Spreadsheet: 020bc55e-396a-4399-991b-967cf5a9b3e2
Sheet: Sheet1

Topic/Section | Comment | Comment provider
0. General | First of all congratulations for this last draft version of the Guidelines on FPIC . | BDP/RBLAC Regional Expert, UNDP
0. General | When talking about territories, it is necessary to do so in the broad sense, as they are understood by indigenous peoples, rather than as static and passive entities. For the inhabitants of these territories, their lands are the agents of change, a mutual and influential part of social, economic and spiritual relationships. This two-way relationship between nature and inhabitant is where identities, symbols and beliefs are constructed.   For indigenous peoples, the concept of territoriality is not so much a geographical one; rather, it is a resource to deploy in their fight for ethnic identification and recognition. Its dynamic character means it can be used to address the agrarian conflicts caused by globalisation and, as such, is useful in dealing with possible institutional interventionist projects.   For this reason, it has been suggested that knowledge about the histories of indigenous peoples be incorporated, along with these peoples’ experiences (where they arise) in dealing with organisations that operate outside their realities. This will also help in identifying and understanding the environmental conflicts that can occur with other communities and other institutions. | Climate Change Unit, Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), Guatemala
0. General | Paraguay’s organisation for indigenous peoples commends the document. It also commends the effort to bring together this body of work, which draws on the results of three consultation workshops where inputs from specialist bodies as well as experts in the field of indigenous peoples’ rights were provided.  It clearly contains highly positive aspects, which enshrine respect for indigenous peoples’ right to grant or deny free, prior and informed consent. Given the brevity of this document I will avoid detailing these here.    [NAME] I would like to highlight the aspects we feel require greater clarity or specificity. Also, please find following the link to the current document covering consultation and free, prior and informed consent in Paraguay: http://www.undp.org.py/v3/publicaciones2.aspx?ini=7&fin=14 | Federation for the Self -Determination of Indigenous Peoples (FAPI), Paraguay
0. General | Forest Peoples Programme welcomes the formulation of the draft FPIC guidelines as a positive development that takes into due account relevant international human rights obligations and jurisprudence, and is the outcome of an open and effective participatory process engaging CSOs and IPOs in regional workshops.   The indicative steps for FPIC detailed in Annex III are very useful and show clearly that FPIC is a staged process and not a one-off decision (as noted elsewhere in the guidelines at page 3).   A further key positive element in the  draft FPIC guidelines is that they rightly point out that the communal property rights of indigenous peoples are “based on traditional use, culture, and customary laws must be respected whether or not they are explicitly recognized by the national government” (at page 11). This is a crucial point as governments and other stakeholders in REDD countries are still often not aware that the communal property rights of indigenous peoples and the collective right to FPIC applies to all lands and forests held under custom and is not confined only to those lands that are legally recognised by the State.  FPP believes that the draft duly incorporates many of the comments and inputs provided throughout the period of elaboration and consultation, and looks forward to a positive and fruitful exchange on modalities to ensure the proper and effective implementation of the Guidelines.   In the spirit of contributing to a robust and innovative application of  FPIC in REDD activities and programmes, and convinced that this would create an important precedent and opportunity to advance and improve international standards and practices on FPIC, we wish to highlight some areas that  might require further improvement.   In order to do so, a comparative analysis of the draft FPIC guidelines, the FCPF - UNREDD guidelines for stakeholder participation, the draft UNREDD social principles and criteria (SEPC), the draft Benefit and Risk Assessment Tool (BeRT) and the latest version of the Readiness Preparation Plan (RPP) has been carried out, to identify synergies, overlaps and options to ensure coherent and effective implementation of FPIC, as well as the relevant assessment and monitoring. | Forest Peoples Programme (FPP)
0. General | It is important to mention that there is no established REDD+ mechanism yet. However, voluntary market initiatives have grown and provided some examples of good practices and also of violation of indigenous peoples rights that should be taken into consideration. Also, UN REDD Programme will have to deal with how to make compatible agreements already made within the voluntary market with the future mechanism. | Fundação Nacional do Índio, Brazilian Federal Agency for the protection of indigenous peoples'rights (FUNAI), Brazil
0. General | Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the FPIC Guidelines. The document provides useful guidance on consultation and FPIC. | Gaia Commoditas, Indonesia
0. General | My quick “reading” gave me the impression that UN-REDD activities are assumed to be always external to IP communities. Are the IPs themselves not going to be given the opportunity to plan and propose their own UN-REDD related activities or projects? If they are given the opening or the opportunity (what I call “community-based REDD+” or “CBR” as  compared to the now popular term “CBA” for community-based adaptation), would such require FPIC? Might it not be a good incentive to give CBRs an exemption to FPIC – perhaps community-based approaches would then receive a higher degree of preference, even by governments that see the great advantage of getting at least certain aspects of UN-REDD starting or progressing while certain aspects still have to go through a lengthier process (a lesson we had learned in the implementation of the complicated, controversial multi-country Nile River Transboundary Environmental Program). | GEF/UNDP Small Grants Programme
0. General | Gender Action commends the UN-REDD Program for recognizing the “critical role of indigenous and local communities to the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of REDD+.” Its Programme Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) rightfully stresses “culturally appropriate” engagement with “marginalized” indigenous and forest-dependent communities in a way that respects the rights of these groups to resources, prioritizes consultation and access to information, and—quite notably—applies a human rights-based approach. | Gender Action, Washington, DC
0. General | We would like to congratulate the UN REDD Programme on a well-drafted and coherent document. Continuous participation of indigenous peoples and other local communities is critical for REDD’s long-term objective. In this regard the draft guidelines represent a major step forward for the UN REDD.  Norway also commends the UN REDD Programme for realizing a global consultation process among indigenous peoples, and for basing this draft on the recommendations from these consultations.   The draft document is making a number of important references to the international normative framework on indigenous rights, like the ILO Convention 169 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Applying a human rights-based approach enhances the documents standing. By using this approach the UN REDD Programme demonstrates that it is taking as its prime point of departure the already existing international frameworks. | Government of Norway
0. General | One of the document’s strengths is that it strongly emphasizes that consent is an ongoing process rather than a one-time decision. We would like to emphasize the importance of the process of FPIC – the aim should be to create a robust and inclusive process. | Government of Norway
0. General | We appreciate UN-REDD effort in promoting the integration of free prior and informed consent principle into REDD+ scheme and in developing this guidance for partner countries. To respond to public disclosure that UN-REDD has arranged for, we submit our comments as follow, section by section | HuMa (Perkumpulan untuk Pembaharuan Hukum Berbasis Masyarakat dan Ekologis) Association for Community and Ecologically-based Legal Reform, Indonesia
0. General | • The Indian Law Resource Center (Center) welcomes the opportunity given by the UNREDD Programme (UN-REDD) to comment on the development of public sector policy lending instruments addressing the Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) in developing countries. The “Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent” (FPIC Guidelines), which was prepared by UN-REDD, outlines a “normative, policy and operational framework for UN-REDD Programme partner countries to seek FPIC [Free, Prior and Informed Consent]”.  • Generally speaking, the Center is particularly interested in discussing the implications of REDD+ projects taking place in indigenous lands. Grassroots indigenous organizations from Mexico, Central and South America have made inquiries to us regarding REDD+, because they are concerned that REDD+ programs and projects will affect their lands, natural resources and governing institutions. As a matter of both legal obligations and sound policy, potentially project-affected indigenous communities must be fully informed about their countries’ REDD+ proposals and the developing policies within UN-REDD and the World Bank’s (Bank) Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF).  • From a legal perspective, this paper offers the Center’s comments and recommendations on the proposed FPIC Guidelines addressing indigenous peoples’ particular human rights concerns. It also addresses issues not currently addressed by UN-REDD policies. This approach has governed all of our previous contributions addressing UN-REDD policy developments, such as the comments filed on the “Draft Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement in REDD+ Readiness, with a Focus on the Participation of Indigenous Peoples and Other Forest-Dependent Communities” (Stakeholders Engagement Guidelines) and the “Draft Social and Environmental Principles and Criteria” (Principles and Criteria). | ILRC
0. General | The Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section of OHCHR welcomes these guidelines and hopes the UN-REDD Secretariat will be able to incorporate the above-mentioned comments. We hope the implementation of these Guidelines will be of great benefit to indigenous peoples in UN-REDD partner countries. | Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section, OHCHR
0. General | The Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section (IPMS) of OHCHR welcomes the initiative of UN-REDD to prepare guidelines on free, prior and informed consent for UN-REDD partner countries and implementing partners.  IPMS would like to thank the UN-REDD Secretariat for the opportunity to provide comments. In general the Guidelines are well drafted and an important tool for use by States who are UN-REDD partner countries. Since OHCHR was not present at previous consultations which informed the drafting of the current Guidelines, IPMS would like to provide some comments to strengthen them. | Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section, OHCHR
0. General | At the outset it will be helpful to state that indigenous peoples have rights to lands and resources that they traditionally occupy and use, and it would be important to affirm that governments have an obligation to recognise and protect these rights.   It would also be important to reiterate that there is a duty to consult indigenous peoples even when the lands have not been provided with legal recognition and protection. | Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section, OHCHR
0. General | The “Guidelines” provide a clear overview of the FPIC process, give criteria for indentifying IPs in REDD+ countries, provide an overview of the UNREDD programme policy on applying FPIC, the operational framework for FPIC and the grievance and accountability structures and principles. | Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC), Kenya
0. General | FPIC Guidelines must go through a national interpretation process after approval (national context must be considered). | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
0. General | First of all I (on behalf of IPAM) would like to congratulate the UN-REDD team for the FPIC guidelines. Overall, I think this document is a very good set of information to FPIC, including very important definitions about the FPIC itself and the process to conduct to FPIC. | Programa de Mudanças Climaticas - Climate Change Program Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM)
0. General | In general view, as I said I think the document presents a very good set of information about FPIC, my only concern is related to the public this document is designated and due to this the language in which it was developed. As I believe a very import target of that document is Indigenous Peoples and Local communities (IPLC), and as it is developed the document present some technical language that I doubt many IPLC would understand. More than that we believe that many criticism would emerge form IPLC due to the fact they were not fully engaged on the process of elaboration of that document. As you know, many IPLC do not have access to internet and due to this they cannot comment on that version as we were given the chance to do now. In this sense we reiterate that not only the process of dissemination of the guidelines itself but also the consultation in order to have that process finalized would be necessary to include workshops with representatives of IPLC in order to explain what is the document and be able to collect their views.  This is our main concern relating to the document. | Programa de Mudanças Climaticas - Climate Change Program Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM)
0. General | Rainforest Foundation Norway welcomes the opportunity to comment on these Draft Guidelines. Our general impression is that the Draft Guidelines are constructive and helpful. The description and definition of “Free, Prior and Informed Consent” is well developed and well referenced. On this rather solid theoretical basis, the Guidelines interpret FPIC in a way that is bold and which is likely to be helpful to ensuring the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities. | Rainforest Foundation Norway
0. General | Define how the guidelines interact with national initiatives | Stakeholders consultation, DRC
0. General | I reviewed the FPIC Guidelines and found this version to be a very complete document, with lots of legal references and definitions. | The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
0. General | Congratulations to the whole team for producing this very useful guideline!   Thanks also for the opportunity to be able to contribute to the guide and the following are few my inputs and suggestions | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Anti-Corruption Team
0. General | It might also be useful to devote some time on the potential implications and challenges associated with unclear land tenure regimes on FPIC. For instance, in a situation where conflicting claims on a given forest land, whose consent is sought? | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Corruption Team
0. General | Many thanks for sharing this important document and congratulations for all the great work that has been put into this process.  Overall, the guidelines contain excellent guidance and tools and we hope our comments can contribute to strengthen them even further. | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Human Rights Team
0. General | Thank you so much for sharing the document. In terms of FPIC, our pilot province [NAME] is developing FPIC guidelines that will be used for implementation in the province. The document that you attached will certainly be our reference to see if there are any areas that currently are not addressed in the province's guidelines. And vice versa, if there are any local practices that can be brought up to the global guidelines. | UN-REDD Programme, Indonesia
0. General | The Guidelines are comprehensive that address key aspects of FPIC. For use in Indonesia, elaboration will be needed as certain existing law and regulation recognize the existence of indigenous communities, although the regulations do not explicitly describe FPIC.  Indonesia is diverse in many facets, e.g. ethnic, culture, language, local custom including decision making mechanism. This makes creating enabling condition more difficult, particularly at national level. With more than 700 sub-national cultures/ethnics across the country, it is so challenging to have generic guidelines that address all the differences and diversity. For instance, in some areas women are not well represented in decision making process, while in other areas the situation is on the contrary-women voice is decisive in the process. | UN-REDD Programme, Indonesia
0. General | How refreshing to review such a well-written document.  In the attachment, I have provided some minor editorial changes, for your consideration, and a number of comments. Most of the concerns that I raise (nothing major) you guys have probably already debated at great length. | UN-REDD Regional Coordinator, Asia/Pacific, UNEP
0. General | First of all, let me congratulate the team for successful draft of the guidelines after near two year development. It will help a lot the national countries in doing FPIC.  The guidelines  give a full and overall description of FPIC, very useful document to who soon have to do FPIC. | UN-REDD Viet Nam Programme
0. General | UN-REDD has done a good job of putting together a well-written and largely coherent document, one that takes pains to point out (appropriately) that FPIC is part of an ongoing process and cannot be reduced to a single step or event.  The steps outlined in Annex II for identifying who is “indigenous” are very practical.  Moreover, the section on grievance mechanisms is nicely laid out, and provides an impressive amount of detail on the process for setting up such a mechanism. | [NAME], [NAME], FCPF
0. General | The Guidelines contain a number of tentative statements that seem warranted (allowing for an appropriate level of flexibility of interpretation/application) but others that go too far, undermining the notion that the Guidelines are supposed to serve as a “normative framework” for FPIC. Examples of this are provided below (bolding for emphasis added):  “[I]t is for partner countries and relevant rights-holders to determine which activities require FPIC.” (p. 10)  “A first step for partner countries in determining whether consent should be sought is to carefully consider whether the proposed activity/policy will significantly impact on the lands, territories and/or resources of indigenous peoples and/or other relevant rights-holders. If it will, FPIC will likely be required.” (P. 11)  Such statements make the framework seem more deliberative than normative.  The box on pp. 12-13 serves as an apt example of this; too much discretion is afforded here and, as a result, the guidance provided is not very operational. | [NAME], [NAME], FCPF
0. General | The first bullet in the box on p. 12 refers to “the removal of indigenous peoples and/or other relevant rights-holders from traditional or customary lands/territories,” which sounds to us like involuntary resettlement.  However, criterion #10 of UN-REDD’s Social and Environmental Principles and Criteria (SEPC) does not allow for resettlement as a result of REDD+, setting up an apparent contradiction. | [NAME], [NAME], FCPF
0. General | Another area that is of critical concern to indigenous peoples is the issue of benefit-sharing.  As is well known, the REDD + process also has tremendous financial implications, yet there is often insufficient transparency and information regarding the financial aspects.  For indigenous peoples, there is an added challenge of access to and understanding of the relevant information regarding benefit sharing agreements.  Hence, it is our belief that there must be full disclosure and information sharing to ensure greater transparency as the basis for any form of agreement. | UNPFII
1. Introduction | Lessons learned Suggestion to add: • Implementation of policies regarding forest conservation and reduction of deforestation have shown that the situation of indigenous peoples living in small and or environmentally degraded areas, due to colonization, shall be taken into consideration in order to guarantee that they also benefit from the REDD mechanism. •National policies for the protection of indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation (based on non-forced contact and protection of territories) are required to safeguard indigenous peoples rights. Due to existing policy, specialized State agencies should be consulted on issues related to isolated indigenous peoples or territories. Eg. In Brazil, a specialized department within FUNAI implements policies for the protection of voluntary isolated indigenous peoples'rights and shall be consulted regarding impacts over territories occupied and used by indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation as well as attempts to consult them. However this position should not be rnisunderstood as the State consult.ation on behalf of IPs, since it is a special case. | Fundação Nacional do Índio, Brazilian Federal Agency for the protection of indigenous peoples'rights (FUNAI), Brazil
1. Introduction | FPIC in our experience will be difficult to be materialized if the basic rights as stated in the international human rights conventions, agreements, and standards, among others are the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), have not been fulfilled, respected and protected. Referring to that point, FPIC should be a strand of a set of procedural rights to strengthen the basic rights that supposedly have been recognized properly. We suggest that in this introduction section, FPIC is not stated as a mechanism for an effective participation per se as explained in this section. Rather, it should be seen in the first place as an inherent right of citizen in a democratic system that is devoted to upholding the highest value of human dignity. | HuMa (Perkumpulan untuk Pembaharuan Hukum Berbasis Masyarakat dan Ekologis) Association for Community and Ecologically-based Legal Reform, Indonesia
