A decade after REDD appeared on the international scene, mechanisms to reduce emissions by protecting forests–activities referred to as REDD+–are finally moving from the readiness phase to implementation. One of the more advanced REDD+ initiatives is the World Bank-led Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Carbon Fund.

However, new research from the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) reveals a troubling trend: the plans submitted by governments to the Carbon Fund fall short where indigenous and community rights are concerned. The 13 submissions reviewed by RRI either fail to recognize the importance of land rights or adequately include local peoples in key decision-making processes. The World Bank’s requirements themselves fail to prioritize these rights, despite research demonstrating that local communities and Indigenous Peoples are largely responsible for safeguarding the forests that REDD+ seeks to save.

What’s the role of the Carbon Fund in REDD+?

Since it became operational in 2011, the Carbon Fund–one of two FCPF funding mechanisms–has played a key role in the evolution of REDD+. In December 2013, the Fund adopted a Methodological Framework (MF) composed of 37 criteria and indicators applicable to participating countries’ submissions; its design and requirements set important precedents for the development of future REDD+ financing options.

To better understand the implications of the Carbon Fund for Indigenous Peoples and local communities, RRI assessed a sample of countries’ submissions to examine how they address community participation, land and forest tenure, carbon rights, benefit sharing, drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, safeguards, and governance.

What did our analysis find?

A study of 13 submissions (Emissions Reductions Program Ideas Notes, or ER-PINs, and related documents) from key countries in the Carbon Fund pipeline revealed that:

• Although there are clear commitments to REDD+ goals and isolated examples of effective community engagement, the majority of country submissions fall short of protecting or advancing the rights of forest communities.
• The importance of tenure rights for effective REDD+ implementation is largely unrecognized.
• Locally affected populations and vulnerable groups are inadequately involved in the process.
• The participation of women and the use of gender-sensitive approaches are a struggle for most countries.
• Most countries lack a legal foundation for carbon rights, rendering problematic the promise of carbon as a tradeable asset.
• Requirements for establishing fair and equitable benefit sharing schemes are insufficient.
• Few countries have developed the governance institutions needed to ensure transparent and equitable REDD+ interventions.
• Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation are identified but not sufficiently targeted.

What’s Next?

If the 13 countries in this study were found to be weak in key factors for Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ rights and livelihoods, it is likely that the remaining 29 FCPF partner countries are even less prepared. Given that the number of countries making submissions to financing mechanisms like the Carbon Fund will only increase in near future, it is all the more important to ensure that REDD+ implementation respects the rights and livelihoods of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Moving forward, RRI recommends that participating countries complete land tenure assessments and that the Carbon Fund require them to respect the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent of affected communities. If REDD+ policymakers can partner with local communities, there is hope that it can be a meaningful solution to climate change.

Read the full report.

Read the one-page summary in English.

Read the one-page summary in Spanish.

Read the one-page summary in French.

ACRONYMS related to ER-PINS research:

ER-P | Emission Reduction Program

ERPA | Emission Reduction Payment Agreement

ER-PD | Emission Reduction Program Document

ER-PIN | Emission Reductions Program Ideas Note

ESMF | Environmental and Social Management Framework

FCPF | Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

FPIC | Free, prior, and informed consent

MF | Methodological Framework

MTR | Mid-Term Report

REDD | Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

R-Package | Readiness Package

R-PP | Readiness Preparation Proposal

SESA | Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment

UNFCCC | United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change