REDD+ safeguards

implementation in Peru:
Case analysis of the FCPF,
FIP and Joint Declaration
of Intent with Norway and
Germany.
REDD+ safeguards
implementation in Peru:
Case analysis of the FCPF,
FIP and Joint Declaration
of Intent with Norway and
Germany.
Climate
Governance
Integrity
Program.
PROÉTICA Consejo Nacional para la Ética Pública
(Capítulo Peruano de Transparency International)
Teléfonos: (511) 446 8941, 446 8943
Telefax: (511) 446 8581
Correo electrónico: proetica@proetica.org.pe
Manco Cápac 826, Lima 18 – PERÚ
www.proetica.org.pe
www.transparency.org
facebook.com/ProeticaPeru
twitter.com/ProeticaPeru

Responsible Team for the Publication:

General Edition – Magaly Avila.
Author – Cecilia Tacusi Oblitas.
Design and layout – Manu Mercado.
Photography – Institutional Archive.

First Edition, May 2016

With the support of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature
Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety
Index.

ACRONYMS 2
Executive Summary 3
1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK 4
1.1 Good Governance 4
1.2 REDD+ Mechanism 5
1.3 Safeguards 6
2. INTERNATIONAL REDD+ FUNDS: FCPF, FIP. 8
2.1 2.Forest Carbon Partnership Facility - FCPF 8
2.1.1 FCPF Governance Structure 8
2.1.2 FCPF Readiness Fund 9
2.1.3 FCPF Carbon Fund 10
2.2.1 Forest Investment Fund-FIP 11
2.2.1 FIP Governance structure 12
2.2.2 MDB Joint Missions 12
2.2.3 FIP Investment Strategy 12
2.2.4 Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (DGM) 13
2.3 Safeguards Common Approach 14
3. INTERNATIONAL FUNDS, SAFEGUARD AND GOOD GOVERNANCE 15
4. IMPLEMENTATION OF REDD+ SAFEGUARDS IN PERU 17
4.1 Background on climate funds 17
4.2 Safeguards: Financing and coordination of processes 17
4.3 Safeguards of the R-PP, ER-PIN, PI-FIP documents and the JDI with Norway and Germany 21
4.3.1. FCPF 21
4.3.1.1 Safeguards in the R-PP 21
4.3.1.2 Safeguards in the ER-PIN 22
4.3.2 FIP 23
4.3.2.1 PI-FIP Safeguards 23
4.3.3 Joint Declaration of Intent with Norway and Germany 23
4.3.3.1 Safeguards in the JDI with Norway and Germany 23
5. HOW THE LACK OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFEGUARDS AFFECTS THE GOOD GOVERNANCE? 23
6. CONCLUSIONS 24
7. RECOMMENDATIONS 25
8. ANNEX 26
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY 27

1
Acronyms.

AIDESEP Asociación Interétnica de Desarrollo de la Selva Peruana

AU Administrative Unit
CGR National Audit Office
CIF Climate Investment Fund
CONAP Confederación de Nacionalidades Amazónicas del Perú
COP Conference of the Parties
CS Civil Society
DGM Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities
DP Ombudsman Office
ERP Emission Reduction Program
ER-PA Emission Reduction Payment Agreement
ER-PIN Emission Reduction Program Idea Note
ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework
FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
FIP Forest Investment Program
FMT Fund Management Team
GEF Global Environment Facility
GHG Green House Gases
GORE Regional government
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
JDI Joint Declaration of Intent between the Government of the Republic of Peru, the Government
of the Kingdom of Norway and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
MDB Multilateral Development Banks
MEF Ministry of Economy and Finances
MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation
MINAM Ministry of Environment
MRREE Ministry of Foreign Affairs
MRV Measuring, Reporting and Verification
NEA National Executing Agencies
NRS National REDD+ Strategy
PNCB National Forest Conservation and Climate Change Program
OP Operational Policy
PC Participants Committee
PIA Stakeholders Involvement Plan
PI-FIP FIP’s Investment Plan
REDD+ Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
R-PP Readiness Preparation Proposal
SESA Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment
SINEA National Assessment System of Environmental Impacts
SIS Safeguards Information System
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNPFII Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues of the United Nations
VIC Vice Ministry of Culture
WB World Bank

2
Executive Summary.
This document aims to assess the status of implementation of REDD+
safeguards in Peru. The methodology used was the comparison of the
Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) safeguards standards with the
safeguards developed by the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s (FCPF)
R-PP and ER-PIN documents, the Investment Plan of the Forest
Investment Program (FIP) and the Joint Declaration of Intent with
Norway and Germany (JDI). First, the term safeguards was
conceptualized at an international level, then following the model of S.Roe
and his collaborators the Cancun safeguards were classified following
environmental, social and procedural criteria. Finally the safeguards
internationally understood as part of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were identified, then the
safeguards of the MDB, the operational policies, were identified and last
the climate funds like the FCPF and FIP instruments for "viable"
safeguards such as the Environmental and Social Strategic Assessment
(SESA), the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF)
and the Stakeholders Involvement Plan (PIA) were identified.
The first section explains the conceptual framework of the forest
governance terms, the REDD+ mechanism and safeguards.
The second section describes the international REDD+ funds like the
FCPF and FIP, their implementation guidelines, internal procedures and
governance structures.
The third section explains the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs)
safeguards and the common approach to be taken by governments as a
framework to implement REDD+. In addition, it explains how the
safeguards and internal procedures of the MDB funds articulate with the
promotion of good governance.
The fourth section explains the context of REDD+ the preparation in the
country. In addition funding for safeguards issues, FCPF and FIP funds
information processes and participation as well as the interaction of these
processes is analyzed. Likewise, the safeguards presented so far by Peru in
the various REDD+ funds documents from the FCPF, FIP and the JDI
made between 2013 and 2014 are analyzed. The safeguards concept made
in the documents as well as the funds’ instruments to make them viable are
analyzed, processes interactions, consistency in the implementation and
inclusion of progress at regional level on the issue of safeguards is analyzed
too.
The fifth section highlights how the lack of implementation of safeguards
instruments and procedures supports the development of corruption risks
scenarios.
After analyzing the various documents submitted by Peru to the
Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to receive REDD+
implementation funding, it is concluded that the safeguards conceptual
frameworks from the FCPF and FIP and the guidelines of the Strategic
Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) and of the Environmental
and Social Management Framework (ESMF) are very general and not
necessarily promote a robust assessment of social and environmental
impacts. This occurs even though the MDB has guidelines to promote
implementation tools and procedures to identify and assess
environmental risks and to promote the full and effective participation,
transparency and access to information.
The documents reviewed like the R-PP and ER-PIN do not include the
progress made at the regional level on safeguards as well as the future
active involvement of regional governments (GOREs) in REDD+
processes.
Both documents - R-PP and PI-FIP - have budgets for different
components related to the safeguards ‘issue; however there is no planning
on the implementation of its components. What we find are different
documents with funding for the REDD+ readiness stage, but not
necessarily components linked to the issue of actors’ participation,
likewise the safeguards theme does not interact with the documents
although they have a national nature and were elaborated within two
years. This shows that there was an urgency to request for funds but it did
not necessarily included a national vision of the REDD+ readiness and
implementation processes.
The lack of planning and implementation of REDD+ funds’ safeguards
instruments are generating weak forest governance and thus likely
corruption risks scenarios, in this regard Proética suggests that there is a
risk structure that helps corruption: control weakness and sanctions
inefficiency; lack of transparency on resource management and
decision-making; and the precariousness of citizen oversight of public
resources.
Finally, the revisions to documents submitted by countries to the MDBs
to apply for funding need to be thorough and consistent with the
implementation reality of the country. Also participation plans as well as
the development of the funds safeguards instruments must be effective
and active. They should not be understood only as a schedule of national
and regional workshops, but should promote full and effective
participation of stakeholders and generate mechanisms for transparency
and accountability for the whole process.
3
1. Conceptual Framework.
1.1 Good Governance.

The concept of governance has evolved over time. One of the first approaches to
the concept(1) was based on the way a company is managed and in which
priorities and interests are identified on the basis of consensus involving a
variety of actors. To this it was added that governance could be limited by the
way the State provides services, taking into consideration how officials and
public entities obtain and exercise power and authority to identify public
policies and provide goods and public services.

With the passage of time, the operational limits of the concept governance
started to be discussed. In the face of this came the "good governance", which is
easier to understand from its principles: Rule of law; Transparency and access
to information; Accountability; Respect for rights; Participation/inclusiveness;
Performance/effectiveness; Consensus seeking; Capacity; Anti-corruption;
Gender equality(2) .

The principles of good governance are important for a country to "govern", or

manage their REDD+ process, and it is an essential feature that contributes to
the sustainability of REDD+ initiatives. That is, good governance can create a
favorable environment to govern the REDD+ process successfully, helping to
ensure full and effective participation in decision-making, generating an image
of trust and integrity in management and in REDD+ funds management, and
promote justice, transparency and accountability during all stages of the
REDD+ initiative.

According to FAO(3), the concept of good forest governance has three pillars to
measure the degree of evaluation. The first pillar, political, legal, institutional
and regulatory frameworks, i.e. it encompasses the coherence of policy and
institutional forestry systems. The second pillar, planning and
decision-making, includes the level of transparency, accountability and process
integration on forest management. The third pillar, implementation,
enforcement and compliance, encompasses the level of implementation of
political, legal, institutional and regulatory frameworks. It also considers the
levels of effectiveness, equity and efficiency of implementation.

(1) FAO 2007, Buena gobernanza en la tenencia y la administración de tierras. (2) Academia REDD+. Capitulo 12: Buena Gobernanza. Programa ONU-REDD+.
(3) FAO 2011, Marco para la evaluación y seguimiento de la gobernanza forestal.

