Exchange & Learning Workshop Report

Pokhara, Nepal
13th 16th April 2015

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

Contents
1.

Introduction

1.1.

REDD+ SES Initiative

1.2.

Objectives of the workshop

1.3.

Participants

2. New objectives, strategies and activities of the REDD+ SES Initiative

3.

Experiences developing elements of the Country Safeguards Approach

3.1.

Interpreting Cancun safeguards in the country context, in particular safeguards e), f), g)

3.2.

Establishing grievance and redress mechanisms

3.3.

Analysis of policies, laws and regulations (PLRs)

4.

Experiences developing Safeguards Information Systems (SIS)

3.1.

Interpreting safeguards to reflect the country context : Indonesia, Tanzania & DRC

9
10

3.2. Establishing institutional arrangements and processes for stakeholder participation :

Guatemala, Peru and the Yucatan Peninsula

11

3.3.

Developing country-specific indicators: Mato Grosso, Nepal and Central Kalimantan

12

3.4.

Collecting, compiling and analyzing information : East Kalimantan and Kemitraan

13

3.5.

Reviewing, reporting and using information : Acre

13

5. Articulation of Country Safeguards Approach and Safeguards Information Systems between

national and sub-national level

15

6.

Multi-stakeholder participatory processes for safeguards

17

7.

Options for SESA/ESMF to support participatory safeguards monitoring

18

8.

Outcome evaluation of a participatory, transparent and comprehensive approach to CSA and SIS 18

9.

Addressing equity in REDD+

10.

Tools to support the development of CSA and SIS

23
24

Annex 1. Agenda

26

Annex 2. List of participants

30

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

1. Introduction

1.1. REDD+ SES Initiative

The REDD+ SES Initiative was started in 2009 to develop voluntary best-practice standards used through
a multi-stakeholder process to support effective implementation and credible reporting on safeguards
for government-led REDD+ programs. Up to 2014, thirteen countries (including some initiatives at the
subnational level) 1 have participated in the Initiative, using the content and process of the REDD+ SES in
different ways, either as good practice guidance, as the basis for their SIS, or as a quality assurance
standard. The Initiative has also provided a dynamic learning and exchange platform to support southsouth exchanges among government and civil society organizations for the identification and
dissemination of good practices for safeguards, for multi-stakeholder approaches and for development
and implementation of SIS. The Initiative has evolved considerably from the initial promotion of
voluntary standards for REDD+ to become a leading REDD+ safeguards initiative providing capacity
building and technical support tailored to the context of participating countries and a learning network
for comprehensive, participatory and transparent country safeguards approaches.
The REDD+ SES Initiative is overseen by an International Standards Committee representing a balance of
interested parties. The majority of committee members are from countries where REDD+ will be
implemented, recognizing that developing country governments and civil society should lead the
adoption of the standards. The process for development and use of the standards is being facilitated by
an International Secretariat composed of the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) and
CARE International with technical support from the Proforest Initiative.
This workshop, held over three days 13th to 15th April 2015 in Pokhara, Nepal, provided an opportunity
for exchange and learning between the teams from government and civil society facilitating the
development and implementation of SIS from the countries participating in the REDD+ SES Initiative.
This workshop was the eighth exchange and learning event of the Initiative, and follows previous
exchange and learning events held 3-5 August 2010 in Washington DC, USA; 15-17 February 2011 in
Quito, Ecuador; 4-6 October in Acre, Brazil; 3-5 May 2012 in Dar es Salaam,Tanzania; 16-19 October
2012, Antigua, Guatemala; 1-3 July 2013 in Bogor, Indonesia; and 15-17 July 2014 in Merida, Mexico. For
more information about the REDD+ SES exchange and learning workshops, please visit http://reddstandards.org/exchange-learning
After this REDD+ SES exchange and learning workshop, participants joined a field visit to communities in
Ghorkha on 16th April 2015 to learn more about community-based forest management and community
participatory governance assessment. The field trip was hosted by CARE Nepal.

State of Acre, State of Mato Grosso, State of Amazonas in Brazil; Ecuador; Region of San Martin in Peru; Chile; Costa Rica;
Honduras; Guatemala; States of the Yucatan Peninsula and State of Jalisco in Mexico; Liberia; Tanzania; Democratic Republic of
Congo; Nepal; Province of Central Kalimantan and Province of East Kalimantan in Indonesia

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

1.2. Objectives of the workshop

The overall aim of the workshop was to support countries in the development of a REDD+ country
safeguards approach (CSA), in particular the safeguards information system (SIS).
Objectives
1. Exchange experiences on elements of CSA on:
o Interpreting Cancun safeguards in the country context
o Establishing grievance and redress mechanisms
o Analysis of policies, laws and regulations
2. Exchange experiences on development of SIS:
o Interpreting safeguards to reflect the country context
o Developing country-specific indicators
o Establishing institutional arrangements and processes for stakeholders participation
o Collecting, compiling and analyzing information
o Reviewing, reporting and using information
3. Explore articulation of CSA & SIS at sub-national and national levels
4. Learn from experiences of establishing multi-stakeholder committees and processes for
stakeholder participation, and the challenges encountered
5. Exploring options for SESA/ESMF to support participatory safeguards monitoring
6. Present available tools to support the development of CSA and SIS and examples of application
7. Learn about outcome evaluation of a transparent, participatory and comprehensive approach to
CSA and SIS
8. Raise awareness about addressing equity in REDD+
9. Provide an overview of the new objectives, strategies and activities of the REDD+ SES Initiative
1.3. Participants
A total of 31 participants from 8 countries (14 jurisdictions), of which 11 were from government, 17
from civil society and 3 from support organizations (see Annex 1).
The target participants were the key government and civil society partners who are facilitating the
development and implementation of country safeguards approach and safeguards information system
in each country or jurisdiction including Brazil, the State of Acre, the State of Mato Grosso, Indonesia,
the Province of Central Kalimantan, the Province of East Kalimantan, the Democratic Republic of Congo,
Nepal, Mexico, Guatemala and Peru.
One participant was from the UN-REDD Programme, one from the World Bank and one from CIFOR and
three from the REDD+ SES international secretariat (CCBA, CARE).

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

The workshop was organized around thematic sessions to exchange experiences on developing and
implementing Country Safeguards Approach and Safeguards Information Systems and to explore and
discuss upcoming issues related to these. The following sections present the results of the discussions of
the sessions.

