Peru Readiness Preparation Plan (R-PP) for REDD

Reposted from: Bank Information Center

Peru Ready to Approve R-PP but Issues Continue Unresolved

23 March 2011 Peru submitted its 4th version of the R-PP today in Da Lat, Vietnam, without addressing many of the issues that stakeholders, including civil society and indigenous communities, wanted to see resolved. These issues are critical to ensure sustainable environmental and social development under the REDD+ strategy. The fourth version of the R-PP Peru will be reviewed at the eighth meeting of the FCPF Participant Committee from March 23rd to the 25th, 2011, in Da Lat, Vietnam. Some of the main concerns about the R-PP that have emerged include safeguard harmonization, the representation of civil society at the highest level of decision-making, the strengths and weaknesses of the government’s analysis of drivers of deforestation and related implications for the mitigation of harm, gaps in knowledge , the urgency to promote land security, forest governance, the quality of SESA, coherency between different actors, as well as the process of consultation and participation, especially of civil society and indigenous groups. Certain changes have been made to the latest version of the R-PP that address resolutions to the indigenous territories as well as the obligations of Peru to the international law, especially the ILO C169. However, according to reviews by various stakeholders at the national and internatioanl levels, some of the most concerning issues continue unresolved. Some of the most salient issues with the R-PP are indigenous territories and land tenure, forest governance, as well as the process of consultations and participation of civil society. AIDESEP, an organization that represents many indigenous groups in Peru has addressed a letter to Peru’s government to express their concerns. They ask for the demarcation and titling of hundreds of unrecognized territories, the consolidation and reorganization of territory, for safeguards for the right to decide and control the process of development, for the opportunity for indigenous groups to manage forests, and naturally, that their requests be incorporated into the plan. Other organizations like DAR (Rights, Environment, and Natural Resources), Grupo REDD, Global Witness, and the Rainforest Foundation Norway (RFN), made several of the same observations as AIDESEP, asking for the improvement of the laws that protect indigenous territory, the improvement of forest management, for a credible system to implement the recommendations resulting from the participation and consultations to stakeholders, and to ensure the free prior and informed consent of the affected communities. Other recommendations these non-indigenous organizations had in common were to improve the management of funds in terms of the roles and relationships between donors and managers, to give more attention to the benefits and impacts of deforestation and degradation that are not carbon, among others. The FCPF Participant Committee had already brought many of these matters to the attention of the Peruvian government, but many of them continue unresolved in the latest version of the R-PP that it is currently in the process of reviewing.

More Info:  Peru

Forest Issues

22 March 2011  

Update

Peru will submit the fourth version of its Readiness Preparation Plan (R-PP4) for REDD+ at the eighth meeting of the FCPF Participant Committee (PC8) which will take place March 23rd-25th, 2011. Key issues that have emerged in the review of the Peru R-PP:

  • Safeguard harmonization in the context of multiple delivery partners
  • Participation and consent of Indigenous Peoples over key aspects of future REDD projects
  • The representation of civil society at the highest decision-making levels of FCPF/REDD
  • Strengths and weaknesses in the Government’s analysis of the drivers of deforestation and related implications for mitigation or avoidance of harm
  • Gaps in knowledge about deforestation trends, REDD pilots and institutional performance
  • The urgency of investments and reforms to promote land security in the Amazon
  • Full integration and process guarantees for quality of SESA
  • Need to strengthen forest governance outcomes in the results framework
  • Coherence between FCPF, FIP, and various other bilateral and government forest governance investment strategies

Overview

Sixty per cent of Peru is populated by forests, covering almost 72 million hectares, making it the second largest forest ecosystem in Latin America, and the fourth largest tropical forest surface in the world. According to the Government of Peru, the main source of GHG emissions in this country is deforestation for agriculture, cattle ranching, and informal mining. There are many other causes of deforestation and degradation of forests; Wikileaks confirmed that Peru has exported massive amounts of an illegally felled endangered species of timber from the Amazon. For fifteen years, Peru lost 150,000 has of forests per year, up to the year 2000. However, the current deforestation rate is not known, one of the main knowledge gaps facing Peru. Indigenous leaders argue that commitment to address massive unresolved land demarcation, legalization, and titling problems, is an urgent prerequisite for REDD effectiveness. Difficulty in mitigating and managing forest ecosystem impacts from major infrastructure investments, such as the Southern Interoceanic Highway, have called attention to the lack of adequate planning in the Peruvian Amazon. [1]   [1] See “Peruvian Amazon in 2021: Infrastructure and the Exploitation of Natural Resources: What is happening and what does it mean for the future?” by Marc Dourojeanni; Alberto Barandiaran y Diego Dourojeanni (2009)