4
Table 1: Governance Pillars and Principles.
Responsability
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Political, legal,
institutional and
Impartiality/equity regulatory
Frameworks
Participation
Transparency
Therefore, for this study the term good forest governance is considered
as the efficient and effective management of natural, human and financial
resources, with a fair and equitable redistribution of resources and benefits
identified with full and effective participation and transparent processes.
1.2 REDD+ Mechanism
During the 11th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP11) of the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
in 2005, countries Papua Guinea and Costa Rica, on behalf of Tropical
Forest Nations, presented an initiative for reducing GHG emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation in less developed countries (REDD).
The proposal was received by the parties, who agreed to initiate a two-year
process for its design.
During the 13th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 13), in
2007, in the city of Bali, a lot of parties expressed interest in the REDD
proposal and elaborated the "Bali Action Plan", this indicated that the
parties support the capacity building and technical assistance, facilitate the
transfer of technology to improve, inter alia, data collection, estimation of
emissions from deforestation and forests degradation, monitoring and
reporting and address the institutional needs of developing countries to
estimate and reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
In the following years, the REDD theme was very dynamic at the
UNFCCC negotiations, switching to the REDD+ term which implies
conservation and an increased capture of CO2, forests sustainable
management and enhancement of forest carbon.
(4) CMNUCC 2010, Decisión. 1/CP.16 Acuerdos de Cancún: resultado de la labor del Grupo de Trabajo Especial sobre la cooperación a largo plazo en el marco de la Convención. Decisión 1/CP.16 Acuerdos de Cancún: resultado
de la labor del Grupo de Trabajo Especial sobre la cooperación a largo plazo en el marco de la Convención. C) Enfoques de política e incentivos positivos para las cuestiones relativas a la reducción de las emisiones debidas a la
deforestación y la degradación forestal en los países en desarrollo; y función de la conservación, la gestión sostenible de los bosques y el aumento de las reservas forestales de carbono en los países en desarrollo. En:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/spa/07a01s.pdf
Planning and Implementation
decision making and Application
processes
Source: FAO, 2011
One of the milestones in the UNFCCC negotiations took place in 2010,
during the COP16 in Cancun, where the parties have agreed to define seven
safeguards of REDD+ as well as a methodological guide for implementing
REDD+. On safeguards, known as the "Cancun safeguards"(4) , these
address the following issues: a) Consistency with objectives of national
forest programs 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) The full and effective participation of relevant
stakeholders, in particular indigenous peoples and local communities; e)
Conservation of natural forests and biological diversity and enhancement
of other social and environmental benefits; f ) Actions to address the risks
of reversals; and g) Actions to reduce the displacement of emissions.
On the other hand, in the methodology of implementing REDD+, it was
encouraged that the parties consider a number of actions, identify options
and undertake activities; including demonstration activities, to address the
drivers of deforestation relevant to their national circumstances in order to
reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and thus
enhancing forest carbon stocks through sustainable forests management.
Furthermore, it was indicated that the REDD+ mechanism should develop
four elements:
1. A national REDD+ strategy or action plan
2. A national forest reference emission level
3. A forest Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) system
4. A Safeguards Information System (SIS)
5
 Additionally it was stated that REDD+ would have three phases for
developing countries, the first dedicated to the preparation of strategies;
the second dedicated to the implementation of strategies; and the third, to
payment by results of reducing GHG emissions.
To this we must add that during the COP19 in 2013, in the city of
Warsaw, several decisions on REDD+ were taken, this is known as "the
Warsaw framework for REDD+". Some of the most important points
are(5): 1) Countries should ensure that REDD+ activities, regardless of the
source and type of financing, are implemented consistently with the
safeguards adopted by the COP16 (the "Cancun safeguards"); and 2)
Countries should develop a system to provide information on how the
Cancun safeguards are addressed and respected. It was also agreed that
developing countries requesting and obtaining results-based payments for
REDD+ activities must provide the summary of the latest information on
how safeguards have been addressed and respected in the context of
results-based payments.
1.3 Safeguards.
In 2010 at the Conference of the Parties (COP16) of the UNFCCC in
Cancun, decisions were made to define the policy guidelines and
procedures for REDD+. One of the most important issues were the
REDD+ safeguards, defined as policies and procedures aimed to prevent
and protect against unwanted REDD+ preparation and implementation
negative effects or social or environmental damage. In addition, seven
major REDD+ safeguards were decided(6):
1. That actions complement or are consistent with the objectives of
national forest programs and relevant international conventions and
agreements;
5. That actions are consistent with the conservation of natural forests
and biological diversity, ensuring that the actions referred to in paragraph
70 of this decision are not used for the conversion of natural forests, but are
instead used to incentivize the protection and conservation of natural
forests and their ecosystem services, and to enhance other social and
environmental benefits;
6. Actions to address the risks of reversals;
7. Actions to reduce displacement of emissions.
Under the guidance of the Cancun safeguards, the various funds of the
Multilateral Development Banks (MDB) that promote REDD+
mechanism, implemented their own instruments to make possible such
safeguards. Some of the tools are: Strategic Environmental and Social
Assessment (SESA); Environmental and Social Management Framework
(ESMF); and Stakeholder Involvement Plan (PIA), which will be
explained in the next chapter.
It is noted that the seven Cancun safeguards, address environmental
standards, social standards and procedural standards(7). We understand
environmental standards as the environmental risks related to
biodiversity, displacement of emissions, damage to ecosystems, etc.; by
social standards we have policies, programs and projects for land use and
forestry that involve many complex interrelations and social opportunities
and risks; and by procedures standards we understand the national and/or
subnational operation activities to the extent of decision-making in the
management of the forestry sector. For this study we classified the
UNFCCC safeguards as follows:

2. Transparent and effective national forest governance structures,

taking into account national legislation and sovereignty;

3. Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and

members of local communities, by taking into account relevant
international obligations, national circumstances and laws, and noting that
the United Nations General Assembly has adopted the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;

4. The full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in

particular indigenous peoples and local communities;

(5) CMNUCC, 2014. Informe de la Conferencia de las Partes sobre 19° periodo de sesiones, celebrado en Varsovia del 11 al 23 de noviembre de 2013. Decisión 9/CP.19 Decisión 12/CP.19
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/spa/10a01s.pdf (6) CMNUCC 2010, Decisión. 1/CP.16 Acuerdos de Cancún: resultado de la labor del Grupo de Trabajo Especial sobre la cooperación a largo plazo en el marco de la
Convención. Decisión 1/CP.16 Acuerdos de Cancún: resultado de la labor del Grupo de Trabajo Especial sobre la cooperación a largo plazo en el marco de la Convención. C) Enfoques de política e incentivos positivos para las
cuestiones relativas a la reducción de las emisiones debidas a la deforestación y la degradación forestal en los países en desarrollo; y función de la conservación, la gestión sostenible de los bosques y el aumento de las reservas
forestales. (7) S.Roe, C.Streck, L.Pritchard, J.Costenbader 2013, Safeguards in REDD+ and Forest Carbon Standards: A review of social, environmental and procedural concepts and application. Climate Focus. 6
Table 2: Cancun Safeguards Classification.

Criteria Classification

Environmental criteria Conservation of natural forests and biological diversity and

increasing other social and environmental benefits
Actions to address the risks of reversals
Actions to reduce displacement of emissions

Social criteria Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous

peoples and members of local communities

Procedural criteria Consistency of the objectives of national forest programs and

relevant international conventions and agreements

Transparent and effective national forest governance structures

A full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, especially
indigenous peoples and local communities

Source: Prepared by the author based on CMNUCC, 2010

On the other hand, in the implementation framework of the Forestry Governance and REDD+ Project from the Climate Governance Program developed
by Proética, the procedure standards will be the main elements that will help analyze the documents prepared for the FCPF and FIP funds, and the JDI with
Norway and Germany as they are linked to the evaluation of good governance understood as an efficient and effective management of natural, human and
financial resources and with a fair and equitable redistribution of resources and benefits(8). In the absence of good governance this would be a favorable
environment for the emergence of corruption risks scenarios.

(8) Organización de la Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO). 2011. Marco para la evaluación y seguimiento de la gobernanza forestal.

7
2. International Redd+ Funds: FCPF, FIP.
The following chapters are a description of the main REDD+ funds in 2.1.1 FCPF Governance Structure.
which Peru participates. Each of the funds has its own guidelines for
implementation, governance structures and internal procedures for the The governance structure of the FCPF(12) has different spaces for the
approval of the documents submitted by countries wishing to receive review and approval of documents and decision making.
funds. In this chapter we seek to understand the internal dynamics of the
funds and how their lines of work are linked to the promotion of good • Fund Management Team (FMT).- The World Bank staff group that
governance. coordinates and oversees the work of the FCPF.

• Participants Committee (PC). - It is the governing body of the FCPF,

2.1 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility - FCPF.
The FCPF was born in 2008 as an initiative of international funds from
multilateral banks and the industrialized countries of the UNFCCC(9),
developed countries provide money to the fund voluntarily.
The FCPF supports countries with tropical and subtropical forests to
develop systems and policies leading to reduce GHG emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation, conservation of forest carbon stocks,
sustainable management of forests and enhancing forest stocks (REDD+).
The strategic objectives of the FCPF are as follows(10):
• Support countries prepare for REDD+.
• Pilot mechanism of result-based payments (fair and according to the
scale).
• New ways to improve livelihoods and preserve biodiversity.
• Dissemination of lessons learned.
The FCPF is related to the UNFCCC as it is aligned with the policy
guidelines that emerge in this space. It also provides information to the
UNFCCC negotiations through.
The FCPF is related to the UNFCCC as it is aligned with the policy
guidelines that emerge in this space. It also provides information to the
UNFCCC negotiations through the implementation of REDD+ in
member countries. But especially the FCPF has an expiration year that is
2020 since for that date the Green Climate Fund will become
operational(11).
takes decisions of the important aspects of the preparation process, as well
as the approval of the FCPF annual budget. It is composed of an equal
number of countries (REDD+) with tropical forests (14) and financial
donors (14); it includes observers representing indigenous peoples, civil
society, international organizations, UN-REDD Programme, the
Secretariat of the UNFCCC and the private sector. The Participants
Committee is the main decision-making body of the FCPF.
• Participants Assembly.- The assembly includes all REDD+ countries,
provide advice to the Participants Committee, it has the task of choosing
those who will be part of the PC. The Participants Assembly meets twice a
year. Currently, the PC has 28 members (including the countries
participating in the FCPF, financial contributors, six observers(13),
international organizations and the World Bank).
• Observers.- The FCPF authorize the participation of observers of
forest-dependent indigenous peoples and other forest dwellers, NGOs, the
private sector and international organizations. The UNFCCC and the
Secretariat of the UN-REDD Programme also participate.
The World Bank has a trustee body role for the Readiness Fund and the
Carbon Fund. It also provides secretarial services as well as
implementation of the FCPF, through technical support for REDD+
participating countries and conducting due process regarding fiduciary
policies and environmental and social safeguards. While the trust entity is
the World Bank, there is the figure of an implementing partner; this means
that each member country should have an implementing partner, which
can be the UNDP, IDB and WB, that will be responsible for supporting the
implementation in those countries.

Currently more than 40 countries participate in the FCPF. It is noted

that of the three phases of REDD+ mentioned in the previous chapter, this
fund participates in Phase I of "preparation" and phase III of "result-based
payments".

The following chart picture the governance structure of the FCPF.

