Section 1. Introduction and Background
1.3. Introduction to Social and Environmental
Soundness (SES)
USAID LEAF
Regional Climate Change Curriculum Development
Module: Social and Environmental Soundness (SES)
Name
Affiliation
Kasetsart University,
Thailand
Penporn Janekarnkij; Co-Lead Kasetsart University,
Thailand
Surin Onprom; Co-Lead
Name
Affiliation
Tran Thi Thu Ha
Vietnam Forestry University
Nguyen Dinh Hai
Vietnam Forestry University
Rejani Kunjappan; Co-Lead
RECOFTC
Thailand
Vo Mai Anh
Vietnam Forestry University
Claudia Radel; Co-Lead
Utah State University
Tran Tuan Viet
Vietnam Forestry University
Sarah Hines; Co-Lead
US Forest Service
Cao Tien Trung
Vinh University, Vietnam
Sidthinat Prabudhanitisarn
Chiang Mai University,
Thailand
Nguyen T. Trang Thanh
Vinh University, Vietnam
Sharifah Zarina Syed Zakaria
University Kebangsaan Malaysia
Nguyen Thu Ha
USAID Vietnam Forests &
Deltas
Mohd Rusli Yacob
University Putra Malaysia
Maeve Nightingale
IUCN MFF
Kaisone Phengspha
National University of Laos
Guada Lagrada
PACT MPE
Phansamai Phengspha
National University of Laos
Le Van Trung
DARD Lam Dong
Kethsa Nanthavongduangsy
National University of Laos
Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh
AIT Thailand
Freddie Alei
University of Papua New Guinea
David Ganz
USAID LEAF Bangkok
Chay Kongkruy
Royal University of Agriculture,
Cambodia
Kalpana Giri
USAID LEAF Bangkok
Soreivathanak Reasey Hoy
Royal University of Phnom Penh,
Cambodia
Chi Pham
Project Coordinator
USAID LEAF Bangkok
I.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1. Introduction to Climate Change
1.2. The Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation Context
1.3. Introduction to Social and Environmental Soundness (SES)
1.4. Guiding Frameworks – Sustainable Development & Ethics
II. WHAT SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES EXIST: STRENGHENING
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REDD
2.1. Environmental Co-benefits: Introduction to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
2.1.1. Carbon/REDD+ Project Accounting, Carbon Monitoring & MRV
2.2. Governance
2.2.1. Regulatory Framework, Forest Tenure, and Carbon Rights
2.3. Stakeholder Participation
2.3.1. FPIC
2.4. Social Co-benefits
2.5. Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment
2.5.1. Gender Analysis Tools
2.5.2. Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index
2.6. Indigenous Peoples and their Empowerment
2.7. Local Livelihoods: An Introduction
2.7.1 Livelihoods impact Case Study: April Salumei, PNG
2.8. REDD+ Benefits Sharing
2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability
III. STATE OF THE ART IN ACTION: BRINGING THE PIECES TOGETHER
3.1. Safeguard Mechanisms in REDD+ Programs
3.2. Streamlining of Safeguards and Standards
3.3. Developing National Level Safeguards

Climate justice debates and an overview of some of the
REDD+ social & environmental issues (1 session)

Social and environmental soundness and its relation to
climate justice debate (1 session)

Organizational-based REDD+ safeguards & standards (1
session)

Application of SES principles in REDD+ context (1 session)
At the end of this section, learners will be able to:
 Identify the importance of SES and explain its key
concepts and principles

Explain a range of different safeguards and standards in
REDD+ context

Discuss the linkages between SES principles and justice
issues

Methods: Lecture, Class exercise, Case study, Role Play,
Scenario Simulations

Materials: instructor notes, handouts for students, key
references, laptop/projector

Time/Sessions: 4 sessions
.
Suggested Reading Options:

Brown, D., Seymour, F. and Peskett, L. 2008. How do we achieve REDD cobenefits and avoid doing harm? In Moving ahead with REDD: Issues,
options and implications, pp. 107-156.

Moss, N. and Nussbaum, R. 2011. A review of three REDD+ safeguard
initiatives. FAO, UNDP, UNEP.

