Delivering REDD+:
The role of safeguards
Dr Annalisa Savaresi

Lecturer in Environmental Law
Director, LLM/MSc in Environmental Policy and GovernanceCentre for Environment, Heritage and Policy
University of Stirling, Scotland

Annalisa.savaresi@stir.ac.uk

Summary■ What are safeguards■ What do REDD+ safeguards say?
■ Evidence from implementation

Why REDD+ safeguards?

REDD+ Safeguards:
Decision 1/CP.16, Cancun Agreements, Appendix I, para. 2
When undertaking the activities referred to in paragraph 70 of
this decision, the following safeguards should be promoted andsupported:■ (a) That actions complement or are consistent with theobjectives of national forest programmes and relevantinternational Conventions and agreements;■ (b) Transparent and effective national forest governancestructures, taking into account national legislation andsovereignty;

Social Safeguards[When undertaking the activities referred to in paragraph 70 of thisdecision, the following safeguards should be promoted andsupported:]■ (c) Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples
and members of local communities, by taking into account relevantinternational obligations, national circumstances and laws, andnoting that the United Nations General Assembly has adopted theUnited Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;■ (d) The full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, inparticular indigenous peoples and local communities, in the actions
referred to in paragraphs 70 and 72 of this decision;

Ecological and carbon integrity
safeguards[When undertaking the activities referred to in paragraph 70 of thisdecision, the following safeguards should be promoted and supported:]■(e) That actions are consistent with the conservation ofnatural forests and biological diversity, ensuring that theactions referred to in paragraph 70 of this decision are not used
for the conversion of natural forests, but are instead used toincentivize the protection and conservation of natural forests
and their ecosystem services, and to enhance other social andenvironmental benefits;■(f) Actions to address the risks of reversals;■(g) Actions to reduce displacement of emissions.

What are safeguards?
■ Measures making financial aid conditional to the prevention
and mitigation of “undue harm to people and theirenvironment” that may result from funded activities. E.g.
World Bank environmental and social safeguard policies.
■ Safeguards are typically part of conditions imposed uponcountries receiving aid, and their fulfilment is a prerequisite
for the provision of funding.
■ Safeguards are often coupled with arrangements to monitor
and verify their implementation.
■ The consequences attached to lack of compliance withsafeguards depend on whether conditionality is based onpolicy dialogue, agreement and support, or, rather, on
recourse to sanctions or aid withdrawal.

What are
REDD+safeguards?

Voluntaryguidance?

Savaresi, Annalisa, The Legal
Status and Role of REDD-Plus
Safeguards, Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abst
ract=2638394

Legalobligations?
Conditionalities?

Clues on the legal nature ofsafeguards
Decision 2/CP.17, Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc
Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action underthe Convention, FCCC /CP/2011/9/Add.2, para 63

Regardless of the source or type of financing, theactivities referred to in decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 70,
should be consistent with the relevant provisions included
in decision 1/CP.16, including the safeguards in its appendix
I, in accordance with relevant decisions of the Conference ofthe Parties;

Conditionalities?
Decision 9/CP.19, Work programme on results-based
finance to progress the full implementation of theactivities referred to in decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 70,
para 4

Agrees that developing countries seeking to obtain andreceive results-based payments in accordance withdecision 2/CP.17, paragraph 64, should provide the mostrecent summary of information on how all of thesafeguards referred to in decision 1/CP.16, appendix I,
paragraph 2, have been addressed and respected before
they can receive results- based payments;

Safeguard information system(SIS)
Decision 1/CP.16, para 71
Requests developing country Parties aiming to undertakethe activities referred to in paragraph 70 above (…) todevelop the following elements:■A system for providing information on how thesafeguards referred to in appendix I to this decision arebeing addressed and respected throughout theimplementation of the activities referred to in paragraph 70
above, while respecting sovereignty;

SIS Guidance
Decision 12/CP.17, Guidance on systems for providing
information on how safeguards are addressed and respected andmodalities relating to forest reference emission levels and forest
reference levels as referred to in decision 1/CP.16, para 2■(a) Be consistent with the guidance identified in decision 1/CP.16,
appendix I, paragraph 1;■(b) Provide transparent and consistent information that isaccessible by all relevant stakeholders and updated on a regularbasis;■(c) Be transparent and flexible to allow for improvements over time;■(d) Provide information on how all of the safeguards referred to in
appendix I to decision 1/CP.16 are being addressed and respected;■(e) Be country-driven and implemented at the national level;■(f) Build upon existing systems, as appropriate.

