The UN-REDD Philippines Programme issues this statement to clarify that it is not involved nor does it support the initiative of Carbon Central Network (CCN) called the Manobo Corridor Carbon Project. REDD stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. In a CCN Press Release, dated 16 November 2011, the company announces “a joint venture with indigenous land owners to work on validation, verification and issuance of REDD carbon credits under the Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS) and Climate, Community and Biodiversity (CCB) standards.” The statement further claimed that the project is collaboratingwith and supported by three UN agencies –the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

The UN-REDD Philippines Programme, together with its donors – FAO, UNDP, UNEP, and its implementing partner, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), clarifies that it is not in any way involved in the Manobo Corridor REDD Project. Instead, the Programme is currently focusing on implementing actions contributing to the country’s REDD+ readiness. It has not, in any form, been involved in actual carbon trading with any organizations or
communities in the Philippines.

The UN-REDD Philippines Programme also works closely with local civil society organizations like CoDe REDD, local community-based organizations, indigenous communities, concerned government units and line agencies, and other donor agencies in laying down the building blocks that will set the stage for the implementation of REDD+ in the country. The Philippine Programme’s overall goal is to increase the “capacity of forestland, protected areas and ancestral
domains managers and support groups to implement REDD+ projects and activities.” This initiative is a part of a comprehensive process through which the Philippines will become REDD+ ready.

Together with our partners, the UN-REDD Philippines Programme calls on the Government of the Philippines and its concerned agencies to look into the Manobo Corridor Carbon Project to understand the circumstances that led to the development and implementation of the said project. We also call on the Government to study its direct and indirect impacts on the well being of the Manobo Tribe to generate valuable lessons for the country as it prepares for REDD+.

PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, Philippines – The European Union is pleased that EU-funded projects for forest protection here is “well-spent.”

EU Ambassador Guy Ledoux said the EU is encouraged by the substantial decrease in annual deforestation rate in the province from 19,000 hectares to 5,500 hectares years after the implementation of their two major programs.

In a meeting with provincial officials led by Governor Abraham Mitra, Ledoux said he is “very pleased that European taxpayers’ money has been well-used by the province,” noting that “European citizens are very concerned about funds.”

The EU currently finances three grant projects in the province in the field of sustainable development. Aside from the Zero Carbon Resort, EU-funded projects include .3 million euros (P20 million) contribution to the South Palawan Planning Council’s protection activities in Mount Mantalingahan Protected Landscape and a grant of .4 million euros (P25 million) to the Non Timber Forest Products Network to implement a REDD pilot project (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) in the municipalities of Narra and Quezon.

EU’s support to the province goes back to the mid-90s when the Palawan Tropical Forest Protection Programme (PTFPP), a 10 year program with EU funding of 17 million euros and the National Integrated Protected Programme (NIPAP), a nationwide initiative to create and manage eight protected areas in the Philippines with 11 million euros (P700 million) contributions from the EU were designed.

“The EU has been a long time partner of the province and it’s natural for us to be here today to celebrate the last of a long list of initiatives to protect and restore forests in this unique part of the Philippines,” Ledoux said at the launching of the Palawan Trees for the Restoration of Ecology, Economy and Society (PalTREES) on Friday. “These two programs combined have contributed to some of Palawan’s most recognized success stories.”

The forest cover of Palawan has decreased from 738,886 hectares (52 percent) in 1992 to 666,338 hectares (46 percent) in 2005. This is equivalent to some 72,500 hectares of forest loss (1992-2005) representing an average annual deforestation rate of around 5,500 hectares. This figure is a substantial decrease in forest denudation from the report of the EU-funded Integrated Environmental Program (IEP, 1985) which registered an alarming decline of 19,000 hectares per year from 1979 to 1984.

Source: http://www.philstar.com/nation/article.aspx?publicationSubCategoryId=67&articleId=700140

“Some [countries] are more advanced in community management, such as the Philippines where the role of communities has been [legally] recognised.  Approximately 8 percent of forest land is managed by communities and indigenous people in this region but not many of these rights have been formally recognised,” he said in his address at the ASEAN Conference for Social Forestry today in Brunei.

