PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO ENSURING THE FULL AND … · of guidelines such as the FCPF/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, GermanyPrepared by Lisa Ogle — February 2014

UN- REDDP R O G R A M M E

The United Nations Collaborative Programmeon Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries



The UN-REDD Programme is the United Nations collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest 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 nationally-led REDD+ processes and promotes the informed and meaningful involvement of all stakeholders, including indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities, in national and international REDD+ implementation.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

2.2 Participating in an FPIC Process Can Empower Local Communities 14

2.2.1 FPIC Processes for REDD+ Can Be Applied to other Forestry Uses 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

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

3.2.4 Do Indigenous Peoples Have an Obligation to Self-organise to Facilitate Consultation? 27

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

3.4 Ensuring Opportunities to Participate in REDD+ Decision-Making Structures 30

3.4.1 Indigenous Peoples’ Representation on National REDD+ Steering Committees 30

3.5 Measuring and Monitoring Full and Effective Participation 32

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

5 Annexes 39

5.1 List of Workshop Participants 39

5.2 Workshop Agenda 44

References 46

Workshop Papers and Presentations 46

Global Report 46

Regional Reports 46

Guidelines on Participation 46

Other Useful Resources 46

International Instruments Cited 47

Treaties, Conventions and Protocols 47

Declarations 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


Box 15: Case Study - The Guna General Congress, Panama 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


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


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

1Practical Approaches to Ensuring the Full and Effective Participation of Indigenous Peoples in REDD+: Workshop Report

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


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.

http://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2012/05/forest-peoples-numbers-across-world-final_0.pdf#Page=5




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 non-indigenous 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.


■■ 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.


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+ decision-making 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+ decision-making 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.


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+ decision-making, 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.


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.





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.


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 decision-making, 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.

http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:11300:0::NO:11300:P11300_INSTRUMENT_ID:312314:NO


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.

http://www.bmz.de/en/press/conferences/material_redd/index.html


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.

Box 3: Article 25, UNDRIP

“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).


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.


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 con-sent (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.

http://pubs.iied.org/14618IIED.html



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 pro-ject 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 forest- and 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.

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

17 For a more extensive description of this case study, on which this extract is based, see Ogle and Yong, 2013.

Map Error! No text of specified style in document.: Location of Lore Lindu National Park in Central Sulawesi Province

Lore Lindu National Park

Map 2: Location of Lore Lindu National Park in Central Sulawesi Province

Map 1: Location of Central Sulawesi Province, Indonesia


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.


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

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 two-year 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.

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.

Phnong house in Seima REDD+ Project area; photo courtesy of Edward Pollard

Consultation in Seima REDD+ Project area over communal boundaries; photo courtesy of WCS Cambodia

Phnong house in Seima REDD+ Project area: photo courtesy of Edward Pollard

Consultation in Seima REDD+ Project area over communal boundaries; photo courtesy of WCS Cambodia


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).


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 forest-dependent people.

Many participants were of the view that it was a matter for each country to identify its non-indigenous forest-dependent 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).


■■ 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.


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).

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.

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)


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.

23 Interviews with WCS PNG field staff.

Haus-‐boi in Pelipowai, south coast of Manus Island; photo courtesy of Wendy Lee.


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 local-level 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.


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.

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).

Protecting saplings at Mt Elgon Uganda; photo courtesy of Steve Nsita/IUCN


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.


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.


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 local-level 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.


■■ 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”.


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 Rain-forest 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).


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 hu-man 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.


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 Environ-mental 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.

https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Feb2013/Cameroon final R-PP-English-January 2013.pdf

http://www.bmz.de/de/zentrales_downloadarchiv/Service/Konferenzen/Indigene/Presentation_REDD_and_Government_Perspective_Haman_Unusa.pdf

http://www.bmz.de/de/zentrales_downloadarchiv/Service/Konferenzen/Indigene/Presentation_REDD_and_Government_Perspective_Haman_Unusa.pdf

http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/june2013/Cameroon FCPF REDD Readiness Progress Report_June2013.pdf


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.


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).

http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/june2013/FCPF R-Package User Guide ENG 6-18-13 web.pdf


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.




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+ decision-making 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.


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.


