Transcript Safeguards and Governance: How to ensure effectiveness and

Governance, Safeguards and
Accountability:
How to ensure that REDD investments are effective in
reducing emissions from deforestation and
degradation?
Andy White and Jeff Hatcher
15 June 2009
Second UN-REDD Programme Policy Board Meeting
Montreux, Switzerland
Outline
1. Why governance, safeguards and accountability
to reduce emissions?
2. Lessons from previous interventions to reduce
deforestation and degradation
3. What is the status of safeguards and
mechanisms for accountability?
4. What can be done? Emerging
recommendations
5. Moving forward: Questions for our discussion
today
Why focus now on governance, safeguards
and accountability?
1.
We know “good governance” necessary to keep forests and attract
investment;
–
2.
Governance: rules of the game; “good governance”: fairness, inclusive,
participation, transparence, accountability at national and international levels
We know that achieving “good governance” is a challenge in forest areas
and substantial risk of things going wrong:
–
–

Donors don’t want the blame, want to do good
Governments don’t want blame, want to do good
Thus: safeguards – guidelines/standards with teeth, can be/are enforced
3.
We know that “accountability” and redress mechanisms key part of good
governance – and especially necessary to put in place now, with REDD
readiness investments
4.
Why now?
–
–
Programs moving forward and funds being disbursed – need for clear, wellknown, operational guidance
Need to take advantage of the REDD funding to establish good governance before funds expire and exposed to the market
Some lessons from history (1)
1.
Previous global attempts to address deforestation have bad track record (in
terms of impact) (e.g. Tropical Forest Action Plan; ITTO Objective 2000; UNFF)
2.
Dominant forestry models inadequate: conservation without human rights,
industrial concessions without development; social forestry without enterprises
and market access
•
3.
4.
What we have NOT done: invested in developing institutions and governance, enabling
local people to pursue their aspirations, forests have always been object of central,
public control
Establishing governance, clarifying property rights very complicated and
politically contentious
•
A national, development issue, requires action by other ministries (land, finance); far
beyond capacity/competence of forest agencies usually not a national priority;
•
Yet, forestry usually not a national priority, a “sunset” industry, other ministries often
not interested
•
Vested interests hard to deal with (e.g. industrial concessions, environmentalists)
The World Bank, UN, ODA, International NGOs don’t have the answer: it is up to
the country government and people, yet institutions not in place for this new,
national “social contract” over land and rights
Some lessons from history (2)
5.
The major drivers of deforestation are outside of the forest sector (e.g. subsidies for
agriculture, state-sponsored deforestation)
6.
Money is not the major problem, policy alone can do it:
•
•
•
Where is “unfunded” protection taking place? Brazil (IPs’); Mexico, Guatemala, Panama,
Philippines (IPs’, communities)
Where is “unfunded” restoration taking place? Nepal (communities); China, Vietnam
(households)
All where local rights recognized and enforced, and this is cheap $3/hectare vs $400/ha/year
expected REDD payment
7.
Forestry small sector, trumped by larger domestic and global politics – short attention
spans, limited commitments – thus easy to exploit and abuse, hard for bureaucracies to
maintain standards: why would this not continue?
8.
Multiple actors in the same sector risks/facilitates gamesmanship, often collapse:
•
9.
Thus critical to adopt same standards, set up strong accountability mechanisms, everyone hold
everyone else’s feet to the fire – only, ultimate safeguard is strong civil society, responsive
government
Strong efforts in some countries, growing CSO participation, all countries have lessons
to share: investments in “learning and sharing” pay off (not between international
‘experts’ but between public, community, local NGOs)
One last lesson: the situation is dire
•
•
•
•
Poverty is extreme
Conflicts are common
Violation of human rights are commonplace
Governments claim 63% of tropical world’s forests
– illegal conservation, dispossession and refugees
• Limited accountability, judicial redress, lack of basic
services
• Increasing pressure from biofuels, agriculture,
population –
 i.e. all this getting worse – forested countries
vulnerable and fragile
Violent conflict common in tropical forests
In the past twenty years 30 countries in the tropical regions of the world have
experienced significant conflict between armed groups in forest areas.
Source: D.Kaimowitz ETFRN NEWS 43/44
Weak governance common – worse in
forested countries
Freedom
House
index2
Current
conflicts3
World Bank
"Doing
Business"
ranking4
1-10; top score:
Denmark, 9.3.