Roe, S.; Streck, C.; Pritchard, L. and Costenbader, J. 2013. Safeguards in
REDD+ and forest carbon standards: a review of social, environmental and
procedural concepts and application. Climatefocus.
http://www.climatefocus.com/documents/files/safeguards.pdf

United Nations. Climate justice for a changing planet: a .primer for policy
makers and NGOs. Excerpt.

Climate justice debates and an overview of some of the
REDD+ social & environmental issues (1 session)

Social and environmental soundness and its relation to
climate justice debate (1 session)

Organizational-based REDD+ safeguards & standards (1
session)

Application of SES principles in REDD+ context (1 session)
Beginning of Session 1

In the context of development and conservation, what are the
positive and negative impacts and the risk related to
development initiatives?

Are their any clear winners and losers?

Do you have any suggestions for promoting positive impacts
or preventing the risks?
.

Climate change can exacerbate existing inequalities

Rich countries vs. poor countries (who is responsible, and
who is vulnerable)

Disparities in development

Some groups face more threat, are more vulnerable?

Meaningful participation

Who should pay for mitigation? For adaptation?
.
REDD+ is a global initiative designed to pay groups or
countries for protecting their forests and reducing
emissions of greenhouse gas pollutants, especially CO₂.

Who will design? Who will participate?

Who should pay (to set-up/administer a project)? And
how will they pay?

Who will responsible if REDD+ projects fail?
.
REDD+ may pose several risks/threats to different groups of people & the
environment. List potential risks, specific groups that are likely to be affected,
and ideas of ways we might “safeguard” or protect against those threats.
Method 1: Group Discussion
Method 2: Role Play “My issue in REDD+”
Role play as indigenous peoples, women, non-profit organizations (NGOs), or
governments. Consider the risks for these various stakeholder groups in
REDD+.
Method 3: Simulation Game: Justice in REDD+
Provide REDD+ scenarios and ask students to discuss the risks for different
potential groups that may be affected. Then ask students to identify ways to
safeguard against these risks. Ask a follow-up question: Do the protections
identified provide justice?

If well applied, REDD+ may lead to opportunities for
women; if poorly applied, REDD+ may worsen the situation.

Empowerment can occur through a variety of different
avenues related to the inclusion of women’s interests, the
participation of women in design and implementation, and
the receipt by women of monetary benefits or natural
resource assets.

However, there are still many potential risks and barriers
that must be considered.
Why Indigenous Peoples’ issues matter in REDD+
 Threats & opportunities from REDD+
 If well applied, REDD+ may lead to opportunities for IPs; if poorly applied,
REDD+ may worsen the situation
“Indigenous and tribal peoples shall enjoy the full measure of human rights
and fundamental freedoms without hindrance or discrimination.”


ILO 169/UNDRIP – International Labor Organization/
UN Declaration of Rights on Indigenous Peoples
“ ‘Free prior and informed consent’ (FPIC), is the principle that a community
has the right to give or withhold its consent to proposed projects that
may affect the lands they customarily own, occupy or otherwise use.”



The Forest Peoples Programme (www.forestpeoples.org)
Free, prior and informed consent
Specific mandates to ensure consultation with IPs: UNREDD guidelines,
FCPF’s R-PP mandates, etc.

Forest-dependent communities other than Indigenous
Peoples.

Local communities that may not be as empowered as
other stakeholders

Local communities might be considered “local ethnic
groups”, e.g. in Thailand and elsewhere.








Stakeholder engagement and good governance
Rights to land, trees, and carbon
Multiple benefits and costs, and their distribution
Social and environmental impact assessment
Cost and benefit sharing, including distribution of any
carbon finance payments
Livelihood impacts
Impacts on the environment unrelated to carbon
.
What are other possible social & environmental issues?
End of Session 1

Climate justice debates and an overview of some of the
REDD+ social & environmental issues (1 session)

Social and environmental soundness and its relation to
climate justice debate (1 session)

Organizational-based REDD+ safeguards & standards (1
session)

Application of SES principles in REDD+ (1 session)
Beginning of Session 2

While climate change adaptation efforts meet a clear social need, the
message about mitigation is more technical; social impacts and benefits
are unclear and debated.

