Sarmiento Barletti, Juan Pablo

Safeguards for the UNFCCC’s REDD+ mechanism arose in response to concerns voiced by forestdependent communities over its potential to infringe upon their rights and territories. Since then, several institutions have also developed voluntary standards for carbon markets, in addition to safeguards guidelines adopted by multilateral funding institutions. Across these standards and guidelines, safeguards are conceptualized and articulated in different ways: as bulwarks against the impacts of interventions (“do no harm”); as means to achieve sustainable development outcomes (“do good”); or as mechanisms to catalyse the transformation of forest-dependent communities (“do better”). It is urgent to clarify and understand the role of safeguards as the climate crises prompts interest on the part of countries and corporations in ‘nature-based solutions’ to meet their emissions reduction targets and commitments to biodiversity. This influx of investments in tropical forests can bolster sustainable development objectives, but also poses risks to communities, including the creation of perverse incentives and the deepening of existing social and economic inequities.

This paper will present the results of comparative reviews of how different standards for voluntary carbon markets deal with social safeguards and issues related to the rights of IPs and LCs. We found that while safeguards have become a mainstay of REDD+ discourse and practice, there is considerable variation in their underlying objectives, the ways in which they are formulated, and the extent and effectiveness of their implementation. Thinking through safeguards, we will present a typology to understand their potential for change, how nature-based solutions may re-engage with the men and women of IPs and LCs and their rights and justice concerns, and synthesised factors to enable initiative to support and protect those rights.

"Multistakeholder platforms (MSPs) are increasingly seen as the most strategic way to address governance challenges related to landscape-based ‘conservation and development’. MSPs bring together multiple actors to share information, discuss, negotiate and identify solutions to landscape problems. There are many types of MSPs, but generally speaking, who could oppose dialogue? Yet MSPs are idealized as spaces for collaboration among equals, based on the idea that ‘we’re all in this together’. This notion can be an obstacle to meaningful change. For collective action to support change, it must challenge the foundations of inequity, promote the agency of historically underrepresented peoples and assure the accountability of decision makers.
We wanted to know how Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPs and LCs) saw MSPs. Our presentation draws on a comparative study of 11 MSPs that sought to support sustainable forest landscape management in Brazil, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Peru. Our cases focused on specific subnational landscapes; had at least one government and one non-governmental actor; were processes, not one-off events; and had been running for at least one year. Interviews were conducted with forum participants and organizers to comparatively engage with their perspectives regarding the potential of MSPs to provide voice, empowerment, and an opportunity for change.
Despite overall optimism regarding MSPs, IP and LC representatives were more skeptical than other participants about the potential of the forums to empower, assure voice, prevent those with more power from dominating dialogue and avoid placing their ancestral rights to land at risk. IP and LC respondents were likelier to think of collective action - outside the MSP - as a better option; they understood their participation in MSPs as part of a wider political strategy. We conclude by proposing concrete actions to support more accountable MSPs."