Reflections from the national REDD meeting on December 17, 2008

Immediately after Poznan meeting, the secretary of the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation (MFSC), along with his colleague coordinating the REDD process in Nepal, called a meeting of national REDD stakeholders. Right from the time of writing the Readiness Plan Idea Note (RPIN) to the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) in April 2007, a loose group of forestry stakeholders meet in 2-3 months’ interval to discuss the REDD process and plans. In this meeting, two FCPF staff of The World Bank were also invited as they were on their own planned visit to Nepal. In the afternoon of 16th December, 15 participants met in the office complex of Nepal’s Department of Forest for one and a half hour of wellplanned meeting. The number of participants was about half the previous meetings, probably because of lack of follow up and reminder by the organizer before the meeting (and not because they wanted to boycott the meeting).

The meeting started with a few words of welcome by Dr JC Baral, the coordinator of REDD process at MFSC. He then requested WB colleagues to share updates about FCPF. WB team updated on R-PLAN internationally, and their expectations from Nepal while preparing the plan. This was followed by Dr Baral’s presentation which focussed on two things - indicative R-PLAN application and the evolving REDD modality of MFSC-stakeholders collaboration. A brief discussion then followed, and the meeting was ended with a brief and enthusiastic remark by the MFSC Secretary, Dr Udaya R Sharma. This meeting was the first in which Dr Sharma joined as the secretary since his appointment two months back. He was found to be quite open to stakeholder engagement in the REDD process, and supported the participatory REDD implementation modality presented by Dr Baral.

Several points were discussed in the meeting:

1. Getting science and procedures right

As in the previous meetings, participants shared a sense of urgency in getting the science (of assessment, monitoring validation of forest carbon) right if REDD is to wok effectively. The FCPF staff highlighted the that R-Plan should get the science right to validate carbon sequestration, and undertake piloting for which it has offered “seed capital”. Looking into the increased possibility of market focused REDD after Poznan (the Fund based option is being marginalized in the REDD debate), getting science right has no doubt become even more crucial. Echoing the dominant REDD proposal, WB’s suggestion was that there has to be clear evidence of additionality, established and monitored through proper scientific mechanism, along with necessary measures for addressing leakage. WB staff also suggested accounting for standing stock, new forest and even soil carbon to get better prepared for carbon market. I learnt from WB that there are several approved guidelines to do this, and Nepal should choose one to apply in its context. Related to this is an issue of expertise, which also surfaced in the discussion. WB staff indicated that the level of technical analysis WB is seeking is not available in Nepal. This implies that for reasons of urgency, Nepal may have to rely on international experts. “I am not that aware of institutions and their capacity in Nepal”, said Ranjan Samantaray, asking, “Who is the technical agency here to do this?” Participants, including the MFSC officials, kept quite to this question.

2. Confusion over management

While a clear framework outlining the linkages between MFSC and stakeholders was presented by Dr Baral, in terms of actually managing the R-PLAN process, the meeting and the MFSC both were not still fully clear on how they are going to organize the REDD working group, by when, and who exactly will be there. In the past several meetings, the issue has been discussed and options identified, but still the modality has not been finalised. Although the indicative plan presented by Dr Baral was clear on the goals for the next six months (preparing R-PLAN), it was not clear who exactly is going to do this and how. While MFSC and REDD stakeholders are yet to be fully clear on what they are going to do, FCPF staff clarified that they see R-PLAN it as a “comprehensive mitigation strategy” and very close to a project development document. Dr Sharma’s remark at the end also hinted that more homework is needed in this regard. There was also a suggestion that FCPF allow Nepal to use the FCPF guidelines of R-PLAN creatively and in a flexible way so that the plan better reflects Nepal’s situations and needs.

3. Learning among FCPF countries

Given the fact that everything about REDD is still evolving, and there are still “grey areas”, there was an appreciation of the need to take a learning approach. When the World Bank (WB) staff shared that Vietnam (which is moving with the details of Annexure to R-Plan), the experience from India (which is doing a deal with Japan) and Costa Rica, participants realised that such international experience help Nepal learn. “Yes, this should be possible”, replied Dr Ranjan Samantaray of World Bank, when asked if FCPF could form a learning loop and update the progress in different FCPF countries.

4. Voluntary market

FCPF staff shared that there is already an increased level of interest from voluntary carbon markets (Chicago Climate Express) to buy carbon credits from FCPF countries. While this is a good sign for Nepal, this should be explored further. This could be one of the areas where Nepal may ask for FCPF help – in establishing market linkages while RPLAN begins to be implemented. There was no discussion of this aspect in the meeting, however.

5. Non-Forestry drivers of deforestation and degradation

Some participants identified non-forestry drivers of deforestation as being important to achieve the goal of reducing deforestation and degradation. This led to a point that inter-ministerial coordination is essential. Secretary in his turn informed that the Forest Minister is very positive towards carbon financing and has even shared the idea in one of the recent Cabinet meeting. This is indeed a too complex an issue for even a Minister to address, implying serious political commitment to foster required inter-ministerial coordination in addressing deforestation and degradation.

6. Tenure and indigenous people

Cearly, indigenous people’s rights featured centrally in the Poznan REDD negotiations. WB seems to be concerned with indigenous people’s rights. The FCPF staff said they wanted “social safeguards” along with “environmental safeguards” to be instituted as part of REDD strategy. There was however no representation of indigenous peoples in the meeting. While Federation of Community Forestry User, Nepal (FECOFUN) actively participated in the previous meetings, there was no representation of local forest users in this meting.

7. Civil society concerns

A civil society representative raised the issue of engaging wider public and political leaders in the REDD readiness process. He also emphasized the need to balance analysis, dialogue and coordination among actors in the process. What was disappointing to civil society is that apart from appreciating “social safeguards” for indigenous people, WB did not explicitly mention civil society participation in the process.

More importantly, the framework of WB cooperation is not explicit in civil society participation. In the meeting, WB staff identified government and donors as the two agencies for institutionalising carbon financing in Nepal, and failed to recognize the collaborative approach and contributions of civil society in the REDD process. Obviously, there has also been an active involvement of a wide cross-section of civil society, including the representatives of forest users and NGOs. But these civil actors themselves seem to be less clear on their stance in relation to World Bank involvement in REDD. 

Globally, there are some concernsii raised against WB’s proactive efforts to mobilise donor funds (though FCPF and other mechanisms), which could have otherwise been mobilised by UNFCCC in due course. Some argue that WB is opening a track prior to UNFCCC decisions on carbon financing, as a result of which the UN system is likely to rubber stamp what WB proposes. This scenario is not really what a FCPF staff said in the middle of the meeting “FCPF is in concurrence with UNFCCC”. Nepali civil society still lacks sufficient awareness on the subtle politics between WB and UN system of carbon finance, and this is possibly the reason why civil society less critical and proactive in the current REDD debate in Nepal.