Download - Ivar Jørgensen NORAD

How to ensure that REDD+ delivers social and environmental

co-benefitsIvar Jørgensen, Norad

Copenhagen, November 8th 2012

Roles in Norwegian REDD+ assistance

• MFA is responsible for the development budget• Our embassies are involved in implementation of many of the

REDD+ programmes• Ministry of Environment is responsible for the strategic

management of the Government of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI)

• Norad is an advisory body to MFA and NICFI – providing technical advice and quality assurance

• Norad manages funds to research institutions and NGOs for REDD+ programmes

• Norwegian NGOs are active and influential in Norwegian REDD+ policy

Norwegian investments in REDD+

• Active contributor to the UNFCCC negotiations• Major source of funding for UN- REDD, FCPF, FIP• Bilateral programmes with e.g. Brazil, Indonesia,

Guyana, Tanzania, Ethiopia• Major contribution to Congo Basin Forest Fund (with

UK)• REDD+ research• Civil Society programmes globally and in around 25

countries • Total available budget NOK 3 bill/year

Official position on safeguards

• Norway see safeguards to be a critical part of REDD+ architecture to ensure social and environmental integrity of REDD+ results and raise financing to pay for these results

• Summary of information of how safeguards are addressed should be in national communication and biennial updates

• Further guidance is needed on types and characteristics of information reported, and how information is collected and reviewed

• UNFCCC guidance is needed on content of summary to define a core set of information

REDD+ and co-benefits

• Conserving biodiversity

• Protecting ecosystem services

• Synergies with adaptation needs

• Economic benefits

• Community benefits (livelihoods and social capital)

• Benefits to governance and rights agenda

National policy options to enhance co-benefits

• Include forest co-benefits in low carbon development strategies

• Include forest co-benefits in national monitoring systems• Require spatial planning as basis for land use decision• Promote FPIC• Clarify land tenure and user rights to forest • Develop REDD standards and safeguard information

systems - and include them in national reporting

(The last bullet will be key for funding agencies)

Ekman Lars

HAR VI NOE Å MELDE HER?

What should be the basis for funding?

• In Phase 3 we will pay for documented reduction of emissions

• Policies and measures (PAMs) may be agreed as basis for payment in Phase 1 and 2

• The international community should agree on requirements to safeguard systems for payments to be released

• Some national funds have defined safeguard systems (e.g. FREDDI/Indonesia has an elaborate safeguard system)

How to make progress on safeguards?

• Safeguards have been a sensitive element in negotiations• Both COP 16 and 17 made positive steps, including Cancun

decision on safeguards• Durban did not reach a comprehensive result on reporting

systems • We see development of Safeguard Information Systems as

an opportunity to make progress:- SIS can improve overall REDD+ implementation- SIS can build confidence in REDD+ at local and

international levels- SIS can facilitate the flow of finance

Side/08.04.2023

How to make progress on safeguards – contd.

• REDD+ countries should implements SIS – this will enhance funding opportunities and it will inform the global process

• Global processes should learn from national experiences• Consistent international guidance will lead to efficiency and

reduce confusion of multiple initiatives• SIS development processes will enhance quality of national

REDD+ policies• Safeguards should be included in reporting from countries

Side/08.04.2023

What is the role of indigenous peoples and other forest dependent communities in

REDD?

Safeguards are more than just standards

• Capacity and willingness to implement and monitor safeguards

• Resources put aside to make sure safeguards are followed

• Ability to communicate safeguards and interact with relevant stakeholders

• Co-benefits are only ensured through national policy processes – REDD+ cannot solve all problems. The international community can not dictate national policy

• A global REDD+ system will put pressure on parties to adopt and implement safeguards

• Countries with good SIS will attract funding• Countries with good SIS will be more successful in

sustainable reduction of deforestation• REDD+ nay-sayers increase the risk of REDD+ failure and

loss of opportunities for REDD+ funding streams

Final comments

Thank you.

Ivar Jørgensen [email protected]