Readiness Preparation Plan (R-PP)

The latest version of the R-PP has been reviewed by stakeholders including national and international non-governmental organizations, indigenous organizations, Grupo REDD, and the FCPF Participant Committee. Most of them note that the R-PP needs improvement in its elaboration process, especially in terms of the consultation and participation of stakeholders, including compliance with the Law of Previous Consultation and with special concern over the stakes of indigenous groups; that the plan needs improvement in issues of land tenure; that it needs to properly identify the drivers of deforestation and to ensure the transparency of the monitoring process; and lastly, that it does give enough attention and value to the benefits and impacts of deforestation other than carbon. The Government of Peru made changes to the 4th draft of the R-PP to accommodate critical observations made by AIDESEP in a letter.  In meetings prior to the Da Lat PC8, the Peruvian government addressed some of the concerns of AIDESEP and agreed to certain adjustments to the R-PP that are to be presented at the PC8, including; 1. Adjustment to the norms governing indigenous lands consistent with the concept of collective rights of indigenous peoples in ILO 169, with indirect references to collective territory. 2.  Rapid startup of the legalization and titling of land, beginning in the region of Loreto, with an estimated inicial Budget of $US 1 million in addition to the $200,000 budgeted within the FCPF R-PP (leaving clear the balance of $20 million that is required to complete the legalization process based on an estimate of $US 1 per hectare for 20,000 hectares under claim). 3.  Inclusion of the content describing “Indigenous REDD” within the R-PP as proponed by AIDESEP 4.  Inclusion of a self-organizing Indigenous MESA REDD within the R-PP 5.  Safeguards based on ILO 169 and UNDRIP, no only the UNFCCC or World Bank 6. Inclusion of a paragragh addressing the regulatory oversight capacity of MINAM to avoid pressures and protect invasions of local communities against a REDD speculative bubble. Ultimately, the position of AIDESEP and several other allied organizations will rest on the presentation of the Peruvian Government, to incorporate these and other stated recommendations and the approval of the goverments on the FCPF PC.

forest investment program (FIP)

From January 17th – 20th, a Forest Investment Program scoping mission was carried out in Peru, one of the FIP’s eight pilot countries. The mission including staff from the World Bank, the IFC, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and Peru’s Environmental Ministry. The IDB participated having been proposed as the “delivery partner” for FCPF and FIP programs in Peru. Civil society interaction during the scoping mission was significantly improved over those carried out in 2010. The Indonesia scoping mission report, for example, notes that only two NGOs were able to attend the civil society information meeting, “because of the short notice for the meeting.” In Peru’s case, the scoping mission met with Grupo REDD Peru, in addition to bi-lateral meetings with two umbrella indigenous federations, covering communities in the Peruvian Amazon. On January 19th, the scoping mission team visited the offices of AIDESEP, the Inter-Ethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Amazon. In recent years, AIDESEP has been engaging within the REDD discussions, for example sending their climate change focal point, Daysi Zapata, to deliver statements at the FCPF participant committee meetings in Guyana (June 2010) and Washington, DC (November 2010). During the scoping mission visit to their offices, the AIDESEP team outlined a number of concerns and proposals related to REDD implementation in Peru. These ideas have been further fleshed out in AIDESEP’s recent letter to the World Bank regarding the latest version of Peru’s “readiness preparation proposal” to be discussed at the FCPF’s upcoming meeting in Da Lat, Vietnam. Key aspects include: (1) Territory: Prior demarcation of hundreds of un-recognized or un-titled indigenous communities, expansion of some existing titles, and formalization of proposed communal reserves and other reserves created for the protection of indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation. They also demand that laws regulating titling of indigenous territories be modernized in accordance with Peru’s obligations under international law such as ILO Convention 169.

