“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

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.

The article highlights a joint statement from a group of indigenous leaders from Mindanao, declaring their opposition to what they call the deceptive nature of treaty-based schemes to reduce carbon emissions responsible for climate change. We are glad that indigenous communities are thinking critically about new and proposed climate mechanisms.  However, it is also important to clarify misunderstandings, particularly regarding Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD+).  REDD+ is a mechanism through which developed countries will compensate developing countries that successfully reduce deforestation and forest degradation and sustainably manage and enhance their forests to sequester carbon from the atmosphere.

Based on initial findings,  it is largely true that afforestation and reforestation projects within the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) have not been successful at stemming climate change, nor in providing biodiversity and social co-benefits. However, the CDM should be differentiated from the emerging REDD+ mechanism.  First, although Mr. Bacongco suggests that REDD+ is already market-linked, the UNFCCC  has not decided whether REDD+ payments will be a market or fund-based. Second, REDD+ is part of a national approach to reduce emissions (rather than the CDM project-based approach).  As such, countries like the Philippines will be able to design their own policy reforms, safeguards, consultation and education processes and demonstration activities, allowing greater control over what is/is not allowed within mechanism.  Third, REDD+ is performance-based.  This means that emissions reductions must be measured, reported and externally verified, and that the carbon market could only come into play (if it does at all) after all preparatory systems and activities are compliant with UNFCCC- IPCC good practice guidelines.  

Furthermore, Mr. Bacongco’s article states that “REDD+ involves transactions wherein one country would reduce its carbon emissions in order to allow another country to maintain or even increase its own emissions”.  This assessment is not entirely true. Developed nations have commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.  Although many have yet to meet their targets, developed nations are not allowed to increase their emissions in any context whatsoever. However, as these countries gradually lower their carbon footprints through policy reforms and new technologies, the climate time bomb is ticking and we are inching closer to the dangerous 2˚C limit where life on this planet may irreversibly change forever.  There is a need to pressure developed countries into complying with their obligations, but also to identify complementary measures such as REDD+.

Although a REDD+mechanism is still under development, it is highly unlikely that developed nations will be allowed to offset a large part of their emissions by funding REDD+ to reduce emissions in other countries.  Large offsets from the forestry sector are not allowed within the existing CDM framework; developed countries can only use afforestation and reforestation projects to offset up to 1% their 1990 emissions levels.  Even so, advocacy remains necessary—we need the strong voice of CSOs and communities to rally on and make sure that developed countries do not rely heavily on the forestry sector of developing countries for their own emissions reductions.  REDD+ must be part of a broader agenda to significantly reduce emissions at source in developed countries.

However, the “climate time bomb” remains, and a REDD+ mechanism offers an important opportunity to reduce emissions.  Land use change, including deforestation, accounts for 20% of the global emissions problem. Why not allow responsibly implemented REDD+ to reverse these trends?  In our understanding, REDD+ presents an option for local stakeholders (indigenous peoples and tenured migrants) and national and local governments to be compensated for protecting and sustainably managing the Philippines remaining forests.  This can also be seen as good news—for once, the global community is recognizing that local communities can provide an important service in protecting natural ecosystems functions, including for global climate stability.

However, REDD+ should be implemented within a legal context and enabling environment that recognizes community and indigenous rights and that ensure social and environmental safeguards. In many countries, this is a great struggle, and without policy and reform within government, REDD+ runs high risks of not meeting carbon targets nor delivering social justice.

In the Philippines, however, CSOs have been vigilant and active in ensuring responsible REDD+ development that delivers benefits for community development and biodiversity conservation.  Loosely organized into the CoDe REDD network, civil society has engaged the Philippine government, including the Forest Management Bureau (DENR-FMB) as well as the Climate Change Commission (CCC), to develop the Philippine National REDD+ Strategy (PNRPS) that embodies the ideals of responsible REDD+ and adequate safeguards. Five REDD+ and PNRPS regional consultations have been conducted in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, and have engaged indigenous communities, CSOs, academe, research organizations, and local and national governments.

CoDe REDD has also engaged the NCIP to release a memorandum to all Regional Directors (Memo Order OED 84-201), to stop approving private carbon trading projects within ancestral domains until after safeguards are established and communities are oriented on REDD+. CoDe REDD stands with the voice of indigenous communities that, where there are “No Rights”, there should be “No REDD”.  Communities must be allowed genuine “free, prior and informed consent” and full benefits from this mechanism.

