Designing Effective REDD+ Safeguards Information Systems Jessica Boyle IISD

1. Designing Effective REDD+ Safeguards Information SystemsJessica BoyleIISD With support from the Norwegian Development Agency

2. Presentation Overview • UNFCCC Background • Contextualizing a “SIS” for REDD+ • IISD Research Overview • Research Questions • Methodology • Initial Findings and Key Observations • Discussion Questions

3. REDD+ Safeguards in the Cancun Agreements • Action complements objectives of national forest programs and relevant international agreements • Transparent and effective national forest governance (e.g., openness, information publicly available) • Respect for knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities (e.g., signed UN-DRIP, have FPIC processes in national legislation) • Full and effective participation of stakeholders (e.g., FPIC, procedures for stakeholder involvement) • Consistent with conservation of natural forests and biodiversity • Actions to deal with permanence • Actions to deal with leakage

4. REDD+ SIS Guidance in Durban Decision • Guidance on systems for providing information on how REDD+ safeguards are addressed and respected. Safeguards Information Systems should: • Provide transparent and consistent information; • Provide information that is accessible for all relevant stakeholders • Update the information on a regular basis; • Provide information on how the safeguards are addressed and respected; • Be country-drivenand implemented at the national level; and • Build upon existing processes, as appropriate.

5. Contextualizing an SIS for REDD+ • Can be understood as “the set of institutions and processes through which information is collected, verified, assessed, published and fed back to relevant institutions.” • The systems should be developed in a way that strikes a balance between: • Flexible and country-driven approaches: Useful and effective for stakeholders at the country level, respecting sovereignty, but also compatible with any international standards; and, • Financial viability: Builds confidence to trigger substantial financial investment in REDD+ while not placing undue burden or transaction costs on the country/project implementers.

6. IISD-ICRAF Research • Goal: An effective REDD+ Safeguard Information System (SIS). • Outcome:Identification of lessons/characteristics from existing REDD+ process and other related processes that are applicable to REDD+, and how these lessons could be brought together to inform the development of a coherent and effective REDD+ Safeguards Information System. • Output: A policy paper that sets out lessons for the design of an effective REDD+ information system at the national level. The paper will include case studies of a select number of processes that are identified as having the most pertinent lessons for the REDD+, and a number of countries in both Asia and Africa are working to link existing systems with the development of a REDD+ SIS.

7. Methodology • Desk Research: Creation of research matrix to compare existing processes against each of the seven safeguard principles for REDD+, focus on reporting and verification elements. • Case Studies: Conduct in-country interviews; how are SIS(s) being approached at national level? • Expert Meeting: Review and additional input into research to date. • Publication of Policy Paper: Research and analysis to be brought together in coherent policy paper, to be published and disseminated broadly.

8. Building on Existing Systems • Many countries will likely build on current REDD+ processes related to safeguards: • The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s (FCPF) Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) and common approach; • UN‐REDD Programme’s Social and Environmental Principles and Criteria (P&C); and • Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA)’s REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards (REDD+ SES).

9. Building on Existing Systems (cont’d) • Many countries will also look to build on national process with applicability REDD+ SIS, such as: • International Conventions and Agreements (e.g., UNDRIP, CBD) • National Legislation, Policies and Approaches (e.g., FPIC, Environmental Assessment Frameworks) • Bilateral and Multilateral Agreements (e.g., FLEGT) • Project-level approaches (i.e., donor safeguard requirements, and/or pilot approaches)

10. Initial Findings and Key Observations • Agreement on principles (guidance) at international and national level. • Challenge comes in operationalizing systems of implementationand subsequent monitoring and reporting. • There are opportunities for the further development, elaboration of national-level SISs: • Existing data collection and processes via CBD, FPIC • Project-level, pilot learning simultaneously with advancing national planning • Specific safeguard systems implemented at project level • Building on experiences on PFM/SFM, other sectors (mining) • Many donors are also starting to look at how their approaches fit into a REDD+ SIS (ADB, USAID, etc.)

11. Initial Findings and Key Observations • Most countries still very early in the process–“Sailing the ship while building it” • Process will not be uniform across countries; very context- specific • Stocktaking of existing mechanisms, approaches and their effectiveness/application to REDD+ • Clarification of roles, authority, stakeholders, etc. • Establish forums for SIS development; dependent on broader REDD policy development • Seek coherence where possible; establish “baseline” for elements of SIS • Differences between policies on paper and in implementation

12. Discussion Questions • What existing processes and systems are countries building on in developing REDD+ SIS(s)? Existing REDD+ frameworks? Other processes? • How will activity level reporting on REDD+ safeguards be “rolled up” to the national level? What processes and/or tools have been developed? • How best to ensure safeguards are addressed and respected, and reported on; while not overburdening project developers, local communities and governments?