    In the R-PP3:  The document reassures that Peru’s Political Constitution “stipulates that the State guarantees the right of land ownership”, and that the “Law of Native Communities and Agrarian Development of the Selva and Ceja de Selva stipulates that the State shall guarantee the integrity of the lands of indigenous peoples, conduct the corresponding cadastre, and grant them property rights”. The R-PP also claims that the issue of land titles and assignations to indigenous groups is of key importance to REDD+. In terms of the demarcation of communities, the R-PP states that it will be the responsibility of the respective regional governments to issue the demarcation of these lands, and therefore the assignation of agricultural lands and lands suitable for forestry, will be stipulated in accordance to the Regulation on the Classification of Lands by their Capacity for Greater Use. Likewise, for the the formalization of proposed communal reserves, the R-PP says that both the Forest and Wildlife Law and the National Forestry Policy have been proposed to be the national forest authority. They claim that these laws were prepared by the State with the participation of various sectors nationally, regionally and locally. The draft Forestry Law states that the assignment for use constitutes a real, exclusive, perpetual, non-transferable right, the objective of which is to ensure the traditional uses and life systems of native communities and grants to exclusive ownership, access, use, enjoyment, and recovery of lands for forest production and protection, as well as of forest and wildlife resources found within them. For land titling, the R-PP states that it will not grant authorizing titles of land that, as of the date of the Law’s publication, are still in the process of titling or the expansion of native communities; no project or activity will be authorized in such areas. The R-PP claims that there are current discussions at the national level concerning AIDESEP’s petition for the completion of land title clearing in areas occupied by indigenous communities, not just those with an ongoing process, and that forest authorization titles exclude the areas of passage of people in voluntary isolation. The R-PP also claims that they are discussing how all laws in regard to land tenure, forest governance and indigenous groups will meet the obligations under ILO C169. However, it states that it is hard to title these lands due to the lack of information such as an official study that determines the number of indigenous people’s existing in the territory and the status of the process of their recognition or expansion of communal lands, and also the lack of economic resources for demarcation and titling. They understand the social conflicts resulting from this problem, as well as the need to update the official registries in order to avoid them. Therefore, one of the main problems with demarcation and titling of communal reserves and indigenous territories is the lack of information and proper record-keeping. The R-PP3 proposes an allocation of funds to several aspects of a process that will help improve that situation. The funds come from FCPC and MOORE and will go to the analysis of land use in terms of: an overall diagnosis, an analysis of overlapping, a diagnosis of ownership, title clearing, and the governance and intervention on lands traditionally occupied by indigenous communities and their use. It also includes the preparation of a specific program to identify uncategorized lands, designing specific actions to resolve land titling, and analyzing a way to put together a unified cadastre for land titling. The funds total. To prepare the political, legal and institutional framework for the REDD+ strategy that addresses land tenure issues, a REDD+ Coordination Agency will be formed (OCBR). During the first two years of R-PP implementation, the OCBR will be financed by projects that co-finance the Readiness phase and the FIP, and in the third phase, it is expected to be self-sufficient. The R-PP also states that SESA will help Peru to ensure the proper development of society within REDD, including the development and implementation of an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). Peru has made some advances to address the issue of land tenure and indigenous communities. Land titling, however, is a grave issue and it should be given more attention by the government as well as the international community. The IDB, for example, has dedicated smaller-scale funding projects to address issues with titling, such as the Multiphase Sustainable Forest Development Program (Pro-Bosque) for Honduras that provided $6 million to finance cadastre and land titling. Such projects would greatly support the REDD+ strategy initiative in Peru.

