REDD+ governance approaches

Host country approval

UNFCCC decisions on REDD+ do not explicitly mention that decisions and programmes have to be approved by host countries. However, according to decision 1/CP.16, REDD+ activities should be country-driven, indicating that host governments should have a decisive role. For implementing activities, the UNFCCC invites host countries eligible to receive RBPs for reduced deforestation rates and emission reductions to establish national entities that coordinate with the UNFCCC Secretariat, other relevant bodies of the UNFCCC or bi- and multilateral donors (decisions 9, 10/CP.19).

The respective UNFCCC decisions only explicitly mention the GCF as a funding source and remain unspecific when it comes to other sources.

Private small-scale REDD+ project activities funded through voluntary carbon markets are in most cases certified by private and voluntary carbon standards such as the CCBS, Plan Vivo and the Verified Carbon Standard.

These standards stipulate that REDD+ projects have to comply with laws and regulations of the host country (CCBA [Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance], 2013, pp. 24-26; Kollmuss, Zink, & Polycarp, 2008, p. 60). Whether REDD+ projects and the transfer of voluntary carbon credits have to be approved by the host country or not depends on national regulations.

Stakeholder participation

As mentioned above, the Cancún Safeguards of the UNFCCC (decision 1/

CP.16) refer to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The decision adopting the safeguards therewith goes beyond earlier UNFCCC decisions. However, its legal status as such is contested, since the decision does not stipulate that REDD+ activities have to follow the safeguards (Spiller & Fuhr, 2010; Lang, 2010; Hein, 2016). Also, later decisions formulate stakeholder participation as a “may” rather than a

“must”. Decision 10/CP 19, for example, states that “participants may seek input from relevant bodies established under the Convention, international and regional organizations, the private sector, indigenous peoples and civil society […]”.

In contrast, the private and voluntary carbon standards CCBS and Plan Vivo are more demanding and stipulate free, prior and informed consent (CCBA 2013, p. 19; Plan Vivo, 2013, pp. 5, 22).

Reporting requirements on sustainable development

Parties have agreed that developing-country Parties are requested to develop a safeguard information system that includes reporting on how the Cancún Safeguards are addressed. This includes reporting on stakeholder participation, sustainable forest management, and the conservation of natural forest, biodiversity and adaptation needs (decision 1/CP 16). Reporting should be made “periodically and be included in national communications, or communication channels agreed by the Conference of the Parties […]”

(decision 12/CP 19). In addition, Parties are encouraged to publish these reports on the UNFCCC REDD+ web platform. However, at the time of

writing, only Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo had uploaded safeguard-related information (UNFCCC, 2016a).

Parties have also agreed on the importance of non-carbon benefits and their potential contribution to adaptation (decision 18/CP.21). Decision 18/CP.21 encourages Parties to report on the integration of non-carbon benefits into REDD+ activities. The reporting on non-carbon benefits is voluntary.

In addition, under the Warsaw Framework on REDD+, developing-country Parties aiming to access RBPs, among other requirements, have to report on the proposed national or subnational FREL and/or FRL and the measured results of the REDD+ actions as part of their biennial update reports.²⁷ CCBS and Plan Vivo stipulate that REDD+ project developers document sustainable development impacts in the project design documents, and that auditors verify the provision of benefits for sustainable development. In the case of the CCBS, only projects that provide “net positive community impacts” can receive certification (CCBA, 2013, p. 35). Third-party auditors accredited by the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) and Plan Vivo review to what extent the project developers meet these criteria.

Monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation under the Warsaw Framework on REDD+ is so far limited to aspects of environmental sustainability. Here, two indicators need to be addressed: forest coverage (FRL) and national or subnational FREL. In addition to emission reductions, CCBS requires the evaluation of the impacts of REDD+ activities on biodiversity and communities at least every five years (CCBA, 2013, p. 11).