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+ decision-making 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 Guidelines on Participation

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.

http://www.un-redd.org/Stakeholder_Engagement/Guidelines_On_Stakeholder_Engagement/tabid/55619/Default.aspx


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.


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.


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


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


[email protected]

Mr. Augustine B. Njamnshi

Executive Secretary, Bioresources Development and Conservation Programme


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.



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


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


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]

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


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]



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


Ms. Gretchen Gordon Researcher, Indian Law Resource Center United States [email protected]

Ms. Huyen Thi Thu Nguyen

Independent Consultant on FPIC Vietnam [email protected]

Mr. Jesse K. Gerstin Project Manager – Forestry, Clinton Climate Initiative

Indonesia [email protected]

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]

ORGANISERS and SUPPORT STAFFGerman Government*

Mr. Iven Schad Advisor on Forestry, BMZ - Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development


Mr. Martin Ondrejka Advisor on Human Rights, BMZ - Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development


Ms. Ulrike Haupt Head of Environment Division, BMZ - Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development


Mr. Volker Hey Advisor World Bank Division, BMZ - Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development


German Development Cooperation*Ms. Britta Krüger Advisor on Indigenous Issues, GIZ

- Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit


Mr. Peter Saile Advisor, GIZ - Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit


Ms. Ragna John Advisor Forest Governance Program, GIZ - Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit



Ms. Ute Sonntag Advisor REDD for Early Movers Program, GIZ - Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit


Ms. Christiane Ehringhaus

Advisor, KfW - Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau Germany [email protected]

The World Bank Group*Ms. Afshan Khawaja Lead Social Development Specialist, WB Africa

RegionUnited States [email protected]

Ms. Alexandra Bezeredi Regional Safeguards Advisor, WB Africa Region United States [email protected] Mr. Daniel Miller Consultant, PROFOR/WB Forests Team United States [email protected] Ms. Haddy Sey Senior Social Development Specialist, FCPF FMT Thailand [email protected] Mr. Juan Martinez Senior Social Scientist, WB East Asia & Pacific

RegionIndonesia [email protected]

Mr. Julius Thaler Counsel, WB Environmental & International Law Unit


Mr. Kennan Rapp Senior Social Development Specialist, FCPF FMT United States [email protected] Mr. Luis Felipe Duchicela Senior Social Development Specialist, WB

Social Development DepartmentUnited States [email protected]

Ms. Madhavi Pillai Natural Resources Management Specialist, WB FIP


Ms. Miriam Bae Senior Social Development Specialist, WB Latin America & Caribbean Region


Mr. Roger Muchuba Buhereko

Social Specialist Consultant, Africa Region (Francophone countries)


[email protected]

Mr. Simon Whitehouse Acting Coordinator, FCPF, WB Carbon Finance Unit


Mr. Soikan Meitiaki Social Specialist Consultant, Africa Region (Anglophone countries)

Kenya [email protected]

Mr. Stephen Lintner Senior Safeguards Adviser, WB Operational Risk Management Unit


UN Organisations*Ms. Anne Martinussen UN-REDD Regional Stakeholder

Engagement Specialist, African Region, UNDP - United Nations Development Programme

Kenya [email protected]

Ms. Celina Yong UN-REDD Regional Stakeholder Engagement Specialist, Asia-Pacific Region, UNDP - United Nations Development Programme


Mr. Charles McNeill Senior Policy Advisor, Environment and Energy Group, UNDP - United Nations Development Programme


Mr. Christian Mersmann Special Advisor on REDD+, FAO - Food and Agriculture Organisation


Ms. Gaya Sriskanthan Advisor on Stakeholder Engagement, UNDP – United Nations Development Programme



Ms. Jennifer Laughlin Advisor on Stakeholder Engagement, UNDP – United Nations Development Programme


Mr. Jose Arturo Santos UN-REDD Regional Stakeholder Engagement Specialist, Latin America & Caribbean Region, UNDP - United Nations Development Programme

Panama [email protected]

Ms. Patricia Serrano UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme

Ecuador [email protected]

Workshop ModeratorsMr. Dr. Jürgen Blaser Prof. of Forestry and Consultant on

Climate Change and ForestrySwitzerland [email protected]

