ISBN：978-4-905304-75-3

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation andforest Degradation and the Role of Conservation,
Sustainable Management of Forests and Enhancement

COOKBOOK
ANNEX

Research Manual Vol. 3
Social Safeguards
TAKUYA FURUKAWA, SEIJI IWANAGA, KIMIKO OKABE & MIKI TODA

Research achievement of the 4th mid-term plan 5 (Forest Management Technology-5)

Preface
The basic concept of REDD-plus is to provide economic incentives such as funding or
credits to developing countries for REDD activities (reducing emissions from deforestationand forest degradation) and “plus” activities (reducing CO2 emissions and CO2 levels in theatmosphere by carbon sequestration). Thus, in order to estimate the changes in the amountof carbon stored in forests, monitoring using scientific approach is essential.
The REDD Research and Development Center, Forestry and Forest Products ResearchInstitute compiled the “REDD-plus Cookbook” (hereinafter referred to as the Cookbook) in
2012; an easy-to-understand technical manual covering basic knowledge and techniques
required for REDD-plus with the main focus on forest carbon monitoring. In the Cookbook,knowledge and techniques required for REDD-plus were compiled in units called “Recipe.” Itsmain intended readers included policy makers, practitioners and experts working on REDDplus implementation and field activities.
As the Cookbook focused on the basic knowledge and techniques required for REDDplus, detailed information supporting on-site activities was not necessarily covered. Thus,
we decided to publish a series of technical manuals called the “REDD-plus Cookbook
Annex” with detailed and practical information of each “Recipe.” In this manual, fundamental
concepts to address and respect safeguards are explained. This manual is intended to be
used as a textbook for capacity building, and we recommend to read it in conjunction with
the Cookbook.
We hope this manual will contribute to the promotion of REDD-plus in many parts of theworld.

March, 2017
REDD Research and Development Center
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute (FFPRI)

ブック 1.indb

1

2017/02/23

18:48:18

Contents
1 Outline

1

1.1 Purpose of Cookbook ANNEX (Vol. 3)

1

1.2 Recipes covered by Cookbook Annex (Vol. 3)

1

1.3 What are REDD-plus safeguards?

1

1.4 REDD-plus safeguards under the Cancun Agreement

2

2 Social safeguards
2.1 Cancun Safeguard (c)

3
3

		

2.1.1 Indigenous peoples

4		

2.1.2 Local communities5		

2.1.3 Vulnerable groups5		2.1.4 Knowledge

6		2.1.5 FPIC

6

		2.1.6 Rights8		

2.1.7 Rights to lands and resources9		2.1.8 Human rights

10

		

11

2.1.9 Equitable benefit sharing

2.2 Cancun Safeguard (d)12		2.2.1 Stakeholders

13		

2.2.2 Full and effective participation

14		

2.2.3 Information sharing / Access to information17

		2.2.4 Consultation

17

		

18

2.2.5 Collaboration and joint decision making

		2.2.6 Empowerment

18

		

19

2.2.7 Grievance mechanism and conflict resolution

2.3 Cancun Safeguard (e)		

2.3.1 Enhancement of social and environmental benefits

21
21

3 References

23

4 Reference regulations

24

5 Notes 		

24

ブック 1.indb

3

2017/02/23

18:48:18

REDD-plus COOKBOOK ANNEX

1 Outline■ 1.1 Purpose of Cookbook ANNEX (Vol. 3)
The REDD-plus Cookbook, which was compiled in 2012 by the Forestry and Forest Products
Research Institute, is an easy-to-understand technical manual on basic knowledge and techniques required for REDD-plus. This REDD-plus Cookbook ANNEX Vol. 3 explains REDD-plus
safeguards with a focus on social aspects that are roughly outlined in the Cookbook. The explanations take into account differences in national circumstances and include considerations thatmight be necessary when developing and implementing REDD-plus. Annex Vol. 3 is intended
for project developers (and potential developers), but we hope students who are studying forest
sociology and NGOs interested in REDD-plus also ﬁnd it useful.

■ 1.2 Recipes covered by Cookbook Annex (Vol. 3)This annex complements the explanations on safeguards provided in the REDD-plus
Cookbook. Recipes covered by the Cookbook are shown in [] for reference. Also, de-tailed information on safeguards is provided in “Guidebook for REDD+ Safeguards” (compiledby the REDD-plus Safeguards Research Project commissioned by the Forestry Agency; inJapanese; http://www.maff.go.jp/j/kokusai/kokkyo/yosan/pdf/sg_guide.pdf), which this annex
will also complement.

■ 1.3 What are REDD-plus safeguards?
The basic concept of safeguards was ﬁrst proposed at the Declaration on Human
Environment adopted by the United Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment held
in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972 and then developed as the bases for investment in the WorldBank and other organizations since the 1980s (Davis et al. 2013). The fundamental principles
are to “conserve the effects of measures” and to “do no harm,” but safeguards could also
include expectations to further contribute to various social, economic, and environmental
aspects of REDD-plus. REDD-plus safeguards are often classiﬁed into two categories: social
safeguards and environmental safeguards. Another common classiﬁcation provides three
categories: the development of forest governance, the conservation of biological diversity, andthe considerations for indigenous peoples and members of local communities (Source: The
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, REDD Research and Development Center)[See Recipe-P03, page 38].
<Key points of REDD-plus safeguards>
・ Safeguards are requirements to be met when implementing REDD-plus activities to prevent
negative social, economic, and environmental impacts and to reduce any risks that could
undermine climate change mitigation measures.
・ Under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), countries are required1

ブック 1.indb

1

2017/02/23

18:48:19

Vol.3 Social Safeguards

to promote and support the safeguards throughout the implementation of REDD-plus activities and provide a summary of information. National circumstances should be taken into
account when determining the speciﬁc contents of the information and criteria and indicatorsfor identifying the achievements.
・ Information on effective approaches and methods of setting objectives for safeguards is
expected to be updated based on analyses of REDD-plus activities in the near future.

