REDD+ mechanisms, including the FCPF, must be rethought in a way that Indigenous Peoples have a real say and their lands are protected and safeguarded
One of the most controversial ways to fight climate warming has been the reliance on carbon markets. In essence, such programmes allow polluters to buy credits from projects, many of which are in the South of the world, that contribute to the reduction of emissions.
The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) is a funding facility managed by the World Bank that, even if not strictly classified as a carbon credit mechanism, espouses many of its principles. The FCPF is considered a financial mechanism to implement the so-called REDD + framework that embraces the logic of carbon trading with the mission, from which its abbreviation originates, of "reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. The additional "plus" is related to the efforts of the scheme to promote conservation of forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks".
Nepal has been a long-standing implementer of REDD+ schemes, and the country is supposed to benefit from considerable financial resources paid by the FCPF. But are Indigenous Peoples getting any benefits? The amounts at stakes are important as Nepal is supposed to "gain" over $12.2 million from the FCPF that is administered by the World Bank. Yet the implementation of the FCPF has been complex, and also different views on how to spend the money at the local level have basically blocked the disbursement of the resources.
Studies and research have shown that they are ineffective to meet their stated purpose. Market-based solutions to reduce climate warming have always been questionable. For example, REDD+ schemes, like other carbon trading programmes, do not address the root causes of the problems, such as demand for agricultural land for cattle and feed and unsustainable consumption patterns. Thus, REDD is unlikely to lead to a genuine and long-term reduction in deforestation
Forest preservation and conservation have been always problematic, especially from the perspective of their real impact on the ground. What is even more worrisome is the lack of ownership in their implementation by Indigenous Peoples, the stewards and guardians of many precious but fragile ecosystems in Nepal and elsewhere. In the case of the FCPF, many Indigenous Peoples feel that they have not been fully and properly engaged and involved in the decision-making process related to their design and implementation. That's why the land rights of Indigenous Peoples have been undermined.
Here, we would like to propose some important recommendations that, if implemented, could help reestablish trust in the management of the FCPF. A central issue that must be addressed is the high-level of centralisation of the programme. A new decentralised form of governance should be introduced where power and decision-making are not controlled only by state mechanisms that are remote from the grounds. New forms of decision-making must be re-imagined that are able to include and engage Indigenous Peoples that should always avail of their Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC).
In terms of expertise to lead and benefit from the FCPF, we do recognise that high- level competences and technical know-how are required to manage it. But this should not be used as a pretext to avoid or delay the process of empowering Indigenous Peoples. That's why it is indispensable to invest in their capacity building.
Moreover, in a steppingstone towards a more bottom-up form of governance that includes Indigenous Peoples, there should be a real transformation of the REDD Implementation Centre (REDD IC) into a semi-autonomous NRC as per the REDD Strategy Nepal 2018. Such development would be instrumental in enabling Indigenous Peoples to have easier access to utilising funds for a more effective and inclusive REDD+ implementation.
The need for a clear REDD+ programme-specific benefit-sharing plan must also be emphasised. Without transparent and equitable mechanisms for sharing the benefits of carbon emission reductions, local communities may not be incentivised to participate in REDD+.
We underline that REDD Strategy Nepal also recognise the potential negative impacts if proper safeguards are not adopted, such as restrictions on resource use, social exclusion and loss of traditional knowledge. If these risks are not effectively mitigated, REDD+ could lead to social and environmental harms and damages.
Efforts to rethink the way the FCPF and similar initiatives are managed should lead to a tailored-made legislation centered on upholding the rights of Indigenous Peoples. Such a legislation would offer the best guarantees to implementing ILO Convention No.169 and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), both of which have been ratified by Nepal.
The Forest Rights Act (FRA) in India could offer a template. The FRA recognises the rights of Indigenous and forest-dwelling communities to manage and protect forests. Moreover, countries like Kenya and Tanzania have some of the best practices in terms of community land rights, which have secured land tenure for Indigenous communities, enabling them to protect forests and manage resources sustainably.
To conclude, at real minimum, REDD+ mechanisms, including the FCPF, must be rethought in a way that Indigenous Peoples have a real say and their lands are protected and safeguarded. Market-based solutions, no matter how financially attractive they are, cannot come at the expense of the inalienable rights of the Indigenous Peoples who are the customary guardians of Nepal's forests.
Shreesh is Chairperson of the Indigenous Women Legal Awareness Group; Galimberti is the pro bono co-founder of The Good Leadership