2. New objectives, strategies and activities of the REDD+ SES Initiative

In order to provide tailored support to participating countries, the REDD+ SES Initiative has revised its
goal, objectives and activities. The full presentation is available here.
Overall goal of the SES Initiative from 2015
To support the development and implementation of effective social and environmental safeguards
for government-led strategies and action plans for REDD+ and related low-emissions land use to
make a substantial contribution to human rights, poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation
goals while avoiding social or environmental harm.
Objectives for support to countries participating in the SES Initiative
Countries participate in the SES Initiative according to the themes that are of particular interest to them.
Overall, the objectives of the country support provided by the SES Initiative are:
1. To build capacity and provide technical support, guidance and tools for a country safeguards
approach, and particularly for a safeguards information system;
2. To provide a platform for exchange and learning between governments and civil society in
different countries on the country safeguards approach, including safeguards information
systems;
3. To facilitate the documentation, synthesis and broad dissemination of experiences and
lessons learned about the design, implementation and outcomes of a participatory country
safeguards approach, including safeguards information systems, to relevant stakeholders
including government and civil society as well as financing agencies, donors, and the private
sector.
The elements of a country safeguards approach are explained on page 4. The SES initiative focuses on
the following aspects:
Country Safeguards Approach (CSA)
a) managing multi-stakeholder processes for effective stakeholder participation in CSA;
b) interpreting safeguards to reflect the country context, including the risks and
opportunities of the REDD+ strategies and actions, and breaking the safeguards down
into a comprehensive set of key elements, drawing on international best-practice
standards;
4

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

c) addressing the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples, local communities and
women, and ensuring their effective participation;

Safeguards Information System (SIS) as part of the CSA

a) defining the scope and objectives of the SIS;
b) assessing existing information systems, including those linked to relevant policies, laws
and regulations (PLR);
c) establishing the institutional arrangements for the SIS and the processes for stakeholder
participation;
d) identifying the specific information needed to assess how safeguards are addressed and
respected;
e) collecting, compiling and analyzing safeguards information;
f) reviewing, reporting and using safeguards information.
From 2015, the REDD+ SES Initiative is focusing on the following themes of support:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.

Management of multi-stakeholders processes

Design and implementation of a system for providing information on safeguards (SIS)
Participation in a community of practice
Empowerment of civil society to engagement effectively with government on safeguards
Use of the Social & Environmental Standards for REDD+ and related low-emissions land use

3. Experiences developing elements of the Country Safeguards Approach

To meet international commitments on safeguards, to comply with social, environmental and human
rights commitments in existing and proposed national policies, laws and regulations, and to strengthen
sustainable development benefits, many countries are adopting a Country Safeguards Approach (CSA)
that involves, among other elements:

a legal framework of policies, laws and regulations (PLR)

an institutional framework
a grievance and redress mechanism
a safeguards information system (SIS)

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

The CSA builds on and strengthens the countrys legal and institutional frameworks and information
systems by ensuring that they support effective application of internationally and nationally agreed
safeguards. In this way, the CSA contributes to lasting improvements in the countrys governance
framework, supporting not only the implementation of REDD+ but also related policies, measures and
safeguards. Countries have started to develop some of these elements and have identified challenges
and possible solutions to address these.

3.1. Interpreting Cancun safeguards in the country context, in particular safeguards

e), f), g)
Country experiences

Some countries have reviewed their existing policies, laws and regulations to interpret the
Cancun safeguards in the country context (Peru, Indonesia)
Some countries are integrating MRV and SIS (Guatemala, Ghana) while others are keeping
them separate (Peru)
Some countries have developed principles, criteria and indicators (Nepal, Indonesia) while
others have decided not to use indicators (Peru)
In some countries social safeguards have received more attention than environmental
safeguards (Mexico, East Kalimantan), while for other countries is this the contrary (Brazil)

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

Most countries have started with social

issues for safeguards and are finding it
hard to link with biodiversity and
ecosystem services difficult for
stakeholders to understand e), f) and g)
Find that f) and g) are the most difficult
to show address and respect as there
are no clear PLRs to address them
Cross-sectoral coordination agency
responsible for REDD is not responsible
for biodiversity, agriculture, indigenous
peoples
REDD+ is a climate change mitigation
instrument donors focus on carbon,
government focuses on social issues,
what about biodiversity?
Need to consider sub-national
coordination
Have customary law which respects
safeguards recognized by government

For f) and g) need a defined REDD+

strategy, REL, MRV to be addressed
Need to assess risks and threats to
reversals and leakage, and measures in
place
Coordination across government must
be mandated by law
Consider how to link MRV/NFMS and
SIS
Keep it simple and only consider
carbon for safeguards f) and g) and
not social issues
Dont try to address all rights and
biodiversity issues but focus on the
scope of REDD+ activities
Capacity building is needed for
stakeholders to understand all
safeguards, in particular environmental
safeguards f) and g) and structural
safeguards a) and b)

Challenges

Solutions

3.2. Establishing grievance and redress mechanisms

Country experiences

Use existing laws and grievances mechanisms such as transparency and information laws
(Mexico, Peru, Nepal)
Use informal grievance / conflict resolution mechanisms such as civil society coalitions
(Indonesia), multi-stakeholder groups reviewing and addressing grievances (Tanzania) or other
community mechanisms (Nepal)
Importance of mechanisms that address grievances at different levels e.g. local, district and
national (Peru, Brazil, Indonesia)

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

Acceptance of local community

informal grievance and dispute
resolution mechanism
Lack of capacity of stakeholders to use
grievance redress mechanisms
Align grievance redress mechanisms
with SESA/ESMF to prevent conflicts
It is not possible to separate REDD+
from other sectors such as land use
and land tenure when addressing
grievances
Facilitation to access grievance
mechanisms how to bridge the gap
between local and national level
Develop a systematic approach that
allows the grievance redress
mechanisms to predict future conflicts

Clearly identify the appropriate level

and institutions to address different
types of grievances
Clearly define the eligibility for
grievances
Define timeframe for disputes to be
addressed and resolved to ensure
timeliness and responsiveness of the
grievance redress mechanisms
Institutionalize customary
institutions/ procedures that are
recognized to be effective to address
grievances
Use community monitoring as a
feedback mechanism

Challenges

Solutions

3.3. Analysis of policies, laws and regulations (PLRs)

Country experiences

Most countries have completed their PLR analysis (Indonesia, Peru, Mexico, Acre, Tanzania) or it
is ongoing (East Kalimantan, DRC)
Laws may exist but regulations and implementation, and associated information, are often weak
In Acre and East Kalimantan the REDD+ SES assessment process has enabled comparison of
existing PLRs and existing information sources against country-specific interpretation of
indicators.
PLR assessment has led to identification of gaps, and countries are now developing action plans
to strengthen existing PLRs and to address gaps.
Stakeholder involvement ensures continuity in case of change in government - and promotes
accountability.