 We ask all lumads and indigenous peoples from other parts of the country, CSOs and other government entities to get involved in ongoing engagements undertaken by CoDe REDD and the DENR to develop the PNRPS and to conduct policy review and reform, governance enhancement, capacity building and other aspects important for responsible REDD+ implementation nationally and locally.

 We ask interested parties to contact Ms. Ester Batangan at NTFP-EP / CoDe REDD for more information on CoDe REDD (ebbgamay@yahoo.com, 09395385862). We ask you to check our website http://ntfp.org/coderedd/ which will be updated by the end of the month.

Crissy Guerrero

CoDe REDD Philippines

Forest Carbon revenues for local governments and local communities

The climate crisis heightens the risk of an already disaster-prone Philippines. It raises alarm bells for the pressing need for adaptation measures. However, as the country moves into high gear to address the impacts of climate change, the government should not lose site of the opportunities to mitigate climate change as well. One natural resource that can provide not only a “climate cooling effect” but also a “cash compensating contribution” is our Philippine forests.

Though the Kyoto protocol has recognized the power of forests to sequester carbon through afforestation and reforestation projects via the Clean Development Mechanism, it was only in 2007 when the UNFCCC formally recognized the possibilities of reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD).  In this mechanism, industrialized nations would pay developing countries to halt deforestation and thus halt the release of emissions into the atmosphere.

Studies have it that 20% of all emissions are from deforestation and land use change and thus it is being argued that if deforestation can be arrested, it will provide immediate opportunity to mitigate climate change at relatively low cost and it would buy time for other technological changes (renewable energy, etc).  Many industrialized nations are looking forward to a post Kyoto agreement with REDD in carbon emission reduction compliance markets.

Though many Southeast Asian governments like those of Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Laos are engaging in capacity building initiatives and pilots on REDD, the Philippine government is yet to take an active role in REDD implementation in the country.

The Philippines is not a natural REDD country considering its low forest cover of 24% (DENR, 2003). But advocates of a responsibly implemented REDD see that the Philippines has a lot to provide in terms of an enabling mechanism for REDD. The legal framework to recognize community rights over land and resources lays the foundation of the democratization of carbon rights and revenues. Across governance indicators the Philippines has performed better than other Southeast Asian nations (Kaufman, et al 2008). Good governance is the basis for land-use planning that could ensure permanence of forest carbon stocks required by REDD projects.

But implementing REDD is not only about forest carbon, it is also about delivering co-benefits. Many conservationists and development workers feel that through REDD, forest habitats and watersheds would be conserved, pollinators important for food security would be protected and forest stewards can be compensated for forest conservation activities.

REDD is already being implemented in voluntary carbon markets and carbon trades between USD 2-5/ton. REDD projects in West Kalimantan, Indonesia have been cinched between Australian banks and local governments and institutions. These initiatives promise to bring at least USD5-10M of carbon revenues per year for each area of approximately 50,000 has (Mallari, 2009). The Philippines with an estimated 765-2503Mt of above ground forest carbon (Gibbs, 2007) stands also to gain millions of US dollars a year on REDD schemes. Provinces which hold the last frontier forests such as Palawan, Isabela, Cagayan, Aurora and Quezon have a lot to gain from this scheme.

In order to galvanize discussion on shaping REDD into a mechanism that maximizes equity and ecosystem benefits, civil society organizations have bonded together to form CoDe REDD, a movement promoting Conservation and Community Development through REDD. CoDeREDD collaborators include among others the Non-Timber Forest Products –Exchange Programme (NTFP-EP), Kalahan Educational Foundation (KEF) Upholding Life and Nature (ULAN), Environmental Legal Assistance Center, Inc. (ELAC), Philippine Federation for Environmental Concerns (PFEC), Women in Society, Culture and Environment (WISE), AnthroWatch (AW), Fauna & Flora International (FFI), Go Organic Mindanao (GOM) and Interface Development Interventions (IDIS).  Together they are conducting awareness building regional consultations on REDD. Capacity building, mapping and piloting efforts will also soon be underway.

Paying the town “REDD”, appears to be the new, cutting edge climate mitigation strategy which can also provide financing for cash-strapped local governments and communities in forest conservation and sustainable development efforts. The government would do best not to miss this opportunity by developing a strategic direction and program on REDD in the Philippines.

For information about CoDe REDD, email: codereddphils@gmail.com