In the ASEAN region, over 300 million people live in rural areas and a quarter of them are highly dependent on forest resources for their livelihoods. However, only 8 percent of this land is currently managed by local people.

Social forestry, the encouragement of rural participation in the management of natural resources, will enable communities to take an active role in managing their forests, helping to prevent further deforestation. Social forestry schemes in India have already made a considerable difference in overall forest cover in a short time.

Yudi emphasised how social forestry could be used as entry point to link local level forest management with broader REDD+ strategies. The success of REDD+, he added, was dependent upon getting communities on board by including them in the design, implementation and monitoring of REDD+.

“To ensure forests are protected, you need to involve local people who have been managing forests for generations. Community forestry offers best practice of forest management that can be used in REDD+ schemes. Communities have inventory skills and knowledge, they already run social forestry schemes and they have already demonstrated successful models of benefit sharing.”

The Philippines is considered “ahead of the game”, with civil society organisations such as the Filipino organisation Code- REDD, successfully securing community rights and the protection of livelihoods in the development of a national REDD+ strategy.

In Vietnam, the Forest Land Allocation programme hands over forests to households or communities.  Indonesia has 10 models where government has handed over 35 years of users’ rights to forest dwelling communities and Cambodia has developed eight steps to establish community control of the forest over the last 50 years.

It seems that the much-needed dialogue between forest dwelling communities and government is beginning to materialise, and maintaining this transparency will prove to be critical for the future success of REDD+ projects across the region.

Source:

Center for International Forestry Research Blog

http://blog.cifor.org/2011/06/22/philippines-ahead-of-the-game-in-social-forestry/

Cristina Guerrero, Executive Director of the Non Timber Forest Products-Exchange Programme in South East Asia and representative for CoDe-REDD talks to CIFOR about some of the challenges of engaging communities in the REDD+ process.

What exactly is CoDe- REDD?

CoDe-REDD Philippines is a loose network of civil societies that advocates for a pro- community, pro- conservation and pro- development REDD. To us, community empowerment, social justice and biodiversity conservation should be part of any REDD+ process. We began in 2009, when talks of REDD were just beginning in the Philippines and we wanted to do something about it. We wanted to ensure the protection and rights of communities and to ensure their  livelihoods  were conserved as much as possible, so we have been engaging with the government on these issues ever since.

How is CoDe- REDD engaging communities in the REDD+ process?

We began in 2009 by organising consultations with forest dependent communities all over the Philippines and we explained to them about the concept of REDD, and consulted them on how they felt that they should be included in the process. But we were also conscious that the UNFCC process was evolving quickly, so our objective was to secure a national REDD strategy that recognised and preserved the rights of communities as well as focused on participation and transparency. We advocated and appealed to the national government to recognise the rights of communities in REDD  and our strategy, jointly prepared with the government and other civil society members, was eventually approved.

What type of reforms do governments and institutions have to make to ensure communities are included in the process of REDD?

We asked for a government mechanism to be established that would not only consult communities in the REDD process, but give them a continuous voice. REDD is constantly evolving at the national, provincial and municipal level and consultation has to happen at every step in the journey. We are also working with the government on several forest policy studies that look at the drivers of deforestation as well as assessing the impact of the Free Prior and informed Consent (FPIC) process that exists within our Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA).

Has FPIC been successful in safeguarding the rights of communities?

The Philippines is one of the only country to have this policy enshrined in law, however it has not always been implemented effectively.  Also, the FPIC provisions were themselves imperfect. For example, it is unrealistic to expect communities, some covering an area of over 150,000 hectares, only 50 days to make a decision that could affect their livelihoods. You and I would take months to decide to buy a house or buy a car, so to ask communities to make potentially life changing decisions in a month and a half, is unimaginable. So when REDD comes along we need to ensure that the FPIC is the safeguard that it claims to be, and that the people who are tasked with implementing it, are behind it 100 per cent.