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

Different interpretations of laws

appear when implementation starts
due to the lack of specific regulations
Weak articulation between national
and sub-national levels regarding
institutional arrangements and
commitment to different safeguards
and priorities
Takes times to develop PLRs and
temptation to analyze too many PLRs
while focus should be on the ones
related to REDD+
Should PLR analysis cover both
statutory and customary laws?
It takes time to develop new
regulations with a participatory
approach

Link safeguards indicators to legal

framework
Link different international
frameworks: UNFCCC, CBD, ILO169,
UNDRIP etc.
Safeguards should go beyond
forests and apply to all land use

Challenges

Solutions

4. Experiences developing Safeguards Information Systems (SIS)

The Safeguards Information System element of the CSA serves

multiple objectives at different levels including reporting
internationally for results-based financing, and providing information
within the country to improve the REDD+ strategy (adaptive
management) and to build and maintain stakeholder and political
support for REDD+.
Approaches to developing and implementing SIS vary between
countries but generally comprise six key elements on which countries
exchanged experiences (see diagram on right hand side).

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

4.1. Interpreting safeguards to reflect the country context : Indonesia, Tanzania &
DRC
Indonesia
Different safeguard approaches are being used in Indonesia, like PGA (Participatory Governance
Assessment) at national level and REDD+ SES at subnational level. Now, the country aims to integrate
different safeguards approaches into one based on their technical and implementation feasibility. The
national safeguards information system developed by the Ministry of Forestry has 7 principles, 17
criteria and 32 indicators which they call PCI system. The process was started since 2011 and it has
already been implemented in two provinces.
Who is monitoring the process? Institutional structures were created in parallel with the PCI
development process. A multi-stakeholder forum has formed including government and civil
society participants which is the main body for monitoring the PCI process.
Is there any assessment report available? Data is being collected and uploaded in a web-based
system which is accessible to everyone. The data is only in Bahasa Indonesian language for now.
Collaboration with East Kalimantan is also ongoing to make those data more systematic and
facilitate dissemination.
In case of Indonesia, the government is leading the safeguard process, how do you ensure that
the process is inclusive? As an inclusive multi-stakeholders forum is monitoring the overall
process, the PCI process is also inclusive.
Democratic Republic of Congo
DRC started to develop REDD+ since 2009 and developed a national REDD+ framework strategy in 2012.
Different safeguard frameworks have been developed at national level under the Environmental and
Social Management Framework (ESMF) like indigenous peoples planning framework, FF (process
framework, cultural heritage management framework, pest and pesticide management framework but
the country has not yet developed a safeguard information system. However, the country is discussing
how to develop bottom up SIS where there are linkages from local to national to international level. DRC
has implemented eight pilot projects until now but is waiting for support from international level for SIS.
Tanzania
Tanzania developed a REDD+ Framework in 2009 and later developed a REDD+ Strategy in 2010. A
national facilitator, the technical working group, secretariat and national facilitation team were
established. Capacity building events were conducted for these structures. After reviewing UN-REDD,
FCPF and REDD+ SES initiatives, Tanzania interpreted safeguards integrating all other safeguards at
international level through 6 steps. As the safeguards have already been interpreted into the national
context, the country is planning to integrate in one process the SIS, SESA and ESMF.

10

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

4.2. Establishing institutional arrangements and processes

participation : Guatemala, Peru and the Yucatan Peninsula

for

stakeholder

Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico

A technical consultative committee (CTC) composed of government and civil society was established in
2011 to provide feedback and recommendations on REDD+ related issues. In 2013, a safeguards
committee was established that included regional NGOs, academia, regional governments of the 3
States of the Yucatan Peninsula and the National Forestry Commission (CONAFOR). The committee
interpreted the Cancun safeguards to fit the context of the Yucatan Peninsula using REDD+ SES. An
analysis of PLRs was also produced and recommendations were made for SIS, in particular with respect
to equity, gender and inclusion of vulnerable groups. It has been challenging to involve stakeholders
because of lack of knowledge of safeguards. It has been helpful to work with NGOs to involve Indigenous
Peoples as they have already established a trust relationship with them while there might be mistrust of
government because of previous programs. The safeguards committee still exists but there are no more
activities planned at the moment since the regional process has been much faster than national process
and CONAFOR asked them to wait.
Peru
A small technical committee for safeguards has been established including representatives from about
15 organisations from Indigenous Peoples, NGOs, government (Ministry of Agriculture, National Forest
Service, and Ministry of social inclusion, Ministry of Culture, and Regional governments). There has not
been a formal mapping to identify the stakeholders but it has been more of an ongoing process
depending on stakeholders interests or competencies on safeguards. Other stakeholders may join the
process for designing and implementing SIS later in the process. The technical working group is ad hoc
for now because it would have taken a long legal process to make it formal. The technical working group
will validate the different steps for establishing a safeguard information system.
In addition, a consultancy is ongoing to define the institutional arrangements needed. Institutional
arrangements are important because most of the relevant information is not managed by the Ministry
of Environment. It will be key to define: which organization has competency for specific information?
which organization has capacity? (most of time the institution that is responsible does not have
capacity) What information already exists? What should be the institutional arrangements?
In San Martin, a decree has established a safeguards committee that could be replicated to other
regions. Stakeholders were identified based on stakeholder mapping and drivers of deforestation. The
committee will be composed of private sector, public sector, NGOs and Indigenous Peoples.
Guatemala
The consultations have started with a gender and cultural approach using an existing governance
platform for consultations including beneficiaries of existing programmes, the climate change council,
the forest, biodiversity & climate change group and the safeguards committee. A facilitation team has
been established to support the safeguards committee in the process of developing SESA, ESMF and
11

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

REDD+ SES. The safeguards committee has defined a work plan that includes capacity building,
developing tools for safeguards, conducting an analysis of safeguards in the legal framework of
Guatemala, and mapping of existing stakeholders.

