barron — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 14:17:55 -0500

Executive Summary

In 2007, the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) placed efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries (REDD+) at the center of the international negotiations for a new global climate agreement. Three years later, the outcome of these negotiations remains uncertain, but political and stakeholder interest in REDD+ continues to be high. Developed countries have pledged approximately US$4.5 billion for REDD+ from 2010 to 2012 to support developing country capacity building, planning, and implementation. It is expected that these “interim” actions will encourage the learning, consensus building and trust necessary for an eventual international agreement.

Early experiments with interim REDD+ financing are already generating valuable lessons and experiences. However, a failure to coordinate a growing number of REDD+ donors and actors could jeopardize progress made thus far. Decisions on the allocation and use of interim financing have been ad hoc, fragmented and donor-driven. A plethora of bilateral and multilateral donors have emerged, each pursuing its own vision of REDD+ and operating in accordance with its own procedures, standards, and safeguards.

To date, REDD+ finance has focused on a relatively small subset of countries, raising the risk that large amounts of money driven by multiple donors could overwhelm the capacity of national institutions to manage resources effectively and efficiently, lead to duplicative or conflicting investments, and diminish the potential for these countries to mainstream REDD+ activities into national planning processes. If early investments in REDD+ do not deliver expected results or lead to an erosion of stakeholder confidence and trust, it will be more difficult to scale-up future financing and to maintain political momentum for an international agreement.

This working paper proposes several options for improved coordination at the national, bilateral and multilateral level. It also suggests potential roles that Parties to the UNFCCC, the Interim REDD+ Partnership, and the major multilateral REDD+ initiatives (the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, the Forest Investment Program, and the UN-REDD Programme) can play in taking these options forward.

Overall, our analysis identifies a need to balance improvements coordination and coherence at the global level with the equal importance of promoting flexibility, experimentation and learning, and country-led approaches. More specifically, we recommend:

Improving the quality and coordination of bilateral and multilateral support for REDD+ actions so as to be more responsive to countries’ demands.
Focusing REDD+ financing on significant and sustained investments in national and subnational capacity to generate nationally driven demand for REDD+ finance, and to more effectively coordinate activities and support.
Developing better performance metrics and monitoring systems that go beyond measuring emission reductions, to enable results-based support for capacity building and policy implementation.

Tracking Transformative Forest Actions to Reduce Emissions: An Illegal Logging Case Study

Maggie Barron — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:09:37 -0400

Executive Summary

Climate-related forest actions

The world’s forests play a unique and complex role in the global carbon budget, as emissions from land use change—particularly deforestation— represent around 12–15% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, yet forests also act as an essential carbon sink through storage and sequestration (van der Werf et al. 2009). Efforts to maintain standing forests or enhance total forest area will therefore be a vital component of international climate mitigation efforts.

At the 2007 meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), countries adopted the Bali Action Plan as a roadmap to a new international climate agreement. The Plan included a commitment to develop and implement “policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries,” commonly known as REDD (UNFCCC 2007, p. 3). During subsequent negotiations, the scope of REDD has expanded to include activities to manage forests sustainably and to increase and conserve carbon stocks (collectively known as REDD+).

While there continues to be a number of unresolved issues in the REDD+ negotiations, including how REDD+ activities would be financed and whether or not industrialized countries would be allowed to buy the emissions reductions generated by developing countries to meet their own targets, on one key element the negotiations have remained relatively steady: the need for a “performance-based” or “results-based” approach for recognizing and supporting actions taken under the Bali Action Plan. In practice this means countries need to have the ability to measure, report, and verify that they have taken promised actions to mitigate emissions (UNFCCC 2007; AWG-LCA 2009; UNFCCC 2009). For REDD+, these discussions have focused on the ability to quantify emissions reductions, including the capacity of all countries to complete and improve national GHG inventories over time.

In addition to the discussions in the UNFCCC, there are parallel conversations in which the issue of measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) has emerged as an important topic. These have occurred in programs that provide upfront finance for countries taking readiness and emission reduction activities like the UN Collaborative Programme on REDD (UN-REDD), the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and Forest Investment Program (FIP), and in bilateral discussions between countries.

Finally, staff in countries responsible for developing REDD+ strategies have themselves identified the need to be able to track where REDD+ strategies are being successfully implemented in order to ensure proper policy design and implementation.

While it is not yet clear how all these initiatives will overlap in terms of the MRV discussion, in all three spaces there are several reasons why countries may wish or need to track activities and outcomes other than those represented by emissions reductions to demonstrate effectiveness in meeting their commitments to various stakeholders. First, given the complexity of the actions that will need to be taken, it may be difficult to track the performance of actions taken purely by looking at emissions reductions, particularly in the short term. Second, many developing countries will need financing support—in the form of grants, loans, or sales of future emissions reductions—to develop and implement national strategies designed to reduce emissions. Depending on country circumstances and the types of activities undertaken, demonstrating results to donor countries or initiatives may require tracking results using metrics other than emissions reductions. Third, and most importantly, domestic decision makers will need a broad array of data at their disposal to assess whether they are on course to achieving their climate mitigation goals and other linked objectives.

About this paper

This paper explores the types of information and supporting data that domestic actors will need to ensure that national strategies to reduce emissions are being developed and implemented effectively. It does so by focusing on measures to address illegal logging, drawing on specific strategies and recommendations from stakeholder processes in Peru and Indonesia, to consider:

the types of actions that countries may need to undertake;
the types of information they will need to gather to track implementation of mitigation actions over time and how they might begin collecting this information; and
the differential data needs for domestic and international MRV.

Based on this bottom-up information, we then provide options for how a performance-based approach in the UNFCCC and/or for upfront climate financing programs or initiatives could be developed without creating an additional burden on developing countries.

Governance of Forests Initiative Indicator Framework (Version 1)

admin — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:00:00 -0400

Competing demands for food, fuel and profit are driving the loss and degradation of the world’s remaining forests. Governments, the private sector, and citizens are struggling to manage the conflicts between these priorities. The Governance of Forests Initiative (GFI) seeks to bring widely accepted principles of good governance to bear on the challenges of sustaining forests in developing countries. GFI is a collaboration of the World Resources Institute, Imazon (Brazil) and the Instituto Centro de Vida (Brazil).

The GFI indicator framework seeks to:

provide a common definition and conceptual framework for understanding the integrity of institutions and processes that govern forests across different country contexts
provide a practical tool for civil society organizations to independently, systematically and comprehensively diagnose strengths and weaknesses of forest governance in their countries, as a basis to advocate for reform
define a set of measurable, reportable and verifiable indicators of good governance of forests.

This document presents the draft “GFI Framework” and includes a complete set of qualitative indicators for conducting civil society led assessments of forest governance at the national level. We wish to emphasize that this is a DRAFT methodology and living document, which will be revised and adjusted throughout the pilot assessment process.

A Review of 25 Readiness Plan Idea Notes from the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

admin — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 00:00:00 -0500