 | |
 UN-REDD National Programmes
UN-REDD Partner Countries | |
| Established | September 24, 2008 |
|---|---|
| Headquarters | Geneva, Switzerland |
| Membership | 65 Partner Countries[1] |
Head, UN-REDD Programme Secretariat | Mario Boccucci |
Parent organization | Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) |
| Website | www |
The United Nations Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (UN-REDD Programme) is a joint programme of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) that works with partner countries on technical and institutional preparation for implementing REDD+.[2][3]
Established in 2008, the programme operates through a trust fund that pools voluntary donor contributions for REDD+ readiness and related support.[4] In its 2022 annual report, UN-REDD reported 65 partner countries, including 23 in Africa, 20 in Asia-Pacific, and 22 in Latin America and the Caribbean.[1]
Work described by the programme includes support for national REDD+ strategies and institutions, development of forest monitoring systems and measurement, reporting and verification (MRV), and work on safeguards and stakeholder participation mechanisms, including processes involving indigenous peoples, local communities and civil society.[2][1][5]
History
[edit]UN-REDD was created in 2008 following UNFCCC decisions on the Bali Action Plan and negotiations on REDD at COP 13.[2] It has operated through a trust fund established in 2008 to pool donor contributions for programme activities.[4]
UN-REDD forms part of a wider set of international initiatives that developed to provide frameworks or funding for REDD+ readiness, alongside efforts such as the World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility.[6]
By 2022, UN-REDD reported 65 partner countries spanning Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean.[1]
Mandate and scope
[edit]UN-REDD describes its mandate as supporting nationally led REDD+ processes and encouraging stakeholder participation, including by indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities.[2]
The programme's 2016–2020 Strategic Framework set an overall goal of reducing emissions from forests and enhancing forest carbon stocks, linked to national sustainable development.[7]
Relationship to REDD+ under the UNFCCC
[edit]REDD+ is a voluntary climate change mitigation approach developed by Parties to the UNFCCC. UN-REDD is a multilateral programme that supports developing countries in establishing the technical capacities used in REDD+ readiness and implementation, including capacities linked to UNFCCC requirements for results-based payments.[3]
Related initiatives
[edit]In addition to UN-REDD, initiatives assisting countries engaged in REDD+ include the World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative, the Global Environment Facility, Australia's International Forest Carbon Initiative, the Collaborative Partnership on Forests, and the Green Climate Fund.
Governance
[edit]UN-REDD is implemented jointly by FAO, UNDP and UNEP. Programme documents describe governance arrangements intended to include partner countries and donors alongside representation from Indigenous peoples and civil society organizations, alongside the participating UN agencies.[7]
Executive Board
[edit]The UN-REDD Programme Executive Board provides overall oversight and makes decisions on allocations from the UN-REDD Programme Fund. It meets bi-annually, or more frequently as required.[7]
Assembly
[edit]The UN-REDD Programme Assembly is a multi-stakeholder forum for consultation and exchange among programme stakeholders.[7]
National Steering Committees
[edit]National Steering Committees support country ownership and coordination of National REDD+ Programmes and may include representatives of civil society and indigenous peoples. Programme documents describe these committees as providing oversight and addressing changes in national programme implementation.[7]
Multi-Party Trust Fund Office
[edit]The Multi-Party Trust Fund Office provides funding administration for the UN-REDD Programme.[7]
Funding and donors
[edit]UN-REDD is financed through voluntary contributions to the UN-REDD Programme Fund. Donors have included the European Union and the governments of Denmark, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and others.[8] As of 31 December 2023, Norway had contributed US$313,708,254.07 of US$377,696,356.05 in total donor contributions to the UN-REDD Programme Fund.[8]
Strategy and results frameworks
[edit]2016–2020 Strategic Framework
[edit]The UN-REDD Programme's 2016–2020 Strategic Framework set out an overall goal and organised programme work around three outcomes and associated outputs, alongside cross-cutting themes including stakeholder engagement, forest governance, tenure security and gender equality.[7]
2021–2025 results framework and strategy to 2030
[edit]In 2020, the UN-REDD Executive Board adopted a results framework for 2021–2025.[9]
Terms of reference for the UN-REDD Programme Fund (extended on 30 August 2023) set out a longer-term strategy to 2030 organised around four outcomes: realising forest solutions, rewarding forest solutions, enhancing forest solutions, and connecting actors and knowledge for forest solutions.[10] The same terms of reference describe the 2021–2025 results framework as structured around outputs intended to support annual work plans and budgets and monitoring and reporting on programme implementation.[10]