(9)FCPF. 2013a. Guía para el marco de Evaluación de la Preparación del FCPF. Link: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/July2013/FCPC%20framework%207-25-13%20SPA%20web.pdf. (10)FCPF
2014a, Introducción al FCPF y a la Inclusión Social en el Contexto de la Preparación para REDD+ y Mas Allá. Del 20 al 24 de enero 2014. Guatemala. En: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/January
/1.e.%20Presentaci%C3%B3n-Introducci%C3%B3n-FCPF%26Inclusi%C3%B3n-Social.pdf (11)CMNUCC.2010. Informe de la Conferencia de las Partes sobre su 16º período de sesiones, celebrado en Cancún del 29 de noviembre
al 10 de diciembre de 2010. Link http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/spa/07a01s.pdf . (12) IBRC.2010.Charter Establishing The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/
sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Sep2010/FCPF_Charter-August_2010_clean.pdf (13) Los observadores de sociedad civil y pueblos indígenas son elegidos mediante una votación entre dichas organizaciones 8
en América Latina, Norte, África y Asia.
Table 3: FCPF Governance Structure.
Fund Management Team (FMT)
Trustee (World Bank)
Executors Partners
To reach its objectives, the FCPF has two funds: the Readiness Fund
and the Carbon Fund. Each of the funds has requirements that are
requested to the member countries to access financing. Next we explain in
detail each of the FCPF funds.
2.1.2 FCPF Readiness Fund.
This fund seeks to prepare countries in the FCPF framework. The first
step that countries must follow to apply for the FCPF is to present the
R-PIN document, this document indicates the intention of the country to
belong to the fund. After the approval of the R-PIN by the Participants
Committee (PC), the preparation grant agreement of USD 200 000 for
the preparation of the R-PP is signed. Thus, the country has the task of
developing the R-PP document indicating in detail how the country will
prepare itself according to the following six components(14):
1. Organization and consultation.
2. Preparation of the REDD+ Strategy.
3. Carry out a national forest reference emission level or a national
forest reference.
4. Design a national forest monitoring and safeguards information
system.
5. Schedule and Budget.
6. Designing a framework for program monitoring and evaluation.
(14) FCPF.2013a. Guía para el marco de Evaluación de la Preparación del FCPF. En: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/July2013/FCPC%20framework%207-25-13%20SPA%20web.pdf.
(15) Ibid 6
Participants Assembly (PC), including
Indigenous Peoples and Civil Society
Organizations observers
Technical Advisory Panel (TAP)
Participants Committee (PC),
including Indigenous Peoples and Civil
Society Organizations observers
Readiness Fund Carbon Fund
-44 countries -6 countries
-Donations And technical assistance - Payment for verified emission
reductions
World Bank
Inter-American Development Bank
United Nations Development
Source: FCPF, 2014a
The elaboration of the R-PP requires the involvement of different
actors like civil society, indigenous peoples and private sector. After
elaborating the R-PP, the document is sent to the Technical Secretariat
(FMT) of the FCPF(15), who evaluates it. This step usually happens before
meetings of the PC. It should be noted that although the R-PP is assessed
by the FMT, the country must attend the meeting of the PC and submit the
document to all members and observers. At that meeting, donor countries
and observers from civil society and indigenous peoples have an appeal
framework and they also make comments on the PC document both in
plenary and working groups with members of the participants’ assembly.
Then each presented R-PP has a resolution from the FMT, where it is
indicated the terms of the evaluation and comments made by members of
the participant’s assembly. Furthermore it indicates whether any
disbursement for the implementation of R-PP was granted.
Once the R-PP approved by the FMT, the country must implement it
nationally. At the same time the implementing partner is chosen and the
signing of the grant agreement for the country is done, most member
countries ask for USD 3.8 million. The result of the implementation of the
R-PP is the National REDD+ Strategy; this stage is known as R-Package,
which includes the elements of the REDD+ strategy, the implementation
of legal or institutional frameworks, MRV system, the reference level and
safeguards. As a way to inform the country must submit the Progress
Report Midterm R-PP to the FMT. The approval of the R-Package by the
FCPF means that the country has sufficient preparation for the
implementation of REDD+ programs and is allowed into the mechanism
of the Carbon Fund.
The following graphic explains the process of the readiness fund.
9
Table 4: Readiness Fund Mechanism.

Consultation and Participation, SESA/ ESMF and MAR

The Carbon Grant Document The Preparation Package

Agreement must be of Ideas for Emission must be endorsed by the
signed before a R-PP Emissions Reduction PC before the Document
Document of Ideas for Mid-Term Reduction Readiness of Emission Reduction
Package Program
R-PP Emissions Reduction Progress Program Program is under
Document
Program (ER-PIN) is Report (ER-PIN) consideration by the
under consideration by Carbon Fund
the Carbon Fund

Program Milestones

Legal Agreements

Readiness Supplementary
ERPA
Donation Donation
($30-50M)
Agreement Agreement
($200K) ($3.6M)

R-PP Formulation REDD+ Readiness REDD+ Implementation

Source: FCPF, 2014a

The FCPF Readiness Fund has implementation guides and several steps
and filters that can make the disbursement take time, sometimes years. An
example is the case of Peru, who presented his R-PP in 2010 but given the
different comments and internal FMT processes, only on the 24th of
February 2014 the FCPF accepted the document.
2.1.3 FCPF Carbon Fund.
This fund started its function in 2011 and aims to implement REDD+
programs through positive incentives(16). Compared to the preparation
fund, here only six countries would be accepted since the amount for
payment of GHG reduction can be up to USD 50 million to each country.
Financing countries of this fund are Australia, Canada, Germany, Norway,
Switzerland, England and the United States.
Countries that want to participate in this fund, after the Midterm Report
of the Preparation Fund must submit an ER-PIN, document containing the
proposed Emissions Reduction Program (RE programs). The evaluation
criteria for RE programs are as follows(17):
• Focus on results, GHG emissions reduction should be sustainable
and high quality, including social and environmental benefits.
• Implementation scale (if national or regional).
• Consistency with emerging compliance standards under the
UNFCCC.
• Diversity.
• Clear mechanisms for REDD+ incentives to reach those in need.
• Transparent consultation with involved stakeholders.
After RE programs are implemented, the country is going to sign
payment contracts for emissions, called ER-PA. So far it is not defined if
payment for reducing GHG emissions will be agreed with the country or if
the FCPF will have a fixed price for all member countries. It is noted that the
countries that apply to the Carbon Fund, have previously participated and
met the requirements of the Readiness Fund.
The following chart explains the stages of the readiness fund and carbon
fund.

(16) FCPF 2013a, Marco Metodológico del Fondo de Carbono del FCPF. Versión final fecha 20 de diciembre del 2013.En link:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/July/Marco%20methodol%C3%B3gico%20del%20Fondo%20del%20Carbono%20%20del%20Fondo%20Cooperativo%20para%20el%20Carbono
%20de%20los%20Bosques%20version%20final%2012%202013%20(updated%20July30%202014).pdf (17) Ibid 11
10
Table 5: Readiness Fund And Carbon Fund Mechanism.

R-Package must be
endorsed by the PC before
and ER Program is
Midterm submitted and an ERPA is
Readiness Fund R-PP R-Package
Progress signed
Assessment Endorsement
Report

R-PP Formulation Readiness Preparation Implementation

Emissions Signature of
Emissions Emission
Reductions Reductions
Carbon Fund Program Idea Reductions
Program Payment
Note Document
(ER-PIN) Agreement
(ERPD) (ERPA) Source: FCPF, 2013b

Although the mechanisms of the FCPF, both the Carbon Fund and the
Readiness Fund, are carefully explained, the effectiveness as well as the
order of the steps are not necessarily respected in practice. An example of
this is the case of Peru, that despite not having an implementing
partner-country signed donation and therefore a midcourse report, applied
to the Carbon Fund, presenting in the first half of 2014 an Emission
Reduction Program Idea Note (ER-PIN) and it being accepted in October
2014(18).
2.2.- Forest Investment Fund-FIP.
The FIP selects pilot countries based on the following criteria(20):
1. Potential to lead to significantly reduced greenhouse gas
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation or lead to
further efforts to conserve, sustainably manage or enhance forest
carbon stocks whilst protecting biodiversity and supporting rural
livelihoods;
2. Potential to contribute to FIP objectives and adherence to FIP
principles;

The Forest Investment Program (FIP) is a financing program and is part
of a set of initiatives from the Climate Investment Fund (CIF), approved by
the World Bank Board in 2007.
The FIP supports the main REDD+ efforts in developing countries to
reduce carbon emissions, deforestation and forest degradation. In addition,
it uses the definitions and terms related to forests and climate change in line
with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and
recognize the new vocabulary emerged from the UNFCCC process. The
objective of the FIP(19) is to finance institutional reforms that allow
countries institutional preparation to reduce carbon emissions,
deforestation and forest degradation. It also subsidizes public and private
investments linked to REDD+ as part of a National Investment Strategy.
3. Country preparedness and ability – institutional and otherwise –
to undertake REDD initiatives and to address key direct and
underlying drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, taking
into account government efforts to date and government
willingness to move to a strategic approach to REDD and to
integrate the role of forests into national sustainable
development;
4. Country distribution across regions and biomes, ensuring that
pilots generate lessons on how to go to scale with respect to: (i)
immediate action to curb high rates of deforestation and forest
degradation; (ii) conservation of existing forest carbon stocks
within primary forests (high forest, low deforestation countries);
(iii) enhancement of forest carbon stocks on degraded lands; and
(iv) building effective capacities for sustainable management of
forests.

(18) FCPF 2014c, Resolution Eleventh Carbon Fund Meeting. October 6-8. CFM/11/2014/3.Selection of Perú Emission Reductions Program Idea Note into the Pipeline En:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/october/Resolution%203%20Peru%20ER-PIN.pdf (19) CIF 2010, Directrices Operacionales del PInS. 29 de junio
del 2010. En: https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/FIP_Operational_Guidelines_final_spanish.pdf (20) CIF 2009, Documento Básico
para el Diseño del Programa de Inversión Forestal, de Carácter Selectivo, Creado al Amparo del Fondo Fiduciario del FEC. FIP. 7 de julio de 2009. En:
11
https://www-cif.climateinvestmentfunds.org/sites/default/files/meeting-documents/fip_design_document_july_final_spanish.pdf
 The FIP implementation(21) in each country is not arbitrary; It is
organized under a set of principles. An essential one is participation. The
FIP implementation should involve different stakeholders, participatory
processes should include civil society organizations, private sector, public
sector and potentially affected local communities (such as indigenous
peoples). In addition, processes must meet appropriate standards of
transparency, consultation, participation in decision-making and
monitoring of the agreements reached.
Besides the above principles, the FIP has the following criteria for
assessing the strategies, programs and FIP investment projects:
1. Potential mitigation of climate change
2. Consistency with the FIP objectives and principles
3. Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation
4. Inclusive processes and participation of key stakeholders, such as
indigenous peoples and local communities.
5. Demonstration effects
6. Management related to forests
7. Protecting the integrity of natural forests
8. Partnership with the private sector
9. Economic and financial viability
10. Development of implementation capacity
2.2.1. FIP Governance structure
The FIP has a governance structure that is based on the FIP
subcommittee, which is responsible for overseeing the operations and
activities of the program. The FIP subcommittee is made up of six
representatives of FIP donor countries and representatives of selected pilot
countries. In addition, the FIP subcommittee should invite observer’s
representatives of the UNFCCC, the Secretariat UN-REDD Programme,
the Global Environment Facility (GEF); and observers from civil society,
indigenous peoples and private sector.
While decisions are made by the members of the sub-committee, there is
a group of experts set up by the sub-committee, which makes
recommendations on the selection of pilot programs. Experts are individual
professionals chosen for their professional competence, experience in
strategy and operations; specialists are from industrialized countries and
developing countries.
(21) Ibid 14. (22) Ibid 14
2.2.2 MDB Joint Missions.
After the country accept to participate in the FIP, the MDB works with
the government preparing missions with the aim of supporting the country
in preparing a FIP forestry investment strategy. These actions are reported
to the CIF Administrative Unit.
For the preparation of the strategy countries can request the FIP up to
USD 250 000, which will be used to develop the strategy and consultations
with stakeholders and planning meetings. The Government and the MDBs
jointly prepare the terms of reference of the joint missions. Then the MDB
Committee reviews and approves the terms of reference, it shall contain the
names of the people who are part of the joint mission as well as the
preliminary schedule of meetings, consultations and travels. The CIF
administrative unit informs the FIP subcommittee of the joint mission with
one month's notice and terms of reference published on the website of the
CIF.
It is important to note that the Government is to lead and coordinate the
joint mission, it should promote the involvement of key public servants as
well as non-governmental organizations, indigenous peoples, private sector,
the FCPF, UN-REDD program and development agencies. The
Government shall prepare and approve the report of the joint mission,
which will be published on the CIF website.
On the other hand, the government should create a national steering
committee that includes the interested public sector, provincial and local
authorities, indigenous peoples, NGOs and the private sector; in order to
strengthen the dynamics to support the identification of activities that can
contribute to the investment strategy.
The activities suggest the strategy should be linked with the activities of
other REDD+ initiatives such as the FCPF and UN-REDD+ program. This
is important because this fund seeks the articulation of the different
REDD+ processes in a country.
2.2.3 FIP Investment Strategy.
Once the proposed investment strategy is ready, it must be made
available to the public for consultation and formulating comments (at least
two weeks before it is sent to the Administrative Unit of the CIF). After
adoption of the investment strategy draft, the country's national committee
will send to the CIF Administrative Unit the final text of the investment
strategy.
The FIP subcommittee(22) will evaluate the forestry investment strategy
based on investment criteria like climate change mitigation potential,
demonstration potential at scale, costs-effectiveness, safeguards,
integration of sustainable development and implementation potential.
12
 The following are general guidelines and annexes for the drafting of the 2.2.4 Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and
investment strategy. Local Communities (DGM)