(2) “REDD Indigena”: AIDESEP is proposing an alternate model for REDD, which would include (amongst other characteristics): Considering the holistic value of forests, not just value as carbon sinks, indigenous management of forests, no third-party control of forests within indigenous territories, the primacy of ILO 169 and UNDRIPs within REDD contracts, and maintaining indigenous territories outside of the carbon market.   (3) National legal norms: AIDESEP has repeated the need to approve the Prior Consultation Law, as it was originally passed by the Peruvian Congress in April of 2010. They have also made suggestions for crucial improvements to the Forestry Law and the Environmental Services Law, which have not been incorporated. Read the Scoping Mission Aide Memoire

The reviews:

FCPF Participants Committee The FCPF PC7 evaluated how the R-PP3 complies with the standards for the plan. The PC7 suggests that the plan of management needs clarification in terms of the roles, relationships and responsibilities of the managers. They also have concerns over ensuring the participation of stakeholders, including indigenous groups, so that consultations are not dominated by technical experts. They also mention that the private sector needs to be considered in order to apply appropriate methodologies and technologies to REDD+. Also, the group suggested that the R-PP needs to clarify how the results and feedback of consultations will be evaluated, in order to ensure an appropriate plan of implementing information. PC7 also says that Peru must make sure that it complies with its obligations with the ILO C169 in terms of the “Law of Previous Consultation”; to ensure the consultation and participation of indigenous groups in both the R-PP and REDD+ strategy. They had concerns about land use, and forest policy and governance. They suggest strengthening the legal framework of indigenous land and territories by evaluating the responsibilities of the Ministry of the Environment (MINAM) as there could be a contradiction in forest governance policy; this ministry is both in charge of authorizing megaprojects and a member of the REDD+’s Coordination Agency(OCBR). Their comments give a lot of attention to the management of funds, suggesting the need for more clarity in regards to the roles and relationships between the donors and fund managers, as well as the role of different organizations in FIP,which is in charge of financially supporting the REDD+ strategy. Read the report Grupo REDD Grupo REDD has been very important in the R-PP process, especially in regards to their consultations.  The government has requested their opinions and statements on the R-PP’s content and process of elaboration. MINAM has agreed with Grupo REDD that the group’s participation is imperative in the R-PP’s elaboration. Grupo REDD will also be involved in the REDD preparation process; they are planning changes to their organization in order to do so. Grupo REDD is composed of many organizations and they have agreed on the need for indigenous organizations to participate, and planning on asking AIDESEP about how they feel about this participation in the group. Read the meeting report The Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest (AIDESEP) AIDESEP prepared a report of its analysis and suggestions about the R-PP3. Their analysis concentrates mostly on land tenure, the R-PP’s consultation process, and the participation of indigenous groups in a way that is fully consistent with ILO 169 and UNDRIP. In terms of territory, they want the demarcation and titling of hundreds of unrecognized territories as they believe that this is a historical social debt on the part of the state to indigenous peoples. They also believe that such action would prevent the increase of social conflicts that result over these territories. They also want to see this happen through the regional and local governments so that they titling process does not depend on state authorities that did not perform adequately. They also ask for safeguards by the consolidation and reorganization of territory with the same objective, to prevent social conflict over the land. This organization which represents many indigenous groups also asks that safeguards be implemented that defends their right to decide and control the process of culturally appropriate development. Their concern with land tenure leads into their point about consultation. They ask that their requests be taken into account and incorporated into the plan so that meetings with indigenous groups are not be simply decorative. They also argue that indigenous communities be given the opportunity to manage the forests because they have the knowledge for doing so holistically and sustainably, using fewer resources and causing minimal impact. They want an improvement of the law of environmental services which they believe could use the inputs of different communities. . They constantly mention that they still feel that their inputs are not being properly incorporated into this important document. AIDESEP will participate in a Panel Discussion on March 22, 2011 in Da Lat, Vietnam, speaking about how to safeguard the rights and participation of indigenous people and civil society in REDD. Read the Report Rights, Environment, and Natural Resources (DAR) DAR suggests that the R-PP is deficient in three main areas which are consultation and participation of indigenous groups, the treatment of the drivers of deforestation, and the implementation of SESA (Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment), stating that both the process of elaboration and the contect of the R-PP are important. DAR at PC7 DAR commented on second version of the R-PP at PC7 in Washington, DC. They commended MINAM for incorporating Grupo REDD’s suggestions into the R-PP, which were based on the opinions by TAP (FCPF Technical Advisory Panel), the World Bank, the Participants Committee, indigenous organizations, and different national and international NGOs. However, they stressed that there is still room for improvement of the plan, especially on the activities needed for the R-PP’s implementation phase. They also pointed out the deficiencies of the elaboration process on incorporating the opinions of the public and private sectors at the regional and local levels, focusing especially on the participation of indigenous communities. They mentioned that it is not clear how the economic benefits reach local and indigenous communities. Global Witness Global Witness expressed similar concerns about R-PP3, saying the document is still weak in its production process, stating that the consultation of stakeholders has been no more than an information provision. They mention that civil society had already communicated their concern over the matter last year, but no changes have been made. They also say that it should easier to track the changes made on the latest version of the R-PP so that NGOs and other organizations do not have to spend valuable time and resources finding the differences. In regards to consultations, they asked to clarify the participatory role of Grupo REDD, in terms of having a vote in the process, and how much their inputs are being incorporated into the R-PP. This organization is also concerned that the R-PP3 is not clear about ensuring “free, prior, and informed consent” from the necessary parties, especially indigenous groups and their territory. Global Witness also notes that the section about drivers of deforestation and degradation needs to be consolidated as it can be confusing. Also, they say the R-PP needs to properly explicate the monitoring of the benefits and impacts of forests other than carbon, and that it needs to include monitoring by independent Peruvian society in order to ensure integrity and transparency in the system. Finally, they say that the length of the document can make it confusing; that is needs to avoid too much repetitiveness. Rainforest Foundation Norway (RFN) The Rainforest Foundation Norway said that the R-PP process in Peru was fundamentally flawed and lacked transparency and credibility. They suggested the need to improve the lack of communication and trust between the government and indigenous groups and civil society in order to correct those problems. They also concentrate their criticisms on territory; they say that territorial legislation does not sufficiently take into account the government’s obligations with the ILO C169; that such weak handling of these issues only feeds into the lack of trust from their counterparts. Their comments also suggest that Peru needs to develop a credible plan with clearer guarantees for the proper consultation to indigenous peoples’ representatives and wider society. They also say that the current law of consultation is also not consistent with the ILO C169. They say that that Peru’s forest law needs to improve in regards to indigenous peoples, corruption, and other forest governance issues; it is still too weak and negative to be the foundation for the R-PP.  Another concern is the difficulty behind tracking the changes made to the document which can be so subtle yet so important, making it hard to be reviewed. Read the report

