Safeguarding Forests and People - Assignment Example

SAFEGUARDING FORESTS AND PEOPLE: A Framework to Design a System at National Level for Implementing REDD+ Safeguards By City/State Date Key messages To provide a theoretical perspective in terms of the background information on the formation of the REDD+ safeguards design in the respective countries. Specific focus is brought up with reference to countries under Annex I and Annex II initiative. This also gives a map on the extent of forest destruction all over the world. The framework to define the national system is defined and elaborated by use of four components and is implemented in five steps. This is the basis of forming a self-sufficient safeguard system. The process of creating the safeguard system is outlined through two broad steps. A safeguard system has challenges especially ay national level and these are highlighted effectively The conclusions and recommendations are based on the findings in the steps used as highlighted in the main text. Introduction When the REDD+ policies were designed, stakeholders to the policy determined that the actions of the policies will never be sustainable if the roles of local people and ecosystems are ignored. This led to the parties defining ‘safeguards’ that would guide effective implementation of these policies in specific areas (Arild Angelsen, 2009, p. 129). In particular, they determined that transparency, participation and diversity protection were important. This was to be done observing actions that would uphold the rights of the local people. The governments in the countries with the REDD+ initiative therefore have the task of information provision (Brofeldt, Theilade, & Burgess, 2014, p. 97). The information seeks to understand how the REDD+ policies can be addressed and accorded the right level of respect. Many options were then put up and one of them was development of a national system that focuses on the implementation of the safeguards. This would also aid in provision of information on how the system functions. This report seeks to support the safeguarding process through provision of a framework that defines the components of the robust national system. This will therefore consider provision of background information the helps us understand the primary focus of REDD+. Secondly, a brief design of the national system will be enumerated. This will be followed by the ideal creation of a safeguard system at the national level. The system does not always work and it will be important to discuss the critiques levelled against its implementation. Recommendations will then be made based on the position of the REDD+ policies in the countries of operation as far as forests and people are concerned. Background Governments, members of the civil society and the private sector have always grappled with designing ways that would help in the reduction of the greenhouse effects all over the world. They try to design and implement initiatives that would help in the reduction of massive emissions of gasses. This is done through slowing, reversal or totally stopping emissions (McGregor, Weaver, & Challies, 2014, p. 112). Agreements have therefore been reached on Long-term Cooperation Action (LCA); the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have strongly contributed to reduction of these losses since 2007. These two agreements, all the parties indicated that emission reduction was the paramount issue. This would be done through curtailing activities such as deforestation, degradation of forests, destruction of forest carbon stocks and mismanagement of forest cover areas (Reimer, Asner, & Joseph, 2015, p. 82). The map in figure 1 indicates the rate of destruction of forests all over the world. Figure 1: Ancient forests destroyed Source: Sharma & Chaudhry (2013) In the two forums indicated, all parties indicated that these actions need to be implemented partially in countries that would be considered in the category of Annex I. These are countries that are economically considered to be developed. They include the USA, UK, Australia and many others that are economically empowered. There is also the category of the Annex II countries that consist of the economically developing countries. Most of these countries are in sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and Asia. REDD+ therefore considered all actions proposed to alleviate pollution programmes (Rosendal & Andresen, 2011, p. 41). This is a global initiative that encompasses countries either in the annex I or annexes II. Significant attention has been attracted from different governments and society groups to alleviate the situation. From the information in figure 1, REDD+ actions have been created and are increasingly being implemented in a sustainable manner as well as being suitable in every equitable situation. REDD+ principles are therefore wide principles that determine the rules that determine the operations in the forested lands (Scriven, 2012, p. 109). Given that the opportunities are accompanied by challenges and costs that require effective consideration, ready-made solutions cannot be provided on all challenges. Balancing a situation that would help alleviate forest, loss is very important. A framework to design a national system There are four components that are laid out in the framework in this report. They include the functions, the