• Section 1: Description of the country and sector context
• Section 2: Identification of opportunities for greenhouse gas
abatement.
• Section 3: Enabling Policy and Regulatory environment.
• Section 4: Expected co-benefits from FIP investment.
• Section 5: Collaboration among MDBs and with other partners.
• Section 6: Identification and rationale for projects and programs
to be co-finance by FIP.
• Section 7: Implementation Potential with Risk Assessment
• Section 8: Financing Plan and instruments
Annexes
The Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Local
Communities(23) known as the DGM is a FIP initiative designed by a
working group of indigenous peoples and local communities with the
support of the CIF Administrative Unit (AU). The DGM objective is to
support with donations the indigenous peoples and local communities in
FIP pilot countries for their participation in the development of FIP
investment strategies, programs and projects.
The initial design of the DGM was presented at the Permanent Forum
on Indigenous Issues of the United Nations (UNPFII) in 2010, after several
international meetings were held with the participation of national
indigenous organizations from FIP pilots countries to discuss the principles
and content of the DGM. It was agreed that the total amount for the DGM
would be USD 50 million, distributed as follows:

Annex 1. The proposed project and program pipeline, including the

notional FIP resource allocation, an estimate of resources that would be
Table 6: DGM budget.
leveraged, projections of potential carbon emissions reductions from both,
the co-financed portfolio as well as the larger transformational impact and Brazil 6.5 millions of dollars
other results indicators.
Indonesia 6.5 millions of dollars
Annex 2. A stakeholder involvement plan which presents an assessment Democratic Republic of Congo 6. 5 millions of dollars
of the relevant stakeholder groups in the pilot and how these groups have
been involved in the design and will be involved in the implementation of México 6. 5 millions of dollars
the Investment Strategy and related projects and programs. Ghana 5.5 millions of dollars

Annex 3. Information on how funding from the Dedicated Grant Perú 5.5 millions of dollars
Mechanisms for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities will be part of
Burkina Faso 4.5 millions of dollars
the Investment Strategy.
Democratic Republic of Lao 4.5 millions of dollars
Annex 4. FCPF/UNREDD Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PPs),
Global component 5 millions of dollars
National REDD+ Strategy, Action Plan or equivalent (if available)
Source: Prepared by the author based on CIF, 2012
Annex 5. Voluntary review of the country investment strategy by an
expert or a peer review group (if available). The DGM will implement projects and programs led by national
governments, in countries where the FIP is present. The DGM will have a
global component, operated by the World Bank, which will serve as a
platform for experience and knowledge sharing. The national executing
agencies (NEA) present in the eight countries will support donations
provided to indigenous organizations that themselves will choose in
accordance with the framework of the DGM, as well as activities and
capacity building for indigenous organizations.

The following graphic explains the architecture of the Dedicated Grant

Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.

(23) CIF 2012, Directrices Operacionales del Marco de Trabajo. Mecanismo de Donación Específico para Pueblos Indígenas y Comunidades Locales. FIP. En:
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/13-09-12DGMGuidelines-Final_ES.pdf

13
Table 7: DGM Architecture.
CIF AU FIP Sub-comittee

Trustee

World Bank DGM Team World Bank in FIP country

Leader

Global Steering Comitee National Steering Comitee

National Executing Agency

Global Executing Agency
in FIP country

Knowledge exchange/build regional & global Grantees-indigenous Peoples and local

networks of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in FIP Country
communities

Resource Flow
Reporting on DGM Project
Supervision
IInformation & Coordination Source: CIF, 2012

2.3 Safeguards Common Approach.

In 2011, taking into consideration that there were various implementing partners in FCPF member countries, the common approach to environmental
and social safeguards for multiple executing partners mostly known as "Common Approach"(24) was created. This provides a common basis for risk
management as well as ensures quality in the process of preparing REDD+ and takes the WB safeguards as the minimum acceptable.

The common approach applies when an implementing partner signs a transfer agreement with the country. Per example, if the IDB is the executor partner
of Colombia the country applies its safeguard policies but if any of them were not very protective, the IDB applies the WB safeguard. This is called a
mechanism "to fill gaps".

On the other hand the application of the common approach includes the following four guidelines:

• The FCPF Guidelines and the generic Terms of Reference for the Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) and the Environmental
and Social Management Framework (ESMF) associated, fulfill the safeguard policies and relevant procedures of the WB.
• The FCPF / UN-REDD Guidelines on the Participation of Stakeholders Involved in the Preparation of REDD+.
• FCPF Guidelines on Disclosure of Information
• FCPF Guidelines on the Complaints Establishment and Repair Mechanisms at a country level.

The following chart shows the application of safeguards:

(24) FCPF 2012b, Enfoque común para las salvaguardas ambientales y sociales para los socios ejecutores múltiples. En
http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/Documents/tagged/Common_Approach_Fact_Sheet_SP_FINAL.pdf

14
Table 8: Application Of FCPF Safeguards.

R-PP R-Package
Readiness Fund Evaluation Backup

R-PP Formulation REDD+ Readiness Implementation

Emission Reduction Payment

Carbon Fund
Agreement (ER-PA)
Source: FCPF, 2012a

In conclusion, the safeguards aim to ensure that social and environmental issues are taken into account in a decision-making process in order to identify,
assess, prevent, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts. It is for this reason that safeguards should be present in the design, formulation and implementation
of programs and projects from the readiness and carbon funds. To this we must add that the FCPF safeguards do not replace countries national laws but they
support them through raising standards in the consultation and participation processes.

3. International Funds, Safeguard and Good Governance.

Internationally safeguards under the REDD+ frame, we have the
Cancun safeguards. The MDB that promotes the implementation of
REDD+ in developing countries, applies the trust partner and/or executing
partner safeguards for the country. This means that funds have as a guide the
Cancun safeguards but also they must apply safeguards from the MDB,
known as the implementation of operational policies for their projects
because safeguards from the MDB have no specific safeguards for REDD+.
An example of the MDBs safeguards is the World Bank (WB) trust fund
FCPF, which applies to FCPF projects the following operational policies:
Indigenous Peoples OP / BP 4.10, Involuntary Resettlement OP / BP 4.12,
Forests OP / BP4.36, Natural Habitats OP / BP 4.04 and Physical Cultural
Resources OP / BP 4.11
For its part, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) for FIP
financed projects it applies the following operational policies:
Environmental and Safeguards Compliance Policy OP-703, Disasters Risk
Management Policy OP-704, Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples
OP-765, Operational Policy on Gender Equality in Development OP-761,
Operational Policy on Involuntary Resettlement OP-710 and Access to
Information Policy OP-102, as well as sectorial policies on Rural
Development OP 752 and Forestry Development OP 723.
The common approach outlined above, indicates that when a country has
different implementing partners at the same time like the World Bank or
IDB, the safeguards that offers the best protection must be applied. This
means that the most robust operational protection policy for projects
financed by the FCPF and FIP will be chosen. In addition, countries should
implement the instruments to make possible the FCPF and FIP safeguards.
In the case of the FCPF(25) , it is the Strategic Environmental and Social
Assessment (SESA) and the Environmental and Social Management
Framework (ESMF). In the case of the FIP, there is the Stakeholder
Involvement Plan (PIA), according how we classified the Cancun
safeguards, these instruments have social and procedural criteria. The
following table indicates in which cases each of the instruments indicated
were used.

(25) FCPF 2013b, Guía para el marco de Evaluación de la Preparación del FCPF. En: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/July2013/FCPC%20framework%207-25-13%20SPA%20web.pdf

15
Table 9: FCPF And FIP Safeguards Instruments.
• Ensure the integration of environmental and social considerations in the formulation and implementation of REDD+
FCPF/SESA • That REDD + readiness activities under the FCPF comply with all applicable safeguards
• Help to identify and propose viable solutions to address the main causes of deforestation and degradation in the country
• It discusses the legal, regulatory and political system within which the REDD+ Strategy will be implemented
• Discusses potential environmental and social impacts of the REDD+ implementation strategy
FCPF/ESMF • It describes the mechanisms to manage these impacts and requirements for implementation
• It establishes the framework for the management of future projects, policies and activities through which a new version of the REDD+ strategy is implemented

• It is the instrument for the involvement and participation of stakeholders involved in the forestry sector during the design and
FCPF/PIA implementation of the FIP strategy.

Source: Prepared by author based on CIF, 2010 and FCPF, 2013a

The amounts of safeguards from the various funds, the bilateral agreements as well as the level of implementation are complex and it can cause confusion.
In the case of the UNFCCC safeguards these are a guiding framework for countries that must be reported by countries every two years. Instead, the FCPF and
FIP safeguards, which apply operating policies of the MDBs and their own instruments, are not reported to the UNFCCC but must be implemented for
countries to receive funding. Safeguards have different fulfillment targets (financing and international agreement), but all have social, environmental and
procedural criteria. Although each of the safeguards, operational policies and instruments aim to mitigate REDD+ actions effects it is necessary to link the
procedures and mechanisms to promote good governance following the lines of transparency, accountability, information, active participation of actors, etc.
The following table shows the different Cancun safeguards and MDB safeguards.

Table 10: Safeguards.

CMNUCC

Cancun Safeguards

GOOD GOVERNANCE
MBD
World Bank, Inter-American Operational Policies
Development Bank

International Funds Source: Prepared by

author based on CMNUCC,
FCPF, FIP SESA, ESMF, PIA 2010; FCPF, 2013a and
FCPF, 2012b.