4.3. Developing country-specific indicators: Mato Grosso, Nepal and Central

Kalimantan
Mato Grosso
When developing indicators, the main challenges encountered included the lack of clarity of the national
REDD+ Strategy; the lack of REDD+ project experience in Mato Grosso which resulted in a very
theoretical discussion for the development of indicators and the difficulty of engaging Indigenous
Peoples and representatives of small-scale farmers. The interpretation of REDD+ SES principle 3 related
to contribution to well-being of Indigenous Peoples and local communities proved to be particularly
challenging to interpret given that Mato Grosso has 91 Indigenous Peoples territories with 31 ethnic
groups and each of these has a different approach and vision regarding this issue. Mato Grosso is
currently organizing consultations with representatives of different sectors. Once finalized, the
indicators will be tested in a couple of field forest conservation and sustainable management projects.
Nepal
The interpretation of indicators was led by the REDD Implementation Center with REDD+ stakeholders
and support from the facilitation team and technical working groups. Prior to developing country
specific indicators, awareness and capacity building workshops were organizes with the different
stakeholder groups so that they can engage effectively in the process. Local, regional and national
workshops were organized to draft the country specific indicators and consultations were conducted
with interest groups to receive additional feedback. Two public comment periods (60 days and 30 days)
was organized and publicized in the national newspapers, REDD+ website and partners. The technical
working group incorporated the comments received and the final draft was reviewed by safeguards
experts. The Nepal specific interpretation has 65 indicators of which 29 were maintained and 35 were
adapted. The main challenge during the process has been that there was no REDD+ strategy at the time
when the indicators were developed. It would have been better to have waited till this strategy was
done, then conduct a benefits and risks analysis and then developed indicators, but in this case Nepal
would only be starting the process now.
Central Kalimantan
A Working Group was established out of the Standards Committee to draft the specific indicators for
Central Kalimantan. The final indicators were included in the regional REDD+ strategy for Central
Kalimantan. The indicators were tested in the field which helped to show that indicators were too
complex for people to understand at community level and as a result there has been an effort to
simplify indicators. The main challenge that Central Kalimantan is facing is around sustainability of SIS.
The work to date has been supported by REDD+ SES and the interest of the provincial government in
REDD+ has been declining and there is currently no progress because of lack of direction from national
level since the national REDD+ Agency is being merged into the Ministry of Forestry.
12

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

4.4. Collecting, compiling and analyzing information : East Kalimantan and

Kemitraan

East Kalimantan
East Kalimantan developed principles, criteria and indicators to fit the province context using REDD+
SES. A multi-stakeholder workshop series was organized with Indigenous Peoples, NGOs and private
sector to prepare the draft indicators which were subsequently field tested in the 3 districts of Berau,
Paser and Kutai Kartanegara. The information was collected by the REDD Working Group with some help
from people trained in information collection. The field test of indicators has helped to improve the
indicators. East Kalimantan will try to translate the indicators to local languages so that they can be
understood by local stakeholders eg 4-5 languages. In addition, the REDD+ working group created by
Governor Decree with voluntary participation of its members may be integrated with the provincial
climate change council. People contribute time on a voluntary basis.
Kemitraan, national Indonesia NGO
Kemitraan facilitated community preparedness on REDD+ experience in 8 pilot sites in Indonesia,
working with communities representing up to 10,000 households and 150,000 ha. Kemitraan used
PRISAI, a safeguard developed by national government and civil society to cover Cancun safeguards, and
worked on principles most relevant to the community level. The communities already know about
safeguards but using their own terminology and there are disparities of knowledge. This process has
been conducted in collaboration with the REDD Agency, a national government agency which has
recently been dissolved so Kemitraan will need to engage with the new Ministry of Environment and
Forestry to see how this work can feed into the national SIS.
4.5. Reviewing, reporting and using information : Acre
Acre
The process in Acre for reviewing, reporting and using information followed 3 phases:
1st phase self evaluation process which resulted in a compliance report presented to 3 councils
of about 80 representatives of government, civil society and private sector and validated by
them. This report is now publicly available.
2nd phase International review which is a process review with detailed information on positive
and challenges/gaps e.g. transparency, gender aspect etc. The internal document has been
shared with the working team in Acre to improve the process.
3rd phase an outcome harvesting report when a consultant did interviews about what
stakeholders thought what was the additional value of implementing safeguards
CEVA, the multi-stakeholder commission created since 2012, includes social and environmental
movements, private sector, and government. An indigenous working group was later created as a subgroup of CEVA. The next steps include:

13

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

1. Develop an action plan to address gaps and strengthen existing policies based on safeguards
assessment
2. Develop a SIS which will be supported by consultant from University of Minas Gerais who will
include carbon and social and environmental based on REDD+ SES
3. Further align with national and international safeguards processes
4. Implement monitoring at outcome level (not yet well developed), compliance, jurisdictional and
local scale
5. Provide capacity building on transparency, equity, inclusion, rights, quality and diversity (15
indigenous ethnic groups)

The government of Acre has shared information on safeguards with the 3 Councils (around 80
representatives) and the information is publicly available but not yet widely disseminated and
understood. This is a weak point as there is no guarantee that the information is transferred to their
constituents. In addition, the Indigenous Groups are represented in the IP working group. Other
stakeholder groups are interested to create their own working group which would be helpful as CEVA
needs knowledge and specificity of the different working groups.
4.6. Experiences of developing CSA and SIS UN-REDD Programme
Country approach to safeguards

Safeguards should be interpreted in the specific context of the countrys selection of REDD+
activities (relevant PaMs to address identified drivers)
Assessments of exisiting PLRs, and their implementation can help identify how safeguards might
be addressed and respected
Operational procedures and their implementation should be the focus of addressing/respecting
safeguards (new PLRs need time/political capital)
Differing expectations among stakeholders can constitute a major challenged a national
dialogue is time consuming and needs careful planning

Safeguards Information Systems

Countries should align their SIS to the national agendas related to environment, forest
management and sustainable development goals
Countries need to consider the most appropriate means for providing information in a format
accessible to all relevant stakeholders
Managing expectations is particularly important when developing PCIs extensive list of
indicators can be difficult and expensive to maintain
REDD+ activities will happen at the local level so information will need to be aggregated from
the sub-national to the national level

14

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

Reflection by UN-REDD regional/global teams

Links o national strategies and action plans need to be explicitly made in the country
approach : driver analysis, then identify candidate PaMs and conduct a benefit/risk
assessment
Goal and scope of safeguards need to be explicitly defined, without which they serve as a
source of confusion
National interpretation of Cancun safeguards need to be expressed as an important iterative
step in the country approach
PLR assessments purpose is to primarily identify existing PLRs that address safeguards, less
so on identifying gaps for subsequent PLR reform
Institutions should be positioned from and centre of the country approach as these are
essential in implementing PLRs (i.e. respecting safeguards).

