a review of ethnographic research on redd+ projects in sea

1

Overcoming the Legal Barriers to REDD+ Implementation

A review of ethnographic research on REDD+ projects in the Southeast Asia region:

What lessons can we learn?

Dr Richard Irvine and Dr Binh Tran

___________________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 2

LITERATURE REVIEW 3

1. Free, Prior, and Informed Consent 3

a. Who is giving the consent? 5

b. On what basis is the consent given? 7

c. Is there a sense that there is no alternative? 8

2. A question of indigenous rights? 9

3. Effects on land use 12

Will REDD+ schemes recognise range of use? 12

Will REDD+ schemes cause displacement effects? 13

4. Relationship with existing tenure rights 14

LESSONS FOR POLICY-MAKERS 18

COMMENT ON THE CLIMATE, COMMUNITY AND BIODIVERSITY STANDARDS 21

QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 25

CONCLUSION 27

REFERENCES 28

___________________________________________________________________________

2

INTRODUCTION

While the ‘Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and the role of

conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in

developing countries’ (REDD+) initiative has great potential as a climate mitigation tool, we are

still learning how the programme will affect communities that live near or rely on forest

resources earmarked for REDD+ initiatives. In addition, we are still trying to better understand

how these communities can be included in the process and compensated for any opportunity-cost

loss. Beyond the level of policy, it is essential to understand how REDD+ will work on the

ground.

An emerging body of literature from disciplines such as anthropology, geography, and

development studies has drawn upon in-depth fieldwork in communities within or near REDD+

project areas. Time spent within these communities, seeking to learn about their understanding of

REDD+ projects, the extent of their involvement in REDD+, and the wider context of their land-

use, has allowed researchers to better understand the impact of recent developments. Focussing

our attention on research from the Southeast Asia region, the goal of this document will be to set

out the emerging concerns that can be seen in these studies, reviewing the relevant literature and

linking it with empirical evidence from a recent fieldwork-based study carried out by Dr Binh

Tran as part of the project ‘Overcoming the Legal Barriers to REDD+ Implementation Project’.1

1 During November-December 2012, Dr Binh Tran carried out a Participatory Rural Appraisal of

two REDD+ project sites in Vietnam and Cambodia. The aim of her study was to gain a better

insight into local people’s perspectives on traditional forest management practices, and their

understanding of, participation in, and motivation for REDD+ projects. Data was collected in 6

villages (3 in the Kong Plong district of Vietnam’s Kon Tum province, and 3 in the Samraong

district of Cambodia’s Oddar Meanchey province), each of which was in or around a REDD+

project site led by Flora and Fauna International (FFI). Participant-observation was combined

with semi-structured interviews, taking care to ensure that the research drew on interviews not

only with leaders and those in administrative positions, but involved a range of men and women

at different socio-economic status levels within the communities. As this present report indicates,

Dr Binh Tran’s research provides corroborating evidence for several of the ethnographic

observations that have already been made by other researchers on the impact of REDD+ projects

in Southeast Asia, and indicates key areas to be further explored in future longer-term fieldwork.

This empirical study was carried out as part of the ‘Overcoming the Legal Barriers to REDD+

Implementation’ project led by the Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research,

University of Cambridge.

3

Having outlined key areas of concern identified by the recent research, the document will then

proceed to comment on the Cancun Agreement2 and on the Climate, Community and

Biodiversity (CCB) Standards3; the purpose of this review is to use a critical perspective

provided by recent empirical research will contribute to (i) improving the social safeguards, and

(ii) ensuring that REDD+ projects are inclusive of the needs of local communities and are a

source of social benefit rather than harm.

LITERATURE REVIEW

1. Free, Prior, and Informed Consent

An important concern for REDD+ implementation is the assurance that participating

communities have given their free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) to the project. United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) decisions regarding REDD+ do

not directly reference FPIC. However, the Cancun Agreement4 outlines a set of ‘safeguards’

5

that Parties should respect when implementing REDD+, including promoting and supporting

respect for the rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities (Appendix

1/paragraph 2c) and also the ‘full and effective participation’ of relevant stakeholders, including

indigenous peoples and local communities’ (Appendix 1/paragraph 2d). The safeguards also ask

Parties to take note of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples6, or

2 Decision 1/CP.16, The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working

Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, UN Doc; relevant sections are

paragraphs 68-71 and Annex 1. 3 Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Standards, Second Edition (December 2008). 4 Decision 1/CP.16, The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working

Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, UN Doc.

FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add. 1, 15 March 2011. 5 Annex 1, Paragraph 2:

(c) Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of

local communities, by taking into account relevant international obligations, national

circumstances and laws, and noting that the United Nations General Assembly has adopted

the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

(d) The full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular

indigenous peoples and local communities. 6 UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples :

resolution / adopted by the General Assembly, 2 October 2007, A/RES/61/295

4

“UNDRIP” (Appendix 1/paragraph 2c) which, as a resolution of the UN General Assembly, does

not impose binding obligations on its signatories but rather provides guidance with respect to

State relations with indigenous peoples. UNDRIP references ‘free, prior and informed consent’

in several contexts,7 including with respect to obtaining approval for projects which can affect

land and resource use8: Article 32(2) asks States to ‘consult and cooperate in good faith’ to

obtain the ‘free, prior and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their

lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development,

utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.’ In the context of REDD+, FPIC

can be framed as an important part of stakeholder engagement, as identified by both UN REDD

and Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s (FCPF) guidelines on stakeholder engagement9 and

further elaborated by their guidelines for FPIC.10

The UN-REDD programme in Vietnam places the application of the principle of FPIC as a high

priority11

. Yet while the principles of information and consent are clearly advocated as an

7 References to free, prior and informed consent within the text of UNDRIP include: Article 10 –

regarding relocation; Article 11(2) regarding access to grievance mechanisms regarding cultural,

intellectual, religious and spiritual property; Article 19 regarding consultation with respect to

law-making and administration; Article 28(1) regarding redress with respect to dispossession of

lands and resources; Article 29(2) regarding use of land for disposal of hazardous materials;

Article 32(2) regarding the approval of projects that will affect land and resources. 8 Article 32

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for

the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.