Is there political support for community participation in REDD?

The new commission that is implementing the IndigenousPeoples Rights Act (IPRA)  under the current president has a very strong anti-corruption stance and has placed a lot of progressive people in government, who so far, are behind this but it does not mean that it will be easy. Many of the drivers of deforestation, such as unregulated mining and large scale agriculture and swidden, are already happening; these concessions were already in place when these ministers were appointed, so they have the added problem of dealing with the problems of the previous system as well as the current challenges.

What are the risks and opportunities for communities participating in REDD?

Before REDD was broadened to include the sustainable management of forests, it was a “park type”, “no-touch zone” concept that was simply focused on protecting forests. Now REDD+ is creating opportunities for communities to design their own projects in order to safeguard and continue their livelihoods. Of course, there are choices and trade- offs but these indigenous ways of management have also been changing over time – populations have been growing, migrants have been arriving – so REDD presents an opportunity to evaluate the viability of existing indigenous livelihoods and to think about alternative.

For example, with the decrease in land available and populations getting larger, how do we increase productivity?  However, despite the opportunities there is still fear within the communities that changes will be forced upon them and that, with governments also interested in the revenues from REDD, that the benefits will be taken away from them.

How do we incentivise and motivate communities to comply to REDD?

Alot of the communities that we have worked with have prepared ancestral domain management plans that include plans for agriculture,  as well as provisions for education and healthcare services. When we did the math and found that revenues from REDD would not generate as much as revenues from mining, we realized the revenues were still considerable enough to support their ancestral domain management plans.  Communities are not always interested in being millionaires, many are happy to support schemes that allow them to continue to live on their land, to provide them with well being and a good education for their children.

How do we ensure that communities receive their share of revenues?

We are looking at different benefit sharing models and it is apparent that it is difficult to generalise across indigenous communities- some are very isolated, some are very homogeneous but many are already organised around structures with leaders.  When I worked in Bukidnon, Mindanao, communities adhered to traditional laws and customs, so I can imagine that benefit sharing will be more successful and efficient if it builds on these existing arrangements and relationships.

Also, you are dealing with people who are not used to dealing with funds, so it is important to establish funding mechanisms that can be accessed directly and used specifically for  the needs set out in the management plans e.g. funds for developing small businesses or enterprises or for building schools. I think if the plans are in place, then capacity building can ensure that they happen. It should be less about how the money is managed (not everyone is good at managing finances), but how the dreams of indigenous people are realised.

Are you optimistic that communities can benefit from REDD?

I think it will take time and it is not the ultimate solution. The development world is star struck with the concept of REDD but for me it’s about the diversification of revenue streams in which payments for environmental services; water pricing; carbon; eco tourism and income from non-timber forest products and sustainable agriculture; are all mixed  into the same pot.

We try to remind people that we need to continue investment and the up scaling of other revenue streams in order to protect existing livelihoods and subsistence. It’s a package of things that should be considered as communities adapt to and mitigate climate change.

We are also trying to show other countries that cooperating with the government can get results. We can see that progress is being made in other countries – if you look at the current draft for the national REDD strategy in Indonesia compared to what it was five months ago; it’s like night and day. The process is long but if countries are serious about REDD, then we will get there.

Source:

Center  for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Blog

http://blog.cifor.org/2011/06/23/cracking-code-redd-filipino-civil-societies-demystifying-sustainable-forestry

NEWS FLASH! CoDe REDD Philippines ^[1] and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)^[2] are conducting a study to assess the implementation of Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) in the country. FPIC is recognized by Philippine law in the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) where all permits, licenses within ancestral domains cannot be granted without an FPIC from affected indigenous communities.