1. Introduction | Page 4 – when referring to the lack of an “internationally agreed definition of FPIC…” it says that “the application of these guidelines will be tailored to specific contexts.” This last sentence rather be “the application of these guidelines will be tailored to national legal contexts.” | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
1. Introduction | Introduce one more sentence to elaborate on the importance of the historical and cultural role in the sustainable management of these forests, qualifying the mention to “relative success” to explain the root causes.  Link this sentence better to the following one that refers to the future.  It is important to provide more information on the analysis of past and current trends to then address future situations and propose the Guidelines. o Suggestions:  …where they have for centuries played a historical and cultural role in the sustainable management of these forests with important positive impacts.  However, the success has been relative due to a number of factors, including the progressive encroachment of ancestral territories and introduction of toxic substances and practices that affect the environment and the weakening of indigenous institutions and livelihoods. | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Human Rights Team
1. Introduction | When mentioning the Joint Guidelines in the introduction, it would be important to explain briefly these existing [NAME] and their scope.  It cannot be assumed that all readers would have this knowledge. | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Human Rights Team
1. Introduction | When referring to historical experience and select cases, it would be useful to include the source of information of such examples.  This may help strengthen the language, for instance on the first point:  “National level policies and procedures detailing requirements for community engagement as a precondition of project approval assist (instead of can assist) proponents in engaging with communities.  (Since there is already enough basis to affirm this point more strongly) | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Human Rights Team
1. Introduction | The last paragraph of the introduction seems to suggest an expectation that there needs to be an international definition of FPIC and/or an international mechanism.  This is not accurate as the right to free, prior and informed consent, as other human rights, is already enshrined (recognition rather than definition is the purpose of international legal instruments) in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and elements of this right are also included in the ILO Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples (ILO Convention 169).   Suggest reformulating the sentence:  Recognizing the existence of minimum international standards that need to be respected and promoted universally but that the specific complete scope and content of rights, including the right to free, prior and informed consent, need to be determined according to the local context, …… | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Human Rights Team
1. Introduction | Objective:     The application of the Guidelines should not be dependent of the partner country but should constitute the thrust and essence of the UN-REDD Programme, as human rights, including the right to free, prior and informed consent, are at the core of the United Nations.  It is contradictory to establish the normative nature of the guidelines and then condition such normative nature to the will of partner countries.  The normative, policy and operational framework should not apply only to the UN-REDD Programme partner countries but also apply to the UN REDD Programme itself and the UN partner Agencies, complementing the existing normative and policy frameworks conformed by the international human rights framework, the UNDG Guidelines on Indigenous Peoples and the respective policies of each UN Agency. | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Human Rights Team
1. Introduction | Why focus only on protected areas and conservation. The same holds for all sorts of proposals. | UN-REDD Regional Coordinator, Asia/Pacific, UNEP
1. Introduction | I appreciate the part 1.1 [page 4]  saying that: the application of the guidelines will have to be tailored to specific contexts. The guidelines should serve as a normative, policy and operational framework for national UN-REDD country to follow.  This allows national countries some flexibility and the UN-REDD countries may also have its own FPIC guide based on this global framework. | UN-REDD Viet Nam Programme
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent? | FPIC should mean to all relevant stakeholders [ part 3.4, page 13] as indicated in Cancun agreement  rather than indigenous people only, particular attention to be given to indigenous and vulnerable peoples . Vietnam experience showed that FPIC activities should involve whole community but not only indigenous people. | UN-REDD Viet Nam Programme
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | “It is strongly encouraged that all customary and formal rights-holders be represented in the decision-making process, especially women.”  I would think this should be required---after all, women are usually more than half of the communities.. | Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | Terminology used throughout the document should be standardised, given that the terms ‘indigenous peoples’, ‘indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities’, ‘indigenous peoples and local communities’ and ‘stakeholders’ are used interchangeably. We feel it is necessary to use a single term to refer to these actors. In the Guatemalan context, it is important to use the term ‘indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities’ because it is not just indigenous peoples who maintain a direct relationship with the forests, but also many rural land-based communities. | Climate Change Unit, Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), Guatemala
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | The document addresses throughout the theme of the representation of indigenous peoples. However, it is should be made clear that this representation must be legitimised by local inhabitants and overseen by REDD actors. This will also help identify groups that are described in the document as marginalised. | Climate Change Unit, Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), Guatemala
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | Who gives consent? The paper does include the local communities and UNREDD will need to get a definition or at least some characterization. As we know [NAME] agreement includes them. Maybe the CBD can help with the progress on that process about the concept of local communities. | Conservation International (CI)
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | It is true that the application of FPIC is in the context of rights in the paragraph 3 of the Scope, however the demand from IPs come from the ownership of the resources of their land and territories, impacts in the livelihoods etc. | Conservation International (CI)
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | In the Introduction: Interchanges use of the following terms: “indigenous peoples,” “local communities,” and “forest-dependent communities.”  Sometimes it implies that “local communities” is an umbrella term encompassing all groups, but other times it implies that “indigenous peoples” and “local communities” are distinct, or that “local communities” and “forest-dependent peoples” are synonymous, yet different from indigenous peoples.  Whatever the terms that are chosen, they should be kept consistent throughout the document, including in the introduction.  We think local communities are important, but I also know that IPs have special rights | Conservation International (CI)
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | Page 13, last paragraph, who are the “relevant right holders” ? when we talk about FPIC on IPs lands and territories, is it here when applies for local communities, forest dependent communities? As state above need to be clarified. | Conservation International (CI)
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | Consider the diversity of IPs, in different situations regarding land security and environrnental protection, and also the differences between projects (aimed at specific cornrnunities or people) and policies (with a more general character) in order to define who gives consent. Consider the challange for IPs to establish their legitimate representatives to speak on behalf ofthem in the different processes of consultaion and FPIC in a timely manner. | Fundação Nacional do Índio, Brazilian Federal Agency for the protection of indigenous peoples'rights (FUNAI), Brazil
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | [NAME] address the issue of legitimate representatives, one of the main challanges for States and indigenous peoples. | Fundação Nacional do Índio, Brazilian Federal Agency for the protection of indigenous peoples'rights (FUNAI), Brazil
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | Under ‘Scope’ (Section 1.2, p. 4), add ‘and sub-national’ to read ‘Guidelines apply to national and sub-national level activities…’ | Global Witness
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | Clarify the application of FPIC to communities other than indigenous peoples and use consistent terms throughout the Guidelines  The document is not consistent in how it considers the rights of ‘local communities’. The characteristics of local communities to which FPIC applies need to be clarified in the document, and terminology needs to be made consistent throughout the document. For example, the introduction uses the phrases ‘indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities’, ‘local communities’, ‘indigenous and local communities’, ‘indigenous peoples and local communities’, ‘rights-holders’, and ‘communities’. It is unclear whether these terms are meant  interchangeably or, if not, what the implications of using different terms are given that there is limited discussion of the meaning of the different terms.  In Section 1.2 (‘Scope’, p. 4) it is stated that partner countries may need to seek FPIC from ‘other forest-dependent communities’ in addition to indigenous peoples and that ‘local communities’ and ‘other rights holders’ will be used interchangeably. However, elsewhere in the document the term ‘rights-holders’ is sometimes used to mean both indigenous peoples and local communities (for example: Section 1.3, first paragraph, last sentence; Section 3.1, second paragraph; Section 3.2, first sentence).  We note that the term ‘forest-dependent’ is not defined in this document, and that communities not classified as ‘forest-dependent’ but with rights to land, territories and/or resources could also be impacted by REDD+ activities. We suggest using /adding a term that encompasses these communities as well.  We recommend that the Guidelines include a discussion of the circumstances under which FPIC may apply to ‘local communities’ or ‘other rights-holders’, including a discussion of how the various legal and normative frameworks referred to in this document (or other relevant ones) consider these issues, including definitions of terms such as ‘local communities’. We note that cited texts from the CBD and the Cancun Agreement decision on REDD+ explicitly reference ‘local communities’ while other texts do not. | Global Witness
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | We agree that FPIC is devoted to fulfil, respect and protect the rights of indigenous peoples. However, as a part of human rights, FPIC should be promoted in a balanced way for every human being. Therefore, it should not necessarily be explained as sets of rights that are originally rooted in and given only for indigenous peoples but also for every communities that are potentially affected by certain programs, projects, policies and development activities. Historically, many of those affected by forest-related  development are non-indigenous local communities including migrants and minorities. The impression that we see in this introduction, repeated under the section of What is Required of UN-REDD Programme Partner Countries is that FPIC is guided through a hierachy of priorities among rights holders where non-indigenous local communities and others are situated in the second layer below indigenous peoples (page 4). As a guideline, we suggest that in the "scope" section the articulation of the language (including the tone) is equally attributed to cover all potentially affected communities. Historical call of FPIC as part of the uniqueness of the rights of indigenous peoples could be properly explained in background. | HuMa (Perkumpulan untuk Pembaharuan Hukum Berbasis Masyarakat dan Ekologis) Association for Community and Ecologically-based Legal Reform, Indonesia
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | Both the Stakeholders Engagement Guidelines and the FPIC Guidelines focus only on the mere participation of indigenous peoples in States' REDD+ programs and projects. In both policies, indigenous peoples are addressed as mere “stakeholders” or grouped within an undefined umbrella of "forest-dependent communities". This approach is a considerable mistake because it obscures the connectionbetween the specific rights of different actors and impacted communities and the obligations of UN-REDD partner countries hosting projects and implementing agencies. By obfuscating the identity of rights holders and an analysis of their specific rights and the obligations these rights imply, this approach openly undermines the legal rights that indigenous peoples located in UNREDD partner countries are entitled to under international law. The collective right of selfdetermination, for instance, is a right of indigenous peoples, but it is not a right of “stakeholders” or “forest-dependent communities”. Therefore, deriving an analysis of impacts and obligations from these constructed categories is likely to lead to REDD+ programs that violate indigenous peoples’ rights of self-determination. [NAME], UN-REDD is only focusing on the participation of indigenous peoples in REDD+ programs and projects promoted by States, rather than the protection of their substantive rights. The FPIC Guidelines is a concrete example of such a focus, in which indigenous peoples are lumped in with other “stakeholders” and “forest-dependent communities”. We are very concerned about this approach, as well as UN-REDD’s lack of a stand-alone policy identifying and protecting the specific rights of indigenous peoples, especially their rights to their territories and resources and their rights of self-determination. This approach obfuscates the collective rights of indigenous peoples and thus cannot be effective at protecting those rights. • In connection to the above, UN-REDD should learn from similar mistakes made by other UN agencies in the past. Indigenous peoples made it clear that they want to be considered neither as vulnerable groups nor as populations. That is why they moved away from past working groups on minorities and indigenous "populations". Moreover, that is why today the three UN mechanisms related to indigenous issues address the rights of indigenous "peoples". • We have learned that the Bank is considering adopting a similarly misguided consolidation approach in its upcoming safeguards policy review. As we made clear to Bank Management, "including the indigenous peoples policy into a safeguard policy covering all vulnerable groups amounts to a regression of almost 30 years of policy development." Once again, we hope that UN-REDD does not follow the Bank's approach, but instead recognizes that the lack of sufficient protection of human rights within the Bank requires that UN-REDD ensure human rights due diligence within its own policies and procedures to avoid any complicity with or facilitation of human rights abuses. | ILRC
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | 3.1 read with Annex II should obligate states to undertake a process of indentifying IPs at the onset. Not only will the rights holder mapping exercise enable the start of the consent process support the FPIC process, it will speed up things. | Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC), Kenya
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | 3.1 - requirement for UNREDD partner countries …. I think the countries should also have the duty/responsibility to organize, support and or facilitate IPs to choose their own representative structures. This is guided by the understanding that some of these communities may not have representative structures (eg hunter gatherers or local communities) and due to laws and policies over time that may have led to collapse of community structures. In other instances, it is difficult to distinguish between civil society organizations that claim to represent or work with IPs with structures that are truly representatives of the IPs.  Further, there are countries with several IPs groups necessitating a national level representative structure. While some IPs are trying to establish these (Kenya) IPs in other African countries may be finding this difficult without government support. Defensive patronage often acts as barrier to actually empathizing with communities. | Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC), Kenya
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | Page 4 SCOPE – when referring to FPIC’s scope it says: “The Guidelines apply to national level activities supported by the UN-REDD Programme”.The sentence rather be: “The Guidelines apply to national level activities supported by the UN-REDD Programme, as and when appropriated, as determined by the partner country in consultation with relevant rights-holders ” since some activities supported by the UN-REDD Programme and its Agencies does not apply in the defined implementation of FPIC, as mentioned / listed on pages 12 and 13 regarding “examples of activities that may or may not require consent”. | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | Suggested revision: Page 23 – Regarding the term “indigenous” used by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples “While these are considered to have similar coverage at the international level, not all Governments agree, therefore, Partner countries will be able to make a national interpretation of these guidelines when needed, in order to include the national terminology ”.  National interpretation of the guidelines is necessary in order to reflect national context. | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | We appreciate that the Guideline choose to extend FPIC to cover local communities «and/or other relevant rights holders” besides indigenous peoples. We would however appreciate that the terminology with regard to “target group” (FPIC- for whom?) remains as consistent as possible through part 1-4 to avoid confusion. These are some examples of inconsistencies:  • Page 3, 1st paragraph: … indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities..; [NAME] 3, 2nd paragraph: …indigenous and local communities….  • Page 9, under Consent: …“indigenous peoples and other local communities”...   • In part 3 (and 4), the terminology changes to “relevant rights holders” (p.10) and “indigenous peoples and/or other relevant rights holders” (p.11 and 12). In part 4 “rights-holders” only is used.  We would also have liked to see a more explicit discussion on whether some local communities would qualify for FPIC and others not- based on criteria like for instance modernity/traditional lifestyle, dependency on forest resources, or historic, social and cultural ties to the (forest) area. | Rainforest Foundation Norway
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | Annex II -- Finally, in ‘Understanding who indigenous peoples are’ RECOFTC feels that in many cases the last two bullets do not apply. Particularly the last bullet ‘They form non-dominant sectors of society’. This is not true in many REDD relevant countries e.g. Bolivia, small-island developing states etc. | RECOFTC – The Center for People and Forests
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | It is better to use the term ‘indigenous peoples and local communities’ throughout the document | Stakeholders consultation, DRC
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | It is often unclear when the intended group is only indigenous people  or indigenous people and other forest-dependent people, and with this classification, it is not well-defined as to how the forest-dependent people are identified.  (Annex 2 provides steps for identifying indigenous people). | The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | Scope:  as before, the users of the Guidelines should also be the UN partner agencies as well as the partner countries.  [NAME] users should also be indigenous peoples (partner countries and indigenous peoples) in virtue of their self-determination and condition of partners on equal basis. | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Human Rights Team
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | Reformulate:  FPIC is most often outlined in the context of the rights of indigenous peoples.  Suggestion:  free, prior and informed consent is a right enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples….  (No need to say because, rights do not respond to reasons they are inherent to human beings.)   Suggestion:  the right to free, prior and informed consent is inextricably linked to the enjoyment of the wide range of indigenous peoples’ rights.  The effective enjoyment of this right is particularly relevant in the context of the self-determination of indigenous peoples, their collective rights and the systematic marginalization and exclusion that they continue to suffer.  These circumstances and unique features have been recognized in international law. | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Human Rights Team
