Delivering REDD+: the Role of Safeguards
Annalisa Savaresi (University of Stirling, U.K.)

Session 1

Delivering REDD+: the Role of Safeguards
Annalisa Savaresi (University of Stirling, U.K.)
REDD+ Safeguards and their necessity

The topic I am going to go through is the issue of safeguards in the role of REDD+.
upon which I have researched for my doctoral studies.

This is a topic

I will tell you about what safeguards are in general

and what REDD+ safeguards are meant to do and then review some of the evidence from theirimplementation.

It is important to start by reminding ourselves why this safeguard exists in REDD+.

Soon after theparties decided that REDD+ was a good idea, they immediately appreciated that along with win-wins, there
are possible trade-offs that need to be addressed - which is why safeguards were engineered.
It is one thing to agree that safeguards should exist, but another thing to agree on their content.
safeguards came to fruition in 2010 with the famous Cancun Agreements.

TheIn that context, the parties tothe climate regime decided that when undertaking REDD+ activities, a set of safeguards should bepromoted and supported.

103Session 1
There is a list of safeguards that were included in a decision of the conference of the parties, theso-called the Cancun Agreements.

Appendix 1, Para 2 of the Cancun Agreements says action should

complement and be consistent with the objectives of national forest programs and relevant international
conventions and agreements.

REDD+ activities should also be transparent and effective.

We also have a list of Social Safeguards that have to do with: the rights of indigenous peoples’ and ofother forest dependent communities; and the issue of effective stakeholder participation - which isparticularly important because of its sensitivities in the contexts in which REDD+ is meant to operate.
We also have ecological and carbon integrity safeguards - also called environmental safeguards.

Here,

the REDD+activity should be consistent with the conservation of natural forest and biological diversity,
but this was not going to be the case, especially in relation to afforestation or reforestation activities.
Finally, there is the issue of addressing the risk for reversals and the displacement of emissions, also known
as leakage.

The language that introduced these safeguards is not entirely clear-cut as to what kind of treatment
these safeguards should have.

In general, in contexts such as that of REDD+, we are talking aboutsafeguards in terms of conditions that are attached to the cash.

104

In order to get access to finance, you needDelivering REDD+: the Role of Safeguards
Annalisa Savaresi (University of Stirling, U.K.)

to comply with certain conditions.

Session 1

This implies that not only there will be a catalogue of safeguards to becomplied with, but there will be also systems to monitor compliance with the safeguards.

The next logicalstep is consequences attached to lack of compliance, with the most severe consequence being withdrawal offunding - but there can be lesser stringent penalties too.
Safeguards vis-a-vis REDD+ Safeguards

The big question I considered in the context of my research is what are REDD+ safeguards and how
do they compare vis-a-vis with safeguards adopted in other contexts. I captured my reflections on thismatter in a paper that I wrote few years ago. at that point. Some argued that safeguards were just voluntaryguidance.

But others suggested that safeguards may be regarded as a legal obligation for those parties thatcarried out REDD+ activities, and even conditionality for the disbursement of finance.
I looked at the clues on the legal nature of safeguards that emerged in the subsequent decisions of theconference of the parties.
adopted in 2011.

A very good clue comes from a statement in the decision of the parties

It said regardless of the source or type of financing, REDD+activities should beconsistent with safeguards, which was an important disclaimer to be made at that point in time.

In another decision, part of the of Warsaw framework for REDD, evokes the idea of conditionality is105

Session 1
rather implicitly by mentioning that developing countries seeking results-based payments should provide
most recent summary of information on how safeguards are complied with.
There are two core elements that are relevant here. One is of Safeguard Information Systems (SIS),
whereby parties that do REDD+ and that want to seek payments have to create a system to provide
information concerning compliance with safeguards.

The conference of the parties has provided some broadly worded guidance on how this system shouldlook.

This guidance is not very prescriptive , and the idea was at this stage was rather to leave this very

country specific.
The other element is parties’ report on their alignment with safeguards, also called summaries ofinformation.

These summaries of information have to be periodically submitted.

The decision to leave safeguards so broadly worded and open-ended was a political one, but aninteresting layer of complexity was added when the GCF came into operation.

The GCF is meant to be the main financial mechanism of the climate treaties, and the largest disburserof results-based payments.

The GCF has adopted its own interim environmental and social safeguards inaddition to the ones that have been mentioned above.

106

These are not necessarily compatible. A pilot

Delivering REDD+: the Role of Safeguards
Annalisa Savaresi (University of Stirling, U.K.)

Session 1

program for REDD+ results-based payments initiated in 2017, which requires a compliance assessmentwith safeguards and that this assessment is taken into account when making decisions concerning finance.
It seems beyond doubt that in this context we are talking about actual conditionalities. Nevertheless,only after results-based payments start to be disbursed systematically will it be possible to see consequences
are attached to lack of compliance with safeguards.

In the meantime, what is clear is of standard setting over REDD+ safeguards has taken place over theyears.

It has been a very complex journey, and the GCF is clearly a main actor, but other important donors

and important institutional actors have also had an importance. One problem with the operationalization of
the GCF is that safeguards were adopted after activities had been initiated.
Evidence from Implementation

This multi-layered system of safeguards has not been particularly helpful for countries that are trying to
get results-based payments.

So how has the implementation of these safeguards worked out in practice?

107

Session 1

Here we look at what evidence exists from the global comparative study carried out by CIFOR on
implementation of REDD+ so far, which is largely at the project level rather than at the jurisdiction level.
As far as environmental safeguards are concerned, the trade-offs that were expected seem to have been
largely addressed.

Instead, as far as social safeguards are concerned, there are difficult governance questions concerning
the involvement of stakeholders and protection of rights of the more vulnerable.

108

Delivering REDD+: the Role of Safeguards
Annalisa Savaresi (University of Stirling, U.K.)

Session 1

In terms of land-tenure, there were a lot of expectations embedded in REDD+ that largely seem not
to have been met.

However, it is difficult to say what would happen without REDD, of course.

Conclusion

The questions being discussed in relation to REDD+ are not new, not only to forest governance but
indeed to climate governance.

There has definitely been an issue of institutional stratification, andmulti-layer governance has not been helpful.
The contrary is, in fact, true.

However, this does not mean that safeguards are not helpful.

If we want to achieve the win-win outcomes of REDD+, going head-on in

the direction of implementation of safeguards is the best way to go.

109