The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility FCPF Consultations with Indigenous Peoples and Forest Dwellers: Main Messages and Follow up Steering Committee Meeting Paris, July 9, 2008

Consultation process  Many indigenous issues were identified and discussed before and at the Preparation Meeting November 2007  Bali confirmed the importance of social issues in the climate debate – FCPF participants need to understand IP issues beforehand.  Workshops organized and chaired by regional IP organizations. Design followed guidance from the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Participants selected by regional organizations.  Asia: Katmandu – February 28 – 29: 25 IPs  Africa: Bujumbura – March 13 – 14, 18 IPs + 9 Forest Dwellers  LAC: La Paz – March, 17-19: 33 IPs and 2 Forest Dwellers  FCPF intends to continue a meaningful dialogue with IPs and forest dwellers – dialogue will continue at a country level

Key issues to be addressed by FCPF participants  Historically IPs have had tense relationships with their Governments - REDD national approach too reliant on national governments  How to participate in the very complex REDD debate without receiving training and direct assistance?  How to benefit from future REDD revenues, especially when the Government is in charge?  Would the World Bank’s Safeguard policies apply to the Readiness Mechanism?  Link to the UN Declaration on the Rights of IPs : “Free, prior and informed consent” compared to WB policy: “Free, prior and informed consultation leading to broad community support”  Governments might promote conservation of forests without respecting traditional land rights and access to natural resources

Deforestation: Yellow Non-Forest: Gray Blank areas : not availableimage Blank areas : not available image Deforestation in Rondonia State 1986: ~2.8 millions ha Main Road

Deforestation: Yellow Non-Forest: Gray Blank areas : not processed image Deforestation in Rondonia State 1996: ~ 4.8 millions ha Extractive and Indigenous Reserves

 Summary of comments and responses sent to participants and posted on the web  Three reports submitted by indigenous organizations posted on the web  Most of the comments are integrated in the FCPF procedures and the charter/info memo

 Access to relevant documents and seek guidance at early stage from IPs  TAP expert role  permanent observer seat in PC  How can the Bank/FCPF promote capacity development for REDD in IP communities?  Collaboration with regional organizations to develop capacity regionally  Seek UN REDD, WBI and GEF input and role  Encourage other partners: NGOs, foundations and bilateral donors  FPCF needs to stay engaged (costs?)  coordination with donors and other partners  Provide adequate publication materials, translations  Active participation at national and int’l IP workshops follow-up

IP comments and responses (1) UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. IPs requested that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples be the framework for REDD and the FCPF. UN declaration: “Free, prior and informed consent” compared to WB policy: “Free, prior and informed consultation leading to broad community support” World Bank policy – not FCPF specific Relations with governments. historically negative relations between governments and IPs. How could the WB / FCPF ensure that IPs are included in the discussion and benefit from REDD A national approach has the benefit of offering the potential for systemic solutions to deforestation = Government primary focal point Application of Safeguards, including IPs and consultation Use of REDD incentive payments: How can the WB guarantee that IPs will not be excluded from distribution schemes of REDD potential revenues? Revenue sharing is essential part of Readiness mechanism: assesses and discusses the potential and design for incentive payments according to the principle: Incentives need to go where they are needed But, there is no guarantee that IPs will be finally identified as beneficiaries

IP comments and responses (2) Knowledge about REDD. IPs need more information and training on REDD. Three possibilities to finance those capacity building efforts: As part of the Readiness Mechanism, through the Government FCPF funds IP organizations to organize regional capacity building Through externally funded mechanism at global or regional level Role for WBI Safeguards: Lack of clarity as to how safeguards would be applied in the Readiness mechanism During the implementation of the Readiness mechanism, the scope and extend of Safeguards will depend on the activities for which countries seek funding. First guidance on how to deal with safeguards (consultation, SEA) will be provided after approval of R-PINs Conflict between forest protection and traditional land rights and access to NR In case of potentially high impact activities WB Safeguards (involuntary resettlement) will be triggered Carbon Finance: IPs do not see that carbon trading has benefited them, or that they have the capacity to negotiate with private sector Current regulatory framework did not benefit IPs. REDD could potentially generate benefits FCPF to foster understanding of carbon finance, REDD and benefit sharing from REDD

IP comments (3) Traditional knowledge. How to protect and promote traditional knowledge through the FCPF? TK as a valuable asset for reducing deforestation REDD could be another mechanism to create value for TK Meaningful consultations. Consultation on REDD and the FCPF needs to reach out to IPs in a meaningful way (using language widely understood, not limiting meetings to capital cities, etc.) Consultations are not done because of procedural obligations, SFM requires close involvement of stakeholders The Bank will prepare clear guidance on how to conduct consultations in the context of the FCPF. Transparency. Information on FCPF transactions should be made publicly available, including prices and other contract conditions. Most documents will be made publicly available, incl. pricing policy, R-PIN selection, etc. regulated in the charter. Grievance mechanism. What will be in place for IPs and other stakeholders to voice their concerns about ER Programs being designed or implemented? FCPF grievance mechanism represents a good opportunity, will be discussed by PC when FCPF is operational. IP observer/representative to the Participants committee could serve as the channel for bringing forward complaints Request for IP participation at FPCF Governance structure: Permanent TAP representative Observer to the Participant Committee Participation at the design of IP capacity building activities