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | Separate following sentence into a separate paragraph of recognizing other communities…. And suggest reformulating:    Recognizing that REDD+ activities may impact other forest-dependent communities and people that also have rights, including customary and legal rights to the territory and resources (hereinafter referred to as ‘local communities’ or ‘other right-holders’), and in line with the human rights-based approach to development of the United Nations, the application of these Guidelines also extend to these communities and right-holders and thus require partner countries to seek and obtain consent from them. | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Human Rights Team
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | • For instance, we are suggesting that the Guidelines recognize more explicitly the difference between indigenous peoples and other right-holders like forest-dependent people, local communities and minorities, including ethnic minorities.  While it is very positive that the Guidelines extend the safeguards and policy framework to all right-holders, indigenous or non-indigenous, it should be clearly stated that in the case of indigenous peoples, States have specific legal duties and obligations on issues such as free, prior and informed consent and other rights that are enshrined in international human rights law.  This Resource Guide produced by the Human Rights Service Line can be a good resource to identify human rights issues that pertain to indigenous peoples and other marginalized minorities:  Marginalised Minorities in Development Programming: A Resource Guide and Toolkit: http://content.undp.org/go/cms-service/download/publication/?version=live&id=2561210  • On the other hand, the Guidelines seem to assume a conducive environment for the recognition of indigenous peoples and the undertaking of consultation processes that comply with human rights standards. It would be important to include guidance on how to deal with situations where States do not have the political will to recognize the distinct identity and rights of indigenous peoples, as this is actually the case in many of the countries where UN-REDD Programme will be operating. | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Human Rights Team
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | Page 18 Comment 1 In some countries, including Paraguay, the term ‘vulnerable groups’ is deemed to carry unsuitable connotations. In other words, it doesn’t correspond with a perception that these are legal subjects. We would suggest the use of ‘indigenous peoples and communities’. | UNDP Paraguay
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | Some indigenous folks say that not all indigenous peoples are organized in communities. | UN-REDD Regional Coordinator, Asia/Pacific, UNEP
1.2 Scope / 3.4 Who Gives Consent?/ Annex II: Identifying Indigenous Peoples | [NAME]: the first box shows "Do indigenous or local communities have customary/legal right to the area?": in Viet Nam, according to the law on forest protection development,  forest belongs to all people and under management of state ? In this case,  should FPIC be required ? To my opinion, FPIC is still good to seek consent of every relevant stakeholders to forest, their consents are very import to preserve the forest and ensure somehow the sustainability of REDD programme later on. FPIC should still be conducted in consideration the time and cost. | UN-REDD Viet Nam Programme
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | Is is important also to cite at the beginning that FPIC is also be considered in the following [NAME]: 11.2, 19, 28, and 29.2. | BDP/RBLAC Regional Expert, UNDP
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | To avoid confusions, it is also important to cite at the beginning of the section and systematically C169 with the following articles regarding FPIC: 4.2, 16.2 (environment and land). | BDP/RBLAC Regional Expert, UNDP
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | Based on UNDRIP’s classifications the guidelines identify situations where FPIC is required and where it normally will not be required. While these distinctions will be helpful the UN REDD Programme will still be faced with a number of stumbling blocks when trying to enforce these standards. Even though most countries have signed the UNDRIP this is not a legally binding document under international law. The ILO Convention 169 has only been ratified by a few countries. There is reason to anticipate that FPIC-principles in general, or at least the interpretation of these principles, will be questioned by a number of national states. | Government of Norway
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | • The Center is encouraged by the UN-REDD’s acknowledgment of the UN Statement of Common Understanding on Human Rights-Based Approaches to Development Cooperation and Programming (Common Understanding) and the obligation to adopt a human rights-based approach within its policies. However, we are concerned that the human rights based-approach has not been effectively incorporated into UN-REDD policies. As stated above, we are concerned about critical human rights issues not addressed by current policy drafts, including coherence with human rights standards and effective assessment, recognition and protection of indigenous peoples’ rights of self determination and full ownership rights to their land and natural resources, and the right to effective remedy, including through project complaint mechanisms. • The Center believes that the above indicated issues are critical not only for the survival of indigenous peoples, but also for the effectiveness of UN-REDD supported projects when taking place in indigenous territories. We hope the concerns outlined in this paper are fully addressed at the upcoming UN-REDD Policy Board meeting, which is scheduled to take place on March 25–26, 2012, and prior to any adoption of final policy documents. | ILRC
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | • UN-REDD is falling short of its obligations to adopt a policy framework aimed at preventing human rights violations, especially violations of the rights of indigenous peoples. The UN-REDD is required under the Common Understanding to “apply a consistent Human Rights-Based Approach to common programming processes” at the global, regional and country level. The Common Understanding embraces the following three core understandings: 1) All programmes of development co-operation, policies and technical assistance should further the realization of human rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. 2) Human rights standards contained in, and principles derived from, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments guide all development cooperation and programming in all sectors and in all phases of the programming process. 3) Development cooperation contributes to the development of the capacities of ‘duty-bearers’ tomeet their obligations and/or of ‘rights-holders’ to claim their rights. • In addition to the requirements of international human rights law, the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change Cancun Agreements ([NAME]) emphasize that “[p]arties should, in all climate change related actions, fully respect human rights.” Additionally, the Cancun Agreements call for the adoption of safeguards in REDD+ to ensure “[r]espect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, by taking into account relevant international obligations...” • Despite these obligations in human rights and climate agreements, we have not seen a UN-REDD policy in which host countries and implementing agencies are required to assess the human rights risks of REDD+ projects in advance. The UN-REDD Principles and Criteria certainly do not fulfill such expectations. | ILRC
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | As a matter of policy, UN-REDD should require that REDD-related policies and projects are consistent with international human rights standards. This can be done by incorporating those standards within UN-REDD policies and incorporating participatory human rights impact assessment in all REDD+ programs and projects, from policy development through implementation and evaluation. In so doing, UN-REDD will materialize not only the indicated policy approaches outlined in the Cancun Agreements, but also the “human rights-based approach to development”. Policies that instead encourage social and environmental impact or risk and benefits assessments that are not explicitly linked to existing international human rights standards and do not require compliance with such standards, are not reflective of a human rights-based approach and are not sufficient to prevent rights violations. | ILRC
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | The fact that other organizations engaged in REDD+, such as the Bank, lack a human rights policy should not prevent UN-REDD from adopting one. The Bank’s ten environmental and social safeguard policies do not address human rights and have repeatedly fallen short in preventing and mitigating undue harm to people. Indeed, only two policies address "social"issues and, as will be explained below, the Bank is creating additional funding mechanisms, which could be used to fund climate and forestry programs without applying the existing safeguard policies. Clearly, neither the Bank nor the FCPF safeguards constitute a policy framework that UN-REDD should rely upon for the purpose of preventing human rights violations. Instead, the lack of sufficient human rights protections within Bank policies, as well as the lack of sufficient human rights protections within many REDD+ host nations, conveys an obligation on UN-REDD to be that much more diligent in its own policies and standards so as to ensure that UN agencies engaged in REDD+ are not aiding or facilitating rights abuses. | ILRC
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | The Center believes that international intergovernmental organizations engaged in REDD+, such as the UN and the Bank, must take due diligence measures to prevent human rights violations. Indigenous peoples, as well as other groups and individuals, are entitled to fundamental human rights under international law. We certainly disagree with the FCPF's belief, as stated in the "Report of the Global Dialogue with Indigenous Peoples on the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility", that "international obligations" are limited to the International Labor Organization Convention 169.Such a limited and baseless perspective ignores binding treaty law obligations assumed by countries at the UN and at regional organizations, as well as international obligations arising from ius cogens norms and customary international law. In our opinion, this perspective does not comply even with the FCPF’s own Charter (Section 3.1(c) and (d)), which orders the FCPF to ensure consistency with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change guidance on REDD and respect the rights of indigenous peoples under national law and applicable international obligations. We recommend UN-REDD not be misled into adopting a similarly limited and groundless approach to international human rights law obligations regarding indigenous peoples. | ILRC
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | UN-REDD must take into account all relevant norms of international human rights law when developing a human rights impact assessment policy. In so doing, UN-REDD should consider norms arising from treaties, customs and general principles of law. Interpretations of these sources by regional human rights courts should guide UN-REDD, especially those coming from the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. With regard to the rights of indigenous peoples, discussed further below, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration) is widely recognized as the current minimum standard for protecting the rights of indigenous peoples. The Center's “Principles of International Law for Multilateral Development Banks” can assist UNREDD in developing a human rights impact assessment policy that complies with these obligations and standards. Please, let us know if we can be of assistance in generating a greater understanding of human rights obligations and policy mechanisms for ensuring rights protections. | ILRC
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | UN-REDD has no policy specifically protecting indigenous peoples’ territories and governments, which are indispensable for their survival as distinct peoples within existing nation-states. For many years, indigenous peoples have advocated at the UN for the full recognition of core collective rights, such as full ownership rights to their lands and natural resources and the right to self-determination. It is in virtue of these rights that indigenous peoples can control, use, manage and benefit from their lands and natural resources according to their governing institutions, laws and customs. Recognition and protection of these core rights is critical to REDD+ projects taking place in indigenous territories, and must be effectively addressed by the UN-REDD. The UN Declaration entailed a process of more than 30 years in which indigenous peoples and States forged common ground on the need of protecting indigenous territories and governments. The UN Declaration is a global statement of the law concerning indigenous peoples, which enjoys today full support from the world community. | ILRC
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | The Cancun Agreements that govern REDD+ explicitly call for the adoption of safeguards to protect the rights of indigenous peoples. They clearly request “[r]espect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples [...], by taking into account relevant international obligations, national circumstances and laws, and noting that the United Nations General Assembly has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples." | ILRC
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | Both the UN [NAME] leading cases arising from the African and Inter-American Human Rights systems fully recognize indigenous peoples' collective ownership rights over their land and natural resources and the right to self-determination. The law is clear with regard to these core collective rights of indigenous peoples. | ILRC
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | Surprisingly, UN-REDD has not developed a specific policy aimed at protecting the rights of indigenous peoples. None of the UN-REDD's draft policies afford due protection of indigenous peoples' territories and governing institutions. | ILRC
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | The Center encourages UN-REDD to develop a stand-alone policy protecting the rights of indigenous peoples, including their rights of self-determination, full ownership rights over their lands, territories and resources, and permanent sovereignty over their natural resources. In so doing, UN-REDD should ensure that such a policy is "consistent with international standards regarding the rights of indigenous peoples, including those enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples." We are sure that the three UN mechanisms with specific mandates regarding the rights of indigenous peoples—i.e. UN  Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and [NAME], UN. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and UN Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—will be more than interested in such a policy development, as they expressed identical concern in a 2010 letter to the President of the Bank. Of course, we are also interested in seeing this policy development. | ILRC
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | UN-REDD should not address human rights violations as "social impacts", as the Bank does. As stated earlier, the Bank lacks a safeguard policy in which human rights are addressed. This is why, for example, the Panel itself had to request that the Bank's Board of Executive Directors address human rights violations against indigenous peoples associated with specific projects related to forestry and land administration, among others issues. | ILRC
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | • We are not able to comment on the specific details of the current draft FPIC Guidelines because such guidelines are meaningless without a policy framework providing for protection of indigenous peoples’ substantive rights, especially the rights of self-determination and permanent sovereignty over their natural resources. As stated in our 2005 paper on FPIC, we believe FPIC should not substitute or diminish the substantial legal rights in play, such as full ownership rights to land and natural resources and the right to self-determination. Sadly, both the FPIC Guidelines and the Stakeholders Engagement Guidelines are doing so. • UN-REDD must adopt a true human rights-based approach that ensures compliance with current international human rights standards and guarantees respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and other communities, including effective access to remedy for any violation of those rights. In the absence of such a framework that adequately protects substantive rights, FPIC protocols, rather than helping to avoid rights violations, can actually facilitate them. • UN-REDD should seriously rethink this approach and return to a policy approach that starts with and is guided in all areas by the essential goal of human rights protection. • The Center is seriously concerned with the UN-REDD approach to climate financing, which at a rhetorical level embraces the "human rights based approach to development," but which thus far at a practical level has failed to translate that approach into effective policy. It is clear that within UN-REDD policymaking there is significant misunderstanding of the law concerning human rights, especially the legal rights that indigenous peoples are entitled to under international law. This is very disappointing after more than 30 years of a standard-setting process at the UN, in which indigenous peoples educated both UN agencies and UN member countries regarding their collective rights. • UN-REDD is moving away from a "human rights based approach to development" by following the Bank's policy approach to "social issues” and “social impacts". Instead of addressing "social issues" in REDD+ projects, UN-REDD policies and project complaint mechanisms should address human rights issues. Likewise, instead of using the Bank' promoted policy language, UN-REDD should used straightforward human rights language and standards. There is no reason to keep confusing host countries with such a double standard just because the Bank refuses to address the human rights dimension of its policies and practices. Unless UNREDD makes this shift, it will be setting a harmful precedent in climate financing by not taking into account partner countries' international human rights law obligations. This clearly is not in compliance with the Cancun Agreements with respect to much needed safeguards for REDD+ projects. | ILRC
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | • The UN-REDD has an obligation to be a leader in the protection of human rights. Instead, the UN-REDD's policy proposals appear to be taking the lead from institutions like the Bank, which has consistently refused to acknowledge its obligations towards the human rights of communities directly impacted by its projects. That approach has led to devastating violations of the rights of indigenous peoples all over the world, and it must not be replicated through REDD+. • The work of the UN and its agencies has helped usher in a greater understanding of human rights and their undeniable connection to and contribution to the goals of development, climate justice, and environmental protection. It is critical that this understanding of the fundamental importance of a human rights-based approach not remain solely within the confines of theory or rhetoric, but instead be operationalized throughout all aspects of UN-REDD policy and implementation. | ILRC
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | Finally, the UN-REDD's Principles and Criteria and FPIC Guidelines ignore a key legal principle that properly protects indigenous territories and governments: indigenous peoples' permanent sovereignty over their natural resources. Indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty over natural resources is the general principle of international law that “[p]eoples and nations must have the authority to manage and control their natural resources and in doing so to enjoy the benefits of their development and conservation”. It entails generally “legal, governmental control and management authority over natural resources, particularly as an aspect of the right to self-determination” and carries an obligation on States to “respect, protect, and promote the governmental and property interests of indigenous peoples (as collectivities) in their natural resources.” By failing to recognize indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty over their natural resources, UN-REDD policies do not address indigenous peoples' core collective rights and ignore a well-established legal principle embraced by human rights bodies and instruments, including the UN Special  representative, the UN Declaration and core rulings from regional human rights courts. | ILRC
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | The second paragraph in this section would benefit from addition of “seek to” obtain their free, prior and informed consent, since there is a duty to consult with the “objective of obtaining free, prior and informed consent” according to the UN Declaration.  This is also detailed in the various commentaries of the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples.  Consent is a requirement under two situations in the Declaration:  1) situations where projects may result in relocation of a group from traditional lands (article 10); and 2) situations which involve the storage or disposal of toxic waste on indigenous lands (article 29).  It is important to note that these circumstances should not be considered exhaustive or exclusive.  There may be situations beyond those enumerated in which the impacts of the project are significant and direct enough to require consent before a project may move forward.  In this regard it would also be useful to reference Advice No. 2 of the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which states, inter alia, that “free prior and informed consent implies that states have a duty to obtain indigenous peoples’ consent in relation to decisions that are of fundamental importance for their rights, survival, dignity and well-being” | Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section, OHCHR