Workstreams
[edit]Readiness support to partner countries
[edit]Readiness support to partner countries has combined direct funding with technical assistance to governments designing and implementing national REDD+ programmes. UN-REDD has also provided targeted assistance for specific national REDD+ actions and supported capacity-building activities such as methodological guidance, tools and data support, and exchanges among partner countries.[2]
Forest monitoring and MRV
[edit]UN-REDD support has included assistance aimed at developing or strengthening forest monitoring and measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) capacity for REDD+ readiness and implementation.[1] UN-REDD has been identified in comparative research as one of several initiatives contributing to MRV institutionalisation in countries including Indonesia, Peru and Tanzania.[5]
In its 2022 annual report, UN-REDD described the UNFCCC "Warsaw Framework for REDD+" as comprising national strategies or action plans, forest reference emission levels or forest reference levels, national forest monitoring systems with MRV, and safeguards information systems, and stated that it supports partner countries in establishing or improving these elements.[1]
Safeguards and stakeholder engagement
[edit]Work on safeguards and stakeholder engagement forms part of UN-REDD's readiness support. The programme describes its approach as including stakeholder participation in REDD+ processes, including by indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities.[2][7]
A programme overview covering 2008–2013 linked UN-REDD safeguards work to the UNFCCC safeguards agreed at COP16 in Cancun, including provisions on respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and ensuring their participation.[11] UN-REDD has also stated that it supports partner countries in establishing or improving safeguards information systems so that social and environmental considerations are addressed in REDD+ implementation.[1]
Participation mechanisms have included representation of civil society organizations and indigenous peoples in UN-REDD deliberations and support for national-level structures intended to enable engagement of civil society and indigenous peoples in REDD+ decision-making in partner countries.[11]
The programme has produced guidance and tools on safeguards and participation, including Social and Environmental Principles and Criteria, and has supported partner countries in developing grievance redress mechanisms.[11] UN-REDD has also developed guidance related to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), a consent-based process discussed in safeguards guidance as a way for affected indigenous peoples and local communities to make informed decisions about whether and how to participate in REDD+ activities.[11][12]
Activities and outputs
[edit]Publications
[edit]UN-REDD has stated that it publicly releases an annual programme progress report and a semi-annual report.[13]
Country-level examples
[edit]Examples of UN-REDD readiness support documented in government and third-party reporting and published literature include:
- Democratic Republic of the Congo: In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, UN-REDD supported forest monitoring and inventory readiness work, including training forest inventory teams and preparatory inventory activities, and supported the development of plans for a national forest monitoring system. UN-REDD also supported work on national social and environmental standards within the REDD+ process.[14]
- Indonesia: In Indonesia, UN-REDD supported capacity building linked to forest monitoring for REDD+, including work connected to forest inventory data management systems used in MRV workflows.[5]
- Viet Nam: In Viet Nam, UN-REDD supported the development of national or sub-national guidance related to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) as part of safeguards and participation work for REDD+ readiness, alongside programme-level FPIC guidance.[11][12]
- Papua New Guinea: In Papua New Guinea, UN-REDD supported the development of national or sub-national FPIC guidance in connection with safeguards and stakeholder engagement in REDD+ readiness support.[11]
Reporting and transparency
[edit]UN-REDD publishes programme reports and makes information about fund administration available through the Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office and its online collaborative workspace.[2][13]
Reception and evaluations
[edit]In 2014, an external evaluation of UN-REDD covering programme activities from June 2008 through the end of 2013 rated the programme's strategic relevance as satisfactory. The evaluation noted achievements in technical areas such as forest monitoring and MRV, as well as stakeholder engagement and national-level governance systems, but reported that national programme countries were not progressing as planned and that the time and resources required for REDD+ readiness had been underestimated; it rated output delivery as moderately satisfactory and programme effectiveness as moderately unsatisfactory.[15]
