STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL
AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT
(SESA)
of REDD+ STRATEGY, NEPAL
Barry Dalal-Clayton
R-PPDraft REDD
strategyREDD
strategy
SESA
SESA needs a starting point
to identify social and environmental risks
Ideally, SESA should be ongoing process with strategy development
Consultations
Experience from REDD pilotsResearch, studies, etc.
ESMF
ESMF SESA
Safeguards, SES, etc
REDD+
STRATEGY
SESA
INTEGRATED PROCESSESMERGED PROCESSES
OPTIONS FOR SESA
SESA AFTER STRATEGY SESA BEFORE STRATEGY
1. REDD+ strategy options paper
• Review of RPP and other key documents and approaches
• Identification of Strategic options
2. Baseline Studies
• Current environmental & social situation in forestry sector
• Review of legislative, regulatory and policy regime
• Analysis of climate change issues and links
• Institutional needs and capacity
3. Stakeholder analysis
4. Consultations:
• National-level: national workshop, meetings, interviews
• District level: visit pilots, meetings
5. Assessment of environmental & social impacts
6. Reports: SESA & ESMF (drafts, public review, final)
STEPS IN NEPAL REDD+ SESA
National consultations
• National – workshops, meetings (individuals, organisations)
• Expert workshop – scoping impacts
District visit (2 physiographic regions – Tarai & Mid Hills; group of districts)
• Regional workshop (Chitwan, Makawanpur, Bara, Parsa districts)
• Kayar khola REDD+ pilot sites
• District consultations (Chitwan, Makawanpur, Bara) - meetings with CFUGs, CSO/IPOs
Limitations of SESA
• Dislocated from actual Strategy – so no linkage
• Resource limitations• Limited consultations
• Unable to undertake some important tasks (eg focus groups, experts workshops, linkage diagrams)
• Lack of clarity on REDD+ institutional structures –makes difficult to design some ESMF elements (assessment & monitoring bodies, capacity building, costs, etc)
• So SESA is still effectively initial
• Misunderstanding what SESA is all about
• Lack of informationparticularly documents, several studies in parallel – difficulty in getting documents
Strategic options – in brief
SO1 Land tenure, carbon rights and benefit sharing;
SO2 Community-based forest management (formal and customary);
S03 Promotion of private forestry;
SO4 Government managed forests for conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of fragile ecosystems and land;
SO5 Conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services outside Protected
Areas;
SO6 Payment for ecosystem services;
SO7 Agriculture productivity and food security for small and marginalIsed farmers;
SO8 Energy access and efficiency;
SO9 Environmentally-friendly infrastructure planning, construction and
maintenance;
SO10 Forest and non-forest enterprises;
SO10 Law enforcement;
SO12 Good governance and anti-corruption;
SO13 Land use planning for each of the physiographic regions; and
SO14 Institutional architecture.
10: Promoting forest and non-forest enterprises
Elite capture
Illegal logging
Forest degradation
Conflicts over eligibility for
finance
Marginalised may not benefit
Gender un- friendly enterprises
Limited employment opportunities for poor
Exclusion/token participation of
women & vulnerable groups
Women & marginalised lose access to forest products/NTFPs
Technology displaces IK
Local enterprises displaced
Loss of livelihoods
Toxic chemicals
Increased pressure on
forests
Loss of ecosystems
diversity
Reduced income & livelihoods
Impoverishment
Malnutrition, health problems
Limits child education
Pressure on health services
Loss of tourism
Loss of employment
Pollution (soil & water)
Loss of groundwater
Loss of carbon stocks
Impedes irrigation &
agric. productionForests
devaluedLoss of
revenues to State
Social conflict
Negative impacts
Social impacts – positive
Improved Rights and Access• Improved rights & access to land / forests• Increased supply of , access to, & value of forest products• Improved benefit-sharing• Improved market access / surplus products for markets• Better access to forest products / NTFP
Improved Livelihood and Poverty Reduction• Improved health• Poverty reduction• Investment in alternative livelihoods• Improved livelihoods, income, economic opportunities, enterprise
development• Increased employment• Potential for cooperatives• Improved food security
Social Inclusion and Gender Empowerment• Empowerment• Increased voice for women / powerless• Social inclusion (gender balance)• Reduced workload/drudgery (women)• Gender friendly technology introduced• Reduced social gaps
Social impacts – positive (Cont.)
Increased Participation, Knowledge and Ownership
• Maintain/strengthened cultural norms/services
• Increased knowledge / capacity for forest management
• Increased use of local, indigenous/ & traditional knowledge & practices
• Increased participation / ownership
• Environmental & social awareness
• Strengthened local organisations
Enhanced Accountability
• Reduced corruption / bribery
• Reduced conflict
• Reduced illegal activities
Social impacts – negative
Social Exclusion and Displacement
• Exclusion of landless, poor & marginalised eviction, loss of land/property
• Social exclusion
• Exclusion/devaluation of women
• Exclusion/elimination of cultural / spiritual values & traditional practices
• Ignoring/displacing traditional/ indigenous knowledge
• Small farmers & local enterprises out-competed, displaced
Leading to Inequity
• Inequity in benefit-sharing (loss of)
• Elite capture (of resources, benefits, access, etc)
• Inequitable/loss of access to forest resources/products
• Increased costs (transaction, labour, time)
• Land grabbing
Loss of Livelihood
• Reduced food production
• Loss of/ limited access to, employment
• Loss of livelihoods, income, economic opportunities
Social impacts – negative (Cont.)