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | In order of priority, it would be useful to reference first in this section the UN Declaration first as the most comprehensive international instrument on indigenous peoples, followed by UN human rights treaty bodies, ILO Convention No. 169, and lastly the UNDG guidelines on Indigenous Peoples Issues.  While some articles in the UN Declaration are quoted in  Section 2 on Defining Free, Prior and [NAME], it would be useful to list the entire range of articles which deal with free, prior and informed consent in the normative framework section, i.e. [NAME], 11, 15, 17,19, 28, 29, 30, 32, 36, and 38. | Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section, OHCHR
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | International human rights treaty bodies have also recognised the principle of free, prior and informed consent in their jurisprudence.  For example, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (‘CERD’) has made observations and general recommendations on State obligations and indigenous rights. The Committee calls upon States to “ensure that members of indigenous peoples have rights in respect of effective participation in public life and that no decisions directly relating to their rights and interests are taken without their informed consent” (General Recommendation XXIII 51 concerning indigenous peoples adopted at the Committee’s 1235th Meeting, 1997).    Consider the case of Colombia (E/C 12/I/Add 74, para 12), an example of how UN treaty bodies consider country situations. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) noted “with regret that the traditional lands of indigenous peoples have been reduced or occupied, without their consent, by timber, mining and oil companies, at the expense of the exercise of their culture and the equilibrium of the ecosystem”. It subsequently urged the state party “to consult and seek the consent of indigenous peoples concerned prior to the implementation of timber, soil or subsoil mining projects and on any public policy affecting them” (ibid, para 33). Furthermore, in its General Comment No. 21 (2009) the CESCR underlined the fact that states parties should respect the principle of free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples in all matters covered by their specific rights.  The Guidelines could also spell out more explicitly provisions in ILO Convention No. 169 which require State to consult with indigenous peoples in good faith “with the objective of achieving agreement or consent on the proposed measure” (Article 6.2) and calls upon states to carry out consultations (Article 6.1 and 6.2, 15.2, 17.2, 22.3, 27.3 and 28). | Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section, OHCHR
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | Page 5 – Article 19: “States shall consult and cooperate in good with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures  that may affect them”. These terms [in red] should be well and widely defined for this document (as well as for the SEPC), in a glossary of terms for this document | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | Page 6 – Article 32.2: States shall consult and cooperate in good with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent prior the approval of any project  affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources …” A definition of “Project” should be included in a glossary. Most of the times there is confusion between a “REDD+ project” and “REDD+ national strategies” which are planning instruments.   It should be mentioned/clarified what other kinds of resources are considered in this case. | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | Page 5:  Human rights based approach.  Suggest inclusion of the HRBA principles outlined in the UN Common Understanding, emphasizing the principle of non-discrimination and inclusion. | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Human Rights Team
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | Page 5, when referring to the specific mandate, put first the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, then the ILO Convention 169, Convention on Biological Diversity (before the UNDG Guidelines, which is not an international treaty but a policy framework for the UNDG).  It would be important to include the relevant text from ILO Convention 169 (as with UNDRIP). | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Human Rights Team
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | In page 5, under point 1.3, Normative framework, under the part where refer to UNDRIP, the document mention some articles from UNDRIP relevant, it is recommended to add article 10 (related to evictions only with FPIC)  to that list of articles. | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Human Rights Team
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | Overall, the guidelines seem to focus solely on the right to free, prior and informed consent.  While this right and principle constitutes the backbone of indigenous peoples’ rights and the principle of self-determination, it is inextricably linked to the wide range of rights that indigenous peoples enjoy.  Therefore, it would be useful to include more reference to other rights and how they are interrelated and interdependent. | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Human Rights Team
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | When referring to FPIC, ensure consistency and refer to the indigenous peoples’ right to the free, prior and informed consent and the corollary duty of State to seek and obtain indigenous peoples’ free, prior and informed consent. | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Human Rights Team
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | Introduce the Human rights based approach to development in the introduction: Recognizing the critical role of indigenous and local communities to the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of REDD+, and in line with the human rights based approach to development that guides the action of the United Nations, … | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Human Rights Team
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | Page 5 The Normative Framework is excellent and is, in fact, fundamental information. However, in addition to transferring knowledge about the framework, we would suggest that this section be structured in reverse order, so as to put the operational aspects first. In other words, how and with which body consultations are to be carried out, and that any such consultations deliver free, prior and informed consent as ably described in Section 4. Generally, knowing how to approach consultation, what body to engage with or at what point, often form ‘bottlenecks’ for institutions. Here the axiom that the ordering of factors doesn’t alter the end product is apposite. What this is seeking to do is place the operational aspect at the heart of the guidelines. Sometimes what is laid down in the legal framework is very well known, but when it comes to putting it into practice there is little understanding of how to do so. | UNDP Paraguay
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | The references to Cancun safeguards 70.(c) and (d) at the bottom of p. 6: Does this mean that UN-REDD considers these statements to reflect “the specific mandate and obligation for States … to promote and respect the right to FPIC”?  If so, which aspects of the references—the noting of UNDRIP in (c)? The promotion of the “full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders” in (d)?  Both?  This point has been much debated and should therefore be made clearer, perhaps through the addition of a footnote. | [NAME], [NAME], FCPF
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | The Chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the development of the Draft Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) prepared by the UN-REDD Programme. The Guidelines constitute an important step towards addressing indigenous peoples’ rights.  The implications of REDD+ projects have been discussed during sessions of the Permanent Forum and also within indigenous peoples’ communities and other forums as well. While some indigenous peoples support REDD+, there are many indigenous peoples and communities who have expressed concern about how REDD+ programmes might affect their lands, territories and natural resources.   The Chair of the UNPFII understands the Draft Guidelines are based on the   recommendations made during three regional consultations on FPIC held in Viet Nam (June 2010), Panama (October 2010) and Tanzania (January 2010). The Chair is encouraged that the UN-REDD Programme is committed to following a human rights-based approach to development and would like to stress that this is premised on participation, accountability, non-discrimination, empowerment and linkage to normative standards, among which the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is fundamental.  There is thus a fundamental duty to consult with indigenous peoples with the objective of obtaining their free, prior and informed consent.   However, from our reading of the current draft, the fundamental basis and understanding of indigenous peoples’ rights needs further elaboration and greater clarity in these Guidelines.  This will also help UN REDD build on their previous work, and continue its efforts in such way as to strengthen indigenous peoples’ rights and in particular their right to self-determination. | UNPFII
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | While UN-REDD is committed to following a human rights based approach in its policies and programmes, there is no overall framework on incorporating indigenous peoples’ rights into the HRBA. It is also important that Free Prior and [NAME] is fully incorporated into this as a right in itself and not merely as an operational mechanism.  There also needs to be greater focus on how UN-REDD can recognize and protect indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination, as well as their rights to their lands, territories and natural resources. | UNPFII
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | The adoption of policies on indigenous peoples’ rights by UN agencies, programmes and funds have been useful to guide their activities and programmes with indigenous peoples.  These also provide benchmarks and indicators to assess impact and contribution to strengthen the rights of indigenous peoples.  The draft indicates that all the United Nations agencies involved in UN-REDD do not have policies on the rights of indigenous peoples.  It is recommended that the adoption of policies and guidelines, based on the UNDRIP and adopted in close engagement with indigenous peoples, be developed to ensure a strong institutional basis for their support to indigenous peoples’ rights. | UNPFII
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | It is also suggested that UN-REDD expand its focus on Free Prior and Informed Consent – not only as a tool – but also as a policy and programming framework that is premised on indigenous peoples’ rights and the UNDRIP.  It is essential that indigenous peoples are involved at all stages of a REDD+ project - from the initial preparatory stages of the project, through implementation to evaluation process and follow up.  This has to be seen in a longer term perspective, and not as a one off/ad hoc engagement for a specific consultation. | UNPFII
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | While there is the recognition of indigenous peoples’ rights in the Draft Guidelines, there needs to be greater emphasis and recognition of the collective rights of indigenous peoples in regards to ownership of lands, territories and natural resources.  This is fundamental in the REDD+ process, which ultimately deals with the lands and resource rights of indigenous peoples. | UNPFII
1.3 Normative Framework: Human Rights-Based Approach | Conclusion The Chair of UNPFII welcomes UN-REDD’s attempt to consider the involvement of indigenous peoples in its programmes and policies.  However, there are some fundamental issues that need to be addressed in greater depth to ensure that the Guidelines when adopted strengthen the rights framework on indigenous peoples’ rights.  It is extremely important that the Guidelines are grounded and based on an overall framework of indigenous peoples’ rights and set the benchmarks that are based on the UN Declaration and relevant international standards, and recognize and protect the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples.                                                                                                                                                          We look forward to working closely with you in this process. | UNPFII
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | On p. 8, under ‘Free’, the term stakeholders is not defined and although it sounds like you mean community members, it could be interpreted to mean all those interested in the outcome.  Best to clarify which is meant. (p. 26 shows that you mean the former). | Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | Under ‘Prior’:  it now says “ The amount of time required will depend on the decision-making processes of indigenous peoples and other local communities “.  I suggest adding “and the complexity of the issues involved.” | Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | Where section 2 refers to ‘cultural … sustenance’ and 2.1 to delivery that ‘strengthens and does not erode indigenous or local cultures’, it is better to refrain from providing categories for the improvement or erosion of culture. This is because culture per se represents everyday actions that acquire a symbolic value for those who maintain them and these are constantly changing. | Climate Change Unit, Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), Guatemala
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | Consent should not be described as something that ‘should be sought’ as, in this way, it could be seen as a coercive method to secure the approval of indigenous peoples. Instead, it would be better to employ terminology related to participatory negotiation for sharing the YES or NO decision on REDD. | Climate Change Unit, Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), Guatemala
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | “Proposed actions” should be clearly stated and not in brackets. FPIC applies to proposed actions (INCLUDING decisions, activities, projects, etc.) that have the potential to impact the lands, territories, and resources upon which indigenous peoples depend for their cultural, spiritual and physical sustenance, well-being, and survival. | Conservation International (CI)
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | In addition, we want to state that there is an intrinsic relationship between the consultation process (including pre-consultation) and the mechanism for obtaining and/or denying free, prior and informed consent. | Federation for the Self -Determination of Indigenous Peoples (FAPI), Paraguay
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | Suggestion to add: [NAME] (p.07) - FPIC applies to discussion regarding NOT ONLY "potential changes in resource uses", but indigenous peoples autonomy to manage and use lands and resources (art. 32UNDRIP). Comments:This is because sometimes the activities related to REDD+ wiil not impose changes in the use, but restriction to IPs autonomy to decide/manage the resources in their lands.  lnformed (p.09) Information should: ..."be objective, covering both the positive and negative potential of REDD+ activities ... " and "be complete, covering the spectrum of potential social, financial, polítical ... impacts" Comments: In both topics, it is important to highlight that information here is also a two way path. That IPs should be able to make inputs to such information, adding IPs perspectives, concerns and knowledges. Consultation and exchange of information should be considered in the topic "informed".  Consent (p.09) YES or NO and/or with conditions can also take place. In that case conditions should bemonitored in order to be followed by consent. | Fundação Nacional do Índio, Brazilian Federal Agency for the protection of indigenous peoples'rights (FUNAI), Brazil
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | In Section 2.1 (p. 9), delete ‘directly’ from the first paragraph under ‘Consent’, to read ‘… measures and policies that impact the lands, territories, and livelihoods of indigenous peoples and local communities.’ | Global Witness
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | The Guidelines make a distinction between “free, prior, informed consent” and “consultation”. In the context of indigenous peoples’ rights, consultation is an inherent and integral part of the process of obtaining free, prior and informed consent.  Therefore it should not be treated as a distinct process.  The UN Declaration and ILO Convention No. 169 require consultations to be carried out with the objective of obtaining their free, prior and informed consent.  As such it is not a mere exchange of information among project sponsors and affected communities but a good faith dialogue, and a process from inception to completion. | Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section, OHCHR
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | In her 9 August 2011 statement, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights makes clear that “consultations must be conducted with indigenous peoples at all stages of the development and natural resource extraction cycle. They are entitled to full disclosure of environmental, social and human right impact assessments in a language of their choice. States should also provide financial and technical support to enable indigenous peoples to consult with corporations. When indigenous peoples consent to such projects, they should have a right to a fair share of benefits from activities on their lands. And where projects proceed without consent, mechanisms for redress are required”. | Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section, OHCHR
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | Page 8 – when referring to the characteristics of “FREE” regarding FPIC application, it is said that “Free refers to a process that is self-directed by the community from whom consent is being sought,…” and that “All community members are free to participate regardless of gender, age or standing.”, it differs from articles 19 and 32 where FPIC must be sought through “their own representative institutions ”.   At which level of representation FPIC must be sought? Does it depend on the level of the project, measure? | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | Page 8 – when referring to “PRIOR”: “The amount of time required will depend on the decision making processes of indigenous peoples and other local communities;” and “The decision-making timeline established by the indigenous peoples must be respected,…” what would happen if the timelines established take too much time ?  Has it been considered a possibility to reach an agreement regarding timelines? | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | Page 9 – Regarding “CONSENT” it says: “The collective right to give or withhold consent applies to all projects, activities, legislative and administrative measures and policies (and their associated processes and phases)  that directly impact the lands, territories, …”. Also, when mentioning that “Consent is: given or withheld in phases, over specific periods of time for distinct stages or phases of REDD+.” It should be clarified what it considered “distinct stages or phases of REDD+”.  Which is the official source to include “policies” for FPIC (UNDRIP, other)? What is the definition for “policy” in this regard? What is considered a policy associated process and phase? All these definitions should be defined (and referenced) in a glossary. | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | Suggested revised text in blue: Page 7 – “Consent must be freely given, obtain prior to implementation of activities, as and when appropriate,  and be founded upon an understanding of the full range of issues implicated by the activity or decision in question;…” | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | Page 7 – “FPIC applies to proposed actions (decisions , activities, projects, etc.) that have a potential to impact the lands, territories, and resources upon indigenous peoples depend for their cultural, spiritual and physical sustenance, well-being, and survival.”  “Decisions” in this regard should be defined, and examples of types of decisions that should consider FPIC must be mentioned in a glossary in order to clarify the application of FPIC in this case. What kind of decisions? | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | Defining PRIOR -- "decision-making timeline established by indigenous peoples" -- This is also an area where we need some guidance. What would be a reasonable timeline? | UN-REDD Regional Coordinator, Asia/Pacific, UNEP
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | Defining INFORMED - "Be delivered in appropriate language and format" -- Who determines what is appropriate? For example, do all languages spoken  in a particular are have to be used, or rather the languages that indigenous peoples use to communicate with other indigenous people of a different ethnicity? | UN-REDD Regional Coordinator, Asia/Pacific, UNEP
2. Defining Free, Prior and Informed Consent | Under 'Free', first bullet: Stakeholders determine process, timeline and decision-making structure; Comment: it is not clear who the stakeholders are.  presumably it includes the project sponsors and the policy makers? Under second bullet: Information is transparently and objectively offered at stakeholders’ request; Comment 1: offered should be perhaps replaced by 'shared'? and Comment 2: Sharing of information should not be at anyone's request, relevant information should be shared - period. | WHO