goals, the institutions and the rules. The function of safeguard goals is to ultimately determine the expected achievements of the safeguards (Sharma & Chaudhry, 2013, p. 206). On the other hand, the functions are the processes that help the goals to be achieved. Goals in the safeguard policies are supported by undergoing a collection of processes that are important. These processes determine that every step of the system is achieved and this is done in a systematic manner. According to Scriven (2012), every risk and contingency must be taken to account while implementing the safeguard policy. Anticipation Considering that every nation has its own challenges depending on whether it is an annex I or Annex II, anticipation is very important. The risks and opportunities in the creation of a workable system are important in understanding the actual situation that eventually helps in determining the solutions to propose (Shrestha, Karky, & Karki, 2014, p. 51). This will also determine the way REDD+ strategies, actions, activities and projects to undertake. Planning The ecosystem is a very challenging issue to control given that it entails a natural issue. To produce policies that will improve as opposed to harming the ecosystems, it is necessary to determine that social and environmental factors must be considered (Brofeldt, Theilade, & Burgess, 2014, p. 62). For instance, controlling forest use in an annex I country like Australia must consider the presence of the social organization of the aborigines as well as the need to keep the forest cover intact. Managing To ensure that effective social and environmental goals are achieved, there must be a strong management criteria developed on the basis of adherence to the REDD+ actions. Monitoring Monitoring enables corrections. Corrections are there to impact any changes that are unanticipated. In the course of the implementation of the REDD+ projects, monitoring makes level the local anticipation with the international requirements. Responding The response refers to the feedback that is given to the situation at different parts of the world as far as implementation of the strategy is concerned. The grievances found out as associated with the environment directly influence the environmental impacts due to degradation (Sharma & Chaudhry, 2013, p. 203). Creation of a Safeguard System of REDD+ at National Level Creating the System A country may choose to start development of a REDD+ national system. The initial set of goals for the system will be developed from the REDD+ safeguards. The governments must always collaborate with other stakeholders so that the goals represent a national appeal (Shrestha, Karky, & Karki, 2014, p. 132). From this point, there will be need to determine the implementation ways for the goals. The importance of this task is to necessitate the definition of the rules as well as bringing together all the available institutions that will make sure that the functions as per the rules are met. The process takes to account everything from anticipation of the risks to responding to the same risks if need be. Before rules are put in place, all the stakeholders take the function of assessing the degree to which current rules affect the goals and functions of the REDD+. Secondly, there is an assessment of the rules that will help in determining the success of the current new plan (Scriven, 2012, p. 185). These are the gaps that are important and must be acted upon first implementing the whole programme and process. At this level, it is understood that the rules must have been adhered to after being understood. There will then be determination of how the identified gaps can be filled. To enhance coherence and coordination, consideration of the safeguard policies is important especially when the founders of these policies are put to task. Consideration of several options is important because in most cases, there will be many gaps that will be found. This may lead to consideration to reform existing rules, empowerment and strengthening of the institutions in existence (McGregor, Weaver, & Challies, 2014, p. 67). The best solution as per the trend in the case is the one that is effectively considered. At this point, there may be consideration to create new rules and policies at national level, execute new regulations or create procedures that are new as per the policies of the respective governments. Rules can be made in such a way that they are specific to REDD+ or they can be general as per the environmental regulations. if there will be consideration of the institutions, then there can be creation of new agencies within the existing agencies to take care of the contingency matters as related to the environmental measurement. If this case does not hold, then the non-governmental organizations can be asked to take care of the contingency plans as per the new developed REDD+ rules (Shrestha, Karky, & Karki, 2014, p. 101). Therefore, the responsibility of the implementation of the functions as per the safeguard system can then be put under one contingency body. The same can be put under the care of different bodies or institutions. Costs of the choices Sharma & Chaudhry (2013) noted that the choices as indicated are accompanied with different costs. For example, when a new law is put in place, there is provision of long term stabilities that are many as