Loss of Authority/Autonomy and Induced Risk and Dependency
• Loss of user/traditional rights, or access to forest products & resources
• Health risks
• Lack of awareness / information
• Not accessible to poor, marginalised (cant afford)
• Dependence on external inputs
• Monopolies setting prices (eg timber)
• Token participation
• Politicisation of community decisions
Social Conflict and Violence
• Violence against women
• Conflict
• Human-wildlife conflict
Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF)
ESMF objective is to
“provide GUIDING PRINCIPLES for management of strategic environmental and social issues of the REDD+ strategy”. [Not a management ‘plan’]
Specifically
• Outline process for identifying and assessing potential environmental and social impacts of REDD+ activities/projects;
• Guidelines/measures for enhancing +ve impacts, mitigation of –veimpacts, and monitoring plans to address predicted impacts
• Ensure that environmental and social issues are evaluated and necessary interventions are incorporated in planning, decision-making, and implementation;
• Mechanism for consultation and disclosure of information
• Ensure compliance and due diligence with GON’s environmental and social requirements and other safeguard policies (eg UNFCC Cancun, WBank)
Limitation of the ESMF
• Linkage with actually REDD+ Strategy is not established
• ESMF is based on SESA carried out for REDD+ Strategic Options prepared by the SESA team
• Formal institutional set up for REDD+ implementation is not in place, the structure proposed by ER-PIN (Emissions Reduction Programme Idea Note) has been adapted
• ESMF is therefore “Indicative”
Legislative & Policy Framework
Laws/Policies/Plans
Clim
ate
Ch
ange
Po
licy,
2
01
1
Fore
st A
ct 1
99
3
Hyd
rop
ow
er P
olic
y, 2
00
1
Irri
gati
on
, Ele
ctri
city
an
d
Wat
er R
eso
urc
es
Act
of
19
67
Leas
eho
ld F
ore
stry
Po
licy
20
02
Loca
l Sel
f-G
ove
rnan
ce
Act
, 19
99
Mas
ter
Pla
n f
or
th
e Fo
rest
ry S
ecto
r, 1
98
9
Min
es a
nd
Min
eral
s A
ct,
19
85
Nat
ion
al P
arks
an
d
Wild
life
Co
nse
rvat
ion
Act
1
97
3
Pu
blic
Ro
ad A
ct, 1
97
4
Rev
ised
Fo
rest
ry S
ecto
r P
olic
y, 2
00
0
Soil
and
Wat
ersh
ed
Co
nse
rvat
ion
Act
19
82
Ne
pal
Bio
div
ersi
ty
Stra
tegy
, 20
02
Wat
er R
eso
urc
es
Stra
tegy
, 20
02
Climate Change Policy, 2011 O N N N N O N N N N N O OForest Act 1993 C C O C O C O C O O O C
Hydropower Policy, 2001 O N C C C C N C C C O
Irrigation, Electricity and Water Resources Act of 1967
N N C CC C C I C O
Leasehold Forestry Policy 2002 C O C O C O C O C
Local Self-Governance Act, 1999
C C C N C C C N
Master Plan for the Forestry Sector, 1989
C O C O O O C
Mines and Minerals Act, 1985 C C C C C C
National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1973 C O O O C
Public Road Act, 1974 C C C CRevised Forestry Sector Policy, 2000 O O C
Soil and Watershed Conservation Act 1982 O CNepal Biodiversity Strategy, 2002 CWater Resources Strategy, 2002
O- OverlapsC- direct contractionN- neutral
KEY POINTS 1
IF REDD+ implemented effectively, efficiently & equitably – then +ve impacts:
• Increased incomes, benefit-sharing, more empowerment & reduced conflicts.
• Reduced workloads & drudgery for women –+ve health impacts, improved family well-being, time saved
• Increased participation & sense of ownership
KEY POINTS 2
• REDD+ strategy alone not enough. • Need to change governance & social behaviour to be effective,
efficient or equitable. • Need coordination & integration with much broader legislative
and policy reform, general awareness-raising, attitude changes and strengthened institutional capacity.
• Needs to reach out – address externalities (eg agriculture, industries, infrastructure, trade)
• Overall, REDD+ appears is positive concept, but likely environmental and social impacts (+ve and -ve) – some likely perverse feedbacks.
• Forest loss with increased access
• Climate change higher temperatures in lowlands, drier, - impact on forest distribution, composition and productivity over time, but no precise predictions possible.
• Forest dependency will remain but types/amounts of forest products used will change – some –ve impacts, eg more biogas = more forest degradation.
• Forestry-agriculture (intimate) link will continue (but -ve impacts of agric intensification - pollution),
What more is needed• SESA has limitations:
• dislocated from actual REDD+ Strategy, • resource limitations, • lack of clarity on REDD+ institutional structures
• Needs more work, eg• more consultations at district/local level• More interaction with stakeholders• More analysis: eg impacts linkages, special studies (eg encroachment,
PES, benefit-sharing)• Focus group work• Case studies• Public hearings• Develop indicative ESMF to fit actual REDD+ strategy elements
• Integrate further work with real REDD+ strategy development process
• Beyond SESA/ESMF: • Adapt ESMF into REDD+ implementation modalities (responsibility:
REDD+ Coordinating Division)
For your attention !