3.1 What is Required of UN-REDD Programme Partner Countries? | Regarding POINT 3.1, page 10:  It should be made absolutely clear that in countries where UN-REDD and FCPF projects are being implemented – by whatever United Nations agency – the full framework of international human rights and all UN-REDD guidelines and documentation come into force. For example, Paraguay is implementing UN-REDD and will introduce FCPF duties via the UNDP. | Federation for the Self -Determination of Indigenous Peoples (FAPI), Paraguay
3.1 What is Required of UN-REDD Programme Partner Countries? | • Early action on FPIC is desirable, given how long the process could potentially take, but many NPs are asking, which of our current/proposed activities really require FPIC right now?  If this is not clear, it may be too early to discuss concretely. • It could be useful to prepare the national methodology for carrying out FPIC well ahead of the actual activities that will require it. • Evaluation after FPIC process should be compulsory  • Not all countries receiving support from the UNREDD Programme or agency should have the same requirements under the FPIC Guidelines because many are at different stages and receiving different amounts of funds. • Others may not realize that undertaking FPIC for a country in specific regions might not be as difficult or costly as it seems.  A mapping overlay of Vietnam of IP/communities/carbon/forests/biodiversity etc. showed where the high priority regions where and where FPIC would need to be undertaken.  This exercise demonstrated that the original cost estimates for undertaking FPIC on a national scale were vastly overcalculated. • It may be too early to be discussing FPIC.  Do readiness activities (and therefore UN-REDD NPs) really require FPIC? • Guidelines should outline exactly which activities FPIC will apply to  • More than 6 months as currently outlined in the Guidelines will be required to elaborate a project document retroactively.  It could take up to 2 years.  • The Universal Declaration on HR and the Special Rapporteur on IP Issues support the notion that FPIC is a right that should be enjoyed by everyone and Vietnam is taking this approach in its FPIC pilots. | Feedback from Workshop of UN-REDD Regional Technical Advisors
3.1 What is Required of UN-REDD Programme Partner Countries? | Suggestion to add: [NAME] (p.IO) consultation process in order to determine which activites AND NEGOTIATIONS will require FPIC. Comments: FPIC may be required not only for the implementaion of REDD activities but also previous to that, in negotiations related to the approval os such activities, projects, policy, funds.  Particularly in cases affecting IPs lives and in the case of groups living in voluntary isolation.  Suggestion: para.6 (p.I O)consultation regarding IPs living in voluntary isolation should be addressed to State agencies specialized on the issue. This highlights the importance for Countries to establish such agencies. | Fundação Nacional do Índio, Brazilian Federal Agency for the protection of indigenous peoples'rights (FUNAI), Brazil
3.1 What is Required of UN-REDD Programme Partner Countries? | S 10 (3.1): refers to different sections and uses b.w R-PP and NJD. A footnote explaining the difference/relation between these two documents would be useful. Are these paragraphs in line with the most recent R-PP template (which we understand that now is a document that may be used as a template for national programmes supported by both the FCPF and the UN-REDD)? | Government of Norway
3.1 What is Required of UN-REDD Programme Partner Countries? | Proposed revision: Page 10 – “In case of the National Programme Document (NPD), developed after the approval of these guidelines, consultation on activities that should require FPIC should take place during the scoping/formulation and country validation phases…” | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
3.1 What is Required of UN-REDD Programme Partner Countries? | Page 10 – “In cases where the NPD or R-PPs have already been approved, partner countries should add a plan for consulting on which activities require FPIC to their existing consultation plan  within six months of the finalization of these Guidelines and submit the revised plan to the relevant National Programme Steering Committee (or equivalent).” Which is the scope of this consultation plan to define activities that require FPIC. The scope of NPDs should be at representative organizations of indigenous peoples and local communities level. The scope of this consultation plan should be described and included in this section. | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
3.1 What is Required of UN-REDD Programme Partner Countries? | "In cases where the NPD or R-PPs have already been approved, partner countries should add a plan for consulting on which activities require FPIC to their existing consultation plan within six months of the finalization of these Guidelines and submit the revised plan to the relevant National Programme Steering Committee (or equivalent)." --  What if a National Programme finishes five or seven months after the guidelines have been finalized. I understand that this is important, but we may ask countries to add another task to their work when they are about to wind down. | UN-REDD Regional Coordinator, Asia/Pacific, UNEP
3.1 What is Required of UN-REDD Programme Partner Countries? | The guidelines said that FPIC is required during the formulation stage [part 3.1, page 10] and it is necessary to define national  level activities that requires FPIC . This process is not easy, costly and time consuming. The practice of so far project development may also affect this process as usually in this period, the programme document tends to be general while doing FPIC, the REDD activities need to be detailed and specific (scale, scope and location). | UN-REDD Viet Nam Programme
3.1 What is Required of UN-REDD Programme Partner Countries? | re: last paragraph: In accordance with...Comment: I find this paragraph contradictory to the earlier ones, and while I understand the logic, it is implying  that activities can be carried out that affect indigenous people living in voluntary isolation, without any attempt to contact them, and without consulting them. | WHO
3.1 What is Required of UN-REDD Programme Partner Countries? | FPIC process need money and time while the developing countries may not have due budget to do FPIC during formulation period, this may delay the submission process and pose difficulty to national countries. Therefore, the global programme should consider planning grant to particularly support the FPIC exercise. | UN-REDD Viet Nam Programme
3.2 When FPIC is required | Suggestion to add: [NAME] (p.1l) consider impact on the autonomy and way of life of IPs (not only on lands or resources) | Fundação Nacional do Índio, Brazilian Federal Agency for the protection of indigenous peoples'rights (FUNAI), Brazil
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | p. 13 in the [NAME] on what may not need FPIC, there is this statement:  “Technical and scientific studies (e.g. to determine a national reference level);”  I suggest that it might be better to say “’Some technical and scientific studies…”  as there may well be some for which agreement should be sought (in research conducted out of US universities, for instance, we all have to get folks’ permission to conduct ethnographic or survey research among them). | Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | In the section 3.2, p.13, the activities that may not required consent are addressed. In addition, I think,  it would be noted that some of these activities (Assessment of land use, forest law, policy and governance, Assessment of key social and environmental risks and potential impacts of REDD+ strategy options) need to be involved with indigenous peoples and local communities (as indicated in | Department of Biology, University of Dalat, Viet Nam
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | Page 12 sets out emerging examples of activities that may require consent. The following should be included in this section:  The activity/policy must include: a) national legal processes to clarify ‘to whom the carbon belongs’ – in Paraguay, for example, this is an important issue;  b) the participation required in the process to enable carbon measurement;   c) the possible impacts of the UN-REDD project in changing traditional economic activities. | Federation for the Self -Determination of Indigenous Peoples (FAPI), Paraguay
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | Page 14 sets out examples of emerging activities that may not require consent. I FEEL IT IS ESSENTIAL TO INCLUDE HERE that the participation of indigenous peoples must be assured in equal measure. | Federation for the Self -Determination of Indigenous Peoples (FAPI), Paraguay
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | The draft document (page 7) defines FPIC and its reach, stating that it would apply to “REDD+ discussion regarding potential changes in resource use that could impact the livelihoods of indigenous and other local communities”. Tables on pages 12 and 13 suggest some cases where FPIC may or may not apply. In the Table on page 12, we would suggest the inclusion of other cases where FPIC may be required, notably: 1. Indigenous Peoples’ participation in MRV and Systems of Information on Safeguards, carbon stock measurement and ground-truthing; 2. Decisions envisaging any possible changes in traditional livelihood practices and freedoms and any related income-generation proposals or activity;  The table on page 12 may need to be expanded further after consultation with rights holders, including in the February 2012 workshop and based on comments made in written submissions. The table on page 13 containing suggestions where FPIC may not be required may also need careful qualification after discussions with rights-holders and FPIC experts.  In short, scrutiny of the list in the draft guidelines on page 13 raises a number of questions about when the UNREDD Programme and governments may or may not  need to obtain FPIC, notably in relation to: the approval of a national REDD+ Readiness strategy; The provision of information sharing, awareness raising and capacity building activities; the identification of drivers of deforestation and forest degradation; assessment of land use, forest law, policy, and governance; assessment of key social and environmental risks and potential impacts (both positive and negative) of REDD+ strategy options; technical and scientific studies (e.g. to determine a national reference level); setting up a national monitoring system to measure, report and verify the effect of the REDD+ strategy on Greenhouse Gas emissions; taking aerial photographs of land; carbon stock measurement.  In the specific, as far as the approval of a national REDD+ Readiness strategy is concerned, we underline that, specific elements relating to indigenous peoples or proposed pilot actions within such readiness strategies that could affect indigenous peoples’ lands and territories, and which might have implications for their rights and interests, may well require some measure of FPIC through freely chosen representative structures and processes agreed with rights-holders. This might require outreach and consultation in regions where REDD+ strategies will be focused, and also with any national membership organisations to which IPs and local communities may belong.  In certain circumstances, it may well be that REDD+ proposals for carbon stock assessments and technical and scientific studies, which might include fieldwork involving indigenous territories and customary lands, may well also require FPIC.  In the same way, while national-level social and environmental assessments may not require full FPIC, specific actions to undertake assessment activities and related studies in indigenous territories and customary forests would likely require FPIC (as indirectly shown in [NAME]). Similar observations the scope and coverage of FPIC would most likely apply to most of the suggested activities in the box at page 13. | Forest Peoples Programme (FPP)
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | The determination of when it is necessary to seek FPIC must be consistent with national legislation, international normative frameworks and customary rights  The Guidance provides examples where FPIC is required by certain normative frameworks while also stating several times that it is up to the partner country, in consultation with relevant rights-holders, to decide in which cases FPIC is necessary (see ‘Introduction’, paragraph 3; ‘Objective’, p. 4; and ‘When is FPIC Required?’, p. 10). We think it is important to be clear that decisions must be consistent with national legislation and international normative frameworks such as, but not limited to, those discussed in the Guidelines. The outcomes of consultations with rights-holders about when to apply FPIC must comply with commitments made by countries and in addition, as stated in Section 3.2 (p. 11, last paragraph), must respect ‘communal property rights based on traditional use, culture and customary laws…whether or not they are explicitly recognized by the national government.’ | Global Witness
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | We do not agree that approval of a national REDD+ readiness strategy should be listed as an activity that may not require FPIC. This is misrepresentative, as there are many elements of a national REDD+ strategy that could require FPIC as part of the approval process. UNDRIP sets out that FPIC must be sought in the case of ‘legislative or administrative measures’ that may affect indigenous peoples. We recommend deleting the first bullet under ‘Activities that may not require consent’ (Section 3.2, p. 13) referring to national REDD+ readiness strategies. | Global Witness
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | In this section, it says that carbon stock measurement is a part of activities that does not necessarily require consent from communities. Since in some countries and considering that legal debate has a tendency to place carbon in the taxonomy of property rights, every existing guideline should carefully and sensitively address the issue of “who owns carbon”. If carbon will be a part of a new regime of property rights, it should be treated like existing properties, such as territory, land and natural resources. Using FPIC elements, the principle of consent-seeking in this context is a must. | HuMa (Perkumpulan untuk Pembaharuan Hukum Berbasis Masyarakat dan Ekologis) Association for Community and Ecologically-based Legal Reform, Indonesia
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | The Guidelines lay out steps for partner countries, including an assessment of “whether a proposed activity/policy will significantly impact on the lands, territories and /or resources of indigenous peoples…”   The Title of the Box on page 12 Emerging examples of activities that may or may not require consent  is formulated in a weak manner in relation to those activities for which there is a clear requirement in the UN Declaration of obtaining consent such as forced removal or relocation of indigenous peoples.    Similarly, the [NAME] on page 13 referring to “activities that may not require consent” does not reflect the fact that these activities should benefit from consultation. | Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section, OHCHR
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | There is a list of activities which may or may not require consent (pages 12-13).  While I agree that the activities listed on page 13 may not require consent, it would still be worthwhile to indicate that the results of those activities would be shared with indigenous or local peoples. | The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | Page 10: Indicates process for determining when FPIC will be required, including: consultation process with representatives from relevant rights-holders groups in territories where REDD+ readiness activities will take place, in order to determine which activities will require FPIC and other related issues. It then gives a number of examples of when FPIC might be required. It is not clear to us, however, how the consultation process will determine which activities require FPIC. This might be improved if the language is made more specific. For example: “The consultation process should identify activities affecting indigenous lands and territories and other resources etc etc (laying out all of the specific situations that should be considered) and any other activities that might require FPIC and make the determination whether or not FPIC is required.”  Also, how will this consultation work given that FPIC is an ongoing process. We need these guidelines to be clear about how FPIC will be achieved on an ongoing basis, not just at 1 or 2 decision points. Perhaps language such as “As REDD+ implementation progresses and additional potential activities are identified, consultations will need to be taken to determine for which activities FPIC is required.”  Our understanding is that a FPIC Scoping Review and FPIC Proposal would be done for each activity requiring FPIC, but this needs to be made clear. It should also be made clear that these need to be done throughout REDD+ implementation as new potential activities are identified.  Will the FPIC Scoping Review and FPIC Proposals be submitted to UNREDD or other funders? What is the process for documenting the FPIC process once the [NAME] has been agreed? | Conservation International (CI)
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | Page 11, paragraph 3 is in one way a good progress in terms to include the FPIC but it is almost a decision over a preconceived project where communities plan are not included. | Conservation International (CI)
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | In Section 3.2 (p. 11), delete ‘significantly’ from fourth paragraph to read ‘…carefully consider whether the proposed activity/policy will impact on the lands, territories and/or resources …’ | Global Witness
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | In bullet 2 of ‘Activities that may require consent’ (Section 3.2, p. 12), add ‘or damage’ after ‘removal’; in bullet 3, amend to read ‘…confiscation, occupation, loss of access to, degradation, or damage of the lands territories and/or resources…’ | Global Witness
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | The Guidelines quote an example of special circumstances elaborated by the International Finance Corporation which require clients to obtain free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities.   It would be useful to also mention the responsibilities of non-state actors and to consider an insertion on Page 11, after the second or third paragraph of the following: "In addition to states meeting their human rights obligations towards indigenous peoples, business enterprises have a separate responsibility to respect human rights. This responsibility is reflected in the recently UN-endorsed Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. These apply also in the context of business activities affecting indigenous peoples”   (see e.g. report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, A/HRC/15/37/).    It should also be stipulated that business enterprises involved should exercise due diligence to identify, prevent and mitigate potential negative impacts on rights and address those that occur. | Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section, OHCHR
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | But the question will be whether consent will be required at the national level or just at the project/site level? | Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC), Kenya
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | Page 12 – “Activities that may or may not require consent” : “Decisions regarding whether pilot activities  will take place on the lands/territories of indigenous peoples and/or other relevant rights-holders”.   REDD+ pilot activities? If so, include the word “REDD+” since there could be confusion with other kind of pilot activities, for example the pilot implementation of REDD+SES. | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | Page 13 – “Activities that may or may not require consent”: “Approval of national REDD+ Readiness strategy ”.  Is this the National REDD+ Strategy that countries should develop in phase 1 “Readiness”, in compliance with the UNFCCC? If so, the word “Readiness” should be eliminated from the sentence since if can make people think they are 2 different strategies. | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | Page 11 – regarding the requirement of the Inter-American Court of human Rights for FPIC in cases of “major development projects” and “large-scale development or investment projects” .  Include a definition of development or investment  projects in the glossary. | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | Page 12 – “Activities that may or may not require consent” : Define “policy”. | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | Setting up a national monitoring system to measure -- does this include setting up of inventory plots? | UN-REDD Regional Coordinator, Asia/Pacific, UNEP