■ 1.4 REDD-plus safeguards under the Cancun Agreement
The 16th Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP16) of UNFCCC held in Cancun,
Mexico, in 2010 was an important turning point for REDD-plus. The seven items of REDDplus safeguards that should be taken into consideration when implementing REDD-plus (seebelow) were identiﬁed in the so-called Cancun Agreement. Since then, these safeguards
have been perceived as the fundamental requirements when implementing REDD-plus at thenational level [See Recipe-P03, page 38].
The seven safeguards identiﬁed in the Cancun Agreement (Cancun Safeguards) (1/CP.16,
Paragraph 2 of Appendix I) are the following:(a) That actions complement or are consistent with the objectives of national forest programmes
and relevant international conventions and agreements;(b) Transparent and effective national forest governance structures, taking into account national
legislation and sovereignty;(c) Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, by taking into account relevant international obligations, national circumstances, andlaws, and noting that the United Nations General Assembly has adopted the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [UNDRIP]1;(d) The full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular indigenous peoples
and local communities, in the actions referred to in paragraphs 70 and 72 of this decision2;(e) That actions are consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biological diversity,
ensuring that the actions referred to in paragraph 70 of this decision are not used for the conversion of natural forests, but are instead used to incentivize the protection and conservationof natural forests and their ecosystem services, and to enhance other social and environmental
beneﬁts3;(f) Actions to address the risks of reversals;(g) Actions to reduce displacement of emissions.
1 UNDRIP deﬁnes the individual and collective rights of indigenous peoples. UNDRIP also emphasizes
to respect their customary laws, cultures, and traditions and to seek the development of their livelihood. UNDRIP is not legally binding, but it is noted here based on its international support.
2 Activities for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, as well as conservation,
sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
3 “Taking into account the need for sustainable livelihoods of indigenous peoples and local communities
and their interdependence on forests in most countries, reﬂected in the United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as the International Mother Earth Day.” (1/CP.16, Footnoteof Paragaraph 2(e), Appendix I)

2

ブック 1.indb

2

2017/02/23

18:48:19

REDD-plus COOKBOOK ANNEX

2 Social safeguards
Among the seven Cancun Safeguards, items (c) and (d) are categorized as social safeguards(Table 1) because these two items focus on the stakeholders who engage in REDD-plus activities, particularly indigenous peoples and members of local communities. Cancun Safeguard(e) also places importance on indigenous peoples and members of local communities. Thus,
this annex will focus on Cancun Safeguards (c), (d), and (e) (Table 1). [See Recipe-P03, pages
39 and 40]
Table 1. Categorization of Safeguards in the Cookbook and the focus of this annex

Cancun Safeguards Item

Category(a)(b)

Forest governance

(c)
(d)

Social safeguards(e)Environmental and social safeguards

(f)
(g)

Climate change* This annex covers green items only.
Outline and key points of the above three items are explained in the following sections.

■ 2.1 Cancun Safeguard (c)“Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, by taking into account relevant international obligations, national circumstances andlaws, and noting that the United Nations General Assembly has adopted the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” (1/CP.16, Paragraph 2 (c) of Appendix I)
 Outline
Many indigenous peoples and members of local communities live in forests and dependon them for their livelihoods. They are the most vulnerable to the complications of the conservation and sustainability of forests and forest resources. When implementing REDD-plus,
the knowledge of indigenous peoples and members of local communities and the rights tomaintain and protect their knowledge need to be respected. The implementation of REDD-plus
should be based on the agreements and relevant international obligations adopted by eachcountry while noting that UNDRIP was adopted by the UN General Assembly. Furthermore, national circumstances related to the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members

3

ブック 1.indb

3

2017/02/23

18:48:19

Vol.3 Social Safeguardsof local communities and the legal system developed based on these circumstances also need
to be respected.
The traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities has two aspects:
as the cultural heritage of indigenous peoples and as knowledge and practices relevant tothe conservation of ecosystem and the sustainable use of forests. The rights associated with
REDD-plus include the rights to lands and resources; the rights to revitalize, use, develop, andtransmit to future generations their culture and tradition; the rights to property; the legal rights;
the rights to be free from all forms of discrimination; the rights to self-determination; the rights
to equitable distribution of beneﬁts; and free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) as proceduralrights.
2.1.1 Indigenous peoples
In developing countries, indigenous peoples and members of local communities have often
sustainably managed the forest on the basis of their traditional and locally adapted knowledge
on the use of forest resources, including genetic resources. Some countries might have identiﬁed all indigenous peoples who claim their traditional rights and established legal systems
that give them appropriate authority within the national framework. However, some countries
face difﬁculty when identifying indigenous peoples because of issues that may affect national
existence and independence.
In the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169) (ILO169), both objective
and subjective deﬁnitions of indigenous peoples are provided (ILO 2013). The objective deﬁnition includes (i) historical continuity, (ii) territorial connection, and (iii) distinctive and speciﬁcsocial, economic, cultural, and political institutions. The subjective deﬁnition is based oncollective self-identiﬁcation as indigenous peoples. According to UN-REDD and the Forest
Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), these deﬁnitions should be followed in ratifying countries.
UNDRIP speciﬁes that indigenous peoples have the rights to self-determination and “byvirtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic,
social and cultural development” (UNDRIP Article 3). ILO169 and UNDRIP invite countries toestablish national laws to recognize the self-awareness and self-determination of indigenous
peoples. However, the legal status of indigenous peoples varies by country depending onwhether the country ratiﬁes the international convention or whether the national laws are inplace. In addition, conﬂicts over the rights to lands and resources might still take place between
the country and indigenous peoples, between indigenous peoples and the local community,
between different groups of indigenous peoples, and between different origins of peoples inthe same community. Even if individuals or groups claimed their status as indigenous peoples
on the basis of self-awareness, the rights to self-determination as indigenous peoples require
recognition under the national law. As Cancun Safeguard (c) includes “take into account the4

ブック 1.indb

4

2017/02/23

18:48:19

REDD-plus COOKBOOK ANNEX

national circumstances and laws,” those who are referred to as “indigenous peoples” in REDDplus are considered to be groups recognized by countries on the basis of national laws.
2.1.2 Local communities
The deﬁnition of “members of local communities” implies a wide range of people just likeindigenous peoples deﬁned by the subjective deﬁnition. Article 8(j) of the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) states that “indigenous and local communities embodying traditional
lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity” are those
who should be respected when pursuing the conservation and sustainable use of biologicaldiversity. In the Cancun Agreement, “members of local communities” refers to individuals who
may not be recognized as indigenous peoples but should be respected. In addition, membersof local communities and “indigenous peoples” are always written together to suggest that therights and knowledge of these people be respected, while at the same time they are obliged tofollow national sovereignty and national laws (Cancun Safeguard (b)). In this case, “membersof local communities” means not only individuals who have been recognized as indigenous
peoples by the national laws, but as groups that have lived in the land traditionally or over acertain period of time and rely on the land or watershed for long time rather than all people
living in a certain area. Furthermore, the guidance of the expert group meeting on Article 8(j) of
the CBD (UNEP/CBD/AHEG/LCR/1/2) recognizes that members of local communities are notlimited to individuals or group of people who have legal personality and collective legal rights
recognized by the nation.
Issues regarding indigenous peoples and members of local communities may develop intoa regional conﬂict or an independence issue if not handled appropriately. Therefore, project
developers should bear in mind that REDD-plus could awaken such sensitive matters if not
approached with enough care. Some issues are easily identiﬁable by outsiders, including the
project developers, and some are not. Information on past conﬂicts from more than one local
news source and from more than one local collaborator familiar with the local situation might
be useful. Furthermore, when the problem is too complicated for project developers to handle,
it may be wise to reconsider the project.
2.1.3 Vulnerable groups
Those who need to be respected in a REDD-plus project include all stakeholders in broad
terms (see 2.2 Cancun Safeguard (d)). In particular, indigenous peoples and members of local
communities who have the knowledge and rights relevant to REDD-plus, women, and vulnerable
groups should be respected. People who move seasonally from one place to another like nomads are also included among them. Existing institutions might grant the rights to participation
or decision making to only one sex based on national, local, and religious customs or traditional5