As we described above, both the FCPF and FIP have internal procedures that follow the logic of a sequential order and promote good governance. The
documents to be submitted to the funds like the R-PP, ER-PIN and FIP Forest Investment Strategy require transparency, participation, information,
different stakeholders involvement and consultation mechanisms. Also, the instruments that make the FCPF safeguards possible such as the SESA and
ESMF seek permanent dialogue between the parties to identify and seek solutions to the potential impacts of REDD+ actions in the country. Meanwhile, the
PIA seeks a permanent mechanism for active participation in the design and implementation of the projects identified by the FIP Forest Investment Strategy.
In addition, both the FCPF and FIP have as part of their governance structures observers from civil society, private sector and indigenous peoples who can
inform the FIP subcommittee on the implementation of the activities of the funds in their countries. All the funds mechanisms and processes described aim
to promote good governance while implementing the fund components and projects. But if these mechanisms are not monitored and examined exhaustively
they could cause expectations and/or promises that in the short run could not be fulfilled. Besides an absence or weakness in monitoring safeguards
mechanisms and instruments could generate possible scenarios of corruption, because there is no information on the decision-making processes as well as on
the active participation of stakeholder.

(5) CIF 2012, Directrices Operacionales del Marco de Trabajo. Mecanismo de Donación Específico para Pueblos Indígenas y Comunidades Locales. FIP. En:
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/13-09-12DGMGuidelines-Final_ES.pdf

16
4. Implementation of REDD+
Safeguards In Peru.
As we have mentioned Peru participates in the REDD+ funds since 2008
and over the years it has participated simultaneously in the preparation of
four documents for two funds and a bilateral agreement. The documents to
request funding from REDD+ funds were prepared between 2013 and 2014,
and they should be articulated, be consistent in its implementation and
include the progress made at a regional level on the subject of safeguards as
it is mentioned in various implementation guides and guidelines of the
international funds.
This section analyzes the context of climate funds, and explains the
flagship projects for the public sector held by MINAM for the start of
REDD+ preparation. Then it analyzes the financing and schedules set out in
the R-PP, ER-PIN, PI-FIP and JDI with Norway and Germany documents.
This is to finally present a comparison of R-PP, ER-PIN, PI-FIP and JDI
with Norway and Germany safeguards through the variables of
international safeguards, national legislation and safeguards instruments.
4.1 Background on climate funds.
Peru began in 2008 the preparation of the R-PP for the FCPF, this
process involved the participation of civil society, through members of the
REDD+ Group. In March 2011 Peru presented the R-PP for the amount of
USD 3.6 million to the FCPF Participants Committee, who made
remarks(26) that the State should remedy for approval. During the years
2012 and 2013 the R-PP was updated, there was an attempt to make a
process of socialization of the R-PP new version in July 2013 during the
Forest Investment Plan workshop but it did not take place as indigenous
organizations AIDESEP and CONAP withdrew from the PI-FIP
participatory process(27).
In late December of that year, the MINAM convened a meeting for the
presentation of the R-PP newest version for the amount of USD 3.8 million,
this version was finally presented on December 31 2013, deadline for the
FCPF participating countries. Finally, the FCPF R-PP approval was given
on February 24, 2014.
As we have described, the R-PP process took several years, but this did
not mean that Peru did not agree to funding for the preparation stage of
REDD+. In those early years the KFW(28)- Support for the
Implementation of REDD+ in Peru was emblematic. This project had five
components: 1) support the implementation of the levels approach; 2)
creating a national registry for REDD+; 3) support the development of
standardized methodological frameworks for reference scenarios and
MRV; 4) funding for the development of regional reference scenarios; and
5) support the development of REDD+ financial and economic
mechanisms.
(26) El Gobierno llegó a acuerdos con AIDESEP. (27) AIDESEP CONAP 2013, Acta de los pueblos indígenas amazónicos de la mala convocatoria de reunión de la socialización regional de los
avances en el diseño del Plan de Inversión. Yurimaguas 10 julio 2013. (28) KFW MINAM 2010, Informe final. Apoyo a la implementación de REDD+ en el Perú. Documento proyecto REDD+.
En: http://cambioclimatico.minam.gob.pe/documento-proyecto-kfw-apoyo-a-la-implementacion-de-redd-en-el-peru
Another flagship project was the Moore project, called "Strengthening
technical, scientific and Institutional capacities for the Implementation of
REDD in Peru", its purpose was to contribute to the preparation phase of
the country: 1) reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and
forest degradation; 2) reducing the loss of biodiversity and poverty
reduction resulting from deforestation and forest degradation through
capacity building at a national and sub national level for the design,
implementation, monitoring, verification and reporting of strategies and
forest conservation mechanisms. In 2011, the KFW and Moore projects
merge and are now called REDD+ MINAM Project, which to date remains
in operation.
Although the flagship projects from the international cooperation
mentioned above were intended to support the preparation stage, Peru
continued to apply to other funding mechanisms, while it was on stage I
"preparation", like the climate funds that would finance the
implementation stages and the payment by results. Thus, in 2011, Peru
agrees to participate in the FIP this meant that Peru would make a Forest
Investment Plan (project identification) to receive USD 50 million. After
mid-2013, Peru decided to prepare its proposal for the FCPF Carbon
Fund, regardless the fact that the R-PP had not been approved and that the
preparation phase had not advanced enough. Finally in early 2014, and
considering that Peru would be the host of the COP20 at the end of the
year, it was decided to prepare a proposal of the agreement with Norway
and Germany for forests conservation.
4.2 Safeguards: Financing and coordination of processes.
The R-PP, ER-PIN and PI-FIP were developed between 2013 and
2014, each of the documents have tentative schedules for the
implementation as well as a budget. In this section we will see if the
schedules and implementation processes are related.
• PI-FIP.- The total amount of PI-FIP is USD 50 million, of which
26,800,000 millions are donation and 23,200,000 millions are loan, i.e.
borrowing. It is indicated that these USD 50 million will support FIP
intervention in the following topics: 1) Legalization, titling and registration
of property rights; 2) improving forest and environmental governance; 3)
valuation of forests and degraded areas environmental assets; 4)
Innovation and market development.
As the project preparation schedule suggests, the approval of PI-FIP
was in October 2013 but the following dates like the start of the
preparatory activities targeted for January 2014 have not been done so far.
17
Table 11. Preparation Schedule
of the Project.

Phases Indicative dates

Investment Plan Approval (FIP) October 2013
Start of readiness activities January 2014
Preparation and consultation September 2014
Evaluation November 2014
Approval (FIP and CS) December 2014
Approval (IDB Board) May 2015
Source: CIF, 2013

To this must be added the four PI-FIP projects whose rightful execution
should have been between May and October 2015, a process that was not
made within the time scheduled and even now has not been executed yet. In
addition, according to the schedule what it shows is the budgeted funding for
the work lines of the document as well as the work plan.

• R-PP/FCPF.- For the FCPF preparation process, the Peruvian

government has budgeted USD 3.8 million for the development of reference
scenarios, adopting a REDD+ strategy, designing monitoring systems and
the national preparation arrangements for REDD+ management.

As shown in the chart below, amounts of money for the components of

organization and consultation, preparation of the REDD+ strategy,
development of national reference scenario, development of national forest
monitoring system and information safeguards and design of a framework
for evaluation and monitoring were budgeted. While the FCPF give USD
3.8 million, the total budget for the implementation of the R-PP is USD
12.145 million.

18
Table 12. R-PP General Budget.

GENERAL BUDGET FCPF Other funds Total

Amount % Amount %
Component 1: Organization and Consultation 432 11% 1,980 24% 2,412
Component 1a: Arrangements for
managing the National Readiness 216 6% 1,520 18% 1,736

Component 1b: Shared information and early dialogue with

the main stakeholders 86 2% 80 1% 166

Component 1c: Consultation and

Participation of stakeholders 130 3% 380 5% 510

Component 2: REDD+ Readiness Strategy 920 24% 1,608 19% 2,528

Component 2a: USCUSS assessment, forest law, forest 338 1,260
9% 15% 1,598
policy and governance
Component 2b: REDD+ Strategy Options 230 6% 260 3% 491
Component 2c: REDD+ 108 88
Implementation Framework 3% 1% 196

Component 2d: Social and Environmental Impacts 243 6% - 0% 243

Component 3: Development of 180 325
National Reference Scenario 5% 4% 505

Component 4: Development of the National Forest 1,980 52% 4,432 53% 6,412
Monitoring and Safeguards Information System
Component 4a: National Forest 1,683 4,418
Monitoring System 44% 53% 6,101

Component 4b: Information, Governance and 297 8% 14 0% 311

Safeguards System design
Component 5: Schedule and budget n.a.
Component 6: Monitoring and
Evaluation Framework Design 288 8% - 0% 288

Total (in thousands of dollars) 3,800 100% 8,345 100% 12,145

Source: FCPF, 2013c

On the other hand, the R-PP states that the preparation phase would be ready in the next two years, this means that between 2014 and 2016 the different
readiness components will be implemented but the SESA and ESMF process do not have an implementation timetable.

• ER-PIN / FCPF.- The ER-PIN implementation will help the country to have an Emission Reduction Program (ERP) in the regions of San Martin and
Ucayali. While this ERP is point out for the year 2017, the REDD+ preparation process in the country must be previously completed. This means that before
2017 our country should have a system for monitoring, reporting and verification, a SESA and ESMF process, a design and implementation of monitoring
and reporting system of safeguards and non-carbon benefits, etc.. After this, it is estimated that between 2017 and 2020 the ERP is implemented.

The ER-PIN has a schedule for implementing each of the components of the preparatory phase of REDD+. Thus indicates that the SESA and ESMF
development and monitoring of the benefits of non-carbon depend on the design of the National Strategy for Forests and Climate Change and the FIP/ERP
projects, which are scheduled for the years 2014 and 2015.
Moreover, according to the ER-PIN the preparation stage of REDD+ would last 18 months, expected to be enough to make the REDD+ Action Plan, the
PIA implementation, the National Forest Cover Surveillance System, etc. Moreover, it indicates that mid-2016; the country could send its REDD+
preparation package report to the Participants Committee of the FCPF.

The chart below shows the amounts for each of the components for the ERP development, although this budgeted for a total of USD 303 908 000, the
FCPF accepted Peru in the Carbon Fund and therefore allocated in October 2014 the sum of USD 650,000 for the ER-PIN development.