2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned

through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed

consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other

resources, particularly in connection with the

development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.

3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such

activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental,

economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact. 9 UN REDD+/FCPF, Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement in REDD++ Readiness

With a Focus on the Participation of Indigenous Peoples and Other Forest-Dependent

Communities

April 20, 2012 (revision of March 25th version) 10

UN REDD Programme, Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent (January 2013). 11

UN-REDD Programme Vietnam, Applying the Principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent

in the UN-REDD Programme in Vietnam (August 2010).

5

essential part of the process, urgent questions remain to be asked about the mechanisms by which

communities’ participation is sought in the REDD+ process, and the extent to which these are in

fact in keeping with the commitment to FPIC – an issue which has been raised directly at

international fora by indigenous rights groups.12

The following key concerns emerge from the

recent research in the region, and will be addressed below (in turn):

a. Who is giving the consent?

b. On what basis is the consent given?

c. Is there a sense that there is no alternative?

a) Who is giving the consent?

The mechanism of seeking consent creates singular entities – ‘the community’ – from whom

consent can be sought. While this creates a convenient basis for apparent participation, studies of

how this works on the ground have shown that this model of ‘community choice’ is deeply

problematic. Milne and Adams, drawing on fieldwork in Cambodia, describe how Payment for

Ecosystem Services (PES) contracts are negotiated “at the commune level”13

; in this way the

standard rural administration unit across Cambodia, consisting of around 2-4 villages of varying

size, ethnicity, remoteness, and economy, is constituted as a single actor with whom a contract

can be brokered. To achieve this, the process of free, prior, and informed consent was channelled

through newly created local representative committees at the commune level, alongside the

engagement of government Commune Councils. Yet what Milne and Adams make clear in this

context is that ‘commune’ is not a naturally occurring social group, but rather a convenient unit

which allows for an idealised notion of community that can grant consent – a “strategic

simplification”.14

Consent here was ultimately being sought from an administrative unit, which

may well mask substantial differences within the different residential groupings that exist under

the umbrella of that unit, overriding local agency and dissent.

12

Aziz, Sheema A, et al. (2013). “Why conservationists should be concerned about natural

resource legislation affecting indigenous peoples' rights: lessons from Peninsular Malaysia” 13

Milne, Sarah and Bill Adams (2012). “Market Masquerades: Uncovering the Politics of

Community-level Payments for Environmental Services in Cambodia”, 142 paragraph 1. 14

Ibid., 144 paragraph 3.

6

This problem has also been highlighted on Palawan Island, the Philippines: while “managers

believe that indigenous peoples are homogenous groups whose forest use is sustainable when

communal, reality dictates that most upland groups are, or have become, internally diverse and

quite differentiated”.15

The process of seeking consent is at risk of creating a formal institution-

level appearance of common consent that obscures these differentiations. An additional

dimension to this problem is created by the fact that the creation of ‘community’ level entities in

order to secure consent can mean that the process becomes dominated by pre-existing local

power structures; this is a situation we should be especially attuned to given that the use of

REDD+ as a discourse can often be associated with a very small elite, as Sara Hansen has

pointed out in the context of Sulawesi.16

Where, as Hansen observed, membership of the groups involved in REDD+ workshops is drawn

largely from the families of those who are village leaders or otherwise high status17

, there are

clearly issues surrounding how representative such a consultation exercise can be. In Cambodia,

where Milne and Adams remark that ‘community participation’ is dominated by elites, the effect

of this may be that “poor and powerless community members are subject to the PES conditions,

but their leaders are not”18

, as the elites are able to ensure that their own land-clearing activities

are unhindered. The ethnographic evidence Milne provides from her research in the Cardamom

mountains of Cambodia is that opportunity cost calculations were made in small meetings

between project staff and a number of powerful actors within the community:

“These calculations were not discussed publically or made accessible to commune residents as a whole.

Rather, the short meetings... each became exclusive ‘property discussions’ that made the agreement

negotiations manageable for the NGO, but did not ensure full community participation or consent”19

Similarly, in the context of Palawan Island Dressler et al. warn that “wealthier families who have

greater capacity to secure larger holdings... may control the flow and benefits of carbon

15

Dressler et al. (2012) “REDD Policy Impacts on Indigenous Property Rights Regimes on

Palawan Island, the Philippines”, 686, column 2, paragraph 3. 16

Hansen, Sara (2012) Apa itu REDD? Conflicting Understandings of Stakeholders in a REDD

Design Process in Central Sulawesi, 7, paragraph 2. 17

Ibid. 63, paragraph 2. 18


Community-level Payments for Environmental Services in Cambodia”, 147 paragraph 2. 19

Milne, Sarah (2012). “Grounding Forest Carbon: Property Relations and Avoided

Deforestation in Cambodia”,701, column 2, paragraph 1.

7

payments”.20

Thus, the process of creating institutions that represent the singular entity of a

‘community’ that is in a position to grant FPIC may not only mask social differentiation, but also

reproduce or even intensify existing inequalities.

b) On what basis is the consent given?

How effective is the communication of information about REDD+ – crucial for the “informed”

aspect of FPIC – and how participatory is the process by which consent is given? Given that

REDD+ is being presented as a hypothetical future initiative and also an abstract one, consisting

of the novel idea of payment for non-release of carbon, a form of economic transaction that lacks

any close cultural precedent or analogy,21

it is understandable that it can be difficult to

communicate the specifics of the scheme. Nevertheless, where it becomes clear there have been

substantial failures in communication, leading to a widespread lack of understanding about what

REDD+ involves, this undermines the very notion of ‘informed’ consent.