ブック 1.indb

5

2017/02/23

18:48:19

Vol.3 Social Safeguards

culture. Under such circumstances, a gender-sensitive approach would be important to avoid
reinforcing any pre-existing gender discrimination. Furthermore, when different roles, rights,
needs, problems, knowledge, and ability between men and women are not reﬂected in the
project, the low social status and poverty related to gender can be entrenched or even worsen.
This negative impact of the project that might impair expected project outcomes needs to bepre-assessed and avoided. The knowledge and rights of vulnerable groups should also be
respected. “Vulnerable groups” include individuals or groups that have limited access to social,
cultural, and economic or natural assets they depend on for their livelihood, in particular, thosewith physical and intellectual disabilities and those who are in the discriminated class, suchas slaves, and widows, who are left out of the decision making. Indigenous peoples, peopleof discriminated gender, and disadvantaged groups who are not classiﬁed in these categories
are also included. Human rights related to gender and those regarding vulnerable groups havereceived greater attention over the years as reﬂected in the code of conduct in corporations,such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the UN Global Compact4,
and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. REDD-plus should be implemented
recognizing that human rights in corporate activities are a subject of growing concern.
2.1.4 Knowledge
Indigenous peoples and members of local communities possess a wide range of knowledge
that has been inherited by many generations. According to Article 8 (j) of the CBD, knowledge includes innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities. Article 31(1)of UNDRIP states that “[i]ndigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect anddevelop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, aswell as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human andgenetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and ﬂora, oral
traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts.”
Their traditional knowledge has two aspects: as the indigenous cultural heritage that should beprotected and as the important knowledge and technology for the conservation and sustainable use of forest and other ecosystems. The knowledge of traditional medicine, including theuse of medicinal plants, traditional ways of life for forest conservation, plant genetic resources,
spiritual value of the forest, and other importance of ﬂora and fauna, are particularly related to
REDD-plus.
2.1.5 FPICILO169 and UNDRIP recognize that indigenous groups have procedural rights in addition to
4 Corporate sustainability initiative launched by the UN consisting of ten principles in the areas ofhuman rights, labor, the environment, and anti-corruption.

6

ブック 1.indb

6

2017/02/23

18:48:19

REDD-plus COOKBOOK ANNEX

the same right as that of the general public. This right is called FPIC, based on the “Permanent
Forum on Indigenous Issues” reported by the UN Economic and Social Council (E/C.19/2005/3).
According to this report (paragraph 46), the deﬁnitions of “free,” “prior,” and “informed” of FPIC
are as follows:
・ Free should imply that there is no coercion, intimidation or manipulation.
・ Prior should imply that consent has been sought sufﬁciently in advance of any authorization or commencement of activities and that respect is shown for time requirements ofindigenous consultation/consensus processes.
・ Informed should imply that information is provided that covers (at least) the following
aspects:a. The nature, size, pace, reversibility and scope of any proposed project or activity;b. The reason(s) for or purpose(s) of the project and/or activity;c. The duration of the above;d. The locality of areas that will be affected;
e. A preliminary assessment of the likely economic, social, cultural and environmental
impact, including potential risks and fair and equitable beneﬁt-sharing in a context that
respects the precautionary principle;
f. Personnel likely to be involved in the execution of the proposed project (including
indigenous peoples, private sector staff, research institutions, government employees
and others);g. Procedures that the project may entail.
“Consultation” and “participation” are the key components of the process of “consent.”
Consultation needs sufﬁcient time and an effective system for dialogues among relevant stakeholders, and it should be carried out in good faith. Furthermore, “participation” needs to be fulland effective (Cancun Safeguards (d)).
The relevant international laws and UNDRIP recognize the procedural rights in the following
cases:
・ When there are plans of relocating indigenous peoples from their lands or territories (Article
16 of ILO169, Article 10 of UNDRIP);
・ Matters related to indigenous peoples’ cultural, intellectual, religious, and spiritual property
taken in violation of their traditions and customs in their territories (Article 11 of UNDRIP);・ Before the adoption of legislation or administrative policies that affect indigenous peoples(Article 19 of UNDRIP);・ Before the storage or disposal of hazardous materials on indigenous peoples’ lands or territories (Article 29 of UNDRIP);

7

ブック 1.indb

7

2017/02/23

18:48:19

Vol.3 Social Safeguards

・ Before undertaking projects that affect indigenous peoples’ rights to land, territory, andresources, including mining and other utilization or exploitation of resources (Article 32 of
UNDRIP);・ Before accessing genetic resources and traditional knowledge held by indigenous and local
communities (national laws in accordance with Articles 6, 7, and 12 of CBD Nagoya Protocol)
2.1.6 Rights
When starting a REDD-plus project, identifying the geographic extent that will be affected by
the proposed project and engaging potential rights holders as early as possible are necessary
to clarify the rights to be applied (Hite 2014). In particular, mapping the distribution of forest
resources at different levels of administrative units (from national to community boundaries)
and identifying the designated land use areas (e.g., territories of indigenous peoples, protectedareas, and boundaries of common lands) are important (Fig. 1). Among others, the following
information should be identiﬁed in advance: (i) statutory frameworks of forest governanceand land tenure, (ii) customary forest rights (including unwritten ones) of indigenous peoples
and local communities, and (iii) international laws and treaties related to REDD-plus that thehost country is obliged to follow. In addition, conducting an environmental and social impact
assessment in the project area would be effective.

International laws
and treaties
related to REDDplus the hostcountry is obliged
to follow
Statutory
frameworks offorest governanceand land tenure
Customary forest
rights (including
unwritten one) ofindigenous
peoples and local
communities

 Identify overlapping or
inconsistency among the rights
 Identify the basis of the rights

Country

Province

District

VillageCommunity••

Map the distribution of forest
resources at different levels ofadministrative unit (from national
to community boundaries)
Identify designated land use
areas (territories of indigenous
peoples, protected areas, andboundaries of common lands)
Participatory mapping: aneffective means for clarifying
boundaries of the rights between
the adjacent communities

Figure 1 Forest rights at different administrative levels and examples of methods to identify them.