19
Table 13. Financing Plan Summary (Millions Of USD).

Expected uses of funds Description 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Source

ER Program development REDD Readiness 4.89 0 0 0 0 0 4.89 1

SNMCB 2.677 2.677 2.677 2.677 2.677 2.677 16.062 2

Planning 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 0.358 2.148 3
National Forest 3.543 3.543 3.543 3.543 3.543 3.543 21.258 3
Inventory
PES market
develop/Forest and 0.88 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.58 1.4
Carbon Fund
Subtotal 12.348 7.078 6.878 6.878 6.878 6.878 46.938 46.938
Operational and Land
implementation costs 3.71 3.71 3.71 3.71 3.71 18.55 18.55
titling (a)
Zoning/forest rights 5.275 5.275 5.275 5.275 5.275 5.275 31.65 3
Monitoring and 11.727 11.727 11.727 11.727 11.727 11.727 70.362 3
local control
Market promotion 1.526 1.526 1.526 1.526 6.104 3
and development
Technical
assistance/training (b) 5.979 5.979 5.979 5.979 23.916 3.5
Incentives
(ag,forestry,community 24 24 24 24 96 3,5,6
forestry)
Studies/research 2.597 2.597 2.597 2.597 10.388 3
Financing costs (e.g,
interest payments on loans

Other costs
Sub-total 17.002 20.712 54.814 54.814 54.814 54.814 256.97
Total uses 29.35 27.79 61.692 61.692 61.692 61.692 303.908
Source: (FCPF, 2014b)

While each of the aforementioned documents have a schedule for the development of the components for the REDD+ preparation, it is the components in
common like the SESA and ESMF that will take place at the same time according the R-PP and ER-PIN. This despite the FCPF guidelines state that you must
first make the R-PP implementation and the SESA and ESMF process; and then must perform the implementation of an ERP. In addition, according to the
PI-FIP schedule, projects development should take place between May and October 2015. In other words, the country would have to implement at the same
time the FCPF and FIP funds and therefore the country would be simultaneously in the REDD+ preparation and projects implementation phase. This means
that while we prepare safeguards instruments like the SESA and ESMF, we must use them to identify whether PI-FIP projects generate a negative impact.
Although the SESA should indicate the prioritized activities of REDD+ at the national level and then the PI-FIP should take them to carry out projects.

On the other hand, the ER-PIN schedule is very ambitious because it indicates that the implementation of all preparation stage components will be held in
18 months. This is unlikely because while all components of the R-PP, the four PI-FIP projects and the design of the ERP would be implemented, it is not taken
into consideration that the funds implementation have different objectives and they respond to their own dynamics. It also remains unclear how the funding
distribution would be for common components of the climate funds. The reviewed documents make us think that there is duplicity in funding for the
preparation stage of REDD+ and this could bring as consequence that while the components of the aforementioned funds are implemented a reorganization
of the financing should be done.

Safeguards overall aim is that processes and issues addressed by these support countries to improve their governance. However, countries have national
legislation with laws concerning participation, information and consultation with indigenous peoples that promote governance. But national legislation is
sometimes not enough for REDD+ safeguards standards as well as good governance. So the funds instruments are based more in the processes instead of the
national laws compliance verification as it is necessary that the discussion dynamics of the REDD+ issue involves innovative procedures for public
management.

20
 4.3 Safeguards of the R-PP, ER-PIN, PI-FIP documents and the
JDI with Norway and Germany.

4.3.1. FCPF.

4.3.1.1 Safeguards in the R-PP.

The R-PP document while being the oldest(29) FCPF document, it

should be the basis for other REDD+ processes and provide the overall
framework for REDD+ safeguards in the country.

At an international safeguards level.- The R-PP mentions WB and IDB

general . The safeguards common approach is not mentioned or how our
country would work with the different operational policies.

At a national legislation level.- The R-PP indicates without limitation to

apply the social and environmental laws but it does not mention which to
apply and in what cases they would be applied.

At a safeguards instruments level.- The R-PP indicates that the SESA

main objective is to ensure that social and environmental issues are
included in the process of developing REDD+. In addition, the SESA
should help to inform the design of the National REDD+ Strategy (NRS)
and specific actions should be developed as part of this. The R-PP uses the
FCPF concept to refer to their safeguards instruments, but the formulation
process and involvement of different actors is not indicated. Generally, the
R-PP indicates some activities for the beginning of the SESA.

There is a stakeholder’s plan of participation and consultation, but it is

stipulated that this would be for the involvement of three processes: 1) The
REDD+ Strategy elaboration, 2) the strategy implementation framework
design, and 3) The reference levels approval and the monitoring, reporting
and verification system design. There is no indication that this participation
plan would be related with the SESA procedure. It is not clearly stated the
moments of participation and the processes that need to be participatory.

On the other hand, the document notes that between 2014 and 2016 a
NRS implementation process will take place, these dates are now outdated
because the process has not been done. The document was completed in
December 2013, however it this institutionally outdated because since
2014, Peru decided to develop a National Strategy for Forests and Climate
Change, with a REDD+ Action Plan, instead of a NRS. Likewise, there is
different R-PP components budgeted that seeks to inform and involve
stakeholders.

(29) LThe R-PP elaboration starts in 2008, after an upgrade process it is finished in 2013.

21
Table 14: Components Related To The Cancun Safeguards.
R-PP Component
Component 1b: Shared information and early dialogue with key players
Component 1c: Consultation and participation of stakeholders
Component 2d: Social and Environmental impacts
Component 4b: Information, Governance and Safeguards System Design
According to the R-PP information the components 1b, 1c, 2d and 4b are
linked to the safeguards of participation, information, consultation and to
the safeguards system design itself. These components add up the total
amount of USD 756,000. In other words, nearly 20% of the R-PP budget
total (3.8 million US dollars) is destined to the process of drafting the NRS
and the SESA.
The R-PP, at regional level has the regional REDD+ roundtables as
stakeholders but it is not stated how they would be involved in the drafting
process of the NRS, SESA and ESMF. In addition there is no clear definition
of roles in the participation processes and there is no reference regarding the
inclusion of progress made on the safeguards issue at regional level.
4.3.1.2 Safeguards in the ER-PIN.
At an international safeguards level.- The ER-PIN document, FCPF
Carbon Fund, indicates that the international safeguards they will follow are
those of the World Bank. What would help elaborate them will be the
Emissions Reduction Program (ERP) that according to its schedule will
take place between 2014 and 2015.
At a national legislation level.- The document generally indicates that
Peruvian law will be applied like the prior consultation law and the National
Assessment System of Environmental Impacts (SINEA).
At a safeguards instruments level.- The document points out that SESA
and ESMF indicators will be included in the data system of the MRV as part
of the Registration Initiatives of REDD+. One of the articulation points is
the relationship among the development of the SESA and ESMF with the
National Strategy for Forests and Climate Change design, as it takes into
account the context change(30). In addition, the ER-PIN while being
produced in 2014, it takes into account the FIP Forest Investment Plan
process from 2013; moreover, it refers to the PIA.
(30) The R-PP's institutional framework is the REDD+ National Strategy and not the National Strategy for Forests and Climate Change.
Budget
USD 86.000
USD 130.000
USD 243.000
USD 297.000
Source: FCPF, 2013c
We found a coordination sign between the FCPF and the FIP but the
PIA mentioned in the ER-PIN document draws the attention, because so
far for the FIP fund a participation plan was made for the PI-FIP design
and the PIA only refers to the CIF implementation guide. It is not clear
which document or version of the PIA the ER-PIN document refers to.
On the other hand, the ER-PIN document indicates that the SESA and
ESMF process would take place between 2014 and 2015 at the same time
that the design period for the Emission Reduction Program (ERP). In
addition, the SESA and ESMF development depend on the National
Strategy for Forests and Climate Change, FIP projects and Emission
Reduction Program designs.
Although each fund is different, the FCPF carbon fund and readiness
fund, the interaction between the FCPF safeguards instruments such as
the SESA and ESMF, that must be applied to the readiness and carbon
funds, is not indicated. Moreover, the ER-PIN notes that the SESA and
ESMF would be made while designing the ERP, even if the FCPF
implementation guide indicates that at the time we have finished the SESA
and ESMF process and now we should have an NRS. This shows that while
funds have their implementation guides procedures and mechanisms that
support good governance, these same funds approve documents that
contradict their rules, creating a duality between what they have as
standards and what they approve to the countries.
22
 4.3.2 FIP.
4.3.2.1 PI-FIP Safeguards.
At an international safeguards level.- In the PI-FIP section 10 about
social and environmental safeguards, it is indicated that the IDB and the
World Bank safeguards will be complied. At a national legislation level.-
The document indicates that projects supported by the PI-FIP will comply
with current social and environmental standards. Although the PI-FIP has
lines of work for project funding the national standards to meet are not
indicated.
At a safeguards instruments level.- In the annex 2 of the Stakeholders
Involvement Plan (PIA), the PI-FIP formulation process, the workshops
held and the moments of participation until 2013 are explained. It does not
indicate the engagement process after the approval of the document as well
as the participation of stakeholders during the design of identified project.
On the other hand, the PI-FIP indicates that a Stakeholder
Participation Plan ( "stakeholder involvement plan" - PIA) and the
corresponding specific safeguards instruments were elaborated, together
with stakeholders and as a requirement for specific investment in the
project. But while reading the PI-FIP PIA, there are two terms that create
confusion as Peru presented simultaneously the PIA Annex 2, the
participation Plan during 2013 PI-FIP preparation and the PIA.
On this last point, the participation plan during the PI-FIP preparation
is an account of the information and consultation workshops about the
PI-FIP design from the year 2013(31). In that same annex, the PIA describes
what the document would contain generally but no dates or deadlines for its
implementation were indicated. Nowhere in this annex, is the PIA and
SESA and/or ESMF process or ER-PIN relationship mentioned. Worse
yet, it does not mention the actors to work with, the moments of
participation and information after the PI-FIP approval, etc. Although
according the CIF Implementation Guide, the PIA must submit an
assessment of the relevant stakeholder groups in the pilot program and
must also explain their involvement in the design and the participation they
will have on implementing the investment strategy and the related projects
and programs.
Continuing with the PI-FIP social and environmental safeguards
section it indicates that the final project designs have a relationship with the
results of the processes of the overall assessment of policies, legal decisions,
programs and scenarios; and regional socio-environmental assessments in
the areas of intervention and in its area of influence. In addition, they have
socio-environmental mitigation mechanisms focused on the effects that
would not have solutions in the project design. The latter could refer to the
SESA and ESMF, but it is not stated. We can not assume the safeguards
instruments interaction such as the PIA, SESA and ESMF, based on the
evaluation processes and mitigation mechanisms listed, because these are
not developed either.
(31) CIF 2013, Reunión del subcomité del FIP. Ciudad de Washington. 30 de octubre de 2013.Punto 4 del temario. Decisión propuesta. En link:
https://www-cif.climateinvestmentfunds.org/sites/default/files/meeting-documents/fip_sc.11_4_peru_ip_.summary_spanish_0.pdf (32) Activities related to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
and the role of conservation, forests sustainable management and increase carbon stocks in developing countries.
4.3.3 Joint Declaration of Intent with Norway and Germany.
4.3.3.1 Safeguards in the JDI with Norway and Germany.
In September 2014, during the United Nations Assembly in New York
City, Peru signed the Joint Declaration of Intent with Norway and Germany
“Cooperation on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation
and forest degradation (REDD+(32)) and promote sustainable
development in Peru” by the amount of USD 300,000,000. In this JDI,
Peru committed to make political changes and technical advances to halt
deforestation in the country. One of the agreements of the Declaration was
to establish a system to monitor, to report and to ensure safeguards for
REDD+ for the year 2015. This agreement was made despite the fact that
until September 2014, we had not made progress with the SESA, the ESMF
and PIA. This means, and taking into account the deadline, that in less than
a year we should do what in two years we have not done.
5. How the lack of implementation of
safeguards affects the good
governance?
What is described in the ER-PIN, R-PP and PI-FIP documents show a
lack of interaction among safeguards instruments. We have outdated
schedules, no clear processes of participation and involvement. Besides the
documents address in a very general way the concepts of safeguards
instruments, although this information is in the FCPF and FIP
implementation guides. In addition, documents mostly do not incorporate
progress at regional level on the safeguards issue and there is no clear
involvement of regional governments in the safeguards instruments
implementation. On the other hand, internationally as a country we must
report the Cancun safeguards to the UNFCCC but so far there is no official
document that identifies the actions carried out for the process of
construction of such safeguards. Also, there is no official document that
compares the UNFCCC safeguards and the national processes or laws we
have and that could support the safeguards construction. There is no clarity
on how the safeguards progress report will be made and this does not
support the promotion of good governance since there is no clarity about
the transparency, participation, information and consultation processes
and mechanisms. Only by taking into consideration the lack of safeguards’
procedural and social criteria, we could be facing a scenario prone to the
development of corruption. In a scenario where the good governance would
not be promoted, the decision making would be based on fraudulent
information favoring regions or actors that have not made efforts to fight
deforestation; consultancies would be paid with incomplete or false
information that will only seek to give non relevant information that does
not support deforestation monitoring; we would have outdated information
systems that report only national information without taking into
consideration the regional reality and the distorted and manipulated
information in order to include or exclude relevant actors from forest
management.
23
6. Conclusions.
• The R-PP and ER-PIN are documents to apply for funding from the
FCPF fund. Both the R-PP and ER-PIN of Peru does not present an
articulation when it is time to implement the safeguards ot the safeguards
instruments. In the analyzed documents there is not a vision regarding the
safeguards implementation. There is a vision regarding the implementation
done for each fund but not a vision as one national process.
• We found that the R-PP's institutional framework is the National
REDD+ Strategy and the ER-PIN's institutional framework is the National
Strategy for Forests and Climate Change, which results in an outdated
R-PP in time and at an institutional level. One of the consequences that the
REDD+ institutional framework is now based on the National Strategy for
Forests and Climate Change is that work actions identified in the R-PP and
ER-PIN must adjust to the new strategy. It is also questioned whether the
SESA and ESMF process will be applied to the National Strategy for
Forests and Climate Change.
• There is no official document that identifies the actions taken for the
REDD+ safeguards building process between the years analyzed in this
study. Also, there is no official document comparing the UNFCCC
safeguards and the national processes or laws that we have and that could
support the safeguards construction.
• Although the SESA framework and implementation are
conceptualized and even activities are planned for the beginning of the
SESA process, it is not understood how this instrument that makes
safeguards "viable" contributes to the complaints or claims mechanism. In
addition, according to the R-PP and ER-PIN documents the relationship
between the SESA and ESMF with the FCPF readiness fund and carbon
fund is not clear.
• The MDB funds have operational policies for protection and
instruments to make safeguards viable. Even though the funds must review
the countries submitted documents, this review is not necessarily
exhaustive and does not comply the funds own implementing guidelines. It
seems that there is some sort of duality between the safeguards framework
requested by the international funds and the countries safeguards
implementation. In other words, there is some sort of alliance between the
funds "operational" flaws and the lack of planning in the REDD+ topic.
• The conceptual frameworks of the FCPF and FIP safeguards and of
the SESA and ESMF guidelines are very general and they do not
necessarily help to have a strong impact assessment. In addition, regional
level progress on safeguards is not reflected in any of these documents. This
make us conclude that although participatory processes at regional level for
the FCPF and FIP funds were performed, the final wording of the
documents was kept at a centralized level.
• The implementation schedules of the analyzed documents were made
without taking into account the political context variables (change of
regional authorities) or the public governance variable (MEF ‘s role). But
above all, the moments and requirements that the funds request for the
financial outlay were left out.
• The commitment under the Joint Declaration of Intent with Norway
and Germany includes policies and technical changes. One point of the
agreement is that nationwide we count with a system to monitor, report and
ensure REDD+ safeguards, this seems difficult to achieve because so far no
safeguards instrument like the SESA and ESMF has been implemented.
• Peru submitted documents to the FCPF, FIP and the Joint Declaration
of Intent with Norway and Germany between the years 2013 and 2014.
Between those years, the vision on the REDD+ readiness process changed
generating that some documents became outdated, and the lack of
safeguards implementation has generated a gap between the safeguard
concept and the safeguards instruments that remains empty due to the lack
of will to address this issue.
• Both R-PP and PI-FIP documents have a budget for different
components related to safeguards but there is no planning regarding the
components implementation. What we find is a race to apply for funding on
this topic but then not necessarily a will or concern to monitor the
implementation of the safeguards issue.
• The lack of the funds’ safeguards instruments implementation could
generate the development of scenarios prone to corruption, due to lack of
sustainable mechanisms of transparency, information, participation and
consultation among the different actors.
• The R-PP and PI-FIP participation plans do not have identified stages
for the involvement of stakeholders during the design, implementation and
post implementation of the projects or strategies from such documents.
Participation spaces like the REDD+ Roundtables are identified but there is
no participatory process identified for the stages of information, design,
consultation and decision making.
• The FCPF and FIP documents such as the R-PP, the ER-PIN and
PI-FIP, indicate compliance with the funds operational policies and the
national legal framework laws. They do not take into consideration that
since the year 2013, the World Bank is engaged in a safeguards modification
process and, at a national level, our country goes through a legal amendment
that decreases the environmental and social standards. It is therefore
important to implement safeguards instruments to identify, based on
dialogue, the potential REDD+ actions impacts.
24
7. Recomendations.
• Establish REDD+ actions in the country and for it have a REDD+
Action Plan to guide the funds components implementation. REDD+
planning should not only look at the financing needs but it should be based
on a national vision that includes the progress made by the regions to reduce
pressure on forests.