Summaries of information
Decision 12/CP.17, at 3-4
Agrees also that developing country Parties undertaking theactivities referred to in decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 70, should
provide a summary of information on how all of the safeguards
referred to in decision 1/CP.16, appendix I, are being addressed
and respected throughout the implementation of the activities;
Decides that the summary of information referred to (…) above
should be provided periodically and be included in nationalcommunications, consistent with relevant decisions of theConference of the Parties on guidelines on national
communications from Parties not included in Annex I to theConvention, or communication channels agreed by the
Conference of the Parties;

Review: the role of the GCF
The provision of summaries of information on how safeguards areimplemented is a prerequisite for REDD+ results-based payments.
Interim environmental and social safeguards of the GCF (2014)

Pilot programme for REDD+ results-based payments (2017)■Accredited entities must submit an assessment of measures
undertaken to identify, assess, and manage environmental andsocial risks and impacts■The Secretariat should take such assessment into account as
part of its overall consideration of the funding proposal

In sum: what are REDD+safeguards?
■ Compliance with safeguards is mandatory and therefore alegal obligation for Parties seeking REDD+ results-based
payments.

■ UNFCCC guidance says little on how compliance withsafeguards will be assessed and what consequences may be
associated with it.
■ Only when REDD+ results-based payments start to be
disbursed will it be possible to gauge how strictly compliancewith safeguards is treatedOther standard-setters
NorwayGCF
UNFCCCWorldBankA labyrinth of safeguards andguidance?

Evidence from implementation –CIFOR Global Comparative Study

Evidence from implementation –environmental safeguards■ Due to the complexity of measuring heterogeneous
treatments, over short timeframes, it is too early to establish aclear link between the type of REDD+ intervention and its
success in reducing deforestation■ The scarce evidence that is available on local REDD+
outcomes shows modestly encouraging results for forest
conservation and carbon stock enhancement.
■ More work is needed to evaluate the effects of different typesof interventions, especially at the jurisdictional (rather thanproject) scale, which is the focus of the REDD+ mechanism.

Evidence from implementation –social safeguards■ Results showed that REDD+ had minimal impact onhousehold and village-level perceptions of well-being, as wellas on income sufficiency■ An analysis of REDD+ impacts on household incomes foundthat welfare improvements also remain elusive.
■ CHALLENGE: the failure of many REDD+ projects to deliver
local benefits – including prospects of substantial cashtransfers that never materialised due to the lack of predictablefinance – led to local frustrations with and skepticism about
REDD+

Evidence from implementation –local participation■

CIFOR describes participation as ’limited and uneven’■

REDD+ implementers are, typically, attentive to some degree of
local participation, and social safeguards are being integrated in
the early design of REDD+ projects – arguably more so than inmany traditional conservation projects■

CHALLENGE: While REDD+ safeguards should help ensure
stakeholder consultation and FPIC, as well as promote effective
participation in REDD+ design and implementation, mostimplementers do not yet seem to be fully capturing the alleged
benefits of local decision-making and input.

■

Local participation in REDD+ could be enhanced, both throughbetter FPIC and through engagement with local communities asright-holders and not just as project beneficiaries

Evidence from implementation –land tenure■

Attention to clarifying and strengthening local tenure rights
enshrined in the tenure requirements in the REDD+ safeguards
has reportedly increased, including recognition of indigenous landrights.

■

CHALLENGE: Despite some measurable achievements, little has
been done to clarify and strengthen local-level tenure conditions in
REDD+ activities, or to lay a tenure foundation for REDD+ thatmatches the high expectations of the programme.

■

National-level forest tenure reforms are needed to support REDD+;
projects often try to resolve local-level problems that are actuallynational in origin and scope. There must be cross-scale integration
between the efforts of proponents and national actions, and anauthentically participatory approach to REDD+

Preliminary conclusions■ The questions that are being discussed in connection with REDD+
safeguards are not new and have saddled international
development assistance and forest governance efforts fordecades.
■ REDD+ has arguably subsumed what may be described as “longstanding, perhaps intractable, development policy
challenges” within its remit.
■ In this process, perfect should not become the enemy of good.
REDD+ should instead capitalise upon experience accrued withother processes■ Even though REDD+ safeguards have only been partially met inmost cases (NORAD, 2017) REDD+ may still facilitate the pursuitof multiple-win outcomes.

23