Important Documents

overview

EarthTrends Peru Report 2003, World Resources Institute (PDF, 116KB)

Partners

DAR (Derecho, Ambiente y Recursos Naturales) AIDESEP (Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana) COICA (Coordinadora de Organizaciones Indígenas de la Cuenca Amazónica)

Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

AIDESEP’s analysis of RPP, February 2011 (English) AIDESEP’s analysis of RPP, February 2011 (Spanish) Peru R-PP for PC-8 (March 2011) Peru R-PP (English) Peru Draft R-PP for PC-7 (November 2010) Peru Draft R-PP (Español) AIDESEP-Recomendaciones sobre R-PP (Sept. 2010) AIDESEP Letter on R-PP

Peru Draft R-PP (September 2010)

TAP Synthesis Review Peru Draft R-PP (April 2010) Peru Draft R-PP (PDF, 4.2MB) and Presentation (PDF, 430KB) TAP Synthesis Review (PDF, 535KB) and Presentation (PDF, 292KB) PC Synthesis Review and Presentation (PDF, 57 KB) Carta de AIDESEP / Letter from AIDESEP (June 22, 2010) (Español) (PDF, 1.5MB) Respuesta del Banco Mundial a AIDESEP / World Bank Response to AIDESEP (Español, English) (PDF, 68KB) Comentarios de la Sociedad Civil sobre el R-PP de Perú / Civil Society Comments on Peru’s R-PP (June 2010) (Español, English) (PDF, 1.5MB) Peru R-PIN (June 2008) R-PIN (PDF, 644KB) TAP Synthesis Review (Word Document, 178KB)

Forest Investment Program

Peru: Scoping Mission/FIP (January 2011)

Pilot Country – Peru (FIP Website)

REDD+ Partnership

Partner Country – Peru (REDD+ Partnership Framework Document)