This study is one of four (4) components of the CoDe REDD -GIZ policy studies entitled “Forest Policies and REDD” Project”. The other components in the series are Analysis of Key Drivers of Deforestation, Analysis of Forest Policies and Clarifying Carbon Rights. These policy studies were found crucial in the development of a robust REDD-plus policy to ensure social and environmental safeguards as articulated in the Philippine National REDD-plus Strategy (PNRPS). A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the National Commission on the Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), GIZ and NTFP-EP (on behalf of CoDe REDD) is being drafted for the said project.

The FPIC study will be undertaken in collaboration with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), local government units (LGUs) and various non-government organizations (NGOs) The study aims to: 1) Assess the faithful implementation of the Free and Prior Informed Consent (FPIC) provisions as effective safeguards for IPs to assert their right to self-determination; 2) Develop a policy agenda and recommendations for enhancing FPIC process in the Philippines, particular in the context of REDD-Plus implementation; and, 3)Determine the community definition of FPIC. This study is critical because there has been no monitoring and evaluation of the FPIC processes since the Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) issued the first Certificate Preconditions ^[3] in 2004.

A total of 309 Certification Preconditions (CPs) have been issued by NCIP as of December 2010. As agreed, the FPIC team was divided into three groups or clusters based on geographical locations. A total of thirty-one (31) sites representing ten percent (10%) of the population of CPs granted were randomly selected. Six (6) special sites were purposively selected. These were areas provided with Certificate of Non-Overlap (CNOs) and sites that said “No” to FPIC. It is possible that the site selection will increase to 15% if additional funding support becomes available.

This study will be the first of its kind with such wide a reach and with a very comprehensive list of guide questions across stakeholders. The study is deemed as important as it aims to provide recommendations to enhance the FPIC regulation in the Philippines before the start of REDD+ implementation in ancestral domain areas. The study is also crucial as it will have far reaching impact as well on the FPIC process for other development projects (extractives, etc), within ancestral domains.
The actual survey of FPIC cases will be carried out through secondary data gathering, focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs). Preliminary activities have already been conducted, such as the FPIC research team preliminary meeting held last March 5-6 at NTFP-EP office. A Research Training-Workshop was also held on March 26-27 in Quezon City. Research protocols and questions have been finalized and are ready for implementation in the field.

The FPIC policy assessment team is composed of CoDe REDD representatives as well as national coordinators, advisers, peer reviewers, the national lead researcher, cluster study leaders, cluster coordinators and site researchers. As remarked by Dr. Cecilia Macabuac-Ferolin of Xavier University, “the good thing about our team is it’s being inter-disciplinary and inter-generational. The entire team is looking forward to being part of this collaborative effort, and to fruitful results.

1. ^[1] CoDe REDD Philippines is a loose network of Civil Society organizations promoting community empowerment and biodiversity conservation in the implementation of a responsible, inclusive REDD+ (reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation) mechanism ↩
2. ^[2] GIZ implements a project on Forest policy and Piloting of REDD+ with DENR-FMB as the main partner. The Project is funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety under its International Climate Initiative, which is based on a decision of the German Parliament. ↩
3. ^[3] Certification preconditions are released by the NCIP once the FPIC process has been conducted and has been deemed valid.

   More information on FPIC for REDD can be found in the following document:
   Free, Prior, and Informed Consent for REDD+: Principles and Approaches for Policy and Project Development, Bangkok, February 2011. Developed by RECOFTC and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Sector Network Natural Resources and Rural Development – Asia, this publication is targeted at people concerned with the design and implementation of REDD+ projects or programs. It provides an overview of REDD+ and the importance of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), describes the development of a process that respects FPIC and guidelines on twelve aspects or ‘elements’ of a generic process to respect the right of indigenous peoples and local communities to FPIC.

   http://www.forclime.org/images/stories/RECOFTC-GIZ_FPIC_in_REDD_2011.pdf ↩

Download National Strategy Program and National Redd Plus Strategy.

Copenhagen, 9 December 2009 (Meena Raman)– A major issue that has grabbed the attention of delegations, civil society and media alike at the Copenhagen Climate Conference has been news of a leaked draft document called the “The Copenhagen Agreement” for adoption by the Conference of Parties at its conclusion, as Parties were engaged in negotiations in the various processes under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol.

