Transcript SES_2.3.1_FPIC_2015_04x

Section 2. What Social And Environmental
Issues Exist: Strengthening Design And
Implementation of REDD+
2.3.1. FPIC (Free, Prior and Informed Consent)
USAID LEAF
Regional Climate Change Curriculum Development
Module: Social and Environmental Soundness (SES)
Name
Affiliation
Kasetsart University,
Thailand
Penporn Janekarnkij; Co-Lead Kasetsart University,
Thailand
Surin Onprom; Co-Lead
Name
Affiliation
Tran Thi Thu Ha
Vietnam Forestry University
Nguyen Dinh Hai
Vietnam Forestry University
Rejani Kunjappan; Co-Lead
RECOFTC
Thailand
Vo Mai Anh
Vietnam Forestry University
Claudia Radel; Co-Lead
Utah State University
Tran Tuan Viet
Vietnam Forestry University
Sarah Hines; Co-Lead
US Forest Service
Cao Tien Trung
Vinh University, Vietnam
Sidthinat Prabudhanitisarn
Chiang Mai University,
Thailand
Nguyen T. Trang Thanh
Vinh University, Vietnam
Sharifah Zarina Syed Zakaria
University Kebangsaan Malaysia
Nguyen Thu Ha
USAID Vietnam Forests &
Deltas
Mohd Rusli Yacob
University Putra Malaysia
Maeve Nightingale
IUCN MFF
Kaisone Phengspha
National University of Laos
Guada Lagrada
PACT MPE
Phansamai Phengspha
National University of Laos
Le Van Trung
DARD Lam Dong
Kethsa Nanthavongduangsy
National University of Laos
Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh
AIT Thailand
Freddie Alei
University of Papua New Guinea
David Ganz
USAID LEAF Bangkok
Chay Kongkruy
Royal University of Agriculture,
Cambodia
Kalpana Giri
USAID LEAF Bangkok
Soreivathanak Reasey Hoy
Royal University of Phnom Penh,
Cambodia
Chi Pham
Project Coordinator
USAID LEAF Bangkok
I.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1.
1.2.
1.3.
1.4.
Introduction to Climate Change
The Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation Context
Introduction to Social and Environmental Soundness (SES)
Guiding Frameworks – Sustainable Development & Ethics
II. WHAT SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES EXIST: STRENGHENING
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REDD
2.1. Environmental Co-benefits: Introduction to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
2.1.1. Carbon/REDD+ Project Accounting, Carbon Monitoring & MRV
2.2. Governance
2.2.1. Regulatory Framework, Forest Tenure, and Carbon Rights
2.3. Stakeholder Participation
2.3.1. Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC)
2.4. Social Co-benefits
2.5. Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment
2.5.1. Gender Analysis Tools
2.5.2. Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index
2.6. Indigenous Peoples and their Empowerment
2.7. Local Livelihoods: An Introduction
2.7.1 Livelihoods impact Case Study: April Salumei, PNG
2.8. REDD+ Benefits Sharing
2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability
III. STATE OF THE ART IN ACTION: BRINGING THE PIECES TOGETHER
3.1. Safeguard Mechanisms in REDD+ Programs
3.2. Streamlining of Safeguards and Standards
3.3. Developing National Level Safeguards
At the end of this section, learners will be able to:
 Explain the key concepts that define FPIC
 Explain the difference between consultation, negotiation,
participation, and FPIC
 Explain why seeking consent is important in a REDD+ project
 Identify the risks of not seeking FPIC in a REDD+ project
 Explain the supporting values of FPIC within the context of
REDD+
 Differentiate between a rights holder and a stakeholder in a
REDD+ project

Key concepts in FPIC (F, P, I, C)

Defining FPIC
Difference between consultation,
negotiation, participation and FPIC
Case study:






Seeking Consent in REDD+
Risks when there is no FPIC
Values that support FPIC
Difference between rights holders
and stakeholders

Brainstorming

Small Group Discussions

Lecture

Case Study

Group Presentations
Potential Readings/Viewings:

Handout “Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership Case Study.”

Video (8 minutes) on FPIC and Indigenous Peoples that explains the
concepts and mechanisms of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)
through a story of interaction between indigenous peoples and people
requesting their consent for new development
(http://vimeo.com/66708050).

Free, Prior and Informed Consent in REDD+: Principles and Approaches
for Policy and Project Development. RECOFTC, 2011.

Handout “What is FPIC?”

