REDD+
safeguards
from field
experiences

Photo 14.2” x 10.31”
Positionx: 4.36”, y: .18”

Photo 2
5.51” x 10.31”
Positionx: 8.53”, y: .18”

REDD+ safeguards
Relationship between REDD+ and Aichi
Biodiversity Targets

Target 11
Expand protected
areas

Target 12
Avoid extinction

REDD+
Target 5
Prevent habitat
loss

Photo 14.2” x 10.31”
Positionx: 8.74”, y: .18”

Target 3

Target 20

Target 17

Incentives

Fin. resources

NBSAP

Separable?
REDD+ under UNFCCC
vs.
Forest = important system ofbiodiversity under CBDNBSAP
REDD+SIS
Photo 14.2” x 10.31”
Positionx: 8.74”, y: .18”

Precision

REDD+MRV
underUNFCCC
Monitoring under CBD (esp. Aichi Target 5)
REDD+ Safeguards as demanded under UNFCCC
Forest Savanna Grassland Wetland Farmland Urban

Ecosystem types

Multiple benefits
Climate Change•Emission fromdeforestation/degradation
reduced•Carbon sequestered byecosystems

Biodiversity•Habitats conserved•Priority area
protected/restored
Photo 14.2” x 10.31”
Positionx: 8.74”, y: .18”

Communities•Sustainable use•Employment•Ecosystem services•Disaster mitigation

Standards
as guide for effective project development andimplementations

Photo 14.2” x 10.31”
Positionx: 8.74”, y: .18”

What is the CCBA?
MissionTo stimulate and promote land management activities that credibly mitigate
global climate change, improve the wellbeing and reduce the poverty of local
communities, and conserve biodiversity.

Members

For agriculture, forestry and other land use site-based carbon projects :For government-led programs of policies and measures to reduce
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+): Define ‘without project’ referencescenario and theory of change for carbon,communities and biodiversity
 High conservation values
 Rights-based approach Assess positive and negative impacts
 Demonstrate net positive benefits
 Optional Gold Levels
 Independent audit to validate design andverify results Successful verification enables issuanceof credits with a ‘CCB label’

The most widely used multiple-benefit standard• 85 projects validated and 21 verified to CCB Standards in 35 countries• 16% of all credits traded in the voluntary carbon market in 2013 (althoughCCB only used for land-based) – 9.6 million tons, ~ $50 million- Ecosystem Marketplace ‘State of Voluntary Carbon Market 2014’

Philippine
Peñablanca
Photo 14.2”
x 10.31”
Sustainable
Reforestation
ProjectPosition
x: 8.74”, y: .18”

Project site

ManilaPeñablanca Protected
Landscape and SeascapeTuguegarao© All rights reserved by Conservation International

Sustainable Reforestation Model
Sustainable lifeof localcommunities

Measures tocombat
deforestation

Funds for new
reforestation

Nursery

Degradedland
Reforestation FundForest
Part of revenue

Reforestation
Agroforestry

Plant nativespecies

Plant fruittrees

Fruit harvestMaintenanceWeeding
Community meeting
Deforestation
avoidancemeasures
PatrolObjective 6. Project impacts assessment
Planned Target

Actual Results

1.Biodiversity
Increase the individual
number and richness ofkey fauna (Birds andbats) and flora
indicators from Yr 1toYr6

1.1) Monitoring sites established; 6 flora& 3 fauna
Flora: 324 to 361 species recorded
24 endemic
11 threatened species,
5 threatened endemics
Birds: 116 to 141 species recorded
41 to 52 endemics,
2 to 4 threatened endemics
Bats: 15 to19 species recorded
4 to 5 endemics
No threatened endemic1.2) Capacitated the Community
Monitoring Groups (CMGs) during biannual biodiversity monitoring andassessment surveys.

No. of species

Bird species composition• Supports national or jurisdictional REDD+ programs with development of asafeguards information system based on REDD+ SES• Comprises:– REDD+ SES content: principles, criteria and indicators– REDD+ SES process: to use the REDD+ SES at country level• Uses a country-led, multi-stakeholder process• Shows performance = enhancing benefits as well as avoiding harm.
• A voluntary initiative for countries wanting to demonstrate high social andenvironmental performance• Currently 19 jurisdictions from 15 countries participating in REDD+ SES
initiative

Countries using REDD+ SES – at the forefront of REDD+ safeguards
Guatemala•Facilitation team•Multi-stakeholder
committee•Integrated plan for REDD+SES & SESA

Mexico, Jalisco &Yucatan Peninsula•Facilitation team•Multi-stakeholder
committee

Costa Rica
• Multi-stakeholder committee• Developing indicators
Peru, SanMartin•Facilitationteam &technicaladvisory group•Developingindicators
Ecuador•Facilitation team•Multi-stakeholder
advisory group•Piloted draft indicatorsand currently revisingindicators and developing
monitoring plan

Brazil, Acre
•Facilitation team•Multi-stakeholder
committee•Country-specificindicators•Monitoring manual•Assessment report
review by stakeholders
Brazil, Amazonas &Mato Grosso• Facilitation team