There are impacts of climate change on people and environments,
including impacts of policies and mechanisms designed to mitigate climate
change.

REDD+ is likely to induce land-use changes & thus affect both ecosystems
and the lives of people deriving values from those land uses in different
ways— there are potential negative social and environmental impacts that
should be considered and dealt with.

There is need to increase the positive social and environmental impacts
and avoid the negative impacts of mitigation efforts.

Environmental dimensions are well articulated; social dimensions are
slowly getting on the radar.

SES refers to the feasibility and compatibility of a
development intervention (like REDD+) with local, cultural,
socio-economic and environmental conditions.

SES approach can be policies, tools, and best practices to
ensure that SES is achieved.

SES can refer to multiple phrases, all of which are related.

In international REDD+ discussions, SES often refers to:


“social and environmental safeguards” or

“social and environmental standards” i.e. REDD+ SES
In general, USAID uses SES to refer to:


“social and environmental soundness”
In this course, we will use SES to refer to social and
environmental soundness.

These three ideas differ but are related to one another.

The term “soundness” refers to the broader context of
sustainable development and is more flexible/allencompassing.

“Safeguards” refer to measures to protect against, or
minimize, social and environmental damage or harm.

“Standards” refer to measures that assess performance in
comparison with agreed criteria.
Principle
What it means
Do No Harm
AVOID, minimize or mitigate negative
social and environmental impacts
Do Good
INCREASE positive and social cobenefits
No Regrets
Undertake development activities that
will be beneficial IRRESPECTIVE of
global negotiations on REDD+ financing
End of Session 2

Climate justice debates (1 session)

Social and environmental soundness and its relation to
climate justice debate (1 session)

Organizational-based REDD+ safeguards & standards (1
session)

Application of SES principles in REDD+ (1 session)
Beginning of Session 3
Safeguards are mechanisms for integrating environmental and social issues
into REDD+ with the purpose of protecting against or minimizing social
/environmental damage/harm.
Some examples:
 Policies to minimize harm/increase benefits (EIA) e.g. a Community
Forestry Bill that stipulates the rights of local people’s entry and access
to key forest products inside a national park, a likely REDD+ area.
 Monitoring for compliance of safeguard & grievance mechanisms (e.g.
World Bank Operational Policies on IP & redress mechanisms) so that
conversion of forests to oil Palm will not be permitted under REDD+.
 Safeguards may focus on process (like stakeholder engagement, e.g.
REDD+ can not occur without FPIC with IPs & women’s groups) or
.
outcomes (like tenure rights to land, resources and carbon).
 Social & environmental safeguards may be separate or integrated
(REDD+ SES with both E&S criteria)

For REDD+ host countries to qualify for the anticipated
results-based financing under the UNFCCC3

They should comply with the social and environmental issues
outlined by the Cancun Safeguards &

The procedures stipulated by the UNFCCC Conference of the
Parties (COP) decisions


E.g. REDD+ must not involve the involuntary resettlement of
communities
The three most common safeguard design standards (UN-REDD,
FCPF and REDD+ SES) enable countries to convert the Cancun
Safeguards into a national framework by means of guidelines
and steps for operationalizing their safeguards (Roe et al, 2013).

Case 1: The R-PP of a country is not yet approved by FCPF. However,
in practice, Government is penalizing communities for destroying
carbon in the forest when they are really just collecting woody
material, the same as they had done before.

Case 2: Women are provided more efficient cooking stoves, but are
required to sign a contract that they will not extract fuel wood from
the REDD+ area. Even though the cookstoves are more efficient,
they still require fuel wood. Women who try to extract fuel wood
from the now-protected forests are subject to abuse and
punishment by forest guards.

Case 3: Communities are forbidden to do slash-and-burn agriculture
(swidden cultivation) but are not provided any other livelihood
options.