3.2 When is FPIC Required? | For us the document does not provide a clear response to one of the most critical questions that it should be striving to answer, namely “What aspects (if any) of the development of a national REDD+ strategy require FPIC?”  On one hand, it puts a number of the activities/processes typically associated with REDD+ strategy development in the category of “Activities that may not require consent” (box on p. 13), although this is heavily qualified.  On the other hand, certain statements in the document read as if the authors intended for FPIC to apply to REDD+ strategy development, or even to the REDD+ Readiness Preparation process as a whole.  Consider the following quotes (with emphasis added in all cases):  “The Guidelines apply to national level activities supported by the UN-REDD Programme.” (p. 4)  “FPIC applies to proposed actions (decisions, activities, projects, etc.) that have the potential to impact the lands, territories, and resources upon which indigenous peoples depend for their cultural, spiritual and physical sustenance, well-being, and survival.” (p. 7)  “The collective right to give or withhold consent applies to all projects, activities, legislative and administrative measures and policies (and their associated processes and phases) that directly impact the lands, territories, resources, and livelihoods of indigenous peoples and other local communities. Consent must be sought and granted or withheld according to the unique formal or informal political-administrative dynamic of each community.” (p. 9)  Furthermore, the Guidelines do not seem to recognize that the Readiness Preparation process is supposed to contain a number of features (e.g. a broad-based and inclusive multi-stakeholder engagement process, multiple points for providing inputs into studies and assessments, timely opportunities for reviewing and validating REDD+ strategy options, etc.) which could, in and of themselves, constitute instances of “consent” as it has sometimes been defined in the literature concerning this subject.  Note that consent expressed in this way would not necessarily work at the level of each community that is potentially involved, as suggested by the last quote above.  In our view the Guidelines would benefit from a definitive statement to the effect that i) FPIC during the Readiness preparation and similar macro-level, planning-oriented processes is essentially ensured through a robust consultation process with multiple points for review and validation of proposed policy reforms by those stakeholders most likely to be affected by them (including the poorest and most vulnerable); and that ii) actions associated with FPIC at the community level would be pursued only in the case of concrete projects and activities having site-specific effects. | [NAME], [NAME], FCPF
3.3 Who Seeks Consent? | Given the various political contexts under which FPIC will be applied, is it possible to emphasize the benefits of involving CSO as the (co) facilitator of FPIC. Is Laos we are making an effort of doing this so as to avoid direct involvement of the project owners (government adn GIZ) and minimize influencing factors on consent. | Lao PDR GIZ- CliPAD Project
3.3 Who Seeks Consent? | Page 13 – “National Implementation Partner ” seeks consent, but FPIC processes should be “Self-directed by the communities” then, who (which entity) acts as a mediator between the National Implementation partner (government) when FPIC applies to activities developed by the government (country partner); also, for national level activities (for example, activities included in the National REDD+ Strategies) which is the scope of the FPIC? Representative organizations of indigenous peoples and local communities (through their own representative institutions)? Is this [highlighted in red] the entity in charge of managing financial resources? Regarding the HACT Evaluation, in Ecuador, UN Implementing Agencies (FAO-UNDP-UNEP) are in charge of implementing financial resources in coordination with the National Partner (Ministry of environment) who would be in this case the national implementation partner according to the UNDP Financial Regulations and Rules? | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
3.5 Outcome of the FPIC Process | When indigenous communities deny consent there must be guarantees that this carries no negative implications for the communities, regions or country in terms of future forest or environmental projects. Attention should focus on ensuring extra care is taken with managing information related to the free, prior and informed consent process. | Climate Change Unit, Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), Guatemala
3.5 Outcome of the FPIC Process | Page 14. “consent on the basis of certain conditions” An agreed “joint plan” with indigenous communities should be included and not only conditions. In the last paragraph should also include potential internal conflicts, how to address this type of conflict that can affect the agreement. | Conservation International (CI)
3.5 Outcome of the FPIC Process | The outcome should be well-documented and made publicly available in the languages of the indigenous people/s involved and affected. | Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section, OHCHR
3.5 Outcome of the FPIC Process | Again, given the country context, what about how consent is recorded (agreements, contracts) and whether there should be a legal aspect? | Lao PDR GIZ- CliPAD Project
4.  [NAME] for Seeking FPIC | The guidelines make important references to verification processes. We also note that point 4c does allow for the possibility for independent validation,‘...where there is a question on the validity of the FPIC process’. FPP suggests that options for independent verification and validation should be made a general recommendation in the guidelines in Section 4.b in order to provide clearer guidance to partner countries and help ensure robust implementation. Specifically, we would suggest the following adjustments to the guidelines at 4b (see text insertions in bold).  “Methods of verifying the FPIC process and its outcomes, including, where relevant, participatory monitoring arrangements and mechanisms for independent validation”  The guidelines rightly advise that the final FPIC Proposal must be “mutually agreed upon” with rights holders (page 16). FPP suggests that agreement on the FPIC proposal should be validated by rights holders. In this regard, an adjustment to the text on page 16 might read:  “The FPIC Scoping Review and FPIC Proposal should be combined into one document and signed (or agreed upon in a culturally appropriate manner) by all relevant parties. Once this document has been validated with rights holders and been signed/agreed upon, the FPIC process can proceed as outlined in the Proposal.” | Forest Peoples Programme (FPP)
4.  [NAME] for Seeking FPIC | The need to allow communities to access legal and technical advice is important (as noted in the figure in Annex III). FPP suggests that the guidelines should recognise that such communities must have the opportunity to seek advice from independent legal and technical experts (i.e. people without direct links to the government and project proponent(s)). | Forest Peoples Programme (FPP)
4.  [NAME] for Seeking FPIC | The FPIC guidelines require that the agreed procedures for FPIC should be contained in an FPIC proposal that must be mutually agreed upon. The guidelines could be further improved by giving emphasis to the need for partner countries and project proponents to recognise FPIC arrangements and procedures set out in community rules and guidelines for community consultation and consent, where such guidelines exist and where they have been developed, agreed, validated and adopted collectively by affected rights holders. Where communities do not have such guidelines, they may need capacity building on FPIC and time to develop their own FPIC rules internally before they engage with government and project proponents. | Forest Peoples Programme (FPP)
4.  [NAME] for Seeking FPIC | As well as making sure that rights holders agree on the contents of FPIC procedures to be used by partner countries in UNREDD FPIC proposals, it will also be necessary for them to agree the implementation of these proposals on the ground. The agreed implementation arrangements for the FPIC proposal should therefore be explicit and be included in the same formal FPIC proposal document.   To this end, we suggest adding an additional bullet (before the last bullet) at section 4.b as follows:  How the agreed final FPIC proposal will be implemented and adequately resourced to ensure effective application | Forest Peoples Programme (FPP)
4.  [NAME] for Seeking FPIC | However, can it also further address the (independent) verification of FPIC? I'm certainly no expert on FPIC or social issues, but I have extensive experience in auditing for FSC, RSPO and other initiatives. A common comment from auditors is that FPIC is difficult to audit. (This links to the MRV discussions under REDD?) Is it possible to add a list of key indicators and verification methods for (independent) verification of FPIC? | Gaia Commoditas, Indonesia
4.  [NAME] for Seeking FPIC | It is not always clear who the state, UN-REDD staff and others must consult, therefore it would be useful to specify the groups.  It would also be helpful to include a comment on the right of indigenous peoples to share in benefits derived from REDD activities, in accordance with Article 15(2) of ILO Convention No. 169, which states that indigenous peoples “shall wherever possible participate in the benefits of [development projects involving the exploitation of mineral resources] and shall receive fair compensation for any damages they may sustain as a result of such activities”. | Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section, OHCHR
4.  [NAME] for Seeking FPIC | Could this section include a short paragraph on field implementation of FPIC and the need to be responsive and adaptive to lessons learned? | Lao PDR GIZ- CliPAD Project
4.  [NAME] for Seeking Free, Prior, and [NAME] | In the passage describing the concept of ‘Free’ and in other sections of the document, it states that stakeholders determine the timeline and that they decide when actions are carried out. It is important not to provide too high a level of flexibility here, but rather to provide freedom within a framework that works within the national process. Otherwise, overly extending consultation and consent-seeking processes might affect the implementation of actions. If a community isn’t ready to give its consent within a reasonable timeframe, this could be read as a ‘NO’ and processes could be taken forward in other territories that are so disposed. | Climate Change Unit, Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), Guatemala
4.  [NAME] for Seeking Free, Prior, and [NAME] | Page 15 – “Resources allocated for seeking FPIC” – should these resources be provided by the partner countries? Considered in the NPD?, if so, it should be specified in this section. The importance of the cooperation of indigenous peoples and local communities in the development of FPIC processes of Scoping Review, [NAME] and Implementation through their representative institutions should be outlined in this section . | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
4.  [NAME] for Seeking Free, Prior, and [NAME] | The scoping review put forward in the guide (page 15) needs to allow for assessing the enabling environment as well. The legal, policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks in a given country could negatively or positively impact the application of FPIC. For example, whether a country has adopted Freedom of Information law or not will influence the level of transparency of local government institutions and how they interact with communities. The UNDP capacity assessment methodology (http://www.undp.org/capacity/ourapproach.shtml) offers guidance on how to review/assess enabling environments that influences communities or organizations ability to perform. | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Anti-Corruption Team
4.  [NAME] for Seeking Free, Prior, and [NAME] | The guidelines did not mention how the FPIC should be evaluated and verified [little on verification mentioned in page 15].  During the scoping review, independent E&V need to be discussed and Guideline on E&V should also be available for national UN-REDD country to better prepare for FPIC. In Viet Nam case, info on E&V was not available at that time. | UN-REDD Viet Nam Programme
4.  [NAME] for Seeking Free, Prior, and [NAME] | In the “Operational Framework for Seeking FPIC” (pp. 15-16), in relation to the 4th bullet under 4.a., it would be helpful to see a mention of the range of tools/methods that could be used for the “assessment of the social, environmental, and cultural impacts of the proposed policy/ activity on the rights-holders.” How could such an assessment realistically be conducted, if the overall outline of the REDD+-related policy or strategy is not clear yet?  (See comment #4 above.)  In a related comment, independent monitoring and verification of the FPIC process, as referred to in the 9th bullet under 4.b., is indeed important and it would be helpful for this section of the Guidelines to clarify how Governments, involved IPs, and other interested parties could arrange for this. | [NAME], [NAME], FCPF
4.  [NAME] for Seeking Free, Prior, and [NAME] | In the FCPF Global Dialogue with Indigenous Peoples in Kuna Yala, Panama, some of the indigenous participants emphasized the desirability of having access to competent legal counsel, so it may be worthwhile for UN-REDD to work this into the Guidelines somewhere. The point could be simply that IPs and local communities could benefit from receiving independent legal advice, in case the FPIC process is not going well and the grievance and/or accountability mechanisms in place are not well equipped to deal with their issues. | [NAME], [NAME], FCPF
4. Operational Framework for seeking FPIC | The description of the area and legal status (and actual status) of lands and resources should be made with participation in consultation with indigenous peoples. In the same line, assessment of impacts and mitigation of impacts should be consulted with IPs. Consider also the particular cases in areas witb presence ofIPs in voluntary isolation (more restrictions). | Fundação Nacional do Índio, Brazilian Federal Agency for the protection of indigenous peoples'rights (FUNAI), Brazil
4. Operational Framework for Seeking Free, Prior, and [NAME] | Page 13. Activities may not require consent. “the provision of information sharing, awareness raising and capacity building activities” ; usually to access to communities there is a need to get a consent from the communities or the representative body maybe not FPIC as process on this. | Conservation International (CI)
5. Grievance and Accountability | Another key element is related to the operationalisation of FPIC and related enablers.   The draft Social and Environmental Principles and Criteria (SEPC),  currently under elaboration, rightfully and consistently recognizes in Principle 2 “Respect and protect stakeholder rights, including human rights, statutory and customary rights and collective rights” that “criterion 9: seek free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples and other forest dependent communities and respect and uphold the decision taken (whether consent is given of withheld)".   The draft Benefit and Risk Assessment Tool (BeRT) is intended to guide the preparation of the National UNREDD programmes , and “assisting countries in formulating National REDD+ programmes and initiatives for which they seek UNREDD support”. It is also meant to be used in conjunction with the Stakeholder Engagement guidelines. There is therefore a substantial relevance on the way the BeRT is designed and applied and the scope and reach of Free Prior Informed Consent.  In the specific The BeRT  does provide criteria to assess existence of national legislation on FPIC (principle 1, criterion 4, 1b and more specific to FPIC, principle 2, criterion 9. 1).   It would be worthwhile extending such provision to  the Readiness Preparation Plan in the sections where it provides an analysis of the existing legislative framework and guidance on the System of Information on Safeguards (component 4b) and component 6 (Design a program monitoring and evaluation framework), as well as in the guidelines for component 1c (Consultation and Participation process) of the RPP, that currently does not contain any element related to FPIC, and in component 2c (REDD+ implementation framework).  To sum up, in addition to  criteria to assess the extent to which the FPIC is being recognized and upheld by UNREDD in its activities (when working together with FCPF), another marker will have to be established  to assess - under the REDD+ institutional arrangements -  the country’s governance and REDD implementation framework in terms of alignment and mainstreaming of International obligations and standards on indigenous peoples’ rights in their legislative and administrative systems. Such assessment would also include the recognition of FPIC in national legislation that would apply to any activity throughout the REDD phases. | Forest Peoples Programme (FPP)
5. Grievance and Accountability | Consider the particular cases of areas with presence of IPs in voluntary isolation that requires mechanisms to address grievances and review of monitoring in a more constant basis and in dialogue with States (not communities). | Fundação Nacional do Índio, Brazilian Federal Agency for the protection of indigenous peoples'rights (FUNAI), Brazil
5. Grievance and Accountability | Grievance and accountability - though a global and national mechanisms are proposed, a whole regional grievance mechanism has not been mentioned. African IPs have consistently proposed that such a regional system be linked to existing regional human rights mechanism. This is guided by the developing regional REDD+ projects (SADC Africa approach), trans boundary REDD+ etc. Besides, if UNREDD has regional coordinators, why can’t a regional grievance and accountability mechanism be put in place? In the interim, the proposal that stakeholders may direct grievances to the UN-REDD Programme Secretariat and the UN Resident Coordinator is welcome. But I am not sure of the Resident Coordinator’s commitment to IPs issues in Africa. This is even more challenging when the resident coordinators are of African descent. But in the event that the Resident Coordinators are committed, are they accessible? | Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC), Kenya
5.      Grievance and Accountability | a ‘Tailored to the Institution’ principle is put forward, which states that the mechanism must be designed to take into account the particular features of the institution. The mechanism must be tailored, in this case, to the UN-REDD Programme’s (and its agencies’) organisational structure, type of operations, legal restrictions, relevant policies, existing accountability framework, and institutional culture.    We consider that this principle, which seeks to foster the principle of flexibility, is not very appropriate as it relies on the political will of the institution tasked with managing the grievance and accountability mechanisms. One should bear in mind that, in practice, not all public institutions are sensitive to indigenous rights – or they interpret them in different ways. As such, it is possible that the way the principle is currently worded may negatively affect how indigenous peoples’ grievances are considered. An alternative wording might be: ‘UN-REDD Programme bodies (and their agencies) will undertake the best possible measures – which take into account their characteristics, mandates and authorities – to ensure effective processes for the consideration, treatment and resolution of grievance and accountability mechanisms’. | CARE Lima
5.      Grievance and Accountability | p. 14 “If there is disagreement over whether conditions are being met or not, communities can express their grievance with the relevant national level grievance mechanism.”  It might be worth mentioning earlier the necessity of having such a grievance mechanism…. | Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
5.      Grievance and Accountability | p. 18 “Fairness: Fairness and objectivity require the mechanism to give equal weight to the arguments of all sides to conduct independent and impartial investigations. The mechanism’s procedures should treat all parties fairly, and fairness should be an expectation of all outcomes.”  Although I completely agree that we want fairness, it is very difficult to define what it means.  Different people will define it differently.  In some cases, real fairness requires partiality, in defense of those who are disempowered.  Is it possible to stress the importance of having fair processes and outcomes, maybe ‘ensuring that justice is served’---I’m not sure, but I’m still not quite satisfied with the statement as is… | Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
5.      Grievance and Accountability | “In addition, the mechanism should make public its methods of investigation, factual findings, non-confidential party submissions, and reports via a website and documents publicly available. “  Need somehow to acknowledge that many would-be readers are illiterate (especially women) and that means must be found to make this material accessible to those folks. | Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
5.      Grievance and Accountability | Page 18. The principle for grievance mechanism should also have staff “knowledgeable” on indigenous people’s situations and issues. | Conservation International (CI)
5.      Grievance and Accountability | Provide more information about the timeframe and process for developing accountability mechanisms, guidelines and interim measures  We are encouraged by the plans described in these Guidelines to establish a global accountability mechanism and require partner countries to develop national level grievance mechanisms. These are important steps in promoting the effective implementation of UNREDD Programme guidelines, policies and procedures and ensuring that key stakeholders have a mode of recourse if they feel they are or may be negatively impacted by UN-REDD Programme activities. It is therefore essential that these mechanisms are in place soon, during the formulation of readiness strategies, when decisions that could have significant social and environmental impacts are being made. We would like to see commitments regarding the timeframe for establishing a global accountability mechanism for the UN-REDD Programme and for developing guidelines for national level grievance mechanisms in partner countries, as well as more information about the interim accountability arrangements alluded to in Section 5.6 and how they will meet the Principles listed in Section 5.3. In addition, we seek clarity on whether a single global accountability mechanism will be developed for the UN-REDD Programme and/or individual mechanisms at the three   implementing agencies will be developed. | Global Witness