The evaluation reported weak country ownership overall, including limited involvement from policy-makers, non-forest ministries and the private sector, and noted potential efficiency gains through stronger joint programming with other REDD+ initiatives, including the World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. Recommendations included clarifying the programme's theory of change, prioritising support to national programmes, and adopting a staged and country-driven approach to national programme implementation.[15]
A joint audit issued in 2015 by internal audit services of FAO, UNDP and the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services reviewed interagency implementation and coordination and reported overlap between UN-REDD activities and those of other REDD+ implementing partners and funding sources. The audit recommended clearer guidance on the scope and boundaries of the programme and its relationship to other major REDD+ undertakings, as well as clearer principles for resource allocation and improvements to programme performance measurement.[16]
Criticism and challenges
[edit]Independent and stakeholder commentary on REDD+ readiness has included debate over how free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) should be applied in practice, including distinctions between consultation (seeking input) and consent (agreement) and whether FPIC should entail a veto over proposed activities.[17]
Some indigenous rights advocates have criticised draft FPIC guidance where they considered it insufficiently protective. In comments on draft UN-REDD FPIC guidance, the Indian Law Resource Center argued that FPIC processes should meet international human rights standards and protect indigenous peoples' rights, and recommended strengthening the draft guidance accordingly.[18]
In the Nigeria-REDD programme funded through UN-REDD, a case study in Conservation and Society argued that representation and participation mechanisms were often symbolic rather than substantive, and recommended stronger inclusion of elected local government authorities in participatory processes intended to safeguard local interests.[19]
Evaluations and audits of UN-REDD have also identified implementation challenges, including underestimation of the time and resources required for REDD+ readiness, constraints related to country ownership and implementation capacity, and the need to clarify programme scope in relation to other REDD+ initiatives and funding sources.[15][16]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b c d e f g UN-REDD Programme 2022 annual report (PDF) (Report). UN-REDD Programme. p. 4.
- ^ a b c d e f g "UN-REDD Programme official website". UN-REDD Programme.
- ^ a b "About REDD+" (PDF). UN-REDD Programme. February 2016.
- ^ a b "Official UN-REDD Programme website". UN-REDD Programme. Archived from the original on 19 November 2018.
- ^ a b c Ochieng, Robert M.; Arts, Bas; Brockhaus, Maria; Visseren-Hamakers, Ingrid J. (2018). "Institutionalization of REDD+ MRV in Indonesia, Peru, and Tanzania: progress and implications". Ecology and Society. 23 (2). doi:10.5751/ES-09967-230208.
- ^ Kanowski, Peter J.; McDermott, Constance L.; Cashore, Benjamin W. (March 2011). "Implementing REDD+: lessons from analysis of forest governance". Environmental Science & Policy. 14 (2): 111–117. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.007.
- ^ a b c d e f g h "UN-REDD Programme 2016-2020 Strategic Framework". UNREDD.net. 8 May 2015. Archived from the original on 18 August 2022.
- ^ a b Financial reporting on sources and uses of funds: UN REDD Programme Fund (PDF) (Report). United Nations Development Programme (Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office). 31 December 2023.
- ^ UN-REDD Programme 2020 annual report (PDF) (Report). UN-REDD Programme. 2021. pp. 43–44.
- ^ a b Terms of reference for the UN-REDD Programme Fund (25 November 2015, extended on 30 August 2023) (PDF) (Report). United Nations Development Programme (Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office). 30 August 2023. pp. 44–45.
- ^ a b c d e f On the Road to REDD+: The UN-REDD Programme 2008-2013 (PDF) (Report). UN-REDD Programme.
- ^ a b Free, Prior and Informed Consent and REDD+: Guidelines and Resources (PDF) (Report). World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). October 2014.
- ^ a b "UN-REDD Programme Online Collaborative Workspace". UNREDD.net. Archived from the original on 12 October 2022.
- ^ République Démocratique du Congo: Évaluation environnementale et sociale stratégique du processus REDD+ national (SESA) - rapport final (PDF) (Report). World Bank (Forest Carbon Partnership Facility). 2016.
- ^ a b c UN-REDD global evaluation - final report (PDF) (Report). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Office of Evaluation. July 2014. pp. 4–5, 14–15.
- ^ a b Audit of joint audit of the UN-REDD Programme - implementation and coordination by the three participating agencies FAO, UNDP and UNEP and the UN-REDD Secretariat (PDF) (Report). Internal audit services of FAO, UNDP and OIOS. 7 October 2015. pp. 2–5.
- ^ Social Protection in REDD+ Initiatives: A Review (PDF) (Report). Responsive Forest Governance Initiative (RFGI).
- ^ Comments on UN-REDD Draft FPIC Guidelines (PDF) (Report). Indian Law Resource Center. 15 January 2012.
- ^ Nuesiri, Emmanuel O. (2017). "Feigning Democracy: Performing Representation in the UN-REDD Funded Nigeria-REDD Programme". Conservation and Society. 15 (4): 384–399. doi:10.4103/cs.cs_16_106.