1 = Free, 7 =
Not free.
Tenurerelated /
total
conflicts.
Ease of doing
business ranking,
of 181 total.
2.6 of 10
3.5 of 7
3/3
119
Transparency
International
rating1
n
9
UNREDD
37
FCPF
2.9
3.6
9 / 13
115
38
Both
2.9
3.6
12 / 16
116
Sources:
1
Transperancy International. 2008. Corruption Perceptions Index. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi
2
Freedom House. 2008. Freedom in the World. Combined Average Ratings, http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=410&year=2008
3
Wily, Liz A. 2008. Current conflicts around the world. Unpublished.
4
Doing Business 2009, http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/?direction=Desc&sort=1
Forested countries – low, slow
economic growth
• Extensive, chronic,
poverty in forest areas
3.50%
• “growth” located in
urban, coastal areas
• “forest rich” countries
doing significantly worse;
• ITTO producer
countries doing
significantly worse
• Most forested
countries fallen to the
“resource curse”
Average Annual GDP Per Capita Growth 1975-2004
3.00%
2.50%
2.00%
1.50%
1.00%
0.50%
0.00%
Africa
Asia & Oceania
L America & Caribbean
-0.50%
-1.00%
High Forest Countries*
Low Forest Countries
Developing World
Corruption a key, pervasive problem
“Corruption is the main reason why resourcerich countries perform badly in economic
terms. Corruption in resource-rich countries
takes two main forms: rent-seeking and
patronage”
(Ivar Kolstad and Tina Soreide, CMI, Norway,
Resources Policy, 2009)
The status of safeguards (1)
UN-REDD Programme
•
must abide by UN decisions and declarations:
– UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
– Universal Declaration of Human Rights
– International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
– International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
rights
•
But what do these mean in practice?
•
There are emerging “guidelines”, but no enforcement
mechanisms, no grievance mechanisms at national or
international levels
•
How to put these in place?
The status of safeguards (2)
World Bank FCPF
* has policies and safeguards and an accountability mechanism:
• OP 4.01 on environmental assessments
• OP 4.1 on Indigenous Peoples
• OP 4.11 on physical cultural resources
• OP 4.12 on involuntary resettlement
• Inspection Panel can be triggered upon “threat of harm”
• Question: when and how do these apply?
– To R-PIN, R-Plan, Bank Project?
• Many research organizations examining this issue, beginning to, or
getting ready to assess implementation
– CIFOR – global research program;
– WRI (paper);
– FPP, CIEL; Global Witness; Indigenous Peoples organizations
Three Emerging Recommendations
1.
REDD “Readiness” – all about establishing governance in
forest areas
•
2.
All must take full advantage of this funding to do what we have not
been doing – establish informed national level participation
processes, reform property rights, establish accountability
To reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation:
need:
1.
2.
3.
Recognize indigenous, community property rights, and enforce
Establish enabling policy context for community, local management
and enterprises;
Stop/reverse government programs that drive deforestation
Emerging Recommendations
3.
If payments are going to be made, need to clarify
“readiness”. Governments and investors will know when
countries are “ready” to receive payments/funds when
there is:
•
•
•
•
*
Clear, enforced, and widely supported, legal framework for forest
property rights (land, forests, carbon, other ecosystem services);
Social agreement on who gets compensated;
MRV system (carbon, social and environmental) is credible and
transparent at national and global levels;
Independent mechanisms for law enforcement and accountability
exist and function at national and international levels
i.e. no major conflicts, low corruption, and when there are
disagreements there are credible remedial processes
to deal with them
Questions for discussion today
1.
Governments: What do your citizens expect you to put in
place in terms of governance, safeguards, accountability?
2.
UN-REDD – what should they do to fulfill their obligations?
•
•
Moving from principles/guidelines to enforceable safeguards
Establishing mechanisms for accountability – national and
international levels
•
3.
UN-REDD proposal to create a grievance mechanism: complaints to the
UN-REDD co-chairs and the UN country office. Is that sufficient?
FCPF – when and how to apply their safeguards, and for
what duration?
1.
2.
Apply in preparation of R-Plan, or only to Bank carbon project?
What’s basis for only applying to “readiness” and not to full global
market/payment program?