The framing of the information via posters, information leaflets, seminars, and so on can in fact

be a barrier to understanding, and therefore informed consent. In Central Sulawesi Hansen22

observed that the language used was not always understood by the local community – both

because Indonesian was used rather than a more locally appropriate form, and also because of the

technical nature of the language, leaving the majority of participants unclear about what was

being communicated. This problem can be exacerbated by the fact that those communicating

information about REDD+ are not always fully clear on what the scheme involves:

“I experienced that the NGOs felt insecure about what REDD’s aim was and therefore found it challenging to

explain REDD to the participants. The activist expressed that REDD was still unclear to them, since it was

still not decided how REDD would be implemented and how REDD would affect the locals. As a result, the

villagers were confused as to their understanding of REDD... Some villagers got frustrated”23

20




Community-level Payments for Environmental Services in Cambodia”, 149, paragraph 1. 22


Design Process in Central Sulawesi, 72, paragraph 3. 23

Ibid. 64, paragraph 2.

8

Pamela McElwee, following fieldwork in Lam Dong province, Vietnam, has also highlighted the

vague and curtailed nature of consultation;

“village level meetings to get consent from households for local REDD projects were held, but were very

short (only 2 hours maximum) and only 45 minutes were allocated for questions and answers after the

awareness raising activities and before the villagers had to make the decision to consent or not to consent to

REDD activities. Additionally, it does not appear that households and communities were presented with any

information on the possible risks of participation... Rather, participants were asked general questions like ‘Do

you want your forests to be conserved?”’24

Binh Tran’s recent research in Vietnam and Cambodia highlights these concerns.25

A constant

refrain among the villagers she interviewed in both locations was “I have heard of REDD

projects, but I do not know what REDD is”. In some cases, this reflects the fact that not all who

live in the affected villages have been able to attend meetings and take part in the decision

making process. However, even where villagers had attended meetings, they did not necessarily

understand the project. A frequently stated concern was that villagers found themselves passive

listeners rather than active participants: to quote one villager in the Kon Tum province of

Vietnam, “When attending meetings, we often just sit and listen. We don’t talk or discuss during

the meeting because we don’t know what to say”. This problem seems to be exacerbated by a

communication barrier, with information about REDD+ presented in inappropriate language. In

both Vietnam and Cambodia, it appears that those who identify themselves as “participants” in

REDD+ are extremely unclear about what REDD+ entails and, indeed, how ‘carbon’ can be

bought and sold. Can the consent of these participants truly be considered ‘informed’?

c) Is there a sense that there is no alternative?

Given the evidence that those whose consent is sought may find themselves expected to make

decisions in a curtailed period of time and based on limited information, it becomes important,

finally, to ask in what sense this can be thought of as free consent. We must ask whether those

being consulted feel that this consultation is itself a formality for a process that has already been

set in motion and that they cannot withdraw from – the sense that “there is no alternative” other

than to consent. This is a problem that was observed during Milne and Adams’ research in

24

McElwee, Pamela. “From Red Peasants to REDD Presence: Forest Politics in Vietnam in an

Age of Global Carbon Markets”, forthcoming. 25

Tran, Binh (2013). Field Report: Site visits to Kon Tum and Samraong, Nov-Dec 2012.

9

Cambodia: “villager interviews revealed agreements were not understood as voluntary. Even

some committee members said that they felt they had no alternative but to comply with the

proposed conservation agreements. For example, one committee member explained that he

wanted to cooperate with the NGO through the agreement so as ‘to protect his people from

handcuffs’”.26

REDD+ therefore comes to be seen not as a participatory process for which

consent is sought, but rather a pre-ordained agreement from ‘higher up’. Such a sense that it was

impossible to withhold consent surely challenges the very legitimacy of the agreement.

2. A question of indigenous rights?

In the above discussions on Free, Prior, and Informed Consent, it is important to recognise the

particular issues raised by the notion of indigenous rights. We see this focus on indigenous

rights, for example, in the UN-REDD Programme for Applying the Principle of Free, Prior and

Informed Consent in Vietnam, which from the outset roots its policy on FPIC in the history of

UN declarations on the rights of indigenous peoples, culminating in “The landmark United

nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) adopted by the UN General

Assembly in September 2007, [which] provides a universal framework for action”.27

The UN-REDD programme’s guidelines on Free, Prior, and Informed Consent also begins with

specific reference to Indigenous Peoples (whilst also recognising that there are forest-dependent

communities that may not fall within the definitions of Indigenous Peoples),28

and the Climate,

Community and Biodiversity (CCB) Standards also speak of the need to ensure that relocation of

habitation or activities are carried out with the free prior and informed consent of those

concerned, “In conformance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples”.29

26




in the UN-REDD Programme in Vietnam (August 2010), 11, paragraph 5. 28

UN REDD Programme, Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent (January 2013), 8,

paragraph 1. 29

Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Standards, Second Edition (December 2008), 20, fn.

34.

10

Such an emphasis on Indigenous Peoples is clearly important for two reasons. Firstly, it places

discussions on REDD+ implementation within the framework of the United Nations Declaration

of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; this appears to be a specific aim of the UN-REDD

Programme in Vietnam.30

Secondly, it should make us particularly attentive to the concerns

raised by indigenous rights organisations themselves. Aziz et al. highlight that Malaysian

indigenous rights organisations have been strongly critical of the implementation of REDD+

schemes on the grounds that it will deprive communities of secure access to resources, and

argues that the failure to address such vocal opposition is clearly a major barrier to the legitimate

implementation of REDD+.31

Elsewhere, Christian Erni points out that indigenous peoples’

organisations often find themselves actively excluded from discussions on REDD+: “During the

13th

Conference of the Parties of the [United Nations] Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) in Bali, indigenous peoples’ delegates repeatedly and vehemently protested

their exclusion from the negotiation process”.32

Debates about REDD+ enter into a domain

“where there is already intense debate about rights and livelihoods”,33

and it is clear that forest

dwellers most likely to be affected by REDD+ are often those whose resource rights are already

subject to great pressures.