Nepal
•Facilitation team and technicalworking group•Multi-stakeholder committee•Country-specific indicators•Developing monitoring plan
Liberia•Facilitation team•Multi-stakeholder
committee

East Kalimantan•Facilitation team•Multi-stakeholder
committee•Developing indicators

DRC•Draft country
specific safeguardsTanzania•Facilitation team•Multistakeholder
committee•Country specificindicators

Chile• Facilitation team
• Multi-stakeholder committee• Integrated plan for REDD+ SES & SESA

Central Kalimantan•Facilitation team•Multi-stakeholder committee•Country-specific indicators•Developing monitoring plan
•Collecting and analyzing
informationDifferent levels of use ofREDD+ SES
1. REDD+ SES as good practice guidance–Using some elements of REDD+ SES
content and process as good practiceguidance for SIS

2. REDD+ SES as the basis for Safeguards–Using REDD+ SES content and process asthe basis for SIS, but with substantialvariations

3. REDD+ SES as a quality assurance
standard–Using REDD+ SES content and process withonly minor variations (fully applyingREDD+ SES)

1.Define the scope of the Safeguards Information SystemEcuador case study
Progress• Used REDD+ SES as a pilot 2010-2012• From 2013 developed new indicators based on national interpretation ofCancun safeguards using REDD+ SES and UN-REDD SEPC as inputs
Challenges and lessons learned•

Hard to design SIS before a clear national REDD+ strategy•Started with multi-stakeholder (government and civil society) body to oversee
use of REDD+ SES, but changed to a stakeholder group with broad advisory role.
This reduced stakeholder participation in design of SIS and caused frustrations.

•Linked Cancun safeguards f and g on mitigation effectiveness with MRV ofcarbon

3. Establish governance and institutionalarrangements for the SIS

Mexico case study
Progress• Have created institutional framework and national REDD+ strategy and now
developing national safeguards approach and SIS• Using REDD+ SES as a pilot in three states of Yucatan Peninsula
Challenges and lessons learned•

Challenge to link state process with national approach, and ensure participation ofState actors are national level•

Need to include all relevant actors, particularly community representatives, in multistakeholder body, building on and integrating with existing participatory platforms•

Use a participatory process that helps stakeholders to identify potential risks thatindicators should address•

Establish a facilitation team to ensure that process follows local timing andcommunication channels

4. Identify indicators

Peru case studyProgress•Using REDD+ SES as a pilot in San Martin region•Facilitation team includes Govt of San Martin, Environment Ministry, CI•

Developed a methodology and training module for interpretation of indicators

Challenges and lessons learned•

Difficult to get agreement on methodology for indicators, so provided capacity
building (what is an indicator?) and involved the multi-stakeholder group in
defining the methodology•

Developed a version that is easy to use for marginalized groups, so that allgroups know how they can participate

5. Plan collection and analysis of information

Indonesia case studyProgress• Using REDD+ SES in Provinces of Central and East Kalimantan• Have defined indicators, developed a monitoring plan and collected information
at two sample sites
Challenges and lessons learned•

Designing organizational structure and flow of information for monitoring wasimportant and took a long time•

Monitoring plan defined what information is collected, using what methods,
when and by whom•

Defined opportunities and procedures for communities and other stakeholders
to participate in monitoring•

Gave the same committee responsibility for overseeing MRV and SIS

6. Define reporting and use of information

Brazil case study
Progress•State of Acre has been using REDD+ SES since 2010 to monitor the social andenvironmental quality of the State System for Incentives for Ecosystem Services•

They have developed indicators, collected information, created a draft report,
undergoing review by stakeholders, and an action plan to address gaps

Challenges and lessons learned•

Created a multi-stakeholder committee (equal government and civil society) thatreports to larger multi-stakeholder councils to guarrantee effective stakeholder
participation in overseeing SIS•

Created a new Indigenous Working Group since they were not included in existing
multi-stakeholder bodies•

Ensure transparency by publishing all plans, reports and action plan and requesting
stakeholder comments, online and in workshops

Some general lessons learned•

Importance of a country-led SIS– Interpret safeguards based on risks and opportunities of national REDD+ strategy– Ensure SIS provides information to improve REDD+ program implementation and build politicalsupport•

Importance of a multi-stakeholder approach to SIS– Start with comprehensive stakeholder mapping– Provide capacity building to help stakeholders engage– Establish a facilitation team that includes government and civil society, to ensure the agreed
process is followed– Establish a multi-stakeholder committee to review and approve indicators and assessment ofprogress•

Importance of tailoring indicators to local context– Assess existing sources of information– Indicators must be feasible and match capacity– Prioritise a sub-set of indicators for each assessment cycle•

Importance of integrating sub-national to national SIS– Sub-national level ensures safeguards information reflects local realities and enables
stakeholder participation– Need to create link with national level through appropriate institutional arrangements

• Framework is there• Information used to assess progress
towards Aichi Targets can be used forREDD+ safegaurds• Coordination between conventions
important

Photo 14.2” x 10.31”
Positionx: 8.74”, y: .18”

Thank you!

Photo 14.2” x 10.31”
Positionx: 8.74”, y: .18”