5.      Grievance and Accountability | Provide further detail and clarity on the requirements for grievance mechanisms in partner countries  Section 5.2 provides a brief summary of the requirements for countries preparing an R-PP with regards to developing a grievance mechanism, as elaborated in version 6 of the R-PP template. To ensure consistency, it is worth including the relevant text from the R-PP in its entirety as an Annex to this document. The R-PP requires a ‘feedback and grievance redress mechanism’ to be operational ‘early in the R-PP implementation phase’, and UN-REDD guidelines should have the same objective with regard to National Programmes.  We are unclear about the meaning of the last paragraph in Section 5.2, which states that ‘UNREDD partner countries’ will be required to ‘undertake a similar assessment and proposal’. Does this refer to UN-REDD partner countries with existing National Programmes (that may or may not have used an earlier version of the R-PP template), or does it apply to all partner countries receiving support from the UN-REDD Programme? Will countries participating in both the FCPF and UN-REDD Programme potentially have to adhere to two separate sets of standards? We strongly encourage the development of a single set of guidelines and principles for national level grievance mechanisms, harmonized according to the highest standards. Section 5.2 should refer to the ‘next steps’ described in Section 5.6 for developing further guidance on national level grievance mechanisms although, as noted above, further detail is required on this process. | Global Witness
5.      Grievance and Accountability | Specify arrangements for oversight of the implementation of recommendations from accountability/grievance mechanisms  A requirement that implementation of recommendations from grievance and accountability mechanisms be monitored and enforced in a transparent manner by a competent body should be included where appropriate in Section 5. | Global Witness
5.      Grievance and Accountability | Include additional principles for grievance mechanisms  As per wording in the R-PP template, it should be noted in Section 5 that grievance mechanisms are not substitutes for legal or administrative systems or other public or civic mechanisms. They do not remove the right of complainants to take their grievances to other more formal recourse options. Reference should also be made to the principles for non-judicial grievance mechanisms set out by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. The principles listed on pp. 18-19 of these Guidelines should be aligned with these, including the insertion of principles on legitimacy, predictability and continuous learning.  The Principle on ‘Accessibility’ (p. 18) should state that requesters must be able to submit their complaints ‘without fear of reprisals, intimidation or demands for payment.’ | Global Witness
5.      Grievance and Accountability | Ensure that information on grievance mechanisms is accessible to all relevant parties  Under ‘Accessibility’ in Section 5.3, amend the first sentence to end ‘…and format required to allow access by all affected people.’ Under Section 5.4, it should be clear that such disclosure needs to be made in an accessible and timely manner. To do so, it could borrow from the detailed list of principles under ‘Informed’ in section 2.1 (p. 9). Section 5.5 (p.19) should state that anyone undertaking REDD+ activities should provide rights-holders with timely and accessible information on how to access grievance mechanisms. | Global Witness
5.      Grievance and Accountability | Delete the last principle in Section 5.3 (‘Tailored to the Institution’); while this may be a relevant consideration for the UN-REDD Programme and its agencies, it does not belong in the section of general principles and would be more appropriate to Section 5.1. | Global Witness
5.      Grievance and Accountability | In Section 5.6 (‘Processes and Next Steps’, p. 19) an interim grievance process is provided for the UN-REDD Programme. Similar interim mechanisms should be identified at the national level by partner countries while they are developing a formal grievance mechanism. | Global Witness
5.      Grievance and Accountability | We agree and support this section to resolve the existing problems of pilot projects and to contribute to the accountability of the future of REDD+ architecture. However, it seems that this mechanism is narrowly proposed for UN-REDD project. Under the last principle Tailored to the Institution, this draft explains that the mechanism must be tailored, in this case, to the UN-REDD Programme's (and its agencies’) organizational structure, type of operations, legal restrictions, relevant policies, existing accountability framework, and institutional culture. As a principle for partner countries, it should be broad enough to cover projects at the national level, not locked in to self-oriented project. | HuMa (Perkumpulan untuk Pembaharuan Hukum Berbasis Masyarakat dan Ekologis) Association for Community and Ecologically-based Legal Reform, Indonesia
5.      Grievance and Accountability | Despite the fundamental human right to an effective remedy as well as the requirements of the Common Understanding that “[d]evelopment cooperation contribute[e] to the development of the capacities of ‘duty-bearers’ to meet their obligations and/or of ‘rights-holders’ to claim their rights, the UN-REDD does not have a project-complaint mechanism in place. We believe that policies are meaningless without effective monitoring and mechanisms for ensuring compliance, and guaranteeing impacted communities effective remedy, including effective access to administrative remedies, domestic courts, international mechanisms, and a specific project-complaint mechanism. The effectiveness of UN-REDD policies depends on their proper and timely application by partner countries and implementing agencies. Indigenous peoples and other local communities should have access to a complaint mechanism in which any noncompliance with policies and violation of their rights through UN-REDD-supported projects can be effectively and timely addressed and remedied. | ILRC
5.      Grievance and Accountability | UN-REDD's concept of a "grievance and accountability" mechanism, as reflected in the FPIC Guidelines, is not consistent with a "human rights-based approach". UN-REDD must rethink its approach to this critical issue. In our opinion, UN-REDD is simply trying to develop a mechanism similar to those utilized by multilateral development banks (MDBs). These mechanisms, however, were not designed to address human rights. Indeed, they were created for the purpose of addressing "undue harm to people and the environment", which MDBs decided to call "social and environmental impacts" instead of human rights violations. The Bank's Inspection Panel (Panel), for instance, is a fact-finding body that operates on behalf of the Executive Board of Directors and is restricted solely to "receiving  complaints for inspections and carrying out investigations to report its findings to the Board" with regard to "the question of whether the Bank is complying with its own operational policies and procedures". Those operational policies and procedures do not include human rights  protections. | ILRC
5.      Grievance and Accountability | UN-REDD should not take the Bank's accountability mechanism as a model for the following reasons: (1) the Bank does not have a human rights-based approach to development; (2) the Panel lacks advisory powers concerning policy reforms; (3) the Panel has no decisionmaking power regarding the suggested remedial actions to take once investigation is completed; and (4) the Panel has no advisory powers to supervise full implementation of remedial actions. | ILRC
5.      Grievance and Accountability | UN-REDD should create a project-complaint mechanism specifically designed to prevent human rights violations. For this purpose, UN-REDD should develop an umbrella policy in virtue of which partner countries will be required to carry out human rights impact assessments in all projects. Needles to say, UN-REDD should not take the Bank's approach as it only considers its Environmental Assessment Policy to operate as an overarching policy. | ILRC
5.      Grievance and Accountability | Finally, a UN-REDD project complaint mechanism should be based on the main elements of due process of law guarantees. UN-REDD should take into account relevant international legal standards arising from UN human rights treaties and customary international law; as well as those construed by regional human rights courts based on regional human rights treaties. In other words, the core elements of due process of law must be reflected in administrative procedures, such as the UN-REDD project complaint mechanism. | ILRC
5.      Grievance and Accountability | Finally, under no circumstances, should victims of human rights violations associated with REDD+ projects be deprived of access to prompt and effective remedies at the national level. The right to an effective remedy is a fundamental human right enshrined in international human rights law. Moreover, partner countries' violations of international human rights law obligations via REDD+ projects are not exempt from human rights supervisory bodies, especially regional courts in charge of determining international responsibility and proper redress for violations. | ILRC
5.      Grievance and Accountability | Page 18 – regarding “grievance mechanisms ” that should be developed by UN-REDD partner countries – it should be clarified if this requirement has been recently included in the template, in order the avoid confusions regarding NPDs approved before this requirement was established . At national level, this mechanism [highlighted in red] should be leaded by the national partner (national authorizes) in order to be able to reach a wider (national) scope | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
5.      Grievance and Accountability | Page 18 – regarding “grievance mechanisms’ INDEPENDENCE” which entity should be in charge of the implementation of the mechanism in compliance to its “independence”? . | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
5.      Grievance and Accountability | Suggested revision: Page 19 – “Tailored to the institution” – “The mechanism must be designed to take into account particular features of the institution. The mechanism must be tailored, in this case, to the UN-REDD Programme’s (and its agencies’) organizational structure, type of operation, legal restrictions, relevant policies, existing accountability framework, and institutional culture, as well as to national and local legal framework and procedures regarding accountability systems. | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
5.      Grievance and Accountability | The ongoing work on establish grievance mechanisms is important and highly welcomed. Some elements and processes could however be better described: • To what degree will the rights holders/possible claimants be allowed to influence the design and working of local/ national and global grievance mechanisms? • What would be the mandates and authority of those handling complaints?  • What could/would be a good model for a “grievance mechanism” on the local and on the national level? • How would the logic under a traditional and non-traditional grievance mechanism be harmonized?  • How will it be ensured that those handling complaints on all levels are truly independent and unbiased?  • Will the “grievance system” allow appeals to a higher level of authority?  • How will the security of witnesses and claimants be ensured (in cases where they may challenge powerful and possibly dangerous actors)?  • Can others file a grievance/complaint on behalf of the “victim” individuals or communities? • Complaints are normally filed when conflicts have already escalated and may take time to resolve. Will a system for mediation be established as part of the grievance system, to (if possible) resolve conflicts before they escalate? | Rainforest Foundation Norway
5.      Grievance and Accountability | Under 5.5 Outreach, P.19 – the majority of users of grievance and accountability mechanisms are likely to be community members, but RECOFTC feels this is not quite reflected in the outreach strategy. The strategy lists a number of outreach activities that are largely non-accessible to community members, before listing ‘including at the community level’ at the end. RECOFTC feels that a more effective outreach strategy would focus on activities at a community level first and foremost instead. Lessons learnt from our experience also indicate that radio and the press will be important in the outreach strategy to the community. | RECOFTC – The Center for People and Forests
5.      Grievance and Accountability | For section 5.6, it is better to provide detail about the grievance process using bullet points. | Stakeholders consultation, DRC
5.      Grievance and Accountability | In terms of the settlement of grievances, allow for the fact that one of the affected parties can have recourse to the legal settlement of disputes. | Stakeholders consultation, DRC
5.      Grievance and Accountability | Provide suitable mechanisms to penalise States that fail to respect these guidelines. | Stakeholders consultation, DRC
5.      Grievance and Accountability | Considering indigenous people and other forest-dependent communities often tend to be excluded from normal decision-making process, the assumption that they would have the awareness, experience, capacity and political connection needed to utilize the accountability and grievance mechanisms might be tricky. To remedy this, one of the things the guide could encourage governments to consider is to exploit/develop the capacity and experiences of local NGOs (including Indigenous Peoples organizations) particularly on legal aid and legal literacy. If this is beyond the scope of the guide, this is something to consider when rolling out the guide. | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Anti- Corruption Team
Annex I: Types of Participation | Annex I: “Engagement” should also be included as a kind of participation | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
[NAME] Indicative steps for a REDD+ process to Respect the Right of Communities to FPIC | Comment: The figure could still be improved somewhat. No REDD+ project in their territory: I would rather say community land (possibly adding and/or territory), as non-indigenous communities don’t have territories. Question: Could a similar figure be made to show the process of developing a system for grievance and accountability on all levels? That would clarify the steps. | Rainforest Foundation Norway
[NAME] Indicative steps for a REDD+ process to Respect the Right of Communities to FPIC | [NAME], p.25: participatory mapping, participatory social and environmental impact assessment). And also, the outcomes of these activities should be informed to indigenous peoples and if possible, got feedback from them as a process of seeking FPIC.
[NAME] Indicative Steps for a REDD+ Process to Respect the Right of Communities to FPIC | This is a comment related to the Annex III. Participatory mapping sounds easy, but can actually lead to real problems and inter-village conflicts. Boundaries are often not clear and overlapping. In remote areas this often has no implications, as the financial value of land and resources is very low. Once values increase the door opens for conflicts. Logging in some Pacific Islands provide a perfect example. I can’t offer a solution here, just that the maps in the first instance might perhaps rather be sketches than fairly high-resolution maps. | UN-REDD Regional Coordinator, Asia/Pacific, UNEP
[NAME] Indicative Steps for a REDD+ Process to Respect the Right of Communities to FPIC | Finally, the guidelines should be annexed with recommended steps to do FPIC to provide an idea how FPIC will be. The one differs from annex III [you can refer to revised FPIC steps by [NAME] B]. | UN-REDD Viet Nam Programme
Annex IV: The Role of Facilitators in Supporting the FPIC Process | In general, I have two concerns.  One is that the fact that so many indigenous and rural forest peoples are illiterate will complicate this whole process.  Being asked to ‘sign’ things when one is illiterate is a disempowering process.  It can go better if there is a good facilitator (my second concern), which seems to be suggested in the last annex, but that is not stressed in the document itself.  Probably only with good facilitation will the steps you’ve outlined be possible to implement benignly.  I would strengthen the discussion of the facilitation process. | Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
Annex IV: The Role of Facilitators in Supporting the FPIC Process | In [NAME], p. 26 (The role of facilitator), some more factors representing diverse voices would be mentionned, such as People's Unions (Women's Union, Youth's Union, Farmers' Union, Veterans' Union) when documenting a record of the result/decision (disaggregated by gender, income level). | Department of Biology, University of Dalat, Viet Nam
Annex IV: The Role of Facilitators in Supporting the FPIC Process | Page 26 – regarding the “facilitator in supporting the FPIC process” – how should the facilitator should be elected? Should this be included in the definition of the FPIC Proposal? If so, include it in the proposal components (page 15) . | Ministry of Environment - Ecuador
Annex IV: The Role of Facilitators in Supporting the FPIC Process | In identifying facilitators (annex IV), the guide could be more assertive on arguing for selecting facilitators from the affected communities, to the extent possible, who better know the context. This not only contributes to strengthening local capacity but also ensures sustainability. | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Anti-Corruption Team
Annex IV: The Role of Facilitators in Supporting the FPIC Process | "Information reaches all community members" -- This is often almost impossible to achieve. Are we not asking for too much? | UN-REDD Regional Coordinator, Asia/Pacific, UNEP
Annex IV: The Role of Facilitators in Supporting the FPIC Process | "Maintain a record of the result/decision (disaggregated by gender, income level, if possible).."  Asking for too much. People will become suspicious if you ask them about their income. In any case, I think age might be more important. | UN-REDD Regional Coordinator, Asia/Pacific, UNEP
Capacity | The guide appears to be heavily focused on what it takes the duty-bearer to obtain consent (supply side) than what the right-holder need to do to benefit from FPIC as an effective means of expressing their rights (demand side). In other words, the paper could add value by incorporating voice-enhancing activities targeted at demand side, i.e., that would help [NAME] and other local communities to effectively exercise their right. Greater capacity of these communities in understanding and using FPIC means reduced chances of contestation or grievance that might arise from misinformation or misunderstanding of the implications of the consents being given.  Trust being at the heart of getting consent or not, the guide could assist partner countries by showcasing and explaining practical and effective methods for engaging with communities and building trust. For instance, Community Conversation - a facilitated grassroots dialogue technique -  is something to ruminate. It has already been applied by UNDP and other agencies as a useful methodology to support and empower community decision-making and action in the context of HIV/AIDS (please see the handbook for more http://www.undp.org/hiv/docs/prog_guides/cce_handbook.pdf) and other thematic areas. Beyond being a capacity development and empowerment tool, it could enhance inclusive participation and greater integrity in FPIC process by giving the opportunity for all member of Indigenous People and local communities. | UNDP Democratic Governance Group (DGG) - Anti- Corruption Team
Capacity Building to Implement | Thank you for sending this interesting and comprehensive summary of the way UN-REDD will seek to incorporate FPIC into the procedures and practices involved in setting up REDD projects. While I found the sections to be generally well presented and clear, and the recommended steps and practices required to implement a FPIC process were sensible, there is a profound lack of practical understanding of how to implement such processes among the governments responsible for implementing the FPIC for  REDD processes. The issue of capacity and capacity building for implementing FPIC processes remains the greatest obstacle to the successful implementation of the guidelines described in the document. While the general rubric proposed - that this needs to be established in each countries’ context - is of course correct, it goes no way to resolving the fundamental issues that will undermine the implementation of FPIC in REDD programmes. To address this their needs to be some process by which UN takes a more active role in defining what a FPIC process should look like in the specific regions that it will operate in. A similar process was undertaken by FSC for their regional guidelines.    So while this document represents a welcome step towards a clearer definition of how REDD programmes should seek to implement and use FPIC to improve outcomes and the sustainability of REDD projects, unless the UN-REDD programme adds layers of technical training and specific regional guidelines for governments and state institutions, FPIC will remain unapplied, or be presented so as to give the superficial impression of having been applied. My experiences of this in the FSC forestry sector over the past 5 years are not encouraging. | Department of Anthropology University College London
Capacity Building to Implement | The UN agencies involved should make sure that their national offices in the relevant countries have the required understanding of the FPIC principles and their implications before entering into a dialogue with national governments about the implementation of FPIC in UN-REDD.   Related to the above; is support to FPIC-processes a part of the targeted support that countries may access from the UN-REDD Programme under the Global Programme? If so, to which extent does the sufficient capacity exist at the national levels and to which extent will this be carried out by regional or international staff? | Government of Norway