Nevertheless, the framing of REDD+ implementation as a question of indigenous rights is not

without its problems; in particular, it is important to ask who is ‘indigenous’, how such a

classification is derived, and to what extent this should be a driver in thinking about successful

REDD+ implementation. As Sara Hansen has asked in the context of Central Sulawesi,

“According to REDD, is Rerang a local or indigenous community? Will one ethnic group be

defined as indigenous and another will be defined local? I suggest there is an increased chance to

30


in the UN-REDD Programme in Vietnam (August 2010), 11-12. 31

Aziz, Sheema A, et al. (2013). “Why conservationists should be concerned about natural

resource legislation affecting indigenous peoples' rights: lessons from Peninsular Malaysia”, 652,

paragraph 1. 32

Erni, Christian (2009). “Shifting the Blame? Southeast Asia's Indigenous Peoples and Shifting

Cultivation in the Age of Climate Change”, 46, column 2, paragraph 2. 33


Design Process in Central Sulawesi, 85, paragraph 1.

11

create conflicts if REDD is going to distinguish between the social groups”.34

A similar issue is

raised by Milne in her account of REDD+ implementation in the Cardamom mountains of

Cambodia,35

who notes that in some communities the forest-using population is highly mixed,

comprising indigenous habitants of long-standing residence, displaced indigenous people from

other parts of the mountain range, and other non-indigenous newcomers who have arrived at

various stages over the last 15 years. In such a situation, not only does it become difficult to

identify a single bounded community with whom rights can be negotiated, it also becomes a

matter of practical concern whether the particular status of indigenous populations should entitle

them to particular rights, and whether or not this includes indigenous populations displaced from

elsewhere, or only those who can prove longer-term settlement.

The UN-REDD Programme Vietnam has indeed recognised this problem, noting that very few

communities in Vietnam are ethnically homogenous, and that while the UNDRIP confers a clear

right to FPIC for Indigenous Peoples, there is no clear statement of such a right for those not

identified as ‘indigenous’36

; but they go on to argue that “given that the right of Indigenous

Peoples to FPIC derives from the right to self-determination, which is a right of all peoples, then

by implication all peoples are entitled to the collective right to FPIC”.37

This may allow us to

move beyond the framing of REDD+ implementation as an indigenous rights issue, by placing it

in its broader perspective as a human rights issue; however, this is not without its shortcomings,

as to take a singular approach to forest use, rather than to recognise the particular context of

indigenous peoples’ lives, may lead to overlooking the particular ecological and livelihood-based

issues such populations face.38

34

Ibid. 83, paragraph 2. 35


Deforestation in Cambodia”, 696, column 1, paragraph 4. 36


in the UN-REDD Programme in Vietnam (August 2010), 14, paragraph 1. 37

Ibid., paragraph 6. 38

Erni, Christian (2009). “Shifting the Blame? Southeast Asia's Indigenous Peoples and Shifting

Cultivation in the Age of Climate Change”.

12

3. Effect on land use

Inasmuch as REDD+ explicitly seeks to limit environmental degradation, the goal of such

schemes is restrict land use within a designated area, and to prevent future land-use change,

especially through forest clearance. However, the ethnographic literature from Southeast Asia

suggests that a proper understanding of the range of land use is essential not only as a means of

ensuring social safeguards for forest populations, but also, potentially, to ensure that the projects

succeed in their stated environmental goals. A limited understanding of how people use land and

what they need forest resources for may therefore be a major barrier to the successful

implementation of REDD+.

Will REDD+ schemes recognise range of use?

How is land use envisaged in REDD+ schemes? In the context of Cambodia, Milne and Adams

have highlighted that an un-nuanced presentation of forest use has been readily adopted by those

involved in conservation projects such as REDD+, often presenting forest use as synonymous

with “slash and burn agriculture” (that is, shifting cultivation that involves cutting and burning

forest to create fertile farmland). Indeed, shifting cultivation often comes to be represented as the

primary driver of forest degradation, overlooking any evidence that such practices may in fact be

more advantageous for carbon sequestration than forestry regimes or other means of permanent

land use.39

In this way, the wide range of resources for which populations depend on the forest is

lost from view: “for example, the harvesting of non-rice products from shifting agriculture plots

such as vegetables, fruit, fuelwood, common wildlife and grass for thatching were not accounted

for”.40

Empirical evidence from Binh Tran’s research in Vietnam and Cambodia41

has documented the

range of uses which community forests serve; in the Kon Tum province of Vietnam, for

example, one villager explained that in the past forested land was a source of “tree barks for

39

Ibid., 44. 40


Community-level Payments for Environmental Services in Cambodia”, 150, paragraph 1. 41 Tran, Binh (2013). Field Report: Site visits to Kon Tum and Samraong, Nov-Dec 2012.

13

making clothes, collecting vegetables, bamboo”, all of which may be restricted by REDD+

implementation. In addition, the requirement of wood for house construction and firewood was a

consistent theme among villagers in both Vietnam and Cambodia, prompting concerns among

those interviewed that quality of life would be adversely affected if PES schemes meant that they

were excluded from putting forest to these uses. This reflects Milne’s concern, again in the

context of Cambodia, that opportunity cost calculations “substantially underestimated the real

costs... which included loss of ‘non-rice’ resources”.42

It therefore follows that an understanding of the range of forest use is extremely important both

when selecting potential sites for REDD+ schemes, and also in designing the contractual basis

for those schemes. That the failure to do so may result in a failure to safeguard forest populations

is made clear by the context of Palawan Island, where Dressler et al. have noted that the push in

REDD+ projects to shift from swidden to agroforestry implies a dramatic change in means of

subsistence and livelihood43

, with a danger of reinforcing livelihood risk and uncertainty,

“further impoverishing indigenous communities”;44

similarly, Andrew McGregor states that in

Aceh, Indonesia, given increased policing of forest use without properly accounting for the

impact of a reduction in communities’ capacity to use the forest, “the future prospects for already

marginalised slash and burn agriculturalists in a REDD future seem to be grim indeed”.45

Will REDD+ schemes cause displacement effects?