well as buy-ins that are greater. All these are executed from a collection of sources. It is also important to note that new laws do not start working immediately as they have to be approved as practical. The process takes some time. Consolidation of the responsibilities with a single agency greatly helps increase the levels of effectiveness because the expected inter-agency co-ordination is eliminated (Scriven, 2012, p. 176). However, the same process may place much burden to one player but the political buy-in are eliminated as experienced in the case of having several government agencies. It is therefore important to note that the rules’ choice on the issue of implementing REDD+ safeguards is quite dependent on the circumstances in a nation and these are bound to change from time to time. All actors are therefore supposed to consider all the options and activities in a manner that is participatory so that resources are effectively utilised. Challenges of Using Safeguarding Approach Safeguards are done in given locale. The laws to these safeguards are indicated created by technocrats who lead to the whole exercise having to undermine the ideal purpose that they are supposed to be of service to. Different international bodies such as the UN-REDD+ programme, the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (WBCPF) and Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) are all bodies that advocate for technocratic approaches to safeguarding. Because of this technocratic issue, there is proposal of standards from the universal perspective. However, injustices to the forests as well as the local communities are context specific and very varied. It is therefore not possible to use universal ideas and standards to address the demands in a given locale. To the worst part, they actually obfuscate the injustices rather than illuminating the injustices. No specific response is ever achieved. The second problem is that these technocratic ideas usually give privilege and benefits to experts more than they give to the people they are supposed to serve. This means that the expertise of the local and indigenous communities is limited and this is bound to lead to massive rejection of the proposals by the same local communities (Reimer, Asner, & Joseph, 2015, p. 129). Countries like Nepal set their own precedence on REDD+ activities and have an edge over others that still depend on international expertise. In the annex II countries, the aspect of corruption has been rampant in which case powerful individuals change laws to suit their own gain which is a defeatist situation. The Congo forest in central Africa is being eliminated due to corruption and personal interest issues. Conclusion and Recommendations A national system that has been tasked with the implementation of the REDD+ programme ensure that all the REDD+ activities are under cover of effective safeguarding policies (Brofeldt, Theilade, & Burgess, 2014, p. 412). It can be conscripted to suit specified circumstances at national level. It also has the capability to help national governments to effectively make coordination of the national REDD+ activities as well as their safeguard policies. This situation requires many decisions that are also very difficult but in the long run, their benefits are supposed to go beyond REDD+. There are many governments that have expressed optimism about implementation of these systems and this call for exploration of the available workable options (Rosendal & Andresen, 2011, p. 104). Part recommendation lies in that fact that it has been determined that the technocratic approaches impose externally conceived interventions to local problems (Rosendal & Andresen, 2011, p. 108). This means that safeguards are done to these technocrats instead of the local people. The local people are therefore supposed to be inculcated into the programme at its inception to avoid such conflicts of interests. In the long run, the challenge of the globalised issue needs to be localised. There is also supposed to be a shift in the focus from safeguards to safeguarding, from regulation of the technocratic intentions to enablement of the safeguarding active process. References Arild Angelsen, ‎. B. 2009. Realising REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options. London: CIFOR. Brofeldt, S., Theilade, I., & Burgess, N. D. 2014. Community Monitoring of Carbon Stocks for REDD+. Forests, 5(8), 116. McGregor, A., Weaver, S., & Challies, E. 2014. Practical critique: Bridging the gap between critical and practice‐oriented REDD+ research. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 55(3), 209. Reimer, F., Asner, G. P., & Joseph, S. 2015. Advancing reference emission levels in subnational and national REDD+ initiatives. Carbon Balance and Management, 10(1), 11. Rosendal, G. K., & Andresen, S. 2011. Institutional design for improved forest governance through REDD. Ecological economics, 70(11), 72. Scriven, J. 2012. Developing REDD+ policies and measures from the bottom-up for the buffer zones of Amazonian protected areas. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 14(5), 107. Sharma, V., & Chaudhry, S. 2013. An Overview of Indian Forestry Sector with REDD+ Approach. ISRN Forestry, 2013, 89. Shrestha, S., Karky, B. S., & Karki, S. 2014. Case Study Report: REDD+ Pilot Project in Community Forests. Forests, 5(10), 118. Read More