Communication Materials | The Guidelines need to address the needs of communication materials and (selection of) media mix in line with awareness raising for stakeholders in general and the needs for FPIC implementation. In Central Sulawesi as UN-REDD pilot province, along FPIC guidelines development and piloting, UN-REDD initiated to develop communication materials. These materials are presented to stakeholders in Central Sulawesi and respondents from community to see effectiveness and readability in terms of language and message (text and visual). The stakeholders from which inputs were sought included local government agencies, academician, NGOs, local and indigenous community group, and forest concessionaire. Thus, any message presented in each media accommodated inputs and concerns of wide stakeholders, e.g. when using a a picture of bulldozer to illustrate driver of deforestation, there was a comment that it would create suspicion that bulldozer means deforestation, while bulldozer is the main equipment used in sustainable forest management. The materials are revised taking into account inputs from stakeholders and community. Selection of media mix is also consulted with the stakeholders. Brochure, comic book, posters, and film are the preferred media selected by stakeholders in Central Sulawesi.  It is worth to note that REDD+ is relatively a new and complex concept. It becomes more complex with the requirements to have FPIC as social safeguards. Hence, awareness raising, dissemination, and other activities to educate audience are the first and important step prior to other activities. And communicaton materials play an important role in this initial stage. | UN-REDD Programme, Indonesia
Country Experience | Following comments with regard to the Guidelines are made referencing to UN-REDD Indonesia activities, particularly at sub-national level: o Page 3, first pointer in last paragraph: In addition to national policies and procedures, activities, progress, and results at sub-national can also provide some lessons, e.g. [NAME] is among others develop REDD+ strategy and FPIC guidelines. It is hoped that the lessons learned at sub-national can be recognized and can contribute to process of REDD+ readiness development at national level.   o Page 8-9 re. elements of FPIC: The Guidelines should address the necessity to have indicators in order to make certain that each FPIC element is sufficiently met.  o Page 12, a pointer in the box: what is covered under “pilot activities”? This may be associated with the box in page 13 and clarify activities in the box that need FPIC or otherwise.  o Page 14, last paragraph: grievance mechanism should be in place, from local to national levels. In Indonesia circumstances, it is deemed appropriate that handling of such grievance starts from local level.  o Page 15, re. relevant right holders: In Indonesia case, this is very challenging and a delicate issue when deciding/selecting who will represent right holders at national level discussion, e.g. FPIC scoping review. Any sub-national culture/ethnic, of the total 700 plus groups, could claim their appropriateness as the relevant right holders. The main questions then: will they all be involved in all national consultation? To what extent their involvement will be required? Re. verification: the Guidelines should also address identification (and appointment) of the verification institution. In addition, agreement on/recognition of the verification body needs also be addressed.  o Page 19, re. information disclosure: The Guidelines should identify who will have to disclose information. According to the policy recommendation, that UN-REDD facilitated, it implies that this component should be performed by project proponent, either government agency, private entity, or other type of proponent.  o Page 25, re. indicative steps for FPIC process: [NAME] steps might be more appropriate to the case in Central Sulawesi. [NAME] has developed similar steps, but relatively simpler. Yet, the essence remain the same: exercise the FPIC regardless of the result, whether consent is given or withheld.  o Page 26, re. facilitator: The Guidelines should address not only criteria of being facilitator, but also who will identify, select, and recruit facilitator. In Central Sulawesi case, facilitators are identified jointly by Central Sulawesi REDD+ Working Group, community (where FPIC steps and methodology will be tested at), and forest management unit. The main criteria to be the facilitator are: independent, objective, acceptable by both parties (community and proponent), and able to work with various stakeholers (mainly community and proponent). | UN-REDD Programme, Indonesia
Country Experience | What UN-REDD Indonesia has implemented and achieved in terms of FPIC:  • At national level: UN-REDD facilitated national forestry council to develop a policy recommendation on FPIC. The recommendation describes the need for FPIC for REDD+ initiative. The recommendation is among others intended to trigger key national stakeholders to start building enabling condition leading to official recognition of FPIC as social safeguards. The main recommendation states that proponent has to implement FPIC process. REDD+ proponent is not necessarily government (agency). It may be private entity that will develop a REDD+ project.  • At sub-national level: UN-REDD facilitated Central Sulawesi Province to develop FPIC guidelines and its testing at pilot locations. In particular, the guidelines describe steps and methodology to exercise FPIC at community level. FPIC testing at particular sites will make sure that the guidelines are applicable to local condition and acceptable to national/international perspective. In terms of the Guidelines for FPIC for REDD+, it is recommended that:  o The Guidelines address the need to have practical guidelines that include steps and methodology for FPIC implementation.  o There should be FPIC piloting to exercise effectiveness and applicability of the (practical) guidelines and get some lessons learned from the piloting to improve the practical guidelines. This reciprocal process is expected to bring about a complete and sufficient practical guidelines for FPIC for REDD+ implementation. Endorsement of the Guidelines might be sought from appropriate agency to make official its use for any REDD+ initiatives.  • Both processes at national and sub-national levels of UN-REDD supported activities involved multi-stakeholders consultation and built consensus at phases of FPIC-related activities. Particular to  sub-national, the FPIC guidelines are developed through a combination of bottom up and top down process. Sub-national stakeholders are given opportunity to develop the guidelines on their own, while expertise and perspective from national are also provided along the development of the guidelines. | UN-REDD Programme, Indonesia
Differing Standards (with FCPF) | A cross-reading of the draft FPIC guidelines   with the “Joint UNREDD-FCPF Guidelines for Stakeholder engagement for Readiness with a Focus on the Participation of Indigenous Peoples and Other Forest Dependent Communities”, and with the new version of the RPP template, (Version 6, Working Draft, November 23, 2011), evidences some potential loopholes and double standards that might affect an otherwise robust and coherent approach to FPIC.   As pointed out at page 10 of the draft FPIC guidelines, these would apply not only to the National Programme Document (NPD) but also to the R-PP.   The  latest formulation  of the RPP template states that “FCPF countries that have both endorsed the UNDRIP and enacted legislation to implement the principle of free, prior, informed consent (FPIC) should conform to their legislation that concerns FPIC” while for the UNREDD programme, it states that “ The UNREDD programme requires that the right to FPIC shall be upheld in the UNREDD programme activities, following UNREDD programme Guidelines on FPIC”. This would imply that for FCPF countries, FPIC would apply only if the country has endorsed UNDRIP and has legislation in place on FPIC.  A  potential for  double standards for FCPF and UNREDD is evident here , and the UNREDD-FCPF guidelines for Stakeholder  engagement do not provide   clear guidance   on which of the two (FPIC or Free Prior Informed Consultation,  if the delivery partner is not of the UN group) would apply in cases where a REDD country submits an RPP to both  UNREDD and FCPF.  This lack of clarity risks opening a serious loophole in the effective recognition and fulfilment of International obligations on indigenous peoples’ rights. This potential risk was also   acknowledged in the recent FCPF evaluation (June 2011) according to which:   “The joint FCPF/UN-REDD guidance on stakeholder engagement in REDD-plus emphasizes that as a in As a partnership of one specialized UN agency (FAO) and two programmes (UNDP and UNEP), the UN-REDD Programme is obliged to promote respect for, and seek the full application of, the provisions of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including the right to of FPIC, particularly at the country-level (UNDRIP, [NAME]). FCPF, on the other hand uses WB safeguards to ensure that the “development process fully respects the dignity, human rights, economies, and cultures of Indigenous Peoples”. This suggests two different approaches to securing the engagement of IPs, even though the guidelines are “joint” and UN-REDD and FCPF often work in the same country”.   The same 2011 FCPF evaluation   goes on to state that:   “It is not possible to state how the differences in operational guidance for IP safeguards will manifest themselves in countries with IP populations although it seems likely that some level of inconsistency is inevitable.” (Page 15)  FPP believes that efforts should be made to resolve such potential inconsistency, that might undermine an otherwise positive and consistent approach to FPIC. | Forest Peoples Programme (FPP)
Differing Standards (with FCPF) | Countries participating in both the FCPF and UN-REDD Programme should agree to apply the UN-REDD Guidelines on FPIC for all readiness activities.   It creates confusion and inconsistency for countries to apply one standard for FCPF-supported readiness activities and a second for activities supported by the UN-REDD Programme and undermines efforts to enhance coherency and efficiency in the readiness process. | Global Witness
Differing Standards (with FCPF) | “In the case of the R-PP, consultation on activities that should require FPIC should take place as outlined in Section 1b. Information Sharing and Early Dialogue with Key Stakeholder Groups; and a proposal for further consultations on this topic should be included in Section 1c. Consultation and Participation Process.” (p. 10)  This statement probably requires a footnote pointing out that this does not necessarily happen when the World Bank is the FCPF Delivery Partner. | [NAME], [NAME], FCPF
Edits/Translation | In reference to the additional comments to these important Guidelines, please note that in footnotes 24 and 25 (page 12 of the Spanish version) FPIC is only cited as for Articles 32.2. and 10 (of the UNDRIP). | BDP/RBLAC Regional Expert, UNDP
Edits/Translation | In the Spanish language text, point 3.2 ‘When is FPIC required?’ is translated as ‘¿Cuándo se exige el [NAME]?’ We would prefer the following translation to be used in the Spanish text: ‘¿Cuándo se requiere el CLPI?’ | Climate Change Unit, Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), Guatemala
Edits/Translation | Moreover only a few remarks about the translated version: On page 4 there is a part of the footnote 5 that is in English. On page 13 the footnotes of that page are on the next page. That problem continues until page 15, which brings more difficult to read the text with the correct footnotes. | Programa de Mudanças Climaticas - Climate Change Program Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM)
Edits/Translation | Minor point – page 8, last bullet under the ‘Free’ sub-section, perhaps include ‘ethnicity’ and refer specifically to ‘standing’ as ‘social standing’. | RECOFTC – The Center for People and Forests
Edits/Translation | On page 10 of the document put paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 in a box | Stakeholders consultation, DRC
Edits/Translation | P.3 Use the word ‘importante’ [important] rather than ‘crítica’ [critical], as the latter in Spanish connotes something different to what is intended.  TN – It can be read as critical as in criticism, rather than critical as in important. | UNDP Paraguay
Edits/Translation | Page 9 Comment 1 I would suggest you replace the word ‘ubicaciones’ [locations] for ‘espacios’ [spaces].  Comment 2 In the same sentence, I would also suggest changing the word ‘entrenadores’ [trainers] for ‘referentes’ [facilitators*]. *TN – ‘Referente’ could also mean ‘role models’ or ‘reference points’. I have selected facilitator given the context. | UNDP Paraguay
Edits/Translation | Page 15 For my part, I would remove the adjective ‘relevante’ [relevant]. | UNDP Paraguay
Edits/Translation | Page 19 The meaning of this section is unclear. From what we have been able to deduce, we would suggest using this alternative: ‘Las posibilidades o alternativas que se pudieran encontrar podrían variar…’ [The possibilities or alternatives that one might come across can vary…] | UNDP Paraguay
Edits/Translation | Page 20 I think you want to say ‘medida’ here. TN – typo in source text: ‘media’ rather then ‘medida’ | UNDP Paraguay
Edits/Translation | Page 11 We would suggest that you remove the word ‘participación’ [participation], leaving simply ‘planes de consulta que permita la participación de actores relevantes’ [consultation plans for the engagement of stakeholders].  We would suggest inserting a full stop here. The remainder of the sentence after ‘incluyendo…’ [including… etc] should be deleted and replaced with ‘No debe realizarse ninguna actividad hacia ese fin.’ [No activity for these ends should be undertaken.] | UNDP Paraguay
Edits/Translation | Page 17 I would add the word ‘actors’. | UNDP Paraguay
Edits/Translation | Page 18 We would suggest deleting the word ‘huesped’ [host] and leave just ‘gobiernos’ [governments]. | UNDP Paraguay
Edits/Translation | Page 4 For my part, I’d remove the text ‘según y cuando sea apropiado’ [as and when appropriate] because it lends unnecessary conditionality to what is an obligation in fact and in law, particularly for UN-REDD Programme member countries | UNDP Paraguay
Edits/Translation | I realize you have used “project” before. Under the UN-REDD Programme, I prefer to refer to “activity”. I try to avoid the term project, because in some countries this is then mixed up with REDD projects for the voluntary market. | UN-REDD Regional Coordinator, Asia/Pacific, UNEP
Edits/Translation | Footnote 23  A/HRC/12/34, para. 47 - link doesn't work | UN-REDD Regional Coordinator, Asia/Pacific, UNEP
Edits/Translation | • Footnote 5 needs to be revisited; something seems to be missing there. • Footnotes 32-34 are repeated. • In the sentence “Activities that may not require consent, except to the extent that they include decisions identified to those listed above” (box on p. 13), the word “identified” seems out of place.  Did you mean “related”? | [NAME], [NAME], FCPF
Gender | Gender Action also notes a highly conspicuous absence of gender throughout the document. This is of great concern because women—already marginalized across the globe—are doubly marginalized in minority groups like indigenous populations. Among its copious references to human rights and empowerment, the document treats these notions as gender-neutral, when in fact they are not. Women and men can have vastly different needs and priorities with regard to the environment and development, which in turn impacts their rights and empowerment. Women, the majority of subsistence farmers worldwide, rely heavily on their local environments for livelihood and food sources. When their access to land is compromised, they can lose their only source of income, thereby deepening their poverty and social vulnerability. At the same time, women’s precarious to non-existent land ownership rights, limited access to technology and credit, often inferior status within households and communities, and lower rates of education greatly inhibit their decision-making power—particularly when external groups engage ad hoc way with their communities. In development activities, women tend to be consulted less than men because they are often not “heads of household” or land owners; they also have impediments to participation in consultations, such as childcare, lower literacy rates and limited physical mobility. UN-REDD’s aim to achieve “free, prior and informed consent” will be undermined if UN-REDD implementers do not provide gender-sensitive access to information and gender equal project input. | Gender Action, Washington, DC
Gender | The document states that “FPIC processes can empower communities by changing the basic terms of engagement and can help even the most marginalized or disenfranchised groups participate in the decision-making process and negotiate an equitable share of programme benefits.” Although women are among the most marginalized groups, the guidelines contain no method of measuring how the FPIC empowers them, as the document does not require gender equal consultations. The guidelines make only one mention of sex-disaggregated data, framed as a suggestion in Annex IV on the role of facilitators in supporting FPIC. This annex recommends that facilitators “maintain a record of the [community] result/decision (disaggregated by gender, income level, if possible).” Without more directly highlighting the ways in which women’s ability to influence UN-REDD decisions might be compromised, it is unlikely that facilitators will inherently understand or prioritize overcoming such mpediments. | Gender Action, Washington, DC
Gender | As Gender Action’s report Governing Climate Funds: What Will Work for Women? highlights, climate change funds have a long way to go in recognizing the needs, priorities and contributions of women in developing countries. When addressed in the past, women tended to be relegated to adaptation activities, and even then, their inclusion was piecemeal at best. UN-REDD, in recognizing the ineffectiveness of excluding indigenous and forest-dependent communities, must go one step further by recognizing the detriment of excluding gender considerations. As individual men and women with gender-distinct resources and needs comprise the “communities” that UN-REDD targets, UN-REDD’s efforts will not be effective or sustainable without the equal input, buy-in and leadership of women alongside their male counterparts. The sooner UN-REDD recognizes and incorporates this into its otherwise strong Programme Guidelines, the sooner it can begin to make meaningful advances towards protecting forests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Gender Action thus urges UN-REDD to embed gender considerations firmly into its Programme Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent. To facilitate it doing so, please see the following Gender Action resources: [NAME] for International Finance Watchers -Gender, IFIs and Extractive Industries Link -Broken Promises: [NAME] of the World Bank-Financed West African and Chad-Cameroon Pipelines -Boom-Time Blues: Big Oil’s Gender Impacts in Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Sakhalin -Governing Climate Funds: What Will Work for Women? -Doubling the Damage: World Bank Climate Investment Funds Undermine Climate and Gender Justice -Empty Promises: [NAME] of World Bank-managed Post-Tsunami Reconstruction in Indonesia -Gender Action/WLSLAC’s Joint Gender Audit of a Representative Sample of 50 IFI Investments in China -Gender, International Finance and Climate Change Link -Gender, IFIs and Gender-Based Violence Case-Study: Democratic Republic of Congo -Gender, IFIs and Indigenous Rights -Gender, IFIs, and Food Insecurity: A Primer -Gender, IFIs, and Food Insecurity Case-Study: Ethiopia -Gender, IFIs, and Food Insecurity Case-Study: Haiti -Gender, IFIs, and Food Insecurity: Kenya -Speaking Up for Gender: A Step-By-Step Guide to Holding IFIs Accountable -Gender Justice: A Citizen's Guide to Gender Accountability at International Financial Institutions | Gender Action, Washington, DC
Gender | Comments regarding gender:    We like to start by pointing to the fact that UN-REDD Programme have issued two related documents in December 2011:    1)  UN-REDD Programme Guidelines on Free, Prior and informed consent and 2) The Business Case of Mainstreaming Gender in REDD+   We recommend that the authors of document 1 use the information and advice presented in document 2.  Doc 2 is a throughout review of why gender matter for REDD+, while [NAME] is somewhat weak on the gender dimension.    The objective of Document 1 is “to outline a normative, policy and operational framework for UN-REDD Programme partner countries to seek FPIC, as and when appropriate, as determined by the partner country in consultation with relevant stakeholders.”   It is important that women’s rights and gender issues are part of this framework.      As underlined in the introduction in document 1; the indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities are essential to the success of  REDD+. Those who are affected by decisions taken in REDD+ projects, need to have a chance to participate in decision making, directly or through representatives. Women use the forest different than men, therefore the role of women in relation to forests need to be recognized in a systematic way by ensuring that women participate in the decisions made in local communities and when land-use plans are developed.    Suggestions for improvement: • Women’s rights and gender issues should  be stated in the introduction  to the document • A paragraph recognizing the role of women as forest stakeholders should be included in the introduction.   • Point 1.3.  Normative framework; CEDAW should be one of the international instruments that are referred to (as recommended in document 2 from UN-REDD. )  • We recommend that a re-reading of the FPIC document (by gender experts) is done to ensure that gender issues become more integral parts of the FPIC guidelines. | Government of Norway
Gender | Under the section 3.4 Who Gives Consent?, this draft very well supports and encourages that all customary and formal rights-holders are represented in the decision-making process, especially women. But in its operational framework, under point b of proposed process to seek FPIC, theres is not a single component to guarantee women’s engagement. Given the structure of many indigenous and local communities that is not always organized democratically, we propose this draft to have a specific hook on component of women’s rights, identification and engagement of marginalized people in communities and if necessary to promote some proper and special treatment for these two components especially when the social structure is strongly against their playing a significant role in FPIC process. | HuMa (Perkumpulan untuk Pembaharuan Hukum Berbasis Masyarakat dan Ekologis) Association for Community and Ecologically-based Legal Reform, Indonesia