5. Articulation of Country Safeguards Approach and Safeguards Information

Systems between national and sub-national level
Many countries implementing REDD+ strategies or action plans may choose to pursue a nested
approach and integrate sub-national jurisdictional activities into their national strategy or action plan,
including in their country approach to safeguards and safeguards information system. While developing
their country approach to safeguards, sub-national considerations will need to be taken into account
including their specific environmental and social context, different risks and opportunities for different
strategy options, different interpretation of safeguards, specific policies, laws, regulations, procedures
and institutions and existing information systems and grievance mechanisms at sub-national level.
In addition, the objectives and needs for safeguards information may be different at sub-national and
national level. While a national summary is needed for the UNFCCC, other donors and finance agencies
may need additional details for certain regions and projects. It would also be necessary to define
appropriate levels for quality control, assessment of performance to ensure feedback for adaptive
management and feedback to stakeholders to facilitate participation. The full presentation is available
here.
Participants worked in groups to identify the main challenges of articulation of the country safeguards
approach and safeguards information system between national and sub-national level and possible
solutions to address these.

15

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

Monitoring and validation

of information

Increase transparency
Validation of methodology
by research institutions
Social validation of
information through multistakeholder forum at each
appropriate level

Lack of recognition of subnational by national

government

Use existing platforms such

as the Governors Forest and
Climate Task Force and civil
society organisations to
facilitate the dialogue
between sub-national and
national level

Institutional
arrangements
Define clear roles and
mandates at each level
Define communication
channels
Give attributions/
competences to sub-national
government institutions that
are already collecting
information
Establish an independent
structure dedicated to
coordination of sub-national
with national level

Different information
needs at different levels

Lack and/or disparity in

capacities

Variety of conditions at
sub-national level

Establish a specific
knowledge/network support
Develop technology
solutions : database, easy
format, protocols

Allocate funds to subnational

level to build capacities
Develop a
training/knowledge network
Involve NGOs and academia
as resource
person/institutions
Strong capacity building
programmes for stakeholders
including the private sector

Allow sub-national specific

safeguards or interpretation
of safeguards including
indicators
Maintain flexibility while
having a common reporting
framework keeping a clear
reference to the Cancun
safeguards elements

16

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

Local community
involvement

Reporting of cross
jurisdictional projects

Identify communities
interested in being involved
in providing
information/monitoring
Use existing
institutions/organizations
that are already collecting
information
Specific capacity building to
simplify safeguards language

Projects within one

jurisdiction can report to
sub-national that feed
information in national SIS
Cross-jurisdictional projects
can report directly to
national SIS
Consider reporting by
ecological sub-national zones

Lack of political
commitment/ turnover of
staff
Involve academia to ensure
continuity of processes

Lessons learned identified by participants

Adapting indicators to sub-national context is key to reflect the diversity of conditions

The process of tailoring indicators/adapting safeguards is as important to strengthen
stakeholders capacities as is the output
Use existing institutions that are already collecting information such as district forest offices,
civil society organisations, academia
Civil society organisations play a key role to socialize and raise awareness about safeguards at
community or sub-national level

6. Multi-stakeholder participatory processes for safeguards

The REDD+ SES Initiative has put a strong emphasis on promoting a balanced participation of
stakeholders potentially affected by the REDD+ or other land use strategy and action plans in the
development of a Country Safeguards Approach and Safeguards Information Systems. The multistakeholder process should engage government, civil society, Indigenous Peoples and local
communities, private sector and other relevant stakeholders in the interpretation of REDD+ safeguards
to country context, identifications of risks and opportunities of the different strategies options, the
development of country-specific indicators if needed and the review of information on how REDD+
safeguards are addressed and respected.
Countries have been involving stakeholders in the development of their country safeguards approach
and safeguards information system in different ways, using:

A multi-stakeholder consultation process which aims to consult widely, and maximise

opportunities for engagement. However, while stakeholders opinions will almost certainly
17

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

influence decision-making, the final decisions are made through processes in which they are not
necessarily directly involved.
A multi-stakeholder decision-making process in which representatives of key stakeholder
groups come together in a mechanism which allows them to make decisions using democratic
processes: i.e. it goes beyond expressing an opinion.
Combining a multi-stakeholder consultation and decision making process. It is often the case
that both types of processes are used together within the same project, i.e. a multi-stakeholder
decision-making process frequently also employs multi-stakeholder consultation processes to
make its work more effective.

During the workshop, the Region of San Martin in Peru, the State of Mato Grosso in Brazil and the States
of the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico shared their experiences of conducting consultation processes and
establishing multi-stakeholder committees.

7. Options for SESA/ESMF to support participatory safeguards monitoring

Countries that are participating in the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) are required to do a
Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) and to develop an Environmental and Social
Management Framework (ESMF). The SESA aims to improve design of the National REDD+ Strategy by
combining analytical work and consultations in an iterative fashion. The ESMF is one of the outputs of
the SESA and provides a framework to mitigate and manage risks with respect to existing World Bank
safeguards (or those of the relevant Delivery Partner IADB, UNDP etc. if other than the World Bank)
that is used to screen activities and develop activity- and site-specific mitigation plans (referred to as
Safeguards Plans in the FCPF Carbon Fund methodological framework) before the implementation of
activities. There is potential for the results of the SESA and ESMF to provide inputs to the development
and implementation of participatory safeguards monitoring. The full presentation is available here.