Given the focus of REDD+ implementation on discrete schemes for specific areas, a particular

concern is whether efforts to reduce degradation in some locations will be displaced onto other

areas. In Aceh, Andrew McGregor has noted that prevention of deforestation in one area may

simply drive deforestation elsewhere,46

while in the Lam Dong province, Vietnam, McElwee

42





Ibid., 688, column 2, paragraph 1. 45 McGregor, Andrew (2010). “Green and REDD? Towards a Political Ecology of Deforestation

in Aceh, Indonesia”, 27, column 1, paragraph 1. 46

Ibid., 30, column 2, paragraph 2.

14

points out that often contractual agreements to ‘protect’ forests simply resulted in the shift of

potentially harmful activities to other areas not included in the contracts:

“The irony is that the closest forests to settlements which were being contracted out for PES pilots tended

to be secondary forest already altered and heavily used, and the lands to which forest collection and cash

crop (primarily coffee cultivation) activities were shifted were lands farther away and which had less

human disturbance, but which were harder to map and survey and thus less likely to be included in PES

payment pilots”47

Binh Tran raises similar concerns,48

with informants in different regions of Vietnam noting that

as a result of forest protection schemes, they now have to travel further into the forest in order to

farm and gain the resources they need.

Another displacement effect, observed in Cambodia, has been described by Robin Biddulph as

the “geography of evasion”49

, whereby initiatives to avoid deforestation are channelled toward

particular locations in order to enable degradation to continue at other sites. As Milne and Adams

have pointed out that such strategies can often adversely effect populations that are already

marginal,50

it is essential to be aware of these dynamics when planning REDD+ schemes.

4. Relationship with existing tenure rights

As Hall et al. have argued:

“the lack of property rights... is one among a number of institutional obstacles for market-based

conservation programmes to take hold, since it is difficult to pay people for loss of access to resources that

are not officially recognised as theirs in the first place”51

When attempts are made to map community use, these can come into conflict with government

bodies that resist local claims over land to which the state claims ownership52

; Milne, for

47


Age of Global Carbon Markets”, forthcoming, 33. 48

Tran, Binh (2013). Field Report: Site visits to Kon Tum and Samraong, Nov-Dec 2012. 49

Biddulph, Robin (2010). Geographies of Evasion: The Development Industry and Property

Rights Interventions in Early 21st Century Cambodia. 50



Hall, Derek, et al. (2010). Powers of Exclusion: Land Dilemmas in Southeast Asia, 84,

paragraph 2. 52

Mahanty, Sango et al. (2013). “Unravelling property relations around forest carbon”.

15

example, describes “foot-dragging over community rights”53

in the Cardamom mountains in

Cambodia, where the land is classified as Forest Estate, and thus state property, with only limited

rights granted by the 2002 Forestry Law which allows for ‘customary use’ of some forest

resources, such as resins, fruits and vegetables, rattan, and timber for house-building.54

In Aceh, Indonesia, McGregor remarks that “Few forest communities hold formal titles to

forested land… Similar uncertainty surrounds customary usage rights which have been made

intentionally hard to secure by a state that has a history of ignoring local claims in favour of

granting large logging and planting concessions”;55

indeed, it is these concession holders who

have the clearly defined legal rights to lots of land, while community claims are comparatively

weak.56

Elsewhere, McElwee observes that in the Lam Dong province of Vietnam, very few

households in the province have secure tenure forest rights (i.e. use rights would be allocated for

a specific period of time by the government)57

– further, she remarks that in conversation with

the UN officer in charge of the Vietnam REDD+ programme, it became clear that he had no idea

that this was the case. Thus “the majority of households participating in his UN-REDD pilot

project had no official land tenure rights and thus were signing papers to participate that were not

legally defensible under Vietnamese land law”58

– McElwee estimates, on the basis of her own

research, that less than 1% of the households in the province had certification that indicated

formal use rights59

(known as ‘red books’). In the absence of secure tenure rights, “essentially

PES contracts have become yearly labor contracts, in which local households agree to monitor

forests on a set basis and to not exploit these state-owned lands (to which they have no official

rights anyway)”.60

53



Ibid., 696, column 2, paragraph 3. 55

McGregor, Andrew (2010). “Green and REDD? Towards a Political Ecology of Deforestation

in Aceh, Indonesia”, 26, column 2, paragraph 2. 56

Ibid., 27, column 1, paragraph 2. 57


Age of Global Carbon Markets”, forthcoming, 25. 58

Ibid, 26. 59

McElwee, Pamela (2012). “Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based

forest conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or problem?”. 60


Age of Global Carbon Markets”, forthcoming, 31.

16

The case outlined by McElwee shows how important it is that those developing and

implementing REDD+ projects are aware of the legal status of the population’s property and use

rights. This is especially important in circumstances where populations have little security when

it comes to ownership of their traditional territories.61

Rules of formal tenure often come to take

precedence over rules of customary tenure62

; and even in cases where customary tenure is

formalised this can obscure the complexity of local land claims. For example, as Dressler et al.

have pointed out in the case of Palawan Island, although the Philippines National REDD+