8

ブック 1.indb

8

2017/02/23

18:48:19

REDD-plus COOKBOOK ANNEX

In the next step, analyzing how these laws are applied to the rights holders is important.
By ensuring the participation of relevant stakeholders in accordance with administrative procedures and procedural rights, the project is expected to be carried out without causing any
unnecessary conﬂicts between the relevant rights holders. The rights of women and vulnerable
groups should also be taken into consideration. At this stage, the basis of each right needs to
be clariﬁed, and its relationship should be clariﬁed. Overlapping or inconsistency among therights is often found. These issues are likely to occur when the national and international laws
are not consistent and might take a long time to solve. Thus, careful attention needs to be
paid so that the project does not worsen any conﬂict. Participatory mapping is considered aneffective means of clarifying the boundaries of the rights between adjacent communities (Hite2014). The participatory process may be costly and time consuming, but it will reduce infringement on rights by engaging the rights holders from an early stage of the project. As a result,participation is expected to enhance the permanence of the project and its climate beneﬁts.
When conﬂicts associated with any rights arise, the conﬂicts should be settled through afair and lawful process based on conﬂict resolution measures. Identiﬁcation and clariﬁcation of
the source of rights and the rights holders would aid the implementation of appropriate relief
measures. A spectrum of measures exists to address and resolve disputes according to its
context and complexity; such measures include dialogue, fact ﬁnding and report, mediation,
arbitration, and court order (Hite 2014). Also, an ombudsman or grievance mechanisms (see2.2.7 for details) should be utilized before a dispute rises to a formal judicial case, which isusually costly and time consuming.
2.1.7 Rights to lands and resources
The rights relevant to REDD-plus projects can be categorized into rights to lands and resources (tenure rights) and human rights. Tenure rights are complex, and their systems varyby countries or regions and generally consist of a combination of ﬁve elements, as shown in
Table 2 (Hite 2014).
Table 2 Five rights to lands and resources (Hite 2014)

Category of Rights

Content

AccessRights to access a resource and use it on location without depletion

Withdrawal

Rights to extract a resource without necessarily replenishing it

Exclusion

Rights to control who has access to a resource (closely associatedwith ownership)

Alienation

Rights to sell, transfer, or lease a tenure rightManagement

Rights to regulate or provision the use of a resource

9

ブック 1.indb

9

2017/02/23

18:48:20

Vol.3 Social Safeguards

Each element of tenure rights in the same parcel of land can be possessed by different
individuals or groups. For example, individuals may have the rights to access, while rights
to alienation and management might be held by the government. Tenure rights could bepossessed publicly by the government or privately by individuals, legal entities such as companies, or groups (collective rights) like indigenous peoples. When implementing the project,
identifying who has what rights and who has the authority to impose sanctions against the
infringement of rights is important. The rights to tenure could be granted by the state on thebasis of the constitution or national laws, granted based on customary laws (either written or
unwritten), or enforced by precedent laws decided by the court. When customary laws that are
not recognized by the government in the project area exist, project developers should carefully
examine potential inhibiting factors of the project while taking into account the host country’s
legislations and socially sensitive matters regarding human rights.
Most indigenous peoples have strong relationships with their traditional lands and territories that are often considered sacred or have spiritual value (ILO 2009). ILO169 and UNDRIP
recognize indigenous peoples’ rights to the lands, territories, and resources that they havetraditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used and rights to redress (including restitution)
when any damage has taken place (Article 13–15 of ILO169, Article 25–28 of UNDRIP). No
removal or relocation of the indigenous peoples shall take place without FPIC (Article 16 of
ILO169, Article 10 of UNDRIP). It is important to note that lands can be managed by communities or individuals, corresponding to collective and individual rights, respectively (ILO 2009).
ILO169 and UNDRIP place importance on the promotion and protection of the collective rights
of indigenous peoples to maintain, control, protect, and develop their own practices, customs,
customary laws, and relevant matters recognizing their social, economic, cultural, and politicaldistinctiveness from other members of society (ILO 2009).
2.1.8 Human rights
Human rights consist of substantive rights and procedural rights. Substantive rights imply
the rights to natural resources and cultural and spiritual interests, which include the rights toanti-discrimination, protection of cultural and traditional identity, and equitable beneﬁt sharing.
The procedural rights are called FPIC, and “consultation” and “participation” are particularly
important. What FPIC implies on the ground might vary as the World Bank applies “consultation” for the “C” of FPIC and eases FPIC from consensus building to consulting relevant
stakeholders, while third-party certiﬁcates such as the Climate, Community & Biodiversity
Standards (CCBS) explicitly speciﬁes “C” of FPIC as “consent.” In addition, NGOs sometimes
highlight “the right to veto” to avoid forced participation. When implementing the process of
FPIC, the social stratiﬁcation of the community should be taken into consideration. For example, vulnerable groups (women and slaves class) could be given opportunities to freely talk and10

ブック 1.indb

10

2017/02/23

18:48:20

REDD-plus COOKBOOK ANNEX

discuss separately from the community elite, or a separate FPIC process could be applied to
the youth who might be inﬂuenced by the project in the long run but have limited voice in frontof the elderly.
ILO169 and UNDRIP recognize that human rights of all people, including indigenous peoples, should be respected in a non-discriminatory manner. Article 1 of UNDRIP states that“[i]ndigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals,of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the United
Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law.” This
statement also applies to members of local communities. Article 11 of UNDRIP also recognizes
indigenous peoples’ rights to protect, practice, and revitalize their self-awareness, customs,
traditions, and systems.
2.1.9 Equitable beneﬁt sharing
The CBD invites all member Parties to recognize that indigenous peoples have the right toreceive fair and equitable sharing of beneﬁts derived from the utilization of genetic resourcesand of such knowledge, innovations and practices (Article 8(j) of CBD, Article 7 of CBD Nagoya
Protocol). Beneﬁts may consist of both monetary and non-monetary beneﬁts and may include
up-front payments, milestone payments, payment of royalties, training, education and capacity
building. Individuals or groups who would be affected by the arrangements should have an
active role in its design to accomplish a fair and equitable share of beneﬁts.
Beneﬁt sharing based on carbon rights is also related to the rights to lands and resources.
Depending on the laws and the terms of contract, owners of aboveground forest resources andland holders might hold the rights to receive beneﬁts generated from the carbon stored in trees.
The concept of carbon rights emerged relatively recently, so different rules may apply depending on the legal system of the host country. Beneﬁts generated by the REDD-plus project canbe monetary and non-monetary and are determined by the net proﬁt after deducting the costassociated with the project (Pham et al. 2013). Beneﬁt sharing is considered one of the most
difﬁcult issues in REDD-plus. Some might choose to share beneﬁts according to the amount ofemissions reductions on the basis of the effectiveness and efﬁciency of REDD-plus activities,
while others might prioritize equitable beneﬁt sharing to gain the recognition of the project fromrelevant stakeholders. Different viewpoints and shortcomings of equitable beneﬁt sharing areshown in the following table (Table 3; Pham et al. 2013).