8. Outcome evaluation of a participatory, transparent and comprehensive

approach to CSA and SIS
The REDD+ SES Initiative is conducting an outcome evaluation during 2015. The overall objective of the
outcome evaluation is to identify the outcomes that have resulted from adopting a participatory,
transparent and comprehensive approach to safeguards for REDD+ with the purpose of providing
constructive feedback
(i)
(ii)
(iii)

to the government and civil society partners in the participating countries to help them to
communicate about and to improve their country safeguards approach,
to the REDD+ SES secretariat and International Steering Committee to help them to improve the
Initiatives strategies and to provide guidance to assist other countries, and
to the donor of the REDD+ SES Initiative (Norad).

18

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

In addition, the outcome evaluation will also be used to explain the benefits of a participatory,
transparent and comprehensive approach to social and environmental assessment for REDD+ to share
broadly with governments, civil society and donors/finance agencies that may be involved in designing,
implementing and evaluation REDD+ or related low emissions land use strategies and action plans.

The session focused on responding the following question:

What outcomes have resulted from adopting a participatory, transparent and comprehensive approach
to REDD+ safeguards, including outcomes influenced by participation in the REDD+ SES Initiative, in the
following domains of change:
i.
ii.

Government support for strong, effective safeguards

Civil society engagement to strengthen safeguards

Participants of the workshop identified the following outcomes:

Building support from government for
strong, effective safeguards
East
Kalimantan

Central
Kalimantan

Indonesia
national level

Nepal

In 2012, the Provincial Government

officially created the multi-stakeholder
REDD+ Working Group, with a mandate
to work on safeguards, among other
aspects
From 2012, the main safeguards issues
were identified. As a result land rights
and tenure has become the Provincial
Governments main consideration when
issuing land use permits (eg. oil palm,
plantation, mining, infrastructure etc.)
From 2016 (secured in 2015), the
Provincial Government is starting to give
financial support for capacity building on
safeguards
In 2013,the Provincial Commission of
REDD+ adopted the input from REDD+
SES Working Group to integrate the
proposed institutional arrangements for
REDD+ SES monitoring into the Provincial
REDD+ strategy document
From 2014, the national government in
Indonesia started the process of linking
safeguards frameworks and initiatives at
the sub-national levels (pilots) to the
national SIS
From 2014, the REDD Implementation
Centre (government) reorganized
safeguards in policy documents, eg.

Engaging civil society to strengthen

safeguards

Since 2011, indigenous peoples,

marginalized communities, local
communities and women have been
19

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

REDD+ strategy, ER-PIN

Since 2011, REDD Implementation Centre

(Government) officials, and REDD
working group members have had their
awareness raised about safeguards for
REDD+.

DRC

In 2014, a safeguards working group

including both government and civil
society was created by the Government
to support the development of the Mai
Ndombe ER Programme document
In 2015, the coordination unit of the
Forest Investment Program
(Government) created a safeguards
position
In 2012, the National REDD Coordination
created a safeguards position

actively participating and providing

feedback in the REDD+ safeguards
development process e.g. during first and
second public comment periods on
indicators, SESA etc.
Since 2012, the National Indigenous
Peoples Federation in Nepal (NEFIN) has
published information, education and
communications materials on REDD+
safeguards
From 2012, local communities from the
Terai Arc landscape and Chitwan
Annapurna landscape are capacitated to
claim their rights on REDD+ (through
support from Hariyo Ban project)
In 2010, the GTCR (Climate and REDD
Working Group civil society platform)
created a SESA Commission that became
more active because of the standards
development in 2010
In 2014, WWF and UNDP created a
position to work on REDD+ safeguards
In 2015, 32 representatives of local
communities and indigenous peoples were
identified to participate in development of
Mai Ndombe ER Programme, identified by
national NGO OCEAN under supervision by
CN-REDD, WWF, GTCR and ERA
In 2014, a new womens NGO was legally
created Commission des Femmes Leaders
pour lEnvironnement et le
Developpement Durable (CFLEDD) from
the GTCR Gender Commission
In 2015, the Youth Forum for REDD+ was
created as an NGO from the GTCR Youth
Commission
From 2012, GTCR created a gender
commission and women started to
participate more actively in REDD+
safeguards
From 2012, the Network of Indigenous
Peoples and Communities for the Defence
of Forest Ecosystems (REPALEF) started to
participate more actively in REDD+ and
safeguards.
20

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

Tanzania

In 2012, the Government REDD+ task

force decided to develop safeguards
principles, criteria and indicators for
Tanzania
In 2012, the Government REDD+ Task
Force created a Technical Working Group
on governance and safeguards with
members from government, NGOs and
private institutions
In 2013, the stakeholders proposed and
the government agreed that a grievance
mechanism for REDD+ should be
incorporated into the existing grievance
mechanism and that it should be
transparent, accessible, and gender
sensitive.
In 2013, the Minister responsible for the
environment (in the Vice Presidents
Office) approved the safeguards
principles, criteria and indicators for
Tanzania
In 2013, the Department of Forestry in
the Ministry of Agriculture designated a
local NGO JUMCIAZA (Association for
Conservation of Community Forests of
Zanzibar) was established having the role
of Administrating Carbon trading and
related uses:
- Monitoring REDD+ activities
- Planning conservation
- Administration of carbon benefits
In 2013, a consultation meeting was held
with members of Standing Committee on
National Resources of the Tanzanian
Parliament and provides input to
safeguards document
In 2012, government revised the
membership of the REDD+ task force to
include members representing civil

From 2014, influenced the participatory

management of mining and extractive
industry sectors
In 2010, the GTCR (Climate and REDD
Working Group civil society platform)
created a SESA Commission that became
more active because of the standards
development in 2010
From 2010, 14 civil society organisations
implemented REDD+ projects addressed
issues of safeguards awareness,
alternative livelihoods, land use plans etc.
In 2012, members of various civil society
organisations engaged in consultation
meetings/workshops for inputs on REDD+
safeguards including during validation
workshop in 2013

21

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

Guatemala

society organisations
From 2011, the institutions of the
interministerial coordination group
(MARN, INAB, CONAP) worked in a
coordinated manner for the preparation
of the National REDD+ Strategy
From 2014, technical staff from other
agencies linked with climate change in
political institutions have worked in a
coordinated manner to elaborate specific
products like SESA, ESMF, consultation
processes on safeguards etc.