• FCPF and PI-FIP documents update; especially in the SESA and

ESMF case it should be done in an open discussion space involving different
actors of civil society, public sector and indigenous peoples. In addition, the
SESA and ESMF should not be use only for the funds application but they
should support the solutions identification of activities that put pressure on
forests.

• Have a trained team of specialists (legal, social, ecosystem, indigenous

peoples and information systems) and a budget for the completion of the
SESA, ESMF and PIA processes.

• Although we have not identified the country’s REDD+ actions, it is

necessary based on the FCPF and PI-FIP documents lines of work
identified like land titling, community forest management, value in
non-timber products, etc. to begin to design the SESA and ESMF. In
addition, advances and regional level recommendations on safeguards
offered by the regions of Madre de Dios, Ucayali and San Martin should be
taken into consideration when designing the SESA and ESMF.

• Create a REDD+ participation or involvement plan for stakeholders

that links the REDD+ funds implementation in the country, and not aim for
participation plans for each REDD+ climate fund. Therefore participation
plans as well as the development of the funds safeguards instruments could
be effective and active. Also participation plans should not to be understood
only as a schedule of national and regional workshops, but they should
promote an active participation of stakeholders and generate mechanisms
of transparency and consultation for the entire process.

• Create a REDD+ and Forest Management Working Group that works

as a decision-making space and has among his members representatives of
public institutions with decision-making power from the following
Ministries: Ministry of Economy and Finances (MEF), Ministry of
Environment (MINAM), Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation
(MINAGRI), Vice Ministry of Culture (VIC), National Audit Office
(CGR), the Ombudsman Office (DP) and Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(MRREE). Furthermore, it should involve decision-makers of indigenous
organizations like AIDESEP and CONAP, two REDD+ Regional
Roundtables representatives, a REDD+ Group representative and a
representative of the private sector.

25
8. Annex.
Table 14: RPP, ER-PIN, PI-FIP and JDI Norway And Germany Safeguards Documents Comparative Table.

FCPF
Forest Investment
Program Joint Declaration of
Intent with Norway
Readiness Fund R-PP Carbon Fund ER-PIN and Germany
Dec.2013 Oct. 2014 Forest Investment Plan
PI-FIP Sep. 2014
Oct. 2013

In the design and
International implementation of the REDD+
Safeguards National Strategy the
UNFCCC safeguards will be
applied
For The InterAmerican
Development Bank:
Environment and Safeguards
Compliance Policy (OP-703),
Disaster Risk Management
Policy (OP 704), Operational
Policy on Indigenous Peoples
(OP-765), Operational Policy
on Gender Equality in
Development (OP-761),
Operational Policy on
Involuntary Resettlement
(OP-710) and Access to
Information Policy (OP- 102)
and sectoral policies for Rural
Development (OP 752) and
Forest Development (OP 723);
For the World Bank:
compliance with World Bank
safeguards on Indigenous
Peoples OP / BP 4.10,
Involuntary Resettlement OP /
BP 4.12; Forests BP 4.36,
Physical and Cultural Heritage
OP / BP 4.11, and Natural
Habitats OP 4.04.
World Bank Safeguards
World Bank Safeguards -Projects
financed by the IDB: Environment and
Safeguards Compliance Policy (OP-703),
Disaster Risk Management Policy (OP
704), Operational Policy on Indigenous
Peoples (OP-765), Operational Policy on
Gender Equality in Development
(OP-761), Operational Policy on
Involuntary Resettlement (OP-710) and
Access to Information Policy (OP- 102)
and sectoral policies for Rural
Development (OP 752) and Forest
Development (OP 723);
- The Project funded by the World Bank
will comply with national regulations and
relevant policies of the World Bank.
Specifically speaking, it is in accordance
with the provisions of the Prior
Consultation Act (Law 29785) and its
regulations (DS-1-2012 Culture) and with
environmental regulations and World
Bank safeguard like the Indigenous
Peoples OP / BP 4.10, Involuntary
Resettlement OP / BP 4.12, OP / BP 4.36
Forests, Physical Cultural Resources OP /
BP 4.11, and Natural Habitats OP / BP
4.04
Establish a system to
monitor, report and ensure
REDD+ safeguards (2015)
Post the first report that
defines the current status of
REDD+ in Peru regarding
safeguards and measures to
ensure that all safeguards
will be respected, consistent
with decision 12/CP.19 of
the UNFCCC.
Establish a Safeguards
Information System
containing updated and
consistent information, that
is transparent, accessible to
stakeholders, it provides
information on all Cancun
safeguards, and if possible it
is built on existing systems,
and assigns government
entities responsible for
reporting and implementing
the safeguards, consistent
with relevant decisions of
the UNFCCC.

National Social and environmental laws
Legislation from the national regulatory
framework will be applied.
Application of Peruvian laws
such as the Law on Prior
Consultation and the National
Assessment of Environmental
Impacts (SINEA).
The PI-FIP and the projects it
supports will comply with
social and environmental
standards.