UNFCCC Safeguards/Cancun environment and social safeguards

World Bank and FCPF safeguards and other Bank policies

UN-REDD SEPC

CCBA

REDD+ SES

FIP standards

Plan Vivo

CCB standards

W+ Standard

Bi-lateral safeguards

Other rights (non-binding) & legal (binding) framework
Seven Safeguards agreed to under the UNFCCC framework, which countries
should respect:
a.
Consistent with national forest programmes, international conventions
and agreements;
b.
Transparent and effective national forest governance structures, taking
into account national legislation;
c.
Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and
members of local communities;
d.
Full and effective participation of stakeholders;
e.
Conservation of natural forests, biological diversity and ecosystem
services and enhancement of other social and environmental benefits;
f.
Address the risks of reversals;
g.
Reduce displacement of emissions.
a.
Objectives of national forest programmes and relevant
international conventions and agreements
b.
Transparent and effective national forest governance structures
c.
Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and
members of local communities
d.
Full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders
e.
Conservation of natural forests and biological diversity
i.
not used for conversion of natural forests
ii.
protection and conservation of natural forests and their
ecosystem services,
iii.
enhance other social and environmental benefits
a.
Objectives of national forest programmes and relevant
international conventions and agreements
b.
Transparent and effective national forest governance structures
c.
Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and
members of local communities
d.
Full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders
e.
Conservation of natural forests and biological diversity
i.
not used for conversion of natural forests
ii.
protection and conservation of natural forests and their
ecosystem services,
iii.
enhance other social and environmental benefits
a.
Objectives of national forest programmes and relevant international
conventions and agreements
b.
Transparent and effective national forest governance structures
c.
Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and
members of local communities
d.
Full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders
e.
Conservation of natural forests and biological diversity
i.
not used for conversion of natural forests
ii.
protection and conservation of natural forests and their ecosystem
services,
iii.
enhance other social and environmental benefits
71. Requests developing country Parties …….to develop…:
(d) A safeguards information system ( A system for providing information
on how the safeguards are being addressed and respected throughout
the implementation of the activities);
Paragraph 72:
Also requests developing country Parties, when developing and implementing
their national strategies or action plans, to address, inter alia, the drivers of
deforestation and forest degradation, land tenure issues, forest governance
issues, gender considerations and the safeguards identified in paragraph 2 of
appendix I to this decision, ensuring the full and effective participation of
relevant stakeholders, inter alia indigenous peoples and local communities.
Countries decide how they will meet these requests.
From the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)

“The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility is a global partnership of
governments, businesses, civil society, and Indigenous Peoples
focused on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation, forest carbon stock conservation, the sustainable
management of forests, and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks
in developing countries (activities commonly referred to as REDD+).”

“The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility assists developing countries in
their efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation and foster conservation, sustainable management of
forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (all activities
commonly referred to as "REDD+") by providing value to standing
forests.”

FCPF has safeguard policies that reinforce the UNFCCC Safeguards.
All the countries participating in the REDD+ SES initiative are following the
same country-led multi-stakeholder process, which involves a ten step
process organized around three core elements: governance, interpretation,
and assessment.

Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) -Project
level- can be used by project developers, investors, or
governments.

Government led REDD+ standards at the program level

Plan Vivo

Other efforts, including W+ and certification standards for
various commodities: palm oil, soybean, etc.


CCBA- The Climate, Community and
Biodiversity Project Design Standards (CCB
Standards)
Safeguards developed by civil society that are
applied to evaluate land-based carbon
mitigation projects in the early stages of
development

Useful for project-level REDD+

Used by developers, investors, or governments

Vietnamese and Indonesian versions

Manual provides guidance on

Part I- Project Proponents

Part II-Social Impact Assessment

Part III- Biodiversity Assessment
Social and Biodiversity
Impact Assessment (SBIA)
Manual for REDD+ Projects
PART 2 – SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT TOOLBOX
September 2011
In collaboration with:
Two stages of application:
CCB standards-
 Validation: Assessment of designed
project (REDD+) against CCB
standards

Comprehensive and objective criteria

Multiple benefits and transparent,
equitable, participatory processes
 Verification: Evaluation a project’s
delivery of net benefits (climate,
community, biodiversity) against the
validated design & monitoring plan

Independent validation/ verification by
approved 3rd party auditors

Mitigates risk and creates additional
value for investors and offset buyers

Used for the majority of land-based
carbon credits
 GOLD level

Support the design, implementation and evaluation of government-led
REDD+ programs

Consist of principles, criteria and indicators which define the necessary
conditions to achieve high social and environmental performance

Provide a framework for reporting of social and environmental
performance using a multi-stakeholder assessment process

Aim to enhance benefits as well as avoid harm

Note that we also covered REDD+ SES when we were covering the three
most popular standards.