Strategy draws on aspects of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (IPRA) 1997 in considering

how REDD+ payments should operate in the context of indigenous customary tenure in

practice,63

the treatment of customary tenure as an exclusive right - overriding continual use

rights traditionally exercised by those without a direct ancestral claim - could exclude some

people who would have enjoyed some traditional use rights, favouring more powerful families

and intensifying existing inequalities.64

On the basis of her fieldwork in Vietnam and Cambodia, Binh Tran points to a further concern

that the need to define the boundaries of community forests can lead to the exclusion of those

who had traditionally enjoyed the use of those forests;65

not only does this suggest a failure to

recognise long-existing patterns of cooperation and shared use, it may also lead to tensions and

misunderstandings that impact upon the acceptance and success of REDD+ projects; for

example, one Vietnamese government official is quoted as saying that “people in the village

have shared that forest with the other village for generations. They will not understand why they

have to stop doing so”. As Mahanty et al. have argued, “Regardless of the tactic used, if REDD+

does cause subtle or overt forms of exclusion, the resulting resistance could strongly compromise

intended ecological outcomes”.66

61


Design Process in Central Sulawesi, 52, paragraph 1. 62 Mahanty, Sango et al. (2013). “Unravelling property relations around forest carbon”, 198,

paragraph 1. 63



Ibid., 686, paragraph 1. 65 Tran, Binh (2013). Field Report: Site visits to Kon Tum and Samraong, Nov-Dec 2012. 66

Mahanty, Sango et al. (2013). “Unravelling property relations around forest carbon”, 201,

paragraph 3.

17

What we see in these cases is a disconnection between local understandings of usage rights and

the legal basis of tenure that forms the contractual basis for REDD+ schemes. If these schemes

are to prove successful, it is clearly important to be attentive to the relationship between formal

rights, and patterns of usage on the ground.

Sign saying “No forest clearance: against the law” (photo taken by Binh Tran near one of her fieldwork sites in

Vietnam, Nov-Dec 2012)

18

LESSONS FOR POLICY MAKERS

While recognising the potential for REDD+ as a major climate mitigation tool, the empirical

research makes it clear that further steps need to be taken in order to ensure that those who live

in areas affected by REDD+ schemes and who rely on forest resources are not adversely affected

and marginalised. Indeed, given the risk of displacement of activity, and the possibility of social

tensions leading to non-acceptance of the schemes, I would argue that close engagement with

those living in project areas is not only important to ensure that the communities are treated

fairly, but may well be crucial for the success of REDD+ schemes. The evidence suggests that

present levels of engagement in the Southeast Asia region are inadequate. (The evidence from

other regions should be assessed to address whether this problem is more widespread.)

While the safeguards contained within Cancun agreement provide some reassurance that social

engagement and fairness is integral to the implementation of REDD+,67

policy makers seeking to

implement the Cancun safeguards should consider the following issues:

Paragraph 71 frames the development of REDD+ activities within national frameworks. While

recognising the essential role of states in bringing about the success of the scheme, empirical

research on the impact of REDD+ projects makes us aware of the tensions that can exist between

state-level legal claims and local use patterns, and in some cases attempts to map local claims

have been resisted by state bodies (see pages 14-17 above). It is therefore of the highest priority

to ensure that state level planning of REDD+ schemes does not lead to exclusion and

marginalisation of the those who live in and around project areas, who will be the most directly

affected.

Annex 1 Section 2(c) addresses the concern I have outlined in the paragraph above to some

degree, by emphasising “respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and

members of local communities”. It should be noted, however, that such respect must be

grounded in a full understanding of the way of life of the communities being affected, which in

turn requires a detailed assessment of the range of productive activities that might be impacted

67 Decision 1/CP.16, The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working

Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, UN Doc; relevant sections are

paragraphs 68-71 and Annex 1.

19

by REDD+ (see pages 12-13 above) and local use patterns and customary claims. It should also

be recognised that while the rights of indigenous peoples are addressed in the UN Declaration on

the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (noting that this Declaration is non-binding), it is clear that not

all who are affected by these schemes come under the definition of Indigenous Peoples, and that

many of the social groups that live in and around project areas are heterogenous (see pages 10-11

above). The basis of the rights of non-indigenous peoples in relation to REDD+ is therefore less

clear.

Annex 1 Section 2(d) speaks of the “full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders”.

The present document urges that efforts are made to ensure this participation is inclusive of

community members at all socio-economic levels, and regardless of gender, as the current

evidence suggests that many find themselves excluded from full participation, and that schemes

can easily become dominated by local elites (see pages 5-7 above). Furthermore, there should be

full recognition of the need for such participation to be on the basis of Free, Prior, and Informed

Consent; while this is acknowledged by the UN REDD programme, it nevertheless remains a

critical concern given that current empirical research indicates that the goals and impacts of

projects have been properly communicated to the affected communities, undermining the basis

of FPIC (see pages 7-8 above). There is a substantial distance between FPIC as an ideal and its

actual implementation on the ground, and for this reason the nature of FPIC needs to be carefully

considered with respect to local context. This means ensuring that the process is inclusive (as

argued above) and also ensuring that what is being consented to is fully understood. This will

most likely mean substantially increasing the length of time spent working with the community

and readdressing the extent to which the language used is understandable (i.e. non-technical and

locally appropriate).

Annex 1 Section 2(g) refers to “actions to reduce displacement of emissions”. Given the

evidence of displacement effects (see pages 13-14 above), with the risk that REDD+ schemes

may result in increased deforestation in other areas (potentially areas that were previously

unaffected), it should be noted that this remains an area of primary concern that must be fully

addressed, as there is a risk that unless the opportunity costs to marginalised communities are

fully accounted for (addressing their full range of forest use), they will be forced to increase their

20

use of resources elsewhere, a situation that would not only counteract the benefits of REDD+,

but could also create social tensions as displaced activity enters areas without a history of

customary use, potentially impinging upon the claims of other land users.

Rice cultivation in the middle of the forest in Vietnam (photo taken by Binh Tran during fieldwork Nov-Dec 2012)

21

Comment on the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards

In light of the above concerns, the writer makes the following observations and specific

recommendations for the CCB standards.68

G1 Original conditions in the project area

G1.5 Community Information: the writer welcomes that the standards require a description of the

communities within the project area and surrounding zone, and would strongly urge projects to

take seriously the need to base this documentation on in-depth participatory fieldwork of a

suitably sufficient length (longer than a month) within the community.