11

ブック 1.indb

11

2017/02/23

18:48:20

Vol.3 Social Safeguards

Table 3 Different viewpoints and shortcomings of equitable benefit sharing (Pham et al. 2013)

Type

Arguments

Benefit sharing based on legal rights to lands and resources. It iseffective when the rights are well defined; however, benefits may be
Benefit sharing
concentrated toward the government and large-scale forest holders.
based on legal rights
Vulnerable groups, including indigenous peoples, members of local
communities, women, and marginalized people, are often excluded.
Benefit sharing toforest stewards

Benefit sharing to those who have conserved forests while reducing
emissions. The benefits are likely allocated to indigenous peoples
and members of local communities whose rights are less respected,
but the additionality of the REDD-plus project is expected to be low,
thereby resulting in less emissions reduction.

Benefit sharing in accordance with the cost burden of REDDplus activities regardless of emissions reductions. When the costburden of REDD-plus activities among stakeholders is clear, theBenefit sharing tothose incurring costs transparency of benefit sharing will increase and investment will bepromoted from the initial stage of the project. However, the efficiency
and effectiveness of emissions reduction might be reduced.
Benefit sharing toeffective facilitators

A fixed amount of benefits will be allocated to stakeholders whotake leadership and promote REDD-plus activities, such as thegovernment or project developers. This may promote the projectfrom the initial stage, but determining if the return is fair and worth
the risk of project failure is difficult.

■ 2.2 Cancun Safeguard (d)“Full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders related to activities referred to in
Paragraph 70 and 72 of this Decision” (1/CP.16, Paragraph 2(d) of Appendix I)
 Outline
Cancun Safeguard (d) emphasizes the importance of establishing a system that will ensure
full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, especially indigenous peoples andmembers of local communities who depend on forests for their livelihoods, when implementing
the ﬁve REDD-plus activities referred to in Articles 70 and 72 of the Cancun Agreement (1/CP.16). “Stakeholders” refer to individuals who are deeply related to the forest, for example,
those who have the rights under national laws or contracts, those who do not have suchrights but depend on the forest for their livelihoods in the project area, and those who havecustomarily used the forest. With respect to “full and effective participation of stakeholders,”
due consideration should be given to access to information through an appropriate language
and method, consultations, appropriate opportunities for cooperation and decision making,consensus building, as well as grievance mechanisms, conﬂict resolution measures, and access to judicial mechanisms.
Effective stakeholder participation in all stages of the project is essential for achieving

12

ブック 1.indb

12

2017/02/23

18:48:20

REDD-plus COOKBOOK ANNEX

concordance with international development goals and environmental actions. More recently,
it is considered a fundamental element for transparent and democratic governance (Roe et al.
2013). Reﬂecting a number of past failures of top-down decision making in forest management,“participation” is often considered necessary and important, but this idea may not always hold.
Cases of forced participation against people’s will, participation without access to decision
making, and management failure resulting from the “Tragedy of the Commons5” exist (Sato
2003). Nonetheless, stakeholder participation is expected to produce various beneﬁts, such as
securing transparency and improving social trust, preventing people who are left out of decision making from being ignored, enhancing empowerment of stakeholders (over the decision
making of REDD-plus project; see below), effectively responding to the needs and prioritiesof the community, and increasing people’s awareness (Reed 2008). In other words, effective
participation is promoted by such actions.
2.2.1 Stakeholders“Stakeholders” imply not only individuals who have the rights under the laws but also all individuals who are involved in the project regardless of legal rights. FCPF/UNREDD Programme(2012) deﬁnes stakeholders “as those groups that have a stake/interest/right in the forest andthose that will be affected either negatively or positively by REDD+ activities.” Stakeholders
of a REDD-plus project include relevant government agencies, forest users (both formal andinformal), the private sector, indigenous peoples, and members of local communities who
depend on the forest. Women, children, the youth, and vulnerable people are also considered
stakeholders.
Relevant stakeholders include all people living in the locality. To prevent displacement ofemissions (i.e., leakage), people living in the buffer zone of the project should also be included.
Also, nomadic people who occasionally use the forest and urban people who take an interestin the project can be included in “stakeholders” (Figure 2).
According to the UN Environment Programme, those who are not the target of REDD-plus,
such as local authorities, farmers, labor union, businesses, NGOs, and scientists/experts, canbe potential stakeholders (UNEP 2013). Stakeholders can include “anybody who wants to be”(NOAA Coastal Services Center 2007), encompassing a wide range of people who are likely tobe affected by the project and those who take interest. Nonetheless, forest-dependent communities living in the project area, especially vulnerable groups and those who are susceptible
to negative impacts of the project, should be given explicit explanations regarding obligations
and the rights that arise from being stakeholders.
5 “Tragedy of the Commons” occurs when individuals pursue the greatest beneﬁt from the common
resource on a ﬁrst-come, ﬁrst-served basis, thereby leading to overexploitation and depletion of theresource.

13

ブック 1.indb

13

2017/02/23

18:48:20

Vol.3 Social Safeguards

Definition of stakeholder: People with statutory rights to  Interested party
the forest
 People who will be affected People who have concerns
by REDD-plus activities
Stakeholders
REDD-plus
Stakeholders
•
•
•
•
•
•

Government agencies
Formal and informal forest users
Private sector entities
Indigenous peoples
Other communities depending
on forests
Women, children, the youth, andvulnerable groups
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Local authority
Farmers
Labor union
Businesses
NGOs
Scientist/Experts
Non REDD-plus
stakeholders

Urban people who take interest in the project
People who live in buffer zones
Nomadic people

Figure 2 Definition and scope of stakeholders(based on FCPF/UN-REDD Programme 2012; UNEP 2013).

2.2.2 Full and effective participation
REDD+SES (2012) states that “‘[f]ull and effective participation’ means meaningful inﬂuenceof all relevant rights holders and stakeholders who want to be involved throughout the process,and includes consultation and free, prior and informed consent.” The Rio Declaration stresses
the need to respect traditional decision making and political system and to provide access6 tothe legal procedure in its process (information sharing, consultations, and FPIC).
Full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders does not mean just to give an “opportunity” of participation, such as in a meeting. It is a process of ensuring that stakeholders areable to voice their opinions during consultations, that stakeholders are able to inﬂuence decision
making, and that stakeholders have the capacity to engage in effective decision making (Reed2008) (However, engagement of stakeholders in the decision-making process is a difﬁcult taskeven in developed countries). Education to acquire the necessary knowledge and to cultivate
conﬁdence is imperative for meaningful participation. A phased approach for stakeholder participation includes (i) information sharing, (ii) consultation, (iii) collaboration, (iv) joint decision
making, and (v) empowerment (Foti et al. 2008; Daviet 2011) (see 2.2.3–2.2.6 for details).
In addition to consideration for indigenous peoples and members of local communities
referred to in Cancun Safeguard (c), further consideration is needed for a wide range of stakeholders in the context of “participation.” The participation of relevant stakeholders would allow
6 Effective access to legal and administrative procedures, including compensation and remedy.
Grievance mechanisms and conﬂict resolution measures are particularly relevant to REDD-plus.