FPIC is not new

Evolved from human rights discussions on development
where it was agreed that everyone has the right to determine
their own development

being able to say “yes” or “no” to any project proposed or
external development

A social safeguard which gives stakeholders affected by a
REDD+ project opportunity to challenge, accept or refuse the
project implementation
Specific collective rights of indigenous communities and
local peoples that should be respected
a community, as a whole, has the right to give or deny its
Free, Prior and Informed Consent
OUTCOME of an FPIC process =
CONSENT or NON-CONSENT



Read the REDD+ Case Study: Kalimantan Forests and Climate
Partnership.
Divide into small groups (e.g. 3 to 5 students)
In each group, collectively try to identify the various elements
of:
1. Free
2. Prior
3. Informed
4. Consent
Based on having identified the separate elements of:
F, P, I and C,
let us now define FPIC

Read the following 4 definitions of FPIC, and decide which
one you think is the most suitable one based on the
lectures and discussions so far.

State the rationale for your choice.

Definition 1: FPIC is based on principles of self-determination. It is the
collective right of indigenous peoples and local communities to negotiate
the terms of externally imposed policies, programs, and projects that
directly affect their livelihoods and well-being.

Definition 2: FPIC is a form of decision-making that enables a community
to say “yes” or “no” to a proposed project or intervention.

Definition 3: Free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) is consent that is
given freely, by people fully informed of the consequences, prior to any
decision being made, and according to their own decision-making
processes.

Definition 4: FPIC is part of a consultation process that allows people to
provide input into how their natural resources are managed.

Definition 5: FPIC is when consultation and negotiation are done without
forcing people to participate in a project.
NOT participatory engagement!
NOT consultations!
NOT negotiations!
Why?
Based on the discussion on the definition of FPIC, let’s now also
discuss the key differences and similarities between these FPIC
and consultation, negotiation, and participation.

Consultation: Consultation is facilitating a process to both
inform and receive feedback from the people about the
proposal.

Negotiation: Negotiation is where conditions are proposed
and compromises are made by different parties.

Participation: Is needed to reach consent, but consent itself
goes much further as it gives the power to the party from
whom consent is sought to say “yes” or “no.”
Instructions for Students:
1.
Read the handout “Values that Support FPIC”.
2.
Review the “Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership Case
Study” in relation to the values that support FPIC.
3.
Refer to the pre-class readings and references.
4.
Write a 2 page report that discusses in the context of the KFCP
project each of these values/concepts that support FPIC:
a)
self-determination
b)
tenure clarification
c)
rights holders recognition
d)
participatory decision making
e)
effective communication
Instructions for Students, continued:
5.
These questions can help guide you in your analysis:

Was the self-determination of the affected community
respected?

Were tenure issues addressed?

Who had rights? Were the rights of the community (legal and
customary) addressed?

Was there a system set up for decisions to be made in a
participatory manner? Was this system sustainable?

Were there adequate communications about the project to the
affected communities?
Consent:

Is an outcome of a process.

may involve consultation and negotiation, but consent itself is an
opportunity to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a proposal or project.

may be required at several points in a project cycle, and when consent is
not reached, negotiation will be required.

Is the point at which people have the power to say ‘yes’ or ‘no.’

Is a safeguard to ensure that those who may be negatively affected have
the power to say no

helps increase sustainability and ensures participation of a community in
a REDD+ initiative
Rights holders are not the same as stakeholders:
Stakeholder: broadly defined as a person, group,
organization, or system with an interest who affects or can
be affected by an organization’s or project’s actions
Rights holder: an individual person or group of people
within a social, legal or ethical entitlement to the area that
are eligible to claim rights

Consent is an outcome of a process and is an opportunity to say
‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a proposal or project.

In FPIC, each element (free, prior and informed) of the process is
significant and meaningful.

Participatory engagement, consultations, and negotiations can be
tools through which FPIC is sought, but they in themselves do not
indicate consent.

Failure to seek FPIC can lead to REDD+ project failure.

Key supporting values for FPIC are self-determination, tenure
clarification, rights holders recognition, participatory decision
making, and effective communication.

Rights holders are not the same as stakeholders.
1.
Anderson, P. 2011. Free, Prior, and Informed Consent in REDD+, Principles and
Approaches for Policy and Project Development. RECOFTC, Bangkok, Thailand.
2.
Edwards, K., Triraganon, R., Silori, C. and Stephenson, J. 2012. Putting Free, Prior, and
Informed Consent into Practice in REDD+ Initiatives: A Training Manual. RECOFTC, IGES
and Norad, Bangkok, Thailand.
3.
Mahanty, S. and McDermott, C. L. 2013. How does ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent’
(FPIC) impact social equity? Lessons from mining and forestry and their implications
for REDD+. Land Use Policy 35: 406– 416.
4.
Maharjan, S. K., Carling, J. and Sherpa, L. N. 2012. Training Manual on Free, Prior and
Informed Consent in REDD+ for Indigenous Peoples. AIPP and IWGIA.
5.
Springer, J. and Retana, V. 2014. Free, Prior and Informed Consent and REDD+:
Guidelines and Resources. WWF Working Paper.
6.
UN-REDD Programme. 2013. Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent.