Participatory Monitoring of Social Safeguards in REDD+: Preliminary Guidance

Participatory Monitoring of Social Safeguards in REDD+: Preliminary Guidance Richard Rastall & Nguyen Viet Dung October 2016 Acknowledgements This preliminary guidance document is an output of the ‘Delivering Multiple Benefits from REDD+ in Southeast Asia’ (MB-REDD) Project, implemented by SNV – The Netherlands Development Organisation The MB-REDD project is supported by the International Climate Initiative The German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety supports this initiative based on a decision adopted by the German Bundestag The guidance presented here has been developed and refined through piloting at field sites in Lam Dong province, in the Central Highlands region of Vietnam (2016) as a component of the work under the MB-REDD project As such, SNV are grateful for the efforts of various agencies, organisations and individuals involved in testing and providing recommendations for the improvement of the methodological approaches In particular, the Forest Protection Department (FPD) of Lam Dong Province, the staff of Serepok Protection Forest Management Board, local government staff of Loc Phu Commune and Kala Tongu village as well as the members of local communities participating in the field pilots Since the approach was applied in the context of existing or ongoing REDD+ interventions, we are also grateful to the UN-REDD Programme Phase II and in particular the Provincial Project Management Unit in Lam Dong for their collaboration and in allowing us to pilot the approach at their project field sites Authors: Richard Rastall: SNV Vietnam REDD+ Advisor Nguyen Viet Dung: Technical Director (PanNature) and Consultant to SNV Citation: Rastall, R and Nguyen V.D 2016 Participatory Monitoring of Social Safeguards in REDD+: Preliminary Guidance SNV - Netherlands Development Organisation, Hanoi, Vietnam SNV REDD+ www.snv.org Abbreviations & Acronyms BeRT Benefits and Risks Tool BMUB German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety BNS Basic Necessities/Needs Survey CAS Country Approach to Safeguards CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CDD Community Driven Development CEMMA Council for Ethnic Minority and Mountainous Affairs CIFOR Centre for International Forestry Research CITES Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species COP Conference of Parties CPC Commune People’s Committee DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development DFID Department for International Development DNA Designated National Authority ERPA Emission Reduction Project Area ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility FMB Forest Management Board FORMIS Forestry Management Information System FPD Forest Protection Department FPIC Free, Prior and Informed Consultation FRL/FREL Forest Reference Level/Forest Reference Emission Level GCS Global Comparative Study GDP Gross Domestic Product GHG Greenhouse Gas GIZ German Technical Cooperation GoV Government of Vietnam GSO General Statistics Office HHI Household Interviews ICI International Climate Initiative JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency KII Key Informant Interviews LEAF Lowering Emissions from Asia’s Forests MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development www.snv.org SNV REDD+ MB-REDD Delivering Multiple Benefits from REDD+ in Southeast Asia MoNRE ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment MSC Most Significant Change NDC Nationally Determined Contribution NGO Non-Government Organisation NRAP National REDD+ Action Plan NS/AP National Strategy/Action Plan PaMs Policies and Measures PBM Participatory Biodiversity Monitoring PCM Participatory Carbon Monitoring PFES Payments for Forest Environmental Services PFM Participatory Forest Monitoring PFMB Protection Forest Management Board PGA Participatory Governance Assessment PLRs Policies, Laws and Regulations PRAP Provincial REDD+ Action Plan PSIA Poverty and Social Impact Analysis QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control REDD+ Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation RSWG REDD+ Safeguards Working Group SESA Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment SG-STWG Safeguards Sub-Technical Working Group SiRAP Site REDD+ Action Plan SIS Safeguards Information System SLF Sustainable Livelihoods Framework SNV The Netherlands Development Organisation SOI Summary of Information STWG Sub-Technical Working Group ToC Theory of Change UNDRIP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UN-REDD United Nations REDD+ Programme USAID United States Agency for International Development VNFOREST Vietnam Forestry Administration VRO Vietnam REDD+ Office SNV REDD+ www.snv.org Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS���������������������������������������������������������� ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS��������������������������������������������� TABLE OF CONTENTS�������������������������������������������������������������� EXECUTIVE SUMMARY����������������������������������������������������������� INTRODUCTION����������������������������������������������������������������� 15 1.1 Project Background���������������������������������������������������������� 15 1.2.1.Rationale and Aims����������������������������������������������������� 15 1.2.2.Audience��������������������������������������������������������������������� 16 1.2.3 Structure��������������������������������������������������������������������� 17 CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND������������������������������������������ 18 2.1 Safeguards Requirements for National REDD+�������������� 18 2.1.1 REDD+ and REDD+ International Safeguards Requirements����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 18 2.1.2.Country Approaches to REDD+ Safeguards and SIS Design���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 20 2.2.An Introduction to Participatory Monitoring������������������� 24 2.2.1.Monitoring and Evaluation������������������������������������������ 24 2.2.2 Participatory Monitoring���������������������������������������������� 25 2.2.3.Participatory Forest Monitoring����������������������������������� 26 2.3.Participatory Monitoring of Social Safeguards in REDD+ �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 26 2.3.1.REDD+ Safeguard Input Monitoring��������������������������� 27 2.3.2.REDD+ Safeguard Process and Output Monitoring��� 27 2.3.3.REDD+ Social Impact Monitoring������������������������������� 28 2.4.Participatory Monitoring Approaches and Tools������������ 29 REDD+ DEVELOPMENT AND PROGRESS ON SAFEGUARDS IN VIETNAM����������������������������������������������������������� 34 www.snv.org SNV REDD+ 3.1.The Context and Status of REDD+ Development in Vietnam� 34 3.2.Progress on REDD+ Safeguards in Vietnam��������������������������� 36 3.2.1 Vietnam’s Overall Progress on it’s Country Approach to Safeguards������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 3.2.2 Designing Vietnam’s National Safeguards Information System����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 36 3.3 REDD+ Safeguards Monitoring at Sub-national Levels���������� 38 DEVELOPING A PARTICIPATORY APPROACH TO MONITORING SOCIAL SAFEGUARDS IN REDD+������������������������������������������������� 40 4.1.Process Overview���������������������������������������������������������������������� 40 4.2.Defining Objectives�������������������������������������������������������������������� 41 4.3.Identifying Relevant Stakeholders and Potential Roles��������� 41 4.4.Site Selection������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 44 4.5.Selecting Indicators for Participatory Monitoring of Social Safeguards���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 46 4.5.1 National Interpretation of the Cancun Safeguards�������������� 47 4.5.2 Breaking down the Safeguards into Components and Criteria ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 47 4.5.3.Preliminary Selection of Draft National Indicators��������������� 48 4.5.4.Identifying Information Sources������������������������������������������� 51 4.5.5.Finalising the Indicator Set�������������������������������������������������� 54 4.6.Participatory Monitoring Data Collection and Management�� 68 4.6.1 Selection of Data Collection Approaches and Tools������������ 68 4.6.2.Sampling ����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 69 4.6.3 Key Informant Interviews����������������������������������������������������� 71 4.6.4 Household Interviews���������������������������������������������������������� 72 4.6.5.Data Collection Teams �������������������������������������������������������� 73 4.6.6.Data Entry and Management����������������������������������������������� 74 4.6.7.Data Analysis and Reporting����������������������������������������������� 75 SNV REDD+ www.snv.org 4.6.8.Capacity-building and Training������������������������������������76 CONCLUSION��������������������������������������������������������������������� 78 5.1.Positive Lessons Learned�������������������������������������������������78 5.2.Challenges, Limitations and Areas for Improvement�����79 5.3.Final Reflections and Conclusion�������������������������������������81 REFERENCES�������������������������������������������������������������������������� 83 www.snv.org SNV REDD+ Executive Summary Introduction: This publication is a product of the Delivering Multiple Environmental and Social Benefits from REDD+ (MB-REDD) in Southeast Asia Project, funded by the International Climate Initiative (ICI) of the German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) The advantages and benefits of adopting participatory approaches in the design, implementation and monitoring of interventions focused on the conservation and sustainable management of forests, including REDD+ have been widely documented This guidance forms part of a model participatory forest monitoring (PFM) framework developed under the MB-REDD project that promotes the inclusion of local stakeholders, including communities and indigenous peoples in the monitoring of forest carbon, biodiversity and social impacts and safeguards associated with interventions in the forest sector In this publication we attempt to provide preliminary guidance on the potential role of participatory approaches to social safeguard monitoring in the context of national level monitoring and reporting on REDD+ social safeguards The approach has been developed based on work at the national level supporting the development of a Country Approach to Safeguards (CAS) in Vietnam and field-testing at three field sites in Lam Dong province in the Vietnam’s Central Highlands In so doing, we explore linkages between international safeguards reporting requirements, national safeguards systems and sub-national/local implementation and monitoring of social safeguards in the context of REDD+ actions The exploratory nature of this work is however stressed due to the uncertain and evolving context of Vietnam’s CAS and SIS design As such guidance can only be indicative or preliminary Conceptual Background: It is widely recognised that whilst REDD+ could deliver a range of social benefits for the rural and forest-dependent poor in tropical countries such as improved forest tenure, reduced poverty and vulnerability, equally it has the potential to harm local communities and indigenous peoples, depending on how REDD+ actions are implemented In recognition of this (as well as potential environmental co-benefits and impacts), parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have agreed that a set of seven environmental, social and governance safeguard principles (‘The Cancun Principles’) should be supported in the implementation of REDD+ activities In this work we focus on the two key social safeguards in the Cancun principles i.e (c) respect for the knowledge and rights of local communities and indigenous peoples and (d) calling for the full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities REDD+ countries are now beginning to articulate how these broad principles are interpreted in their respective country contexts and to design Safeguards Information Systems (SIS) which provide information on how the Cancun principles have been addressed and respected in the implementation of REDD+ as a key requirement for results-based payments Information on the implementation of relevant safeguards is likely to come from three main sources: 1) Existing Government Monitoring Systems and Data 2) REDD+ [Project] Monitoring Systems and Data 3) Additional Monitoring Efforts The SIS should be based as much as possible on existing systems, and many developing countries are already collecting some potentially useful information for social safeguards monitoring (e.g on poverty and other socio-economic statistics) However, certain information may SNV REDD+ www.snv.org not be being collected, particularly in the specific context of REDD+ implementation Therefore, additional information is likely to be required from site levels in order to adequately demonstrate that the safeguards principles have been respected in practice Participatory monitoring could be viewed as an additional monitoring effort which could collect information on the implementation of environmental and social safeguards in the context of REDD+ actions, where existing systems are inadequate or as a way to ground-truth, triangulate and/or validate information on certain indicators from the perspective of affected stakeholders Having established a rationale and potential role for participatory approaches in the monitoring of social safeguards, the approach and methodology draws from participatory monitoring and evaluation in the field of development All monitoring requires the use of ‘indicators’ as ways of measuring (or indicating) actions and change In development interventions the following main types of indicators are used: 1) Input indicators 2) Process indicators 3) Output indicators 4) Outcome or impact indicators Relevant types of information that would demonstrate whether and the extent to which social safeguards had been respected would include: 1) Information on the inputs which ensure that safeguards are operationalised (input indicators) 2) Information on the safeguard activities, processes and procedures (process and output indicators) 3) Information on the actual impacts of REDD+ actions on indigenous peoples and local communities (impact or outcome indicators) Participatory monitoring will not provide all the relevant information (as certain information is collected through existing government systems and site level activity monitoring) but it could play an important role particularly in terms of validating processes, providing information on the quality of the processes and procedures applied as well as information on specific impacts on livelihoods and the attribution of those impacts to REDD+ Next, the theoretical approach refers to two key sources (Richards and Panfil, 2011; Lawlor, 2013) and the experiences of social impact monitoring in REDD+ under the voluntary carbon market for appropriate participatory data collection techniques and tools The Vietnam Context: With the conceptual basis elaborated, the document describes the contextual setting in Vietnam Overall REDD+ readiness, sub-national plans and demonstration activities and progress towards the development of a REDD+ SIS are important considerations in the context of developing and piloting potential approaches for social safeguards monitoring In Vietnam, there has been important progress in the development of the four design elements of REDD+: the National REDD+ Action Plan (NRAP), the Forest Reference Emission Level, the Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system and the SIS The country is however in the process of revising the NRAP, which may affect the REDD+ actions to be implemented and thus www.snv.org SNV REDD+ could affect the impacts and safeguards measures In terms of REDD+ safeguards, Vietnam has made some important progress towards developing a CAS and the design of the SIS Although the fact that Vietnam has not yet defined it’s CAS and is in the process of revising it’s NRAP means that the specific indicators and information sources for monitoring the implementation of REDD+ safeguards are as yet known In spite of this, Vietnam has made some progress in terms of beginning to outline what it’s SIS may look like, and this has informed the potential approach, methodology and operational arrangements At the sub-national level, a number of provinces in Vietnam have developed Provincial REDD+ Action Plans (PRAPs), presenting priority sites and REDD+ Policies and Measures (PaMS) to be implemented Site-level REDD+ Action Plans (SiRAPs) are then developed at those sites guiding local level REDD+ activities as a contribution towards PRAP implementation These plans provide a basis for assessing potential impacts and the implementation of social safeguards at the site levels Developing the Participatory Approach: The process for developing the approach is described, including the elements summarised below 10 SNV REDD+ www.snv.org Box 9: Data Collection Team Composition and Responsibilities Social Development/M&E Specialists • Team Leader • Technical Assistant Responsibilities: - Organising field survey logistics and work plan - Collection of existing/secondary and project management data - Guiding Surveyors on survey technique, data entry etc - Conducting KIIs and HHIs and data entry - Data analysis - Report Compilation Surveyors (x2-4) Responsibilities: - Conducting HHIs and data entry - Logistical support - Other tasks as assigned by Team Leader As mentioned in section 4.3, for the Lam Dong pilot a national NGO was selected and each site was surveyed in days, meaning a total of days in the field, plus one day in the provincial capital to interview/collect information from PPMU In Vietnam, there are sub-national networks of NGOs and universities that could be trained relatively easily to perform this function It is suggested that surveying could take place every two years In this way transaction costs may be significantly cheaper than has been the case for validation/verification of safeguards for typical voluntary carbon market projects It would also be cheaper than altering the training curricula of forest protection staff and constantly training/re-training staff to perform this role It is however acknowledged that the concept of third-party monitoring of social safeguards could be controversial in the Vietnamese political system 4.6.6 Data Entry and Management No special equipment is required for the survey, only questionnaires/data entry forms and pens Data is entered manually on paper by the surveyors and then again inputted manually on computer into an MS Excel file There are two data entry forms for each site: 74 SNV REDD+ www.snv.org Site information/data collected from SiRAP executing bodies during KIIs, including communal authorities and/or FMB and PPMU, filled up in respect to each question and monitoring indicator; Villager information/data collected from HHIs: entered and presented by an excel-based database form designed in relevant to questionnaire for analysis In the future, and assuming consensus could be reached on the national indicator set, it is also assumed that the questionnaire and data entry forms would also be consistent In which case it would be possible to design a tablet-based system such as that currently being proposed for provincial forest monitoring in Vietnam, whereby data could be entered in real time, geo-spatially referenced along with the opportunity to upload other useful or interesting information – even photos Alternatively, social safeguards monitoring could be integrated into the tablet-based provincial forest monitoring system 4.6.7 Data Analysis and Reporting The fieldwork data is then analysed by the consultant/third-party Information is compiled and presented for each criteria and indicator at the provincial level The initial report acts as a baseline for the province and provides the following types of information: Baseline Site Information • Baseline socio-economic statistics and description of the target area and surveyed village • Presentation of baseline data with regard to particular areas of potential impact e.g number of hectares of forest land allocated to households, number of co-management groups established, poverty, food security, access restrictions data) Data is disaggregated where relevant by ethnicity, poverty status and sex This enables comparison between groups in the initial analysis and within the same groups over time following later surveys Information on the Implementation of Social Safeguards in REDD+ Planning at Site-level • Quantitative information on the implementation of safeguards measures, processes and procedures in REDD+ planning at site level (SiRAP), e.g number of households participating in planning meetings Data is disaggregated to demonstrate equity in consultation and participation • Confirmation of outputs i.e documents produced confirming procedures etc • Qualitative information (or feedback) on how safeguards measures, processes and procedures were implemented based on average ranking scores from KIIs and HHIs Information on the Implementation of Social Safeguards at Site-level during Implementation • Quantitative information on the implementation of safeguards, measures, processes and procedures during REDD+ implementation (e.g number of beneficiaries, number of grievances raised/resolved) Data is disaggregated again to illustrate proportional equity • Qualitative information on the implementation of safeguards measures, processes and procedures during REDD+ implementation (e.g level of involvement of customary institutions in co-management) based on average ranking scores from KIIs and HHIs www.snv.org SNV REDD+ 75 Although the report presents both quantitative and qualitative information, the qualitative information is based on rankings which means the data can be presented in a quantitative way for comparison (across sites and over time) This means that the report includes for each criteria and indicator the quantitative data which can be inputted for the national SIS, as well as brief textual descriptions and recommendations where relevant (i.e in relation the quality of processes or explaining causal relationships for attribution) which may be more useful for adaptive management at provincial/site levels The report could be submitted to the national agency responsible for managing social safeguards data in the SIS or to the PPMU or institution responsible for implementing REDD+ actions in the province under DARD (noting that PPMUs are established for international projects/programmes such as UN-REDD/FCPF but may not necessarily be the agency for all provinces under full-scale national implementation of REDD+) The PPMU or other relevant agency would then input the data into the national SIS as required It is suggested that it may be better for the consultant/third-party to be contracted by and report directly to the national level to reduce opportunities for collusion or data manipulation between the third-party and agencies directly involved in implementation on the ground 4.6.8 Capacity-building and Training In order that a participatory approach to monitoring social impacts and safeguards in REDD+ is implemented, it is necessary to provide clear guidance and training to a network of potential thirdparty organisations that could perform this role consistently and as objectively as possible The MB-REDD project has developed a field training manual (Nguyen et al, 2016) based on the approach described and as a complementary output here for NGOs, consultants and other likely third-party entities who could lead the data collection and analysis In terms of operationalising such a system of monitoring and evaluation, national and sub-national/regional training workshops would be required Since this work was somewhat pre-emptive and exploratory, actual training has not been provided by the MB-REDD project It would be better to develop and deliver training once there is greater consensus on the national SIS and the role that participatory monitoring could play However, such training could be based on some of the background conceptual guidance described in this publication as well as the data collection techniques described in the field training manual It is envisaged that such a training could be delivered in three days including field practice A tentative agenda is suggested below: Table 4: Participatory Social Safeguards Monitoring Training Time Day AM Training Activity Classroom REDD+ and Social Issues International REDD+ Social Safeguard Requirements PM Country Safeguards System and SIS Criteria and Indicators Data Collection and Management Organising a Survey 76 SNV REDD+ www.snv.org Time Day AM PM Day AM PM Training Activity Field Field techniques: Key Informant Interviews Field techniques: Household Interviews Classroom Practicing Data Entry and Analysis Reporting Spare/Trouble-shooting An abridged version of the training should also be provided to provincial stakeholders involved in PRAP monitoring so that they understand the approach, process and their roles in terms of facilitating the fieldwork, as well as how the results can be used to improve project management and implementation In particular, provincial and local level stakeholders need to be aware of the indicator set and the associated project monitoring requirements as there are many process and output indicators which rely on information which should be collected as a part of standard good practice project management (e.g records of consultation meetings, assessment reports, agreements with households/communities etc.) www.snv.org SNV REDD+ 77 Conclusion A report on baseline social conditions, initial impacts of SiRAP interventions (if any) and implementation of social safeguards measures, processes and procedures was prepared for Lam Dong province However, the results will not be presented here nor will they be published, not least because it would be inappropriate to display the results of an assessment based on a system and indicators which have not been agreed, and are not a requirement The purpose of this work was to attempt to envisage what a future monitoring system on REDD+ social safeguards might comprise, propose a potential role for participatory monitoring therein and then test the methodological approach Therefore, here we reflect on some of the positive lessons learned which affirm the value of including local stakeholders including local communities in monitoring the social impacts of REDD+ as well as the operationalisation of social safeguard measures, processes and procedures in the implementation of REDD+ actions Equally, it is necessary to acknowledge that this has been an exploratory piece of work based on a number of assumptions and that there are some important challenges, limitations, issues and/or areas where the approach can be improved or would need to be adjusted as the country safeguard system, SIS and particularly sub-national safeguard reporting requirements and procedures become clearer It is important to present these constraints here as considerations and to offer some guidance towards the identification of suitable indicators, appropriate data collection methods and the potential role of local stakeholders for monitoring social impacts and safeguards within the design of a future SIS 5.1 Positive Lessons Learned A logical, viable and pragmatic option Overall, after a lot of discussions the project has managed to envisage a potentially viable approach for monitoring whether and the extent to which REDD+ social safeguards are respected in the implementation of REDD+ The approach could be implemented at a provincial or even sub-national regional level (depending on sampling) to produce a snapshot of REDD+ social impacts and the operationalisation of social safeguards in relation to REDD+ actions as a contribution to the SIS Monitoring could be repeated annually or every two years, employing local third-parties and hence could be relatively low cost Good practice safeguard monitoring would include participatory monitoring approaches: The process of identifying potential types of indicators and information that would meaningfully demonstrate whether and the extent to which REDD+ social safeguards have been respected, has made it clear that certain information should be collected directly from communities affected by REDD+ interventions: 78 • In demonstrating that particular safeguard processes are being observed, project activity monitoring could provide some useful quantitative information However, qualitative information from affected communities/households and other local stakeholders is required in order to confirm/verify that they took place and to be able to meaningfully demonstrate whether such processes were perceived as being appropriate, useful, any good etc • Information on particular social changes relevant to potential REDD+ impacts is not available through any existing information monitoring system (e.g food security, access to forests/resources, forest dependency etc.) and thus requires additional monitoring efforts involving the collection of primary data from affected communities SNV REDD+ www.snv.org • In order to attribute particular social impacts to REDD+ actions, certain information needs to be qualified through the collection of additional information from the field All three of the above are strong arguments which suggest that good practice would dictate that participatory monitoring should be included as part of the overall approach to monitoring social impacts and safeguards in the context of REDD+ Value of local-specific information: Participatory monitoring can produce better and more contextualised/relevant information for adaptive management and achieving project/site-level objectives Consultation on the indicators was appreciated by local stakeholders as was the opportunity to add indicators of local relevance Local level stakeholders are already collecting some of the relevant information on social impacts and safeguards through PRAP/SiRAP activity monitoring: Once safeguards requirements are clarified at local levels and there is agreement on an indicator set, with further capacity development on project management and activity monitoring, site level implementation units such as PPMUs, FMBs and CPCs could collect much of the supporting evidence This would provide relevant information for monitoring inputs and processes, and could contribute to the National SIS with limited cost or effort Capacity already exists The pilot has shown that there are capable third-party organisations within Vietnam’s growing civil society that could lead field data collection validating the implementation and quality of safeguards measures and procedures as well as on the impacts of REDD+ This base could be expanded in the future through appropriate training programmes High potential for integration with existing or emerging forest monitoring systems There is considerable potential for integrating additional indicators and data collection methods based on participatory approaches to social safeguards monitoring within existing or emerging monitoring frameworks in the forest sector, such as PRAP/SiRAP activity monitoring and the FRMS 5.2 Challenges, Limitations and Areas for Improvement Clarification of the SIS and sub-national reporting requirements: Ideally, the clarification of the national interpretation of the Cancun safeguards, the country safeguards system as well as the SIS, especially sub-national reporting requirements would be finalised prior to trying to assign monitoring indicators Therefore, the indicator set proposed here would need to be reviewed against the final interpretation and agreed with the participation of a suitable range of stakeholders at the national and sub-national levels There should have been greater consultation at the national level on the initial indicator set, but this did not happen due to the considerable consultation work already being done on the country safeguards system and SIS design with relevant stakeholders and due to time constraints Procedural requirements The approach here has included a number of process indicators and reference to outputs, particularly in relation to consultation and participation procedures which are not required at present by Vietnamese law They have been inserted as a means towards demonstrating that a certain basic standards of consultation and participation (or FPIC) have been met in REDD+ planning and implementation, as required by the Cancun safeguards This would however create certain procedures which are as yet agreed or approved e.g conducting a baseline social assessment of local livelihoods, customary/ www.snv.org SNV REDD+ 79 traditional land or resource management practices and land use, customary/traditional knowledge etc Harmonising criteria and indicators across different safeguards: This work has only focused on Cancun social safeguards (c) and (d) – the monitoring framework should be harmonised with concurrent initiatives exploring the monitoring of biodiversity (including the PBM approach developed under MB-REDD) and governance monitoring (e.g the UN-REDD PGA), especially the latter considering probable overlaps between good governance and consultation, participation and protection of rights indicators Sampling issues: As discussed briefly in Chapter 4, sampling is likely to be an important issue in the design of any SIS that requires information from sub-national levels The costs and effort of participatory approaches to monitoring social impacts and safeguards are likely too high for application at all REDD+ sites in the country, therefore sampling would be required Ultimately, it may be that through improved monitoring of REDD+ implementation throughout the country, some information could possibly be provided from all sites However, for certain information on impacts as well as qualitative assessments of safeguards measures and procedures, which require data collection at grassroots levels, sampling would be required A number of questions arise with regard to sampling at all levels, including; Does sampling need to be based on probability and the results of the surveys statistically representative? If the sampling is not based on probability, then by what criteria are particular samples selected? How many samples would be adequate? i.e nationally, would it be sufficient to just have one sample province in north, central and southern regions? Or there is sampling within each REDD+ province? Within the province identified, how many sites? Within the site, how many villages, households etc? How could samples be organised along different strata? What would be appropriate strata? Stratification of communities would however be extremely challenging given the wide array of contexts and conditions (geographic, socio-economic, types of REDD+ drivers and interventions etc.) Should control samples be employed? While the approach here has employed a pragmatic approach to sampling within a province and sites, further work is required to establish what might be considered an appropriate sampling approach Consensus on indicators, information sources and means of verification: Developing indicator sets and a monitoring framework is usually an iterative process A logical and plausible set of indicators, information sources and means of verification was developed for this work However, further discussion would be required to achieve consensus Data collection methods: There are a wide range of participatory techniques and tools for collecting relevant information on social safeguards In this work two relatively simple methods were selected (KIIs and HHIs) for relative cost-efficiency and ease of replication However, other additional or alternative methods such as Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), for example, could also have been applied, or applied instead 80 The approach here also only involved third-party monitoring where local stakeholders, although they have been consulted on indicator selection, were mainly only really engaged in providing information Participatory monitoring purists would argue for greater collaboration with local stakeholders in the act of monitoring as well A good practice participatory monitoring methodology might also include local stakeholders’ collecting and reflecting on their own information (e.g Most Significant Change) This might be particularly useful for adaptive SNV REDD+ www.snv.org management and learning purposes at the site levels, although information gathered could also help with the periodic third-party monitoring surveys that are proposed here, as the survey team could review records kept by the local community groups However, of course it should be noted that it may be considered excessive effort for local communities and stakeholders, and would involve additional costs and effort Ensuring that one obtains the right information from the questions asked during the survey is a process of trial and error Certain questions could be improved to ensure that respondents and surveyors alike consistently understand the question and surveyors know how to correctly code responses Further work should be undertaken to review the questionnaires and data entry forms in this regard Again, identifying the most appropriate methods for monitoring is an iterative process Once agreed, there would be a need for the development of basic minimum standards and standardised protocols for application at scale Data management: Here, a simple Excel-based data entry and management method was implemented There is the potential in the future for integrating social impacts and safeguards implementation information into emerging forest monitoring systems, such as the tablet-based Forest Monitoring System (FRMS) developed by JICA Data analysis and reporting: It is relatively straightforward to collect baseline information from one site, monitor against it over time and evaluate impacts and safeguards implementation However, for certain indicators there are issues when the data is combined at higher administrative or jurisdictional levels Capacity development: At present, forest owners and other local level stakeholders not have any guidance on what information they should be collecting in order to demonstrate that social (and other) safeguards are being respected in practice Once such a system is elaborated, it is foreseen that standard good project management practices could collect a lot of the relevant information for social safeguards monitoring, especially with reference to input, process and output indicators (some of it is already being collected by the PPMU in Lam Dong) Meanwhile, there will also be a need for training appropriate third-party organisations such as national NGOs, academic institutes and consultants to perform the role of collecting and analysing information on the quality of safeguards measures, processes and procedures, as well as the impacts of REDD+ on communities and indigenous peoples 10 Funding: The approach developed is viewed as relatively low cost and costs can be kept lower with a restricted sample, limited frequency of surveying, utilising third-parties for monitoring, employing simple data collection and management techniques Nonetheless, such monitoring inevitably incurs some additional costs (capacity-building and surveys) It is argued that in order to mobilise participatory monitoring of social impacts and safeguards, funds should be allocated as a part of REDD+ financial mechanisms The additional governance benefits of participatory monitoring in terms of accountability and transparency in REDD+ implementation is likely to be considered desirable by REDD+ donors and investors 5.3 Final Reflections and Conclusion It is often argued that for REDD+ to be effective, it also needs to be equitable (e.g Peskett et al, 2008; Angelsen et al, 2009) The multiple benefits approach promoted under the MB-REDD project and by SNV (among others) also contends that REDD+ to be relevant needs to address www.snv.org SNV REDD+ 81 and deliver a range of societal benefits beyond carbon and climate change mitigation – REDD+ needs to be pro-poor, local communities should be involved and their needs must be addressed (SNV, 2012) REDD+ strategies should recognise the important role of local stakeholders, including communities in managing tropical forests and in supporting REDD+ implementation efforts The involvement of local communities in forest monitoring can be a viable approach to foster meaningful participation and enhance transparency and better forest governance as a key safeguard requirements, as well as a cost-efficient way to improve the delivery of REDD+ goals and objectives A number of authors and organisations have called for the involvement of communities and local stakeholders in the monitoring environmental and social safeguards in the context of REDD+ (e.g Danielsen et al., 2013; MacFarquhar and Goodman, 2015; Sabogal, 2015) Others have explored the use of existing data for National SIS (e.g Jagger and Rana, 2014) There has also been important work on developing methodologies for stand-alone REDD+ and other landbased voluntary carbon projects (e.g Richards and Panfil, 2011; Lawlor, 2013) and on defining environmental and social safeguard requirements and standards for them (e.g the CCBS) However, there have been very few attempts to envisage and pilot (certainly in Vietnam) what a participatory approach to monitoring social impacts and safeguards operationalisation might actually look like in the context of a national REDD+ programme As an initial attempt, it cannot claim to be an authoritative or definitive guidance, however the process of conceptualising, developing, piloting and then documenting the approach has highlighted the importance of including local stakeholders including communities in monitoring social impacts and safeguards in REDD+ and the potential role they can play Moreover, in order to demonstrate social impacts and that safeguards measures and procedures have been applied some grassroots monitoring is required Without it, and in countries and contexts where governance is known to be weak, donors may be more hesitant to invest To attract or leverage REDD+ funding, countries will need to more than the minimum to meet UNFCCC requirements, and donors will be interested in doing as little social harm as possible to forest-dependent and indigenous communities as well as maximising multiple social co-benefits Thus, a more robust monitoring system that collects information on social impacts and the operationalisation of social safeguards will be desirable At a point in time where many countries are now beginning to articulate their National REDD+ safeguards frameworks or systems and their SIS, this work also highlights some of the challenges which lie ahead in operationalising and demonstrating that social safeguards are respected on the ground, where it matters most The approach that is described here outlines the potential for linking international safeguards requirements to the implementation of social safeguards associated with national and sub-national REDD+ action plans and potential impacts and the country-led systems for addressing and respecting a national interpretation of those safeguards As such it is believed that this document is useful as a preliminary effort to begin discussions and as a resource which may inform the development of monitoring systems for REDD+ social safeguards 82 SNV REDD+ www.snv.org References Angelsen, A.; Brockhaus, M.; Kanninen, M.; Sills, E.; Sunderlin, W.D.; Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S.; (eds.) 2009 Realising REDD+: national strategy and policy options Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia Ayers, J., Anderson, S., Sibongile, P and Rossing, T 2012 Participatory Monitoring Evaluation and Learning Tool for Community-based Adaptation: A Training Manual for Local Practitioners CARE International Bao, H Nguyen, T.T.H., Sharma, B.D and Nguyen, V.Q 2013a Participatory Carbon Monitoring: Manual for Local Technical Staff SNV Netherlands Development Organisation, Hanoi, Vietnam Bao, H Nguyen, T.T.H., Sharma, B.D and Nguyen, V.Q 2013b Participatory Carbon Monitoring: Manual for Local People SNV Netherlands Development Organisation, Hanoi, Vietnam Braña Varela, J., Lee, D., Rey, D., and Swan, S 2014 REDD+ Safeguards: Practical Considerations for Developing a Summary of Information Casarim, F.M., Walker, S.M., Swan, S.R, Sharma, B.D., Grais, A., and Stephen, P 2013 Participatory Carbon Monitoring: Operational Guidance for National REDD+ Carbon Accounting SNV - The Netherlands Development Organisation, REDD+ Programme, Ho Chi Minh City Chambers, R 1994 The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal World Development, Vol 22, No 7, pp 953-969, 1994 Chevalier, J 2001 Stakeholder Analysis and Natural Resource Management Carleton University Ottawa, Canada Available at: http://www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/politicaleconomy/ November3Seminar/Stakehlder%20Readings/SA-Chevalier.pdf Chevalier, J.M and Buckles, D.J 2013 Participatory Action Research: Theory and Methods for Engaged Inquiry, Routledge UK Danielsen, F., T Adrian, S., Brofeldt, M., van Noordwijk, M K., Poulsen, S., Rahayu, E., Rutishauser, I., Theilade, A., Widayati, N., The An, T., Nguyen Bang, A., Budiman, M., Enghoff, A E., Jensen, Y., Kurniawan, Q., Li, Z., Mingxu, D., Schmidt-Vogt, S., Prixa, V., Thoumtone, Z., Warta, and N Burgess 2013 Community monitoring for REDD+: international promises and field realities Ecology and Society 18(3): 41 Davies, R and Dart, J 2005 Most Significant Change (MSC) Technique: A guide to its use Daviet F 2011 A Draft Framework for Sharing Approaches For Better Multi-Stakeholder Participation Practices UN-REDD Programme Estrella, M., Blauert, J., Campilan, D., Gaventa, J., Gonsalves, J., Guijt, I., Deb Johnson and Ricafort, R 2000 Learning from Change: Issues and experiences in participatory monitoring and evaluation Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK Estrella, M and Gavant, J 1998 Who Counts Reality? Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation: A Literature Review IDS Working Paper 70 Institute for Development Studies, Brighton, UK FFI 2014 Social Impact Assessment: Lessons Learned from REDD+ and other conservation strategies Available at: www.fauna-flora.org/wp /Social-Impact-Assessment1.pdf Foti, J., L deSilva, H McGray, L Shaffer, J Talbot, and J Werksman 2008 Voice and Choice: www.snv.org SNV REDD+ 83 Opening the Door to Environmental Democracy World Resources Institute Jagger, P and Rana, P 2014 Designing Low-cost, Rigorous and Sustainable REDD+ Safeguard Information Systems: Using publicly available social and spatial data and impact evaluation methods to assess REDD+ social safeguards in Kalimantan, Indonesia Centre for International Forestry Research Bogor, Indonesia Jagger P, Sills EO, Lawlor K and Sunderlin WD 2010 A guide to learning about livelihood impacts of REDD+ projects Occasional Paper 56 Centre for International Forestry Research Bogor, Indonesia Korwin, S and Rey, D., 2015 The role of the legal framework in ensuring REDD+ activities are consistent with the UNFCCC REDD+ safeguards: Country experiences implementing a Country Safeguard Approach Climate Law and Policy Lawlor, K 2012 Methods for Assessing and Evaluating the Social Impacts of REDD+ Programmes A Technical Report for the Learning Initiative on Social Impacts of REDD+ (LISAREDD), United States Agency for International Development Forest Carbon Markets and Communities Program (FCMC), Arlington, Virginia, USA MacFarquhar, C and Goodman, L., 2015 Demonstrating ‘Respect’ for the UNFCCC REDD+ Safeguards: The Importance of Community-Collected Information Oxford: Global Canopy Programme McNally, R and Nguyen, T.C 2016 Review of Vietnam’s National REDD+ Action Programme and its Implementation Unpublished report to UN-REDD Programme in Vietnam Hanoi, Vietnam Mukama, K., I Mustalahti, and E Zahabu 2012 Participatory Forest Carbon Assessment and REDD+: Learning from Tanzania International Journal of Forestry Research, 2012:126454 14 pp Nguyen, X.D and Luong, V.D 2016 Participatory Biodiversity Monitoring: A field manual SNV Netherlands Development Organisation, Hanoi, Vietnam Nguyen VD, Nguyen HV and Rastall, R 2016 Participatory Monitoring of Social Safeguards inn REDD+: A Field Training Manual SNV – The Netherlands Development Organisation Hanoi, Vietnam Peskett, L., Huberman, D., Bowen-Jones, E & Edwards, G., 2008 Making REDD Work for the Poor ODI and IUCN for Poverty and Environment Partnership, London Ramalingam, B 2006 RAPID Toolkit - Tools for Knowledge and Learning: A guide for development and humanitarian organisations www.odi.org.uk/Rapid/Publications/Documents/KM_toolkit_web pdf Rey, D., Hoang Ly Anh, Doan Diem, Le Ha Phuong & S.R Swan 2014 Safeguards Roadmap (v2.0) for Vietnam’s National REDD+ Action Plan: a contribution to a country-led safeguards approach SNV Netherlands Development Organisation, REDD+ Programme, Ho Chi Minh City Rey D., Shah, W.P and Swan S.R 2015 Country Approaches to REDD+ Safeguards: A Global Review of Initial Experiences and Emerging Lessons UN-REDD, Geneva 84 SNV REDD+ www.snv.org Rey, D., Swan, S., & Enright, A 2013 A Country led approach to safeguards and multiple benefits SNV Netherlands Development Organisation, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Rey, D and Swan, S.R 2014 A Country-led Safeguards Approach: Guidelines for National REDD+ Programmes SNV REDD+ Programme, Ho Chi Minh City Richards, M 2012 Participatory Social Impact Assessment for Natural Resource Projects and Programs Forest Trends Washington D.C USA Richards, M 2011 Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment (SBIA) Manual for REDD+ Projects: Part – Social Impact Assessment Toolbox Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance and Forest Trends with Rainforest Alliance and Fauna & Flora International Washington, DC Richards, M and Swan, S 2014 Participatory Impact Assessment and Monitoring for Meeting Safeguards and Optimising Multiple Benefits in Subnational Planning for REDD+: Methodology and Step-by-Step Guidance SNV - The Netherlands Development Organisation, REDD+ Programme, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Rietbergen-McCracken, J.; Narayan, D.; World Bank (Ed) 1998 Participation and Social Assessment: Tools and Techniques Washington: World Bank Sabogal, D 2015 Scaling-up Community-based Forest Monitoring for REDD+ Global Canopy Programme: Oxford, United Kingdom Scheyvens, H., Poruschi, L., Bun, A., Fujisaki, T and Avtar, R 2013 In: FPCD-IGES communitybased forest monitoring project Foundation for People and Community Development (FPCD), and Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) Schreckenberg, K., Camargo, I., Withnall, K., Corrigan, C., Franks, P., Roe, D., and Scherl L.M 2010 Social Assessment of Protected Areas: a review of rapid methodologies A report for the Social Assessment of Protected Areas (SAPA) Initiative IIED: London, UK Start, D and Hovland, I 2004 Tools for Policy Impact: A Handbook for Researchers Overseas Development Institute London, United Kingdom Sunderlin, W.D., Larson, A.M., Duchelle, A., Sills, E.O., Luttrell, C., Jagger, P., Pattanayak, S., Cronkleton, P and Ekaputri, A.D (2010) Technical Guidelines for research on REDD+ project sites with survey instruments and code book CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia Available at: http://www.cifor org/online-library/browse/view-publication/publication/3286.html Swan, S.R 2012 Pro-Poor REDD+, Participatory Forest Monitoring SNV UN-REDD 2015 Benefits and Risks Tool (BeRT) v2: Supporting countries to address and respect the Cancun safeguards User Guide UN-REDD Programme UN-REDD 2016 Concept Brief: Country Approaches to Safeguards UN-REDD Programme Available at http://www.unredd.net/documents/global-programme-191/safeguards-multiplebenefits-297/safeguards-coordination-group-2606/10177-unredd-framework-for-countryapproaches-to-safeguards-10177.html www.snv.org SNV REDD+ 85 Warrener, D 2004 The Drivers of Change Approach ODI Synthesis Paper ODI: London, UK World Bank 2003 A User’s Guide to Poverty and Social Impact Assessment The World Bank Washington D.C., USA World Bank (Ed.) 2010 Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation, in Topics: Participation and Civic Engagement The World Bank Washington D.C., USA 86 SNV REDD+ www.snv.org SNV Netherlands Development Organisation REDD+ Programme 3rd floor, Building D, La Thanh hotel, 218 Doi Can Street, Hanoi, Vietnam Tel: (84-4) 38463791 Fax: (84-4) 38463794 website: www.snv.org ... from participatory monitoring and evaluation in the field of development All monitoring requires the use of ‘indicators’ as ways of measuring (or indicating) actions and change In development interventions... ‘indicators’ Indicators are ways of measuring (or indicating) actions and change In development (including REDD+) interventions the following main types of indicators are used: 1) Input indicators... stocks etc 2.2.3 Participatory Forest Monitoring In this work, we apply participatory approaches to monitoring of social safeguards as one component of participatory forest monitoring (PFM) – a