The draft, which also contains annexes, was “leaked” in the website of the London-based Guardian newspaper.

The so-called “Copenhagen Agreement” is believed to be the initiative of the Danish government, as the President of the 15th COP. This document has sparked controversy, both in terms of the process and the substance, at least in the corridors and the press conferences of the Conference,

Ambassador Lumumba Stanislas DiAping of Sudan, speaking for the G77 and China at a press conference late evening on Tuesday said that the revelation of the Danish text is “serious and unfortunate.”

He said that “the text threatens the success of the COP on two counts. From a procedural perspective, the UNFCCC is the only legitimate platform for negotiations and is the only place where all nations of the world are negotiating in an open and transparent manner. A more serious problem is substance of the text.”

“From the view of the G77 and China, the text merges two processes – the Kyoto process (under the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Kyoto Protocol) and the long-term cooperative action process (AWG-LCA). By doing this, it destroys both the UNFCCC and the KP,” said DiAping.

He said that the text is aimed at producing a new treaty; a new legal instrument that has the effect of throwing away the balance of obligations between developed and developing countries; between the poorest and the highly industrialized countries. It creates a new set of obligations for developing countries on mitigation, adaptation, financing and has proposals for the protection of intellectual property rights in relation to technologies.
He said the text also divides developing countries and creates a new category of countries into the “poor and most vulnerable”. The result of all this is to rob developing countries of a just, equitable and fair share of the atmospheric space. It also treats developed and developing countries as equals and overturn the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, he added.

DiAping stressed further that the Danish text does not even pay lip-service to the proposals of developing countries. He believed that the strategic intent of the text and all efforts that have been going on for the last 6 months (referring pre-COP meetings organized by the Danish government) is aimed at a solution at the level of political leaders.

Referring to the Danish Prime Minister, DiAping said that it was very unfortunate that a man trusted to lead the COP process in a balanced way for an equitable and just deal is bent on advancing the interests of developed countries. He called on the Danish Prime Minister to refrain from such attempts.

In the corridors and cafes inside the Conference centre, the Danish text has become the main issue of conversation, speculation and even heated discussion. Some quarters in developed countries have expressed that the initiatives of the Danish Presidency have not been secret meetings but are what COP hosts normally do, in terms of consulting with Parties and that the text has been circulating among delegations and others.

However, the view was different from developing countries. Several of their delegates who heard about the leaked text asked NGOs if they had copies. One delegate said that the text was shown to him but no copies were given as it was not to be distributed. The pre-COP meetings held by the Danish government have not been open to all Parties but have been on the basis of invitations. It is not generally known who was at the pre-COP meetings or how many such meetings there have been.

The Danish Presidency has also not been mandated by the COP or any other official process under the UNFCCC to embark on the drafting of a text for the Conference. In fact in previous meetings of the UNFCCC many leading delegates have said “there is no Plan B”, meaning that there is no short text already prepared.

A reading of the text showed that it mainly reflects the proposals or positions of the developed countries, while neglecting the positions of the developing countries put forward in the negotiations and in the “non papers” that now form the main reference documents for the negotiations..

It proposes the adoption of a “political agreement”, while “affirming the need to continue negotiations with a view to agreeing on a comprehensive legal framework under the Convention” no later than a time-frame to be determined.

The issue of the form of the outcome has been most controversial. The G77 and China expressly stated at the opening of COP15 on Monday that it rejected attempts to have a “political agreement” and “plans for a new treaty projected to be negotiated post-Copenhagen that has been aggressively promoted from Barcelona to Copenhagen in various fora and through various statements made outside this process.” The text goes directly against this.