Ms. Susanne Willner Independent Consultant and Moderator


Ms. Victoria Tauli-Corpuz Executive Director, Tebtebba - Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre

Philippines [email protected]; [email protected]

Workshop InterpretersMs. Ana Hernanz Independent Interpreter Germany [email protected]. Aude-Valérie Monfort Independent Interpreter Germany [email protected] Ms. Cathrine Gay Independent Interpreter Germany [email protected]. Ignacio Hermo Independent Interpreter Germany [email protected]

Workshop LogisticsMs. Annika Korte Workshop Secretariat (Coordinator) Germany [email protected] Ms. Corina Ungeheuer Workshop Secretariat Germany [email protected]. Janin Kriesel Workshop Secretariat Germany [email protected]. Kirstin Hücking Workshop Secretariat Germany [email protected]. Nico Wittmann Workshop Secretariat Germany [email protected]


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

incl. coffee break

Exhibition of Perspectives 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

incl. coffee break

Lessons from the ground

Local participation in REDD+/natural resource governance processes

a. Input by regional input paper authors

■■ Africa (Steve Nsita, Christian Mersmann)

■■ Asia (Lisa Ogle, Celina Yong)

■■ Latin America (Sébastien Snoeck)

b. Regional groups work on specific questions

17:30 End of Day 1

17.30 Institutional working group Representatives of BMZ/BMU, FCPF, WB and UN-REDD meet to share their insights from the working groups

19.00 Evening Reception

Day 2: National-Level Participation and National Enabling Environment


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”

Birgitte Feiring: presentation of main findings of Input Paper I

10.45 Coffee break



11.15 Guidance / Orientation for viable, legitimate and effective national-level 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

Open Space

Topic framework for all open space workshops: enabling conditions for participation of IP in REDD+

e.g. IP representation, land tenure, overarching governance structures etc.

16:00 Coffee break

16.30 Open Space News Rapporteurs of workshop report back to plenary

17:00 End of Day 2

19.00 Boat tour and/or visit of historical city centre

Day 3: Synthesis of Findings and Key Messages


9.00 The way forward

Keys to full, effective and feasible IP participation in REDD+ - an appeal for constructive solutions

a. Interview with Joan Carling, Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Pact (AIPP)

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


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)

Guidelines on Participation

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.



http://www.un-redd.org/Newsletter39/FPIC_GuidelinesLaunch/tabid/129671/Default.aspx

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/EXTOPMANUAL/0,,contentMDK:20553653~menuPK:4564185~pagePK:64709096~piPK:64709108~theSitePK:502184,00.html

http://www.redd-monitor.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Accra-report-vol-3_eng_final.pdf

http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/annual-reports/report-to-the-human-rights-council-a-hrc-12-34-14-july-2009

http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/annual-reports/report-to-the-human-rights-council-a-hrc-12-34-14-july-2009

http://www.redd-monitor.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-09-REDD-Principles-ENG-FINAL-Ref.pdf

http://www.redd-monitor.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-09-REDD-Principles-ENG-FINAL-Ref.pdf


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

http://www.piplinks.org/report%3A-making-free-prior-%2526amp%3B-informed-consent-reality-indigenous-peoples-and-extractive-sector

http://www.piplinks.org/report%3A-making-free-prior-%2526amp%3B-informed-consent-reality-indigenous-peoples-and-extractive-sector

http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/june2013/FCPF R-Package User Guide ENG 6-18-13 web.pdf


Cover photos: Top left: J. Kriesel/GIZ; U. Sonntag/GIZ; J. Kriesel/GIZ; U. Sonntag/GIZInterior Photos: p. 3: Sebastian Koch; p. 6: L.Wahl/GIZBack photo: GIZ

UN-REDD P R O G R A M M E

Website: www.forestcarbonpartnership.orgEmail: [email protected]

Website: www.un-redd.orgEmail: [email protected]: http://unredd.wordpress.comFollow us on Twitter and YouTube



Website: www.bmz.deEmail: [email protected]

PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO ENSURING THE FULL AND … · of guidelines such as the FCPF/UN-REDD...

Documents

Transcript of PRACTICAL APPROACHES TO ENSURING THE FULL AND … · of guidelines such as the FCPF/UN-REDD...