14

ブック 1.indb

14

2017/02/23

18:48:20

REDD-plus COOKBOOK ANNEX

individuals who are not granted the rights under the national laws or customary laws to beincorporated. Also, incorporating people who are likely to be affected by the project and those
who take interest could reduce risks of leakage.
When developing a project, one should ﬁrst think thoroughly of those who are participating.
Some could be indigenous peoples with statutory recognition, and others without. As explainedin the section on Cancun Safeguard (c), project developers need to identify any claims regarding legal or customary rights of individuals or collectives and any conﬂicts over forest rights
in the project area so that the project can take necessary measures (Figure 3). Participatory
approaches such as “transect walk” and “participatory observation” could be useful (see JICA

Stakeholders
People who have the rights under the nationallaws or contracts
People who do not have the rights but depend on
the forest for their livelihoods in the project area
People who live in the buffer zone of the project toprevent leakage
Project developers need to identify if any people
are not granted statutory rights they claim to holdand to confirm whether there have been conflicts
over the rights in the project area
When issues are identified, how should they be respected?

Respect indigenous peoples and members of local
communities• Take power balance among stakeholders into account• Enable vulnerable people to participate in information
sharing, grievance mechanisms, conflict resolution, FPIC,
and decision-making
 Access to information through appropriate language andmethods
 Participation in consultations
 Appropriate opportunities to cooperate and decisionmaking
 Participation in decision-making
 Grievance mechanisms, conflict resolution measures andaccess to judicial mechanisms•

Methods••

Participatory poverty mapping and listing
Participatory research and learning methods

Figure 3 Steps for full and effective participation.

15

ブック 1.indb

15

2017/02/23

18:48:20

Vol.3 Social Safeguards

Participating
peopleIndigenous
Peoples

Members of
localcommunities

Vulnerable
people or groups

People whoneed particularrespect

Figure 4 People to be respected in “participation.”(2007) for details of the methods). Indigenous peoples, members of local communities, andvulnerable groups (women and vulnerable people or groups who suffer from discrimination anddetriment) referred to in Cancun Safeguard (c) in particular should be taken into consideration(Figure 4). The use of appropriate language and communication methods is required for thesepeople to participate in information sharing, grievance mechanisms, conﬂict resolutions, FPIC,
and decision making. The power balance among stakeholders is often biased, and projects areencouraged to particularly respect those who are discriminated against, such as indigenous
peoples, members of local communities, and vulnerable people and groups, as well as inequality among gender and age groups. Participatory poverty mapping and listing are also effective
measures. Utilizing participatory research and participatory learning methods such as trips tothe project site by small groups of experts with different professions, as well as using visualteaching aids and providing pointers or markers to those who are most vulnerable during community consultation are crucial for stakeholders with diverse backgrounds to be able to voice
their opinions, exchange opinions, and build a relationship of mutual trust (Chambers 1994a,b; Sato 2003). Many participatory approaches, including participatory workshop (participatory
learning methods), have been developed as an effective tool. The key to participatory approachis that participants are voluntarily involved in the dialogues to identify the problems and maketheir own decision without the inﬂuence of external actors. The details of the approach are
shown in “Methods and instructions of social research” (JICA 2007; especially method of
module B-2 social research). Participation by a wide range of stakeholders is expected tocreate adaptive decisions and lead to more socially and environmentally conscious decision
making (Reed 2008).
To ensure effective participation, participation in the project from an early stage (from theconcept building or planning of the project) is important (Reed 2008). However, in many cases,
stakeholders are allowed to participate only in the decision-making process of the implementation phase. To facilitate participation in an early stage, improving stakeholders’ understanding is crucial. If the stakeholders’ awareness has improved through national or sub-national16

ブック 1.indb

16

2017/02/23

18:48:21

REDD-plus COOKBOOK ANNEX

REDD-plus readiness phase, then project developers could take advantage of this opportunity.
An increasing trend of stakeholder participation with the progression of a project has been
observed, especially in the evaluation stage, including monitoring. Full and effective participation in decision making requires stakeholder participation in all stages of the project, including
concept development, planning, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.
2.2.3 Information sharing, access to information
Information sharing is the most important component for effective stakeholder participation.
The right to access to information is recognized as a basic right under a number of international
conventions and regional agreements, and the provision of access to information is recognized
as a public duty. The purpose of information sharing is to secure transparency and to promote
legitimacy of the project.
To promote participation from the early stage of a project, information sharing and disclosure
should be carried out with respect to indigenous peoples and members of local communities
as they do not necessarily understand the importance of stakeholder participation, including
the rights to access to information. Information relevant to the project should be disclosed
at an early stage and over a wide area. The target areas for providing information should bedetermined with support from someone from the host country or project area who is familiar
with the locality. All information related to project activities, such as a summary of the proposed
activity, compliance with national and international laws, duration and schedule of the activities,
contact address, areas and communities that will be affected by the project, environmental,social, and cultural impacts that may be posed by project activities, and availability of public
consultations, should be provided (The secretariat of CBD 2004). Information can be provided
through the internet, newsletters, press release, and announcements. In addition, information
should be provided through culturally appropriate methods (using local languages and throughappropriate communicators) for effective participation. Communication through representatives elected by stakeholders based on customary decision making processes might be anecessary part of stakeholder participation.
2.2.4 Consultations
Consultation is the next step after the setup of relevant information sharing measures toward
decision making. Unlike information sharing, which is a one-way ﬂow of information from the
project developer to the stakeholders, both parties exchange information and opinions in
consultation. Consultation will not only help the process of consensus building, but also support the appropriate implementation of a sustainable project. Consultation with stakeholders,
particularly indigenous peoples and members of local communities, is essential and should befree from gender discrimination.

17

ブック 1.indb

17

2017/02/23

18:48:21

Vol.3 Social Safeguards

As stated in the section on Cancun Safeguard (c), “consultation” is different from the “C” of
FPIC, which stands for “consent.” Consultation is considered essential in all stages of the project and is especially important in areas where consensus building is expected to be difﬁcult.
Exchanging ideas and views with stakeholders is important rather than providing a one-sided
explanation from the project developer. Although participation is important for the success ofa project, stakeholders have the right not to participate or agree in each stage of participation.
Prior explanation and consensus building processes are important; as in the past, a case occurred in which stakeholders who felt they were deprived of their rights and property set ﬁre on
the project area forest out of spite.
2.2.5 Collaboration and joint decision making
Collaboration means not only receiving feedback from stakeholders in problem solving,planning, monitoring, and evaluation, but also inviting stakeholders to be involved in theseprocesses. When collaboration extends to decision making, it is called joint decision making
and is one step advanced than collaboration.
Collaboration is a stage where project developers still dominate decision making. Stakeholder
participation in project activities or monitoring is an example of collaboration. Participatory
monitoring is not only sought in safeguard monitoring, but is often carried out in carbon monitoring depending on the situation in each host country. Joint decision making is particularly
useful when stakeholders’ knowledge, ability, and experience are needed to achieve the objectives of the project, for example, when selecting a sustainable forest management approach
suitable for the locality (Daviet 2011).
2.2.6 Empowerment
Empowerment in REDD-plus is to transfer the rights to decision making and control overresources and project activities from project developers to stakeholders. This process is effective when members other than the project developer are able to independently achieve theobjectives of the project according to their own interests without the intervention and supervision of the government. Transfer of power is not the main purpose of a REDD-plus project,but it could be held as a complementary objective to lead stakeholders in the host country to
independently implement REDD-plus.
Capacity building to promote understanding and technology acquisition is needed for thoseto whom the power will be transferred. The transfer of power is better discussed from the
beginning of the project in some cases, and in other cases, it is better discussed in the courseof the project. The former process is effective when stakeholders have sufﬁcient capacity andwhen a good relationship exists between the project developer and stakeholders, including
the government. However, stakeholders are expected to understand that REDD-plus activities18

ブック 1.indb

18

2017/02/23

18:48:21

REDD-plus COOKBOOK ANNEX

may involve risks and that negative impacts that may be posed by project activities need tobe addressed. Without this understanding, the risks of reversal or displacement of emissions
will arise.
2.2.7 Grievance mechanism and conﬂict resolution
Grievance mechanism in REDD-plus includes a system for accepting and processing claims
before they develop into a court dispute, as well as general measures to address conﬂicts
between more than two parties (Rey et al. 2013). Generally, conﬂict resolution refers to a process of solving a dispute once it has developed from an unresolved claim received througha grievance mechanism until it is solved legally through the court. However, distinguishing
between grievance and conﬂict is not always easy. Grievance refers to a claim that reﬂects
one side of the involved parties. A well-organized grievance mechanism and conﬂict resolution
are crucial processes to secure appropriate stakeholder participation (Roe et al. 2013). These
two processes are related to Cancun Safeguard (b) because they should be carried out inaccordance with existing administrative procedures and national laws. They are also related to
Cancun Safeguard (c) because they are part of the process of respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities (see 2.16).
As stated in the section on Cancun Safeguard (c), the customary rights of indigenous peoples
and members of local communities and the rights inherited from their ancestors are not always
clearly deﬁned under national laws or they could be inconsistent with what people claim. Thus,
the rights to lands and resources, especially those of indigenous peoples and members of local
communities, require special attention. In addition, disagreements over the rights may arise
during consultation. To facilitate participation, a fair and accessible grievance mechanism andconﬂict resolution should be established (FCPF/UN-REDD Programme 2012). To respond togrievance and conﬂicts, a grievance desk or something similar (for example, a grievance box
or a system that accepts anonymous grievances through e-mail or phone to avoid any social
sanction) should be provided (Figure 5). When a grievance is not immediately settled, conﬂict
resolution that generally starts from negotiation, intervention, and arbitration should be carriedout. Establishing a system to provide these processes or conﬁrming whether existing system
is available is necessary. Identifying customary laws or traditions for arbitration and sanction
is important to settle grievance or conﬂicts to prevent double punishment among indigenous
peoples and local communities. Utmost care should be taken when handling these matters.
When a grievance or conﬂict is not settled, legal or quasi-legal measures (judicial or administrative procedures) should be taken. Establishing its own system is usually not feasible fora project. Thus, systems provided by the local government should be identiﬁed to organize
necessary processes. Speciﬁcally, clarifying the scope of responsibility as a project developer
and preparing a response manual, especially with regard to access to appropriate judicial and19

ブック 1.indb

19

2017/02/23

18:48:21

Vol.3 Social Safeguards

Grievance/
conflict

Grievancedesk•

Grievance-box or a system
accepting grievancethrough e-mail or phone

Negotiation,intervention,or arbitration•

Identify available systems andplan for measures
Indigenous peoples
and local communities

mediator/
arbitrator•

Identify
systems
provided by
the local
governmentand organize
necessary
processes

Customary laws
for arbitrationand sanction
Localgovernment•

Avoid double
punishment

Judicial oradministrative
procedures
Need for preparation in advance• Clarify the responsibility of project
developer and prepare a response manual

Figure 5 Grievance and conflict redress.

administrative institutions, are important. It is usually the responsibility of the local government
to notify how the judicial process can be accessed and to make the process available. In casea grievance is ﬁled against the project developer, a third party who will serve as a mediator or
arbitrator should be appointed in advance.

20

ブック 1.indb

20

2017/02/23

18:48:21

REDD-plus COOKBOOK ANNEX■ 2.3 Cancun Safeguard (e)“That actions are consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biological diversity,
ensuring that the actions referred to in paragraph 70 of this decision are not used for the conversion of natural forests, but are instead used to incentivize the protection and conservationof natural forests and their ecosystem services, and to enhance other social and environmental
beneﬁts” (1/CP.16, Paragraph 2 (e) of Appendix I)* Cancun Safeguard (e) includes environmental and social aspects. This annex covers thesocial aspect.
 Outline
REDD-plus should prevent any negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services
through its activities. REDD-plus activities should not only convert natural forests but also
prevent negative impacts of displacement of emissions and afforestation on forests and otherecosystems with low carbon density but high biodiversity value.
More importantly, unlike other items of the Cancun Safeguards that seek to prevent negative
impacts, item (e) stresses to promote and support actions to enhance the social and environmental co-beneﬁts of REDD-plus activities. Understanding the objectives and actions of
the CBD and ensuring consistency with REDD-plus activities will facilitate the conservation of
biodiversity and ecosystem services. REDD-plus is expected to promote and support activities
that will enhance social and environmental beneﬁts while taking account of forest resourcesthat indigenous peoples and members of local communities depend on.
2.3.1 Enhancement of social and environmental beneﬁts
Many indigenous peoples and members of local communities in developing countries dependon the forest for their livelihood, and forest conservation may facilitate poverty alleviation andimprovement of food security. Thus, REDD-plus is expected to contribute to the enhancementof the beneﬁts for indigenous peoples, members of local communities, women, and vulnerable
groups. To enhance other social and environmental beneﬁts while conserving biodiversity
in REDD-plus, a combination of measures is needed, such as conserving biodiversity in thecourse of participatory forest management (Rey et al. 2013). Removing hunting traps while
patrolling the forest is an example. Integrating social and environmental goals into the planningand implementation of a REDD-plus project from the initial stage may be more efﬁcient andeffective than pursuing them as additional objectives afterwards (Panﬁl and Harvey 2014).
Even when conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services through REDD-plus, respecting
the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities and giving
due consideration not to affect their livelihoods are important. The framework of HCV (HighConservation Values) used by private environmental certiﬁcations such as the CCBS, the FSC