Safeguards The SESA and ESMF process
Instrument will take place. There is an
implementation framework and
design for the SESA.
The Information System,
Governance and Safeguards
design is budgeted for a sum of
USD 297,000
A Complaints Mechanism
taken in charge by relevant
authorities. The complaints
mechanism can be designed on
the basis of existing national
regulations and experiences.
-Proposal of a Stakeholders
Participation Plan
The information generated and
indicators of SESA and ESMF
will be included in the data
MRV system as part of the
REDD+ Initiatives Registry.
The SESA and ESMF are the
base to indicate the potential
types of impacts and lines of
action.
The development of SESA and
ESMF depend on the design of
the National Strategy for
Forests and Climate Change,
the FIP projects and the
Emissions Reduction Program.
The SESA process (social area,
environmental area and
processes identified) will be
developed during the design of
the Emission Reduction
Program during 2014-2015.
The design of the conflict
resolution mechanism is
mentioned.
Safeguards during the initial design stage
of investment projects.
The initial stage of the project design
(section 10) states that
socio-environmental studies will be
conducted in 2 phases:
1) Overall assessment of policies, policy
decisions, programs and settings.
2) Regional socio-environmental
assessments in the areas of intervention
and its area of influence. Besides
consultation and participation processes
will take place according to the
Stakeholdes Involvement Plan (PIA),
involvement plans of affected groups,
studies and processes will be added.
Participation
Stakeholdes Involvement Plan (PIA)
mentions the regional and national
workshops for PI-FIP approval. In the
financing part it indicates that the PIA
will cost USD 800,000.

Source: Prepared by author

based on FCPF, 2014b, FCPF,
2013b, CIF, 2013b y DCI, 2014

26
9. Bibliography.
CMNUCC 2007, Órgano Subsidiario de Asesoramiento Científico y Tecnológico. 27
periodos de sesiones. Bali 3 al 11 de diciembre de 2007. Tema 5 del programa
Reducción de las emisiones derivadas de la deforestación en los países en desarrollo:
métodos para estimular la adopción de medidas .Proyecto de decisión -/CP.13
Reducción de las emisiones derivadas de la deforestación en los países en desarrollo:
métodos para estimular la adopción de medidas. En:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/sbsta/spa/l23a01r01s.pdf
CMNUCC 2010, Decisión. 1/CP.16 Acuerdos de Cancún: resultado de la labor del
Grupo de Trabajo Especial sobre la cooperación a largo plazo en el marco de la
Convención. Decisión 1/CP.16 Acuerdos de Cancún: resultado de la labor del Grupo
de Trabajo Especial sobre la cooperación a largo plazo en el marco de la Convención.
C) Enfoques de política e incentivos positivos para las cuestiones relativas a la
reducción de las emisiones debidas a la deforestación y la degradación forestal en los
países en desarrollo; y función de la conservación, la gestión sostenible de los bosques
y el aumento de las reservas forestales de carbono en los países en desarrollo. En:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/spa/07a01s.pdf
CMNUCC 2012a, Informe de la Conferencia de las Partes sobre su 17° periodo de
sesiones, celebrado en Durban del 28 de noviembre al 11 de diciembre de 2011. En:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/spa/09a02s.pdf
CMNUCC 2012b, Informe de la Conferencia de las Partes sobre su 18º período de
sesiones, celebrado en Doha del 26 de noviembre al 8 de diciembre de 2012. Decisión
1/CP.18 Conclusión acordada de conformidad con el Plan de Acción de Bali. C)
Enfoques de política e incentivos positivos para las cuestiones relativas a la reducción
de las emisiones derivadas de la deforestación y la degradación de los bosques en los
países en desarrollo; y función de la conservación, la gestión sostenible de los bosques
y el aumento de las reservas forestales de carbono en los países en desarrollo. En:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/cop18/spa/08a01s.pdf
FCPF 2013a, Marco Metodológico del Fondo de Carbono del FCPF. Versión final
fecha 20 de diciembre del 2013.En link:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/July/Marco%20m
ethodol%C3%B3gico%20del%20Fondo%20del%20Carbono%20%20del%20Fo
ndo%20Cooperativo%20para%20el%20Carbono%20de%20los%20Bosques%2
0version%20final%2012%202013%20(updated%20July30%202014).pdf
FCPF 2013b, Guía para el marco de Evaluación de la Preparación del FCPF. En:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/July2013/FCPC%
20framework%207-25-13%20SPA%20web.pdf
FCPF 2013c, Propuesta para la Fase de Preparación para REDD+. Perú. En:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/February/R-PP%
20Per%C3%BA%20Final%20Dec%202013-RESALTADO.pdf
FCPF 2013d, FMT Note CF-2013-3.World Bank Safeguard Policies and the
UNFCCC REDD+ Safeguards. August 28, 2013. En:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/june2013/FMT%
20Note%20CF-2013-3_FCPF%20WB%20Safeguard%20Policies%20and%20
UNFCCC%20REDD%2B%20Safeguards_FINAL.pdf
FCPF 2014a, Introducción al FCPF y a la Inclusión Social en el Contexto de la
Preparación para REDD+ y Mas Allá. Del 20 al 24 de enero 2014. Guatemala. En:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/January/1.e.%20P
resentaci%C3%B3n-Introducci%C3%B3n-FCPF%26Inclusi%C3%B3n-Social.
pdf
FCPF 2014b, Emission Reductions Program Idea Note (ER-PIN).Peru En:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/september/PERU
_ER-PIN_Sept.%2012.2014.pdf

CMNUCC 2013, Resoluciones COP18 1/CP.18, 2/CP.18, 4/CP.18. Resoluciones FCPF 2014c, Resolution Eleventh Carbon Fund Meeting. October 6-8, 2014.
CFM/11/2014/3.Selection of Perú Emission Reductions Program Idea Note into
CMP 1/CMP.8, 2/CMP.8, 3/CMP.8 4/CMP.8,5/CMP.8 En: the Pipeline En:
http://unfccc.int/meetings/doha_nov_2012/meeting/6815/php/view/decisions.ph https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/october/Resolutio
p n%203%20Peru%20ER-PIN.pdf

CMNUCC, 2014. Informe de la Conferencia de las Partes sobre 19° periodo de CIF 2009, Documento Básico para el Diseño del Programa de Inversión Forestal,
sesiones, celebrado en Varsovia del 11 al 23 de noviembre de 2013. Decisión 9/CP.19 de Carácter Selectivo, Creado al Amparo del Fondo Fiduciario del FEC. FIP. 7 de
Decisión 12/CP.19 En: julio de 2009. En:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/spa/10a01s.pdf http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/fil
es/FIP_Design_Document_July_final_spanish.pdf
FCPF 2011 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Eighth Participants
Committee meeting March 23-25, 2011. Dalat, Vietnam. Resolution PC/8/2011/7 CIF 2010, Directrices Operacionales del PInS. 29 de junio del 2010. En:
Peru¨s Readiness Preparation Proposal. En: https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/fi
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/ les/FIP_Operational_Guidelines_final_spanish.pdf
Documents/PDF/Mar2011/Resolution%207%20Peru%20R-PP.pdf
CIF 2012, Directrices Operacionales del Marco de Trabajo. Mecanismo de
FCPF 2012a, Decisiones de Cancún y Durbán sobre Salvaguardas para REDD+, y los Donación Específico para Pueblos Indígenas y Comunidades Locales. FIP. En:
Pueblos Indígenas. Evento Diálogo de los pueblos indígenas de meso y Sudamérica y https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/fi
del Caribe con el FCPF. Lima, Perú 22-24 de agosto de 2012.En: les/13-09-12DGMGuidelines-Final_ES.pdf
http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/Documents/tagged/2_UN
FCCC%20Safeguards%20and%20the%20FCPF_Sp%20Final.pdf CIF 2013, Reunión del subcomité del FIP. Ciudad de Washington. 30 de octubre de
2013.Punto 4 del temario. Decisión propuesta. En link:
FCPF 2012b, Enfoque común para las salvaguardas ambientales y sociales para los https://www-cif.climateinvestmentfunds.org/sites/default/files/meeting-docume
socios ejecutores múltiples. En nts/fip_sc.11_4_peru_ip_.summary_spanish_0.pdf
http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/Documents/tagged/Com
mon_Approach_Fact_Sheet_SP_FINAL.pdf BIC 2013, Políticas de Salvaguardia Socio Ambiental y Enfoque Común del FCPF:
Fichas técnicas de las salvaguardas Banco Mundial y socios ejecutores: BID y
PNUD. En link:
http://www.bankinformationcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Politicas-
de-Salvaguardia-Socio-Ambiental-y-Enfoque-Comun-del-FCPF_BankInformati
onCenter_agosto2013.pdf

27
FAO 2011, Marco para la evaluación y seguimiento de la gobernanza forestal.

FAO 2007, Buena gobernanza en la tenencia y la administración de tierras.

Duchelle, A.E; Jagger,P. 2014. CIFOR REDD+ Safeguards Brief no Intro.

Operationalizing REDD+ Safeguards: Challenges and opportunities. CIFOR.
Brockhaus, M.; Wong, G.; Luttrell, C.; Loft, L.; Pham, T.T.; Duchelle, A.E.;
Assembe-Mvondo, S.; Di Gregorio, M. 2014. CIFOR REDD+ Safeguards Brief no.2.
Operationalizing Safeguards in National REDD+ Benefit-sharing Systems: Lessons
on effectiveness, efficiency and equity.CIFOR.
S.Roe, C.Streck, L.Pritchard, J.Costenbader 2013, Safeguards in REDD+ and Forest
Carbon Standards: A review of social, environmental and procedural concepts and
application. Climate Focus.
IBRC 2010, Charter Establishing The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. Link
http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/D
ocuments/PDF/Sep2010/FCPF_Charter-August_2010_clean.pdf

MINAM 2013, Versiones del Plan de Inversión Forestal. Fase II. En:
http://www.minam.gob.pe/cambioclimatico/fase-i/versiones-del-plan-de-inversio
n-forestal/

KFW MINAM 2010, Informe final. Apoyo a la implementación de REDD+ en el

Perú. Documento proyecto REDD+. En:
http://cambioclimatico.minam.gob.pe/documento-proyecto-kfw-apoyo-a-la-imple
mentacion-de-redd-en-el-peru/

2014 Declaración Conjunta de Intención con Noruega y Alemania. Setiembre 2014

DAR 2011, Análisis de la Resolución PC/8/2011/7 del Comité de Participantes del
FCPF que aprueba el RPP de Perú. En:
http://www.bankinformationcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Informe_R
esolucion_FCPF_Vietnam-vf.pdf

DAR 2014, Estudio rápido de percepciones sobre la gobernanza de los procesos

REDD+ en Perú.

AIDESEP CONAP 2013, Acta de los pueblos indígenas amazónicos de la mala

convocatoria de reunión de la socialización regional de los avances en el diseño del
Plan de Inversión. Yurimaguas 10 julio 2013.

28
Consejo Nacional para la Ética Pública
(Capítulo Peruano de Transparency International)
Teléfonos: (511) 446 8941, 446 8943
Telefax: (511) 446 8581
Correo electrónico: proetica@proetica.org.pe
Manco Cápac 826, Lima 18 – PERÚ

www.proetica.org.pe
www.transparency.org
facebook.com/ProeticaPeru
twitter.com/ProeticaPeru