Plan Vivo places more focus on social and community issues (rather
than environment/biodiversity issues)
Participants are rural smallholders and communities dependent on
natural resources for livelihoods. Activities are implemented on
smallholder or community land (owned or long-term user rights).
The Plan Vivo System works through projects following these key
steps and processes:





Community-led design
Writing plan vivos and quantifying carbon services
PES Agreements
Monitoring and Payment
Short video (4 min) available at http://youtu.be/aOvAys8hPqA

The W+ Standard (formerly the Women’s Carbon Standard or WCS) is a set of
project design and implementation requirements that complement existing
compliance or voluntary carbon standards. The W+ Standard specifically
includes measures to integrate and measure women’s empowerment and
participation in carbon mitigation projects. It quantifies beneficial outcomes
for women, their families and communities.

Requirements fall into six general categories:


Income and assets

Time

Education and knowledge

Leadership

Food security

Health
More information at: http://www.wplus.org/sites/default/files/womenscarbon-standard.pdf


Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil

Multi-stakeholder organization and certification

http://www.rspo.org/
Roundtable on Responsible Soy Association

“The Round Table on Responsible Soy Association (RTRS) is
a multi-stakeholder initiative which aims to facilitate a global
dialogue on soy production that is economically viable, socially
equitable and environmentally sound.”

http://www.responsiblesoy.org/

Purpose (Do No harm/ DO benefits)

Applicability (National/ Project level)

Usage (Compliance/Voluntary) mainly at the pilot projects:
e.g. NORAD REDD+ project Nepal
End of Session 3

Climate justice debates (1 session)

Social and environmental soundness and its relation to
climate justice debate (1 session)

Organizational-based REDD+ safeguards & standards (1
session)

Application of SES principles in REDD+ (1 session)
Beginning of session 4

In the absence of safeguard obligations, the private sector
may tend to select those environmental and social standards
that provide corporate social responsibility (CSR) value,
improve return on investment (ROI) and reduce risk.

However, additional certification may command a price
premium on the voluntary market, and those standards with
greater emphasis on social and environmental co-benefits
may be preferred by more responsible investors.
In “Safeguards in REDD+ and Forest Carbon Standards: A Review of
Social, Environmental, and Procedural Concepts and Applications”
(Climate Focus, 2013), Roe et al suggest that:
“The differences found between safeguard standards can be traced, in
part, to the intention for which the standard was originally
developed. Different standards are developed to meet the needs of
different stakeholders and beneficiary groups which, to some degree,
affects the interest of who and what is being safeguarded. Further,
levels of governance affect the gap in stringency of safeguards
between developed and non-developed countries.” (p. 21)
“Public and private funders, such as Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs)
and carbon investors, often require a social and environmental impact
assessment process bound to specific guidelines where risks are assessed and
a mitigation plan established to address safeguards. Generally these
safeguard systems are developed with the intent of protecting the investor
and mitigating investment risks during implementation, rather than
promoting co-benefits at the project level.” (p. 21)
“Voluntary carbon, social and environmental standards are catered for
project developers and the carbon market, and therefore generally take a
more pro-active and prescriptive approach to safeguards, as additional
certifications may demand a price premium on the voluntary market....
Standards with a more social and environmental paradigm such as Plan Vivo
and CCB standard are very detailed in protecting communities and the
environment, as they are the target beneficiaries of the standard.” (p.22)
Look up the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) vs. the UN
Social and Environmental Principles Criteria (SEPC) and
determine whether their purpose is to “do no harm” or to go
beyond this and “do good.”
ANSWER:
 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility: As a financing facility,
the FCPF requires the minimum requirement of ‘do no
harm,’ and does not mandate co-benefits such as
enhanced livelihoods and biodiversity (it remains unclear if
financing under the Carbon Fund will be tied to such
benefits).
 In contrast, SEPC does provide “DO GOOD” –improving
social and environmental conditions.
Principle
What it means?
How is it applied?
Do No Harm AVOID, minimize or mitigate
negative social and environmental
impacts
Avoid restricting people’s access to
forest /land;
Ensure that local livelihoods are
not negatively affected;
Do not create REDD+ capacity
gaps between men and women
Do Good
INCREASE positive and social cobenefits
Support good governance;
Promote gender equity;
Enhance local livelihoods
No Regrets
Undertake development activities
that will be beneficial
IRRESPECTIVE of global
negotiations on REDD+ financing
Support sustainable forest
management, fire management,
land use planning, women’s
leadership

