Dec 4, 2013 ... Social Safeguard at National and Project Level in Lao PDR. Savanh ... not started
yet due to institutional reformation of forestry sector in Laos.
Social Safeguard at National and Project Level in Lao PDR Case Study of Participatory Land and Forest Management Project for Reducing Deforestation (PAREDD), Lao PDR
Savanh CHANTHAKOUMMANE Director, REDD+ Office Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
CONTENTS: 1. Background; 2. Main drivers of D1&D2and Sources of GHG. E;
3. The Safeguards Preparation and Policy; 4. Social Safeguards of the PAREDD Project;
(Participation, Pro-poor, Awareness raising); 5. Constraints;
6. Lessons learned.
70
60
Forest cover (%)
50
40
30
20
10
0
1960
1970
1982
1992 Year
2002
2010
Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation: Based on “R-PP”
Deforestation
• Hydropower & Mining; • Conversion of Forest Land into Agriculture & Plantation
Forest Degradation
• Both Legal & Illegal Logging; • Shifting Cultivation. Source: Lao PDR R-PP, 2010
Source of GHG Emissions in Lao PDR Land use change (deforestation) is a largest source of GHG emission in Lao PDR. REDD+ is important measure for GHG emission reduction.
REDD+
will also be highly valuable for both sustainable forest management and livelihood improvement for forest-dependent people.
GHG emissions by sector (2000) Energy, 1,040
(2%)
(0.3%) Waste, 132 Industrial Products, 48 (0.1%)
Agriculture, 7,606
(14.4%)
LUCF, 43,963
(83.3%)
Laos has been making considerable efforts in preparing REDD+ since 2008. Source: DNA Laos 5
Safeguard Preparation for REDD+ in Lao PDR The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) approved Lao Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) in November 2010. Design - Readiness
Implementation
Strategic Environmental & Social Assessment (SESA)
Environmental & Social Management Framework (ESMF)
An iterative process of analysis and consultation to improve design based on World Bank safeguards and issues identified through the process
Framework for development of plans to mitigate and manage risks with respect to World Bank safeguards
As of December 2013, however, FCPF has not started yet due to institutional reformation of forestry sector in Laos. Source: Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance, September 2012 6
Existing Safeguard policy in Lao PDR - Environment Strategic management framework on safeguard for REDD+ has
not prepared yet, however, there has existing safeguard policy regarding to environmental safeguard including prior environmental assessment. Environmental Protection Law (No. 02-99/NA 3 April 1999)
Decree on Environmental Impact Assessment (112/PM February, 2010) Regulation on Environment Assessment in the Lao PDR (No: 1770/STEA Vientiane, October 2000 ) 7
Existing Safeguard policy in Lao PDR - Participation Tenure, rights, access and land use has emerged as important issues in REDD+
discussion and implementation. Land use planning is one of the a key policy to address those issues. Manual on participatory land use planning developed by MAF in 2010 provide an appropriate guidance for full and effective participation in land use planning at village
and village cluster level. 8
Basic Information of PAREDD project Project Title
Participatory Land and Forest Management Project for Reducing Deforestation in Lao PDR (PAREDD) Project Period 24 August, 2009 – 23 August, 2014 (5 years) Target Area 6 villages, approximately 30,000ha in total REDD pilot Activities
Project REL Participatory monitoring Institutional setup for forest management at village level Mitigation activities (land use planning, alternative livelihood option, etc.) Awareness raising as part of FPIC process and stakeholder consultation process.
9
Social Safeguard of PAREDD – Participation PAREDD take a consideration for fully and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular local communities during planning, implementation and monitoring stage. Official manual on participatory land use planning can provide a guidance to ensure participatory process. Example: Land Use Zoning Group Discussion for gender and ethnic • Sketch Mapping on land and forest • Problem Analysis over forest and forest resource
Participatory Zoning • Establish Village committee for land zoning • Transect walk with GPS • Village consultation for approval
Official Approval • District governor and local community make an agreement for land use zoning.
Facilitate consultation and agreement for each steps 10
Social Safeguard of PAREDD – Pro-Poor REDD+ Agricultural land expansion is one of the main causes of deforestation and forest degradation in the target villages . PAREDD provides technical and financial support for alternative livelihood options to reduce the pressure to the forest area. (i.e. livestock raising, paddy field expansion, food processing, fruit tree plantation, etc.) Decisions on participant selection and activities made by the local community.
11
Social Safeguard of PAREDD – Awareness raising for FPIC As part of FPIC process, PAREDD provides a series of training and
workshop on awareness building of climate change and REDD+ for both local government counterparts and local communities with technical support from RECOFTC.
Visual material for awareness building for villagers is also prepared.
12
Problems at project implementation It is quite difficult for local community to understand the conceptual matters and principle of REDD+. (Greenhouse gas? Carbon and Forest? Concept of REDD? How to sale Carbon Credit ?). What extent the project needs to make local community understand REDD+ for successful FPIC ? Local community highly expects to know how much they can get from REDD+. However, the project cannot promise anything due to lack of rule and regulation of benefit sharing mechanism, lack of sufficient data on estimated emission reduction, and price of carbon credit. Under conditions of policy, forest information and market uncertainty, how we could proceed FPIC for villagers? “Prior” consent is likely to be made mostly by their positive expectation. Local community can realize not only its benefit but also negative impact and risk during project implementation as their own experience. 13
Problems at project implementation Participatory planning with local consent require much input and time. In
case of PAREDD, planning process including forest environmental education for 5 villages needed almost 2 years, and both the project and local community complained of this long process. If we would expand the scale of project at sub-national level, similar level of input to all of the target area are not realistic. What extent we should ensure the “participatory process”
at prior stage to meet the requirement of safeguard standard in large target area? Even though the project explained the purpose and scope of the project with visual materials for social consideration, local community is likely to select the project activity with their priority such as high income
generation, without enough consideration for reducing deforestation.
14
Lessons Learnt from PAREDD Local participation in the decision making process is essential for successful forest management and REDD+. Principles of REDD+ can be understood only along with the reality of local community. We have to look for more simple and realistic ways of explanation with visual materials. The project needs further research on the efficiency of selected activities for land use change and selects appropriate and effective project activities to meet both local priority and REDD+. The project has to give a right of rejection (or re-negotiation) to community not only at “prior” stage but rather at implementation stage.
15
Thank you for your kind attention