Peru

Yucatan
Peninsula

Mato Grosso

In 2014, the Ministry of Environment

begins to lead a safeguards process in
coordination with the regions
From 2013, the Ministry of Environment
created a road map for REDD+ safeguards
From March 2012, the Regional
Government of San Martin started to
lead a safeguards process in the region
From 2015, the Ministry of Environment
has invited relevant actors to participate
and accompany the safeguards process,
through the creation of a technical
working group,
From 2012, the region of Yucatan
Peninsula was successful in obtaining
resources for early action on REDD+ from
CONAFOR
From the empowerment of Yucatan
Peninsula on REDD+ and safeguards in
2013, the government was able to obtain
a better exchange of experiences in the
technical REDD platform (CTC) at national
and international level.
In 2013, SEMA and ICV started working

From the end of 2014, the technical teams

in the National Council of Climate Change
worked on specific themes of mitigation,
adaptation and vulnerability to climate
change including a specific team on REDD+
safeguards
From 2012, the National Safeguards
Committee worked in a joint and
coordinated manner to develop the
framework for compliance on REDD+
safeguards
The Forest, Biodiversity and Climate
Change group worked together from 2012
on the preparation of the National REDD+
Strategy
In 2014, the participation of different
sectors of society was formalised by
integrating them into the working group
on safeguards
From 2014, key actors started to
participate in the committee meetings
contributing to the construction of
safeguards

There was an increase in interest and

participation of NGOs (IUCN, TNC,
Pronatura, M-REDD, GIZ) leading to
funding of projects, including gender, and
technical assistance

22

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

together on safeguards for Mato Grosso

State
Since December 2014, the Government
started to organize an open participatory
consultation process to develop
safeguards indicators

9. Addressing equity in REDD+

Equity means different things to different people, a reflection of different principles, frames of reference
and scales. Equity is important for both moral and instrumental reasons and while there is no one right
way to understand equity it is important both in terms of social and environmental objectives that there
is a common understanding of equity in a particular context.
Equity can be understood through three key questions:
i.

Equitable in terms of what?

Equity can be defined around 3 dimensions within which there are 10 principles. First of all,
Recognition in terms of recognition and respect of rights and respect for knowledge and
traditions; then Procedure to ensure effective participation, access to justice and access to
information and capacity building; and finally Distribution according to results, efforts, costs,
rights and needs.

ii.

Equitable in reference to what?

Equity can be defined in relation to safeguards or standards (absolute) or one situation versus
another (relative).

iii.

Equitable at what scale?

The scale at which and scale within which comparisons are made.

The full presentation is available here.

Participants shared experiences on strategies to strengthen equity in REDD+, including the role of
safeguards, identifying aspects of policy and process that promote equitable sharing of REDD+ benefits
in their countries.

23

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

Recognition of
rights & knowledge

Social clause
Free, prior and
informed consent

Procedure for
participation, information
and justice
Regional land planning
Transparent multistakeholder/
participatory process
Include vulnerable
groups in decisionmaking
Fair process
Access to information
including about existing
processes, risks and
adjustments of decisions
Stakeholders have
sufficient information to
make decisions

Distribution of benefits and costs

Results Integration with existing benefit sharing
practice of CFUG
Performance based payment
Benefit providers of environmental
services
Sharing between conservation and
reduction in deforestation results
Effort
Benefits should be proportional to the
effort of stakeholders
Rights
Cost
Needs

Clear guidelines to share the REDD+

benefits equitably e.g. Carbon Fund
guidelines 35% of funds should be
allocated to poor peoples
Identify socially excluded people and
make sure that benefits go to these
groups
Gender consideration

10. Tools to support the development of CSA and SIS

Training kit on REDD+ safeguards and REDD+ SES - REDD+ SES Secretariat

The training kit is aimed at REDD+ practitioners to help them to provide capacity building on REDD+
safeguards in an interactive manner. The kit is composed of a manual, presentations, activities and
summaries.
English Manual Presentations Summaries
Espaol Manual Presentaciones Resumenes

Gender checklist - REDD+ SES/WEDO

This publication presents the results of the action research on gender and REDD+ carried out by the
Women Environment and Development Organization in collaboration with the REDD+ SES Initiative. The
publication is composed of two parts:
Booklet 1 - Lessons learned from action research describes the development of the action research
project, the methodology and process of the action research, the baselines developed in each of the 4
24

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

countries, the steps to design a gender sensitive strategy or program, and the research outcomes.
English | Espaol
Booklet 2 Actions Steps for National REDD+ Programs summarizes the action research, and contains
three distinct action checklists:
1. Essential actions to develop a gender sensitive REDD+ Program
2. Actions to address the gender components of the REDD+ SES Principles, Criteria, and Indicators
3. Actions to develop a gender responsive country-level interpretation of Indicators
English | Espaol

Benefits & Risks Tools - UN-REDD

The UN-REDD Programme Benefits and Risks Tool (BeRT) supports REDD+ countries to: a) assess the
social and environmental risks and benefits associated with potential REDD+ actions (also known as
candidate Policies and Measures, PAMs) and b) analyse how existing policies, laws and regulations
(PLRs) address the Cancun safeguards. BeRT can be downloaded in English, Spanish and French here.
Global comparative study on REDD+ - CIFOR
Through comparative studies of the implementation of REDD+ around the world, the GCS REDD+ project
takes stock of international, national and subnational REDD+ experiences to identify challenges and
opportunities in designing and implementing effective, efficient, and equitable REDD+ policies and
projects. To deliver policy relevant evidence, our approach is comparative and longitudinal, and
combines biophysical, socio-economic and political economy analysis with an active knowledge sharing
element to provide an holistic understanding of what works and what doesnt - in REDD+. The overall
aim of the GCS REDD+ project is to inform the REDD+ policy arenas and practitioner communities with
evidence, analysis, and tools so as to ensure 3E+ outcomes: (carbon-) effectiveness, (cost-)efficiency,
and equity as well as co-benefits. More information is available here.