The text also proposes the inscription by developed country Parties to individual economy wide targets for 2020 in an attachment that would expect to yield aggregate emissions reductions by X per cent by 2020 versus 1990 levels or 2005 levels. This practically implies the replacement of the Kyoto Protocol as the commitments of developed countries that are Party to the Kyoto Protocol are mandated to be made in the Kyoto Protocol track, in a decision to be made by the Kyoto Protocol’s working group on further commitments of Annex I parties. These commitments are not meant to be made in a new agreement under the Convention.

The developing countries are strongly opposed to the “killing” of the Kyoto Protocol and its replacement by a new agreement which is likely to have much looser disciplines on the developed counties’ emission reductions, thus allowing these countries to escape internationally legally binding commitments

The text is also contrary to the understanding reached in Bali, in which under which developed countries which are KP members are to make their emission-reduction commitments under the KP, while the USA which is not a member to the KP but is a member of the Convention would make its commitment under paragraph 1(b)(i) of the Bali Action Plan.

Developing countries have maintained in the course of the negotiations that under paragraph 1(b)(i), developed country Parties who are not Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (meaning the United States), would undertake comparable efforts as developed country Parties under the Kyoto Protocol.

In other words, paragraph 1(b)(i) is to deal with the US. The Danish text makes no reference to the comparability of efforts that is needed with between the US and those who have to make commitments for mitigation in the Kyoto Protocol. The text does not refer to any commitments to be made in the KP, thus implying its abandonment.

In relation to developing countries, the Danish text distorts the understanding of the G77 and China as regards paragraph 1(b)(ii) of the Bali Action Plan. That paragraph of the BAP refers to nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) which are enabled and supported by developed countries through finance, technology and capacity-building. Hence, NAMAs are mitigation actions which are enabled and supported and it is these actions that are then to be measured, reported and verified (MRVed).

The Danish text expects developing countries to reflect in an attachment, all the mitigation actions, including those that are not supported or enabled, referring to all actions as NAMAs. This clearly echoes the proposals of particularly the United States and Australia. In fact the text comes with an annex containing a table on how developing countries are required to list down their mitigation actions.

In addition, the Danish text proposes that the developing countries mitigation actions yield in aggregate, a specific percentage deviation in 2020 from “business as usual” and “yielding their collective emissions peak before [20xx} and to decline thereafter”.

Many developing countries have opposed the establishment of quantified emission targets for developing countries, which this proposal aims to do and have said that this is contrary to the UNFCCC and the BAP.

The Danish text also proposes that all mitigation actions of developing countries (whether supported by finance or not) be inscribed in a Registry. The unsupported actions are to be subjected to a “consultative review”.

Such proposals are clearly beyond the mandate of the BAP. The text also commits developing countries to inscribe supported mitigation actions in a Registry and to indicate their expected emissions outcomes.

The text also states that an effective mitigation response requires a well-functioning carbon market. It calls for work towards a transition from project based to more comprehensive approaches. This issue is within the purview of the Kyoto Protocol, and is being discussed in the KP track. By placing the issue in an agreement under the Convention track, this is another indication of an attempt to replace the KP with a new agreement.

On the issue of technologies, the Danish text calls for the respecting of IPR regimes for environmentally sound and climate friendly technologies. This language is clearly opposed to the position of the G77 and China and individual developing countries that have put forward language to review IPR rules, including to allow developing countries to exclude patents on climate-related technologies.

As news of the leaked document swept through the halls of the Conference, African civil society organized a spontaneous march around the corridors. They were angry by the reference in the Danish text to temperatures being limited to a maximum of 2 degree C.

Chanting ” 2 degrees is suicide and genocide” for Africa and “One Africa – 1 Degree” the groups made clear that that they will not stand by while Africa gets divided up by “climate colonialism.” The large and diverse group moved into the main area of the Bella Center to spread their message. The march came as most attendees were leaving the venue and often swam against a tide of traffic but captured attention with its chanting and dancing.

Augustine Njamnshi of the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance said for Africans, these negotiations are a matter of life and death. As the protest broke up, Njamnshi was mobbed by reporters–some of them had just arrived.

TWN Copenhagen News Update No.7
Published by Third World Network
www.twnside.org.sg