What? Environment vs. social issues; global vs. common
issues

Whom? Indigenous peoples/women/forest-dependent
communities; national sovereignty

Why? Linkages to issues

When? Readiness/implementation/performance

At which scale?

How? Types of safeguard mechanisms
Environment & Climate
Economy & Society?

Environment


Biodiversity


Leakage

Reversals
Important issues to consider






Offsets vs. reduction
Local vs. corporate interests
Basic livelihood vs. business economy
Per capita vs. national emissions
Benefitting the polluters
Is Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)
making nature into a commodity?

Sustainable CC mitigation/REDD+

Affirm with basic rights and fairness

Promote development

Address discrimination

Biodiversity—other environmental goals (important services
other than carbon)
REDD+ safeguards & standards

UNFCCC Safeguards/Cancun environment and social Safeguards

World Bank and FCPF safeguards and other Bank policy

UN-REDD SEPC

CCBA

REDD+ SES

FIP standards

Plan vivo

CCB standards

W+ Standard

Bi-lateral safeguards
Date
Phase
Scope
Financial Instrument
2010-12
Readiness
National REDD
Strategies and
Action Plans,
demonstration
projects
Voluntary contributions
Implementation
of National
REDD Strategies
including
baselines, MRV,
indigenous/loca
l participation
Global facility (unitary fund, or clearinghouse that records
eligible bilateral and multilateral contributions relative to
binding commitments).
Quantified
changes in GHG
emissions
and/or
removals
Transition from global facility to integration with compliance
markets.
2012
onwards
20132020
Implementation
Performance
Payment
Eligibility: Demonstrated cross-sectoral commitment to REDD
strategy
development within the national government.
Examples: Forest Carbon Partnership Facility of the World Bank
(FCPF) and United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing
Emissions
from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing
Countries (UN-REDD) “readiness” funding.
Eligibility: Demonstrated cross-sectoral commitment to REDD
strategy implementation within the national government.
Continued access dependent upon performance, including proxy
indicators of emission reductions and/or enhanced removals.
Example: Brazil’s Amazon Fund.
Eligibility: Compliance-grade MRV and emissions/ removals
accounting relative to agreed reference levels.
Indigenous people/ forest-dependent people/ local
communities/ women?

Access to the forest and its resources

Ability to participate in decision making

Rights to consultation and/or consent

Recognition of customary rights and other forms of land tenure

Ability to receive benefits from the project
International Safeguards
Broad set of standards, provide a basis for safeguards at other levels
For REDD+ Guided by Cancun Decision
Subnational Safeguards
National Safeguards
Country led approaches tailored to national
circumstances; likely to remain broad
Under development, completed in some countries
More detailed than national level; can be tied
to local drivers and conditions
Under development, completed in some
provinces
Examples: REDD+ SES, FCPF SESA, UN REDD SEPC
Examples: VCS JNRI;,ACR Nested REDD+ Standard ,
REDD+ SES
Project Safeguards
Highly detailed and comprehensive
Well developed for voluntary market
Examples: CCBA, SocialCarbon, PlanVivo, VCS
In addition to national safeguards, initiatives promoting the
development of safeguards at the sub-national (provincial and
project) level
Why?