As the empirical research has highlighted concerns from communities that they may be

impoverished by their exclusion from using the forest for e.g. house building, collecting tree

barks for making clothes, gathering vegetables, etc. (see pages 12-13 above), it is particularly

essential that the description gives an account of the full range of productive activity within

the community, so as to ensure that projects take account of the varied ways in which

communities rely on forest resources.

G1.6 Description of current land use: The guidance to record current land use and customary and

legal property rights is strongly welcomed, but noting that such claims can come to be dominated

by elites (see pages 5-7 above), there is a need to ensure that claims are recorded on the basis of

research that includes the full range of community members.

G3 Project Design and Goals

G3.8 Documenting how communities and other stakeholders have been identified and involved:

One of the most concerning problems identified by empirical research is that ‘consultation’

appears to have been singularly ineffective, with community members in affected areas reporting

that they do not understand REDD+ and have not been given access to sufficient information.

Consultation must mean good communication, and the case studies above indicate that this is all

too often lacking (see pages 7-8 above), undermining the very basis of FPIC. It is therefore clear

68

Climate, Community, and Biodiversity Standards, Second Edition (December 2008).

22

that there is a need for independent fieldwork based assessment of how well communities

understand REDD+ and the extent to which the goals and implications of the project have been

properly communicated to all within the community (with particular attention to ensuring that

community members of both genders and all socio-economic statuses have been properly

consulted), in a language which the community understands (i.e. locally appropriate and non-

technical).

The writer would also question why the focus of this section is on “consultation”, rather than

“participation”, as it is clear that if schemes are to be based on the principle of FPIC,

communities must be actively involved in the project at all stages, not simply consulted.

G3.9 Describe what specific steps have been taken to publicize the CCBA public comment

period: Further to the above, there is a need for independent fieldwork based assessment of how

well this process has been understood by community members.

G5 Legal Status and Property Rights

G5.1 Submit a list of all relevant national and local laws and regulations: while welcoming the

inclusion of local laws, a full record of patterns of customary use should be required

(regardless of whether these are reflected in formal legal instruments) in order to ensure that

these use patterns are not lost from view in the focus on legal rights (see pages 14-17 above). It is

to be hoped that this would be accomplished as part of the recording of original conditions in the

project area (G1.6).

G5.3 Demonstrate... that the project... has obtained the free, prior, and informed consent of

those whose rights will be affected: as highlighted above, it is greatly concerning that standards

of FPIC are not being met, because communities fail to understand the schemes proposed, and

the appearance of ‘common consent’ often masks inequalities within the community. This

document therefore stresses (as above in response to G3.8) the need to assess how well

communities understand the project, and are thus able to grant full consent, and the need to

ensure that the mechanisms for granting consent are fully representative of the community, not

just of a particular elite.

23

CL2 Offsite Climate Impacts (‘Leakage’)

As some current research (see pages 13-14 above) has pointed to a concern that REDD+ schemes

may simply displace forest degradation to other areas (potentially areas that were previously

unaffected), it is to be welcomed that the CCB standards recognise this problem.

CM1 Net Positive Community Impacts

CM1.1 Use appropriate methodologies to estimate the impact on communities: The recognition

that the impact on all constituent socio-economic groups must be estimated is to be welcomed.

The empirical research surveyed above suggests that an emphasis on a singular ‘community’ can

draw attention away from disparities and inequalities (see pages 5-7 above), so it is important

that the standards ensure that this is not the case.

Given the point made within the empirical research that communities often feel that the

‘opportunity costs’ do not take sufficient account of the full range of uses of forested land (see

pages 12-13 above), particular attention is drawn to the need to understand the diverse ways in

which forest is used (e.g. house building, tree barks for making clothes, collecting vegetables,

etc.)

CM2 Offsite Stakeholder Impacts

The recognition that projects can affect offsite stakeholders is an important one. As empirical

research in the Southeast Asia region has noted, the establishment of boundaries for REDD+

schemes can negatively impact on neighbouring communities with a long history of being able to

rely on forest resources (see pages 16-17 above).

CM3 Community Impact Monitoring

CM3.3 Commit to developing a full monitoring plan within six months... [ensuring that the plan

is] communicated to the communities and other stakeholders: Following on from our serious

concern, stated above, that communication about REDD+ projects and their impacts is frequently

inadequate, it is important not only to ensure that such plans are communicated in a language

24

that the communities can understand (locally appropriate, free of jargon), but also to fully

involve communities in the process of monitoring through participatory methods.

GL2 Exceptional Community Benefits

The research outlined above shows examples where participation in REDD+ projects has come

to be steered predominantly by existing elites, and in such cases there is a serious risk that

benefits from these projects will not reach those of lower socioeconomic status; indeed, there is

even a perceived risk that the projects could increase the marginalisation and intensify existing

inequalities. It is therefore strongly suggested that indicators GL2.3-5 should not be

considered “optional”, but in fact should be required. REDD+ projects should be designed

and monitored on the basis of community participation at all socio-economic levels, and without

gendered exclusions. It is therefore highly unsatisfactory that projects can be designed without

demonstrating that measures have been taken to identify barriers or risks to poorer and more

vulnerable households, or negative impacts to women or to disadvantaged groups. This is not an

“exceptional community benefit”, but rather something that should be insisted upon with all

projects.

A household established in an area of community forest in Cambodia (Picture taken by Binh Tran during fieldwork

in December 2012)

25

QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

There is a pressing need for further fieldwork-based empirical research within communities

affected by REDD+ schemes in the Southeast Asia region. On the basis of the existing body of

literature, certain clear themes emerge as urgent questions for future researchers:

1. Are the principles of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent being properly adhered to?

To what extent does the appearance of “common consent” within a community obscure

important social differentiations?

Is there sufficient scope for dissenting voices to make themselves known and heard?

Does the membership of the groups which are consulted and formally grant consent

reproduce existing inequalities?

