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 ↩

NEWS FLASH! The Philippine National REDD-Plus Strategy (PNRPS) Donors’ Forum was held last March 8 at EU office in Makati City. The Swiss Ambassador to the Philippines Ivo Sieber who represents the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) delivered the opening messages. SDC currently supports the development of the PNRPS along with the European Union (EU) which co-hosted the forum and the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). ^[1] Other donors which participated were the Agence Française de Développement (AFD), DevConcepts.PH., ,  Foundation for Philippine Environment (FPE), Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), Korean International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), Philippine Tropical Forest Foundation Conservation (PTFCF), United Nations Development Programme – Small Grants Programme (UNDP-SGP), United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

The Donors’ Forum was highlighted by the presentation of activities and corresponding budget estimates of the PNRPS’ seven (7) components by the PNRPS team, spearheaded by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources- Forest Management Bureau (DENR-FMB), CoDe REDD Philippines and partners. These components are as follow: 1) Enabling Policy; 2) Governance; 3) Resource Use Allocation and Management; 4) Research and Development; 5) Measurable, Reportable and Verifiable Conditions (MRV); 6) Capacity Building and Communication (CBC); and 7) Sustainable Financing.

1. ^[1] The GIZ-supported Project is funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety under its International Climate Initiative. This initiative is based on a decision of the German Parliament ↩

NEWS FLASH!

Philippine National REDD+ Strategy

Philippine National REDD+ Strategy (Tagalog version)

NEWS FLASH! As high-level negotiations resume once again in Cancun, Mexico after the disappointing outcome of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in 2009, expectations and the political pressure to finalize a global deal on climate change seemed to have eased off. parallel event agenda06dec[1]

The proposal was presented by Assistant Secretary and Chief of Staff Secretary Analiza Rebuelta-Teh of the Department of Environment & Natural Resources. Three UN agencies including United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) offices in Manila will jointly collaborate and support the DENR to implement the project.  A US$ 500,000 has been sought to support REDD+ initial readiness activites implementable within one year.

Capacitating forestland, protected areas and ancestral domains managers & support groups to implement REDD+ activities is the objective of the project. It is integral to a comprehensive process through which the Philippines will become REDD+ ready. The proposed project envisages developing the Philippines’ REDD readiness by creating an enabling environment.

Because of the huge amount required for a program towards REDD+ for the next fiver years, additional funding will be secured from bilateral and multi-lateral funding sources, including a Full UN-REDD Programme, should additional funds become available later at the UN-REDD Programme.

For the next 12 months, the project hopes to produce the following outcomes and outputs:

Outcome 1: REDD+ readiness support by effective, inclusive and participatory management process. This Outcome will generate outputs that would ensure that all stakeholders will be able to contribute to defining a national REDD+ programme based on an adopted Philippine National REDD Plus Strategy.  Expected outputs are:  i) strong commitment on REDD+ from key stakeholders at the national and local level gained; ii) awareness of key stakeholders on REDD+ enhanced; iii) Multi- stakeholder coordinative mechanism for REDD+ established; iv) National REDD+ capacity programme developed;

Outcome 2: Systematic and structural approach to REDD+ readiness identified through concrete studies of options and inclusive consultation. This Outcome is to deliver outputs that would standardize methodology and protocols on social and environmental safeguards, which would then go into a national legal framework governing REDD+ operations. Specific output expected is an approach on REDD+ social and environmental safeguards developed;

Outcome 3: Capacity to establish reference baselines increased.  This outcome will work on harmonizing and standardizing methodologies on establishing national reference emission levels and measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) systems or MRVs, very important aspects of REDD+ endeavors. Its expected outputs are: i) harmonized methodology for reference baselines for selected REDD-able sites established; ii) A national MRV approach established.

The Forest Management Bureau (FMB) and National Mapping and Resource Information Authority (NAMRIA) of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and its partners, CoDE REDD civil society organizations, academe and research institutions will jointly implement the project.