Can be more specifically tailored to local circumstance including
drivers of deforestation/degradation and local ecological/social
circumstances

Monitoring frameworks developed to suit local capacity

Address concerns not included in national safeguards

Sub-national approach is gaining momentum

“Social and Environmental Soundness” is a concept that extends
beyond safeguards and standards, to promote a holistic
consideration of positive social and environmental co-benefits.
Soundness of decisions and actions is the goal.

SES promotes sustainability of development initiatives; includes
social and environmental safeguards, standards, impact
assessment, stakeholder participation, human rights,
biodiversity; and fosters collaboration with other donors and
partners.

When using or designing project standards, it’s important to
consider safeguards from the perspectives of what, how, why,
when, and for whom?
Essay Writing:

Read REDD+ Politics in the Media: A Case Study from Papua New
Guinea.
http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/WPapers/WP97CIFOR.pdf

Identify the key actors involved and their concerns.

Write a 3-page essay describing how media coverage affected
perceptions of REDD+ in PNG and whether safeguards are
important in this context. Be sure to address at least 3
safeguard questions (what, how, when, why, for whom?) in your
response.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Barr, C. and J. Sayer. 2012. The political economy of reforestation and forest restoration
in Asia–Pacific: Critical issues for REDD+. Biological Conservation. 154: 9–19.
Brown, D., Seymour, F. and Peskett, L. 2008. How do we achieve REDD co-benefits and
avoid doing harm? In Angelsen, A., Ed., Moving ahead with REDD: Issues, options and
implications, CIFOR, pp. 107-156.
Burnham, M., C. Radel, Z. Ma, and A. Laudati. 2014. Teaching and learning guide for:
Extending a geographic lens towards climate justice. Geography Compass. 8(4): 277–
285.
Burnham, M., C. Radel, Z. Ma, and A. Laudati. 2013. Extending a geographic lens
towards climate justice, part 1: Climate change characterization and impacts.
Geography Compass 7(3): 239-248.
Burnham, M., C. Radel, Z. Ma, and A. Laudati. 2013. Extending a geographic lens
towards climate justice, part 2: Climate action. Geography Compass 7(3): 228-238.
Larsen, G. and F. Daviet. 2012. Safeguarding forests and people: A framework for
designing a national system to implement REDD+ safeguards. World Resources
Institute.
Marino, E. and J. Ribot. 2012. Special Issue Introduction: Adding insult to injury: Climate
change and the inequities of climate intervention. Global Environmental Change. 22:
323–328.
McDermott, C. et al. 2012. Operationalizing social safeguards in REDD+: Actors,
interests and ideas. Environmental Science & Policy. 21: 63-72.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Meridian Institute. 2009. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation (REDD): An Options Assessment Report. (http://www.reddoar.org/links/REDD-OAR_en.pdf)
Moss, N. and Nussbaum, R. 2011. A Review of Three REDD+ Safeguard Initiatives. FAO,
UNDP, UNEP.
Roe, S., Streck, C., Pritchard, L. and Costenbader, J. 2013. Safeguards in REDD+ and
forest carbon standards: A review of social, environmental and procedural concepts and
application. Climatefocus.
(http://www.climatefocus.com/documents/files/safeguards.pdf)
Sikor, T. and N. Tan. REDD+ Safeguards for Vietnam: Key Issues and the Way Forward.
RECOFTC.
United Nations. 2009. Climate Justice For A Changing Planet: A Primer For Policy Makers
And Ngos.
Visseren-Hamakers, I., et al. 2012. Trade-offs, co-benefits and safeguards: Current
debates on the breadth of REDD+. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,
4:646–653.
Williams, Paula. n.d. REDD+ social and Environmental soundness: A key element in USG
REDD+ Strategy. Forest Carbon, Markets and Communities (FCMC) Program, USAID.
(http://www.fcmcglobal.org/documents/bangkok/REDD_SES_Overview.pdf)
WOCAN. 2013. Women’s Carbon Standard (WCS). (http://www.genderclimate.org/Content/Docs/Publications/wocan_womens-carbon-standard.pdf)