Poor comprehension amongst community members regarding what REDD+ is and how it

could affect them indicates communication failures and deficiencies in current

consultation procedures and public awareness programmes. Do these deficiencies

undermine the claim that communities have granted informed consent?

Is there a sufficient understanding that communities are free either to give or to withhold

consent? Is it the case that communities feel they have no choice but to comply with

REDD+ schemes?

2. Should FPIC in REDD+ be treated primarily as a matter of indigenous rights?

Is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People an important vehicle for

ensuring that communities participating in REDD+ schemes are treated fairly?

Given that not all communities affected by REDD+ can be formally classified as

indigenous communities, is FPIC in REDD+ schemes best understood in its broader

perspective as a human rights issue, or should it be framed primarily as an indigenous

rights issue?

26

3. How will REDD+ affect land use?

Communities rely on forest land for a range of purposes; for example, for housing

materials, fuelwood, and vegetable plots. How can we ensure that community livelihoods

are not affected by restrictions on forest use for these varied purposes?

The protection of particular areas of forest can simply displace forest clearance onto other

areas – potentially areas that had previously not been intensively used. How can this be

avoided?

4. How does REDD+ connect with existing use rights?

How can we ensure that villagers possess the secure tenure rights that they require in

order to consent to REDD+ contracts?

How can we ensure that the forest boundaries created by contracts do not unfairly

exclude those who had previously enjoyed use rights?

Binh Tran working with villagers in Cambodia during fieldwork Nov-Dec 2013 (Picture taken by David Tackas in

December 2012)

27

CONCLUSION

Ethnographic studies of those who live in or around REDD+ project sites are important, because

they provide us with a grounded sense of how people understand and are affected by schemes

developed at the policy level. Such studies are an important source of critique, allowing us to

reconsider how and if policies are working. While it is important not to think about human

activity as something separate from the environment, sustained fieldwork among communities

and specific attention to how REDD+ impacts on their lives remains crucial if we are to ensure

that the interests of local people remain central to the projects, and that specific social safeguards

are in place to avoid their marginalisation.

To this end, focussing on ethnographic evidence from Southeast Asia, this paper has explored

ethnographic evidence of failures in FPIC, including often a chronic lack of communication with

regards what REDD+ schemes are and what they will bring to communities, undermining the

basis of ‘informed consent’. The paper has also emphasised the importance of assuring that

participation within communities takes full account of differentiation (including socio-economic

differentation) to avoid domination by pre-existing elites. The importance of understanding the

full range of land use and productive activity has been stressed, in order to ensure that

calculations of ‘opportunity costs’ do not lead to increased pressures on communities – pressures

that may not only impoverish already marginalised peoples, but could also have the effect of

displacing activity onto other sites. We have also seen that the relationship between on-the-

ground use patterns, customary tenure, and legal rights needs to be clearly understood, as

disconnections between these levels of understanding can easily lead to the exclusion of those

who rely on forest resources.

These observations are important if we are to ensure that the Cancun Agreement’s safeguard of

“full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders” is effective, and they also allow us to

comment on the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standards by stressing that additional

steps need to be taken to ensure FPIC; that a full record of patterns of customary use is crucial in

order to ensure that projects do not lead to socially harmful exclusions; and that the recognition

of barriers or risks to poorer and more vulnerable households is not an exceptional benefit, but

something that should be insisted on in all projects.

28

REFERENCES

Aziz, Sheema A., Gopalasamy R. Clements, and D.M. Rayan (2013). Why conservations should

be concerned about natural resource legislation affecting indigenous peoples' rights: lessons from

Peninsular Malaysia. Biodiversity and Conservation Vol. 22 No. 3: 639-656.

Biddulph, Robin (2010). Geographies of Evasion: The Development Industry and Property

Rights Interventions in Early 21st Century Cambodia. PhD thesis, Department of Geography,

University of Gothenburg.

Dressler, Wolfram, Melanie McDermott, Will Smith, and Juan Pulhin (2012). REDD+ Policy

Impacts on Indigenous Property Rights Regimes on Palawan Island, the Philippines. Human

Ecology Vol. 40 No. 5: 679-691.

Erni, Christian (2009). Shifting the Blame? Southeast Asia's Indigenous Peoples and Shifting

Cultivation in the Age of Climate Change, Indigenous Affairs Vol. 1-2: 38-49.

Hall, Derek, Philip Hirsch, and Tania Murray Li (2010). Powers of Exclusion: Land Dilemmas in

Southeast Asia. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Hansen, Sara (2012). Apa itu REDD? Conflicting Understandings of Stakeholders in a REDD

Design Process in Central Sulawesi. MA thesis, Department of Social Anthropology, University

of Oslo.

Mahanty, Sango, Wolfram Dressler, Sarah Milne, and Colin Filer (2013). Unravelling property

relations around forest carbon. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography Vol. 34 No. 2: 188-205.

McElwee, Pamela (2012). Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest

conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or problem? Geoforum Vol. 43 No. 3: 412-426.

McElwee, Pamela (forthcoming). From Red Peasants to REDD Presence: Forest Politics in

Vietnam in an Age of Global Carbon Markets.

McGregor, Andrew (2010). Green and REDD? Towards a Political Ecology of Deforestation in

Aceh, Indonesia. Human Geography Vol. 3 No. 2: 21-34.

Milne, Sarah (2012). Grounding Forest Carbon: Property Relations and Avoided Deforestation in

Cambodia. Human Ecology Vol. 40 No. 5: 693-706.

Milne, Sarah and Bill Adams (2012). Market Masquerades: Uncovering the Politics of

Community-level Payments for Environmental Services in Cambodia. Development and Change

Vol. 43 No. 1: 133-158.

Tran, Binh (2013). Field Report: Site visits to Kon Tum and Samraong, Nov-Dec 2012.

Overcoming the Legal Barriers to REDD+ Implementation Project, Cambridge Centre for

Climate Change Mitigation Research, University of Cambridge.

a review of ethnographic research on redd+ projects in sea

Documents