21

ブック 1.indb

21

2017/02/23

18:48:21

Vol.3 Social Safeguards(Forest Stewardship Council), and RSPO (Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil) requires thatthe opinions from indigenous peoples and members of local communities to be reﬂected whenidentifying target areas or resources for conservation and protection. Social and environmental
beneﬁts created by REDD-plus may not only contribute to the conservation of ecosystem services but may also improve the well-being of people through three approaches: the provisionof opportunities (job, income, and education), the improvement of security (the rights to land
and resources and ecosystem services), and empowerment (participation in decision making inland use and development) for indigenous peoples and members of local communities (Figure
6; Lawlor et al. 2013). Thus, when conserving biodiversity and ecosystem services through
REDD-plus, considering Cancun Safeguards (c) and (d) from the planning stage is important tobalance tradeoffs among beneﬁciaries (especially when the many bear the cost of the few) andto enhance social and environmental beneﬁts.

REDD-plus<Opportunities>• Jobs• Payments• Education• Infrastructure<Security>• Landownership andmanagement rights• Access and use rights• Carbon rights• Health• Ecosystem services for water
food and health security<Empowerment>• Participation indecision-making
regarding to local landuse and development• Building social capital
to participate more
effectively

Human welfare
and well-being

Figure 6 Three approaches to improve the well-being of people through REDD-plus(Lawlor et al. 2013).

22

ブック 1.indb

22

2017/02/23

18:48:21

REDD-plus COOKBOOK ANNEX

3 References
Chambers R (1994a) Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Analysis of Experience. World
Development 22: 1253-1268.
Chambers R (1994b) Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Challenges, Potentials and Paradigm.
World Development 22: 1437-1454.
Daviet FA (2011) Draft Framework for Sharing Approaches for Better Multi-stakeholder
Participation Practices. FCPF-UN-REDD.
Davis C, Williams L, Lupberger S, Daviet F (2013) Assessing Forest Governance. World
Resources Insitute.
FCPF/UN-REDD Programme (2012) Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement in REDD+
Readiness: With a Focus on the Participation of Indigenous Peoples and Other Forestdependent Communities. April 20, 2012.
Foti J, de Silva L, MacGray H, Shaffer L, Talbot J, Werksman J (2008) Voice and Choice:
Opening the Door to Environmental Democracy. World Resources Institute.
Hite K (2014) Tenure Rights, Human Rights and REDD+: Knowledge, Skills and Tools for
Effective Results. USAID-supported Forest Carbon Markets and Communities (FCMC)
Program. Washington DC, USA.
ILO (2009) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples: A Guide to ILO Convention No. 169
ILO (2013) Understanding the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169).
Handbook for ILO Tripartite Constituents / International Labor Standards Department. ILO.
Geneva.
JICA (2007) Acquaintanceship and implementation for social survey. IFIC (Institute forInternational Cooperation). (in Japanese)
Lawlor K, Madeira E, Blockhus J, Ganz D (2013) Community Participation and Beneﬁts in
REDD+: A Review of Initial Outcomes and Lessons. Forests 4: 296-318.
NOAA Coastal Services Center (2007) Introduction to Stakeholder Participation.
Panﬁl SN, Harvey CA (2014) REDD+ and Biodiversity Conservation: Approaches, Experiences
and Opportunities for Improved Outcomes. USAID-supported Forest Carbon, Markets andCommunities (FCMC) Program. Washington, DC, USA.
Pham TT, Brockhaus M, Wong G, Dung LN, Tjajadi JS, Loft L, Luttrell C, Assembe Mvondo
S (2013) Approaches to Beneﬁt Sharing: A Preliminary Comparative Analysis of 13 REDD+Countries. Working Paper 108. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
REDD+SES (2012) REDD+ Social & Environmental Standards Version 2.
Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder Participation for Environmental Management: A Literature Review.
Biological Conservation 141, 2417-2431.

23

ブック 1.indb

23

2017/02/23

18:48:21

Vol.3 Social Safeguards

Rey D, Roberts J, Korwin S, Rivera L, Ribet U (2013) A Guide to Understanding and Implementing
the UNFCCC REDD+ Safeguards. ClientEarth, London, UK.
Roe S, Streck C, Pritchard L, Gostenbader J (2013) Safeguards in REDD+ and Forest Carbon
Standards: A Review of Social Environmental and Procedural Concepts and Application.
Climatefocus.
Sato H eds. (2003) Re-examination of participatory development. Institute of Developing
Economies. (in Japanese)
The Secretariat of CBD (2004) Akwe: Kon Guidelines. Article 10.
UNEP (2013) Stakeholder Engagement at UNEP. Draft policy.

4 Reference rules
CBD (1992) Convention on Biological Diversity 1760 UNTS79.
CBD Nagoya Protocol (2010) The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the
Fair and Equitable Sharing of Beneﬁts Arising from their Utilization (ABS) to the Convention
on Biological Diversity UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/1.
UNDRIP (2007) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples A/RES/61/295
ILO (1989) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 169.
UNFCCC (2011) The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Groupon Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1.

5. Notes
This annex is a revision of a part of the “Guidebook for REDD+ Safeguards” (in Japanese)
published in March 2016 by the Forestry Agency of Japan.

24

ブック 1.indb

24

2017/02/23

18:48:22

ブック 1.indb

25

2017/02/23

18:48:22

02_本文_en.indd

26

2017/02/23

18:49:18

Authors

Editors
VersionCitation

Takuya Furukawa, Seiji Iwanaga,
Kimiko Okabe (Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute)
Miki Toda (University of Tsukuba)
Tamotsu Sato & Masayoshi Takahashi (Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute)
1.01enThis document may be cited as:
Furukawa T, Iwanaga S, Okabe K, Toda M (2017) REDD-plus Cookbook Annex.
Vol. 3 Social Safeguards. REDD Research and Development Center,
Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute Japan, 24pp.