Social and environmental safeguards

Overall, REDD+ activities under the UNFCCC shall be consistent with the general objectives of the Convention, including with environmental integrity, sustainable development and adaptation needs, and they should also promote sustainable forest management. Moreover, REDD+ activities should not lead to the conversion of natural forests (decision 1/CP.16). If countries wish to receive RBPs (e.g. from the GCF), they have to report on

27 See decision 14/CP.19 on modalities for measuring, reporting and verifying the assessment of REDD+ actions and results.

how they address the Cancún Safeguards. Moreover, the COP requested that the GCF consider all REDD+ related COP decisions when providing results-based finance (decision 9/CP.19). However, the application of the Cancún Safeguards is not legally binding and will strongly depend on requirements of funding entities, such as the GCF, and other multilateral and bilateral entities, as well as on domestic policies of the Parties implementing REDD+

activities.

REDD+ projects and programmes outside the UNFCCC follow their own safeguards. For REDD+ activities funded by the FCPF, the “common approach to environmental and social safeguards (ESS) for multiple delivery partners” of the World Bank apply. The application of the safeguards is based on the use of the strategic environmental and social assessment (SESA) and the environmental and social management frameworks (ESMFs) (FCPF [Forest Carbon Partnership Facility], 2012). Operational policy 4.10 (OP4.10) of the World Bank stipulates free, prior and informed consent of indigenous communities potentially affected by REDD+ activities (FCPF

& UNREDD, 2012). Involuntary relocation should be avoided and, if necessary, communities have to be supported “in improving or at least restoring their livelihoods and standards of living in real terms relative to pre-displacement levels [….]” (FCPF, 2012, p. 5). CCBS-certified projects as well have to compensate for “parties whose lands have been or will be affected by the project” (CCBA, 2013, p. 25).

REDD+ projects that have been certified according to CCBS and Plan Vivo standards have to comply with a detailed list of social and ecological safeguards. They should ensure community participation and the right to free, prior and informed consent. Furthermore, implementing agencies have to respect customary land tenure. For reforestation projects, Plan Vivo permits only naturalised and native tree species. Plan Vivo-certified projects should not have negative effects on water quality and biodiversity. In the case of CCBS-certified projects, the use of non-native species is permitted under specific circumstances, and implementing agencies have to prove that the project activities do not create negative effects on high conservation values.

Complaints mechanisms and legal protection

The REDD+ framework under the UNFCCC does not include a complaints mechanism, nor a specific decision on legal protection. Yet, decisions

1/CP.16 and 17/CP.21 note that international obligations and agreements related to the Cancún Safeguards should be taken into account when host countries implement REDD+ activities.

In contrast, the FCPF and the SESA and ESMFs approach of the World Bank include grievance mechanisms (FCPF, 2012).

5.2.2.1 Other governance approaches

REDD+ under the UNFCCC also aims to address the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. Decision 15/CP.19 of the Warsaw Framework on REDD+ “encourages” host countries but also the private sector to develop national strategies and mechanisms that tackle the causes of deforestation.

The decision also notes that reducing drivers of deforestation might have economic costs.

For the implementation of REDD+ activities, Parties explicitly highlighted the option of RBPs and encouraged the GCF to apply this concept in financing forest-related activities. In particular, decisions under the Warsaw Framework for REDD+ formulate guidance, modalities and requirements for developing-country Parties that wish to access finance for results-based actions.²⁸

Accordingly, developing-country Parties need:

1. a national strategy or action plan;

2. a national or subnational FREL and/or FRL;

3. a robust and transparent national forest monitoring system;

4. a safeguard information system, including a summary of the most recent information on how the safeguards were addressed and respected; and

28 See GCF/B.14/03 footnote 2: “Decision 1/CP.16 set the activities, REDD+ phase approach, elements to be in place and the list of safeguards, while the operational decisions on the elements of that decision include UNFCCC decisions 11/CP.19 (on the national forest monitoring system), 12/CP.19 (on the timing and frequency of presentations of the summary of safeguards), 13/CP.19 (on modalities of the technical assessment of FRELs and/or FRLs), 14/CP.19 (on modalities for measuring, reporting and verifying the assessment of REDD+ actions results), and 15/CP.19 (on addressing the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation). In addition, guidance on safeguard systems and modalities/guidance on the development of FRELs and/or FRLs is provided in UNFCCC decision 12/CP.17.”

5. the proposed FRELs and/or FRLs and the measured results of the REDD+ results-based actions need to be communicated or submitted to the UNFCCC Secretariat in a technical annex to the Party’s biennial update report (compare GCF/B.14/03, paragraph 6).

5.2.3 Conclusions: aligning climate mitigation and