25

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

Annex 1. Agenda

Day 1 Monday 13th April

9.00

10.25
10.45

Session
Welcome and
getting to know
each other

Exchange of
experience on
elements of CSA

Learning from country experiences

Objective
Kick off. Explain general
purpose of workshop.
Explain outline of agenda:
overall outline for 3 days
Make logistical
announcements

Activity

Objectives and agenda

Logistical announcements
Getting to know each other
Presentation of REDD+ SES
Initiative new objectives,
strategies and activities

Coffee break
Exchange experiences on key
World caf with rotating interactive
issues related to developing
discussions on key issues for the
CSA
development of CSA:
o Interpreting Cancun safeguards
in the country context
o Establishing grievance and
redress mechanisms
o Analysis of Policies, Laws and
Regulations

12.45
Exchange of
experience on SIS

Lunch
Exchange country experiences
on key topics for SIS

Participants will rotate from tables

where facilitated discussion and
exchange of experience will be held
on the key issues for the
development of CSA.
Rounds of open space style
opportunities to discuss specific
topics related to the practical
implementation of SIS including:
o
o
o

o
o

Interpreting safeguards to
reflect the country context
Developing country-specific
indicators
Establishing institutional
arrangements and processes for
stakeholders participation
Collecting, compiling and
analyzing information
Reviewing, reporting and using
26

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

15.30
15.50

17.15

Coffee break
Learning about
Learn about country
addressing equity experiences of addressing
in REDD+
equity in REDD+
End of the day

information

Presentation and group work

Day 2 Tuesday 14th April

9.00

10.45
11.05

13.00
14.00

Session
Explore
articulation of
CSA & SIS at subnational and
national levels
including,
stakeholders
participation
Experience of
establishing
multistakeholder
committees and
processes for
stakeholder
participation and
the challenges
Exploring options
for SESA/ESMF to
support
participatory
safeguards
monitoring
Exchange about
addressing
safeguards in
sub-national
initiatives

Exploring key issues and challenges

Objective
Details
Identify issues that need to
Presentation
be addressed for articulating
sub-national & national levels Group work on key issues for
and identify potential
articulating CSA & SIS at subsolutions
national and national level and
possible options to address these
Coffee break
Learning from experience of
establishing multistakeholder
committees and processes
for stakeholder participation
and the challenges
encountered

Lunch
Present and discuss ways that
SESA/ESMF can provide
inputs for SIS based on
country cases

Discussion about solutions to

address the challenges of
implementing safeguards at
subnational level and
identification of way forward

Representatives of countries that

established multistakeholder
committees will be interviewed by
groups of participants who will then
report back to plenary to share
these experiences.

Parallel sessions combining short

presentations and group work,
providing a clinic to assist countries
with practical aspects of developing
a country safeguards approach and
SIS.
In each group, identify one
rapporteur (not the REDD+SES
facilitator) who will report back to
plenary on the conclusions/key
issues discussed.
27

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

16.00
16.20

17.15

Exchange tables
on specific topics
identified during
Day 1 exchange
of experiences
End of the day

Coffee break
Further exchange on topics of
particular interest in a free
manner

Day 3 Wednesday 15th April

9.00

11.00
11.20

12.30
13.30

Session
Marketplace about
tools and
approaches for
CSA and SIS

Learning from a
participatory,
transparent and
comprehensive
approach to CSA
and SIS: Acre case
study

Learning from a
participatory,
transparent and
comprehensive
approach to CSA
and SIS: group

Using approaches & tools

Objective
Learn about available tools
to support the development
of SIS and CSA and their
application
- Capacity building kit
(REDD+ SES)
- Gender checklist (REDD+
SES/WEDO)
- Country Approach to
Safeguards Tool & BeRT
(UN-REDD)
- CIFOR Global
comparative study on
REDD+
- DRC capacity building
materials
Coffee break
Learn about outcomes of a
transparent, participatory
and comprehensive
approach to CSA and SIS

Lunch

Details
Marketplace for tools and
materials: each
organization/person presents a tool
and participants go to different
stands to learn about tools that
can help in developing CSA and SIS

Presentation about Acres outcome

evaluation
Presentation of outcome harvesting
approach to help identify concrete
lessons learned and what
influenced the change

Activity: countries using approach

to help identify concrete lessons
learned and what influenced the
change

28

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

15.00
15.20

work

Learning &
applying
Update and next
steps for REDD+
SES

17.00

Feedback

17.30

Close of workshop

Coffee break
Groups by regions identify
Group work & presentation in
what they have learned from plenary
the workshop and they will
use it moving forward
Presentation from the
Presentation
REDD+SES secretariat on
recent events, and future
plans, including International
Reviews, International
Steering Committee,
guidance etc.
Participants share feedback
about the workshop

29

REDD+ SES Learning & Exchange Workshop

13th -15th April 2015 Pokhara Nepal

Annex 2. List of participants

Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

Pavel Jezek
Ricardo Mello
Alcilene Freitas
Edilene Fernandes
Marina Piatto
Patricia Porras
Milagros Sandoval
Lucas Durojeanni
Jos Roch Vasquez
Angelica Lara
Novia Widyaningtyas
Jasmine Puteri
Amalia Prameswari
Jagau Yusurum
Wilma Febrina
Fadjar Pambudhi

Country
Acre, Brazil
Acre, Brazil
Mato Grosso, Brazil
Mato Grosso, Brazil
Brazil
Peru
Peru
Peru
Quintana Roo, Mexico
Campeche, Mexico
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Central Kalimantan
East Kalimantan
East Kalimantan

Aym Sosa
Jolly Sassa Kiuka
Julien Kabalako
Alain Binibangili
Tamrini Said
Narendra Chand
Dil Raj Khanal
Tunga Bhadra Rai
Devi Chandra Pokharel
Pabitra Jha
Keshav Khanal
Krishna Khadka
Akihito Kono
Ken Green
Daju Resosudarmo
Joanna Durbin
Aurlie Lhumeau
Phil Franks
Nanibeti Shakya

Guatemala
DRC
DRC
DRC
Tanzania
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Thailand
USA
Indonesia
US
US
UK
Nepal

Organization
Climate Change Institute
CEVA, WWF
Secretary of Environment
Instituto Centro de Vida
Imaflora
Regional Government of San Martin
Conservation International
Ministry of Environment
Ecology and Environment Secretary
Secretary of Environmental
Ministry of Forestry and Environment
Kamitraan
Kemitraan
University of Palangka Raya
Forestry Agency
REDD Working Group
IDB
WWF
GTCR
CN REDD
Ministry of Forestry
REDD Implementation Center
FECOFUN
Nepal Federation of Indigenous People
Department of Forests
CARE Nepal
WWF Nepal
CARE Nepal
UN-REDD
World Bank
CIFOR
CCBA
CCBA
CARE
CARE Nepal

30