1. USAID LEAF Regional Climate Change Curriculum Development Module: Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) Section 2. What Social And Environmental Issues Exist: Strengthening Design And Implementation of REDD+ 2.6. Indigenous Peoples and their Empowerment

2. NameAffiliationNameAffiliation Surin Onprom; Co-Lead Kasetsart University, Thailand Tran Thi Thu HaVietnam Forestry University Penporn Janekarnkij; Co-Lead Kasetsart University, Thailand Nguyen Dinh HaiVietnam Forestry University Rejani Kunjappan; Co-Lead RECOFTC Thailand Vo Mai AnhVietnam Forestry University Claudia Radel; Co-Lead Utah State University Tran Tuan VietVietnam Forestry University Sarah Hines; Co-Lead US Forest Service Cao Tien TrungVinh University, Vietnam Sidthinat Prabudhanitisarn Chiang Mai University, Thailand Nguyen T. Trang ThanhVinh University, Vietnam Sharifah Zarina Syed Zakaria University Kebangsaan Malaysia Nguyen Thu HaUSAID Vietnam Forests & Deltas Mohd Rusli Yacob University Putra Malaysia Maeve NightingaleIUCN MFF Kaisone Phengspha National University of Laos Guada LagradaPACT MPE Phansamai Phengspha National University of Laos Le Van Trung DARD Lam Dong Kethsa Nanthavongduangsy National University of Laos Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh AIT Thailand Freddie Alei University of Papua New Guinea David GanzUSAID LEAF Bangkok Chay Kongkruy Royal University of Agriculture, Cambodia Kalpana GiriUSAID LEAF Bangkok Soreivathanak Reasey Hoy Royal University of Phnom Penh, Cambodia Chi Pham Project Coordinator USAID LEAF Bangkok

3. I.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1.Introduction to Climate Change 1.2.The Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation Context 1.3.Introduction to Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) 1.4.Guiding Frameworks – Sustainable Development & Ethics II.WHAT SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES EXIST: STRENGHENING DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REDD 2.1.Environmental Co-benefits: Introduction to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 2.1.1.Carbon/REDD+ Project Accounting, Carbon Monitoring & MRV 2.2.Governance 2.2.1. Regulatory Framework, Forest Tenure, and Carbon Rights 2.3. Stakeholder Participation 2.3.1. FPIC 2.4. Social Co-benefits 2.5. Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment 2.5.1. Gender Analysis Tools 2.5.2. Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index 2.6. Indigenous Peoples and their Empowerment 2.7. Local Livelihoods: An Introduction 2.7.1 Livelihoods impact Case Study: April Salumei, PNG 2.8. REDD+ Benefits Sharing 2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability III.STATE OF THE ART IN ACTION: BRINGING THE PIECES TOGETHER 3.1.Safeguard Mechanisms in REDD+ Programs 3.2.Streamlining of Safeguards and Standards 3.3.Developing National Level Safeguards

4. At the end of this section, learners will be able to:  Explain who are indigenous peoples  Explain the scholarly critique of simplistic understandings of community, in the context of conservation  Understand the importance of partnerships to build respect for natural and cultural heritage  Apply Kabeer’s theory of empowerment to a case study example  Analyze the contribution of co-benefits to an empowerment outcome

5. One Session:  Indigenous Peoples: Definitions  Intra-community difference  Case study (Australian)  Take-away writing assignment

6.  Presentation of key concepts  Case study (reading or presentation)  Group discussions  Writing

7. Students should read the following academic journal article for information on a PES and co-benefits case study for indigenous peoples in Australia:  Greiner, R., & Stanley, O. 2012. More than money for conservation: Exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes. Land Use Policy 31: 4-10.

8.  Who are “the community”?  Who are indigenous communities?  What about local communities?  Why do we need to think about these questions?

9. View the slideshow “Sustainable Development.” After, discuss the following questions:  Who are “the community”?  Who are the two men with black suitcases?  Do you think what they did with the community counts as ‘development’ or ‘sustainable development’? Explain why or why not.  What led to the situation depicted in this story?

10. Neither Indigenous Peoples nor Ethnic Minorities are clearly defined in international law. ?

11.  UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues describes Indigenous Peoples as: “the descendants - according to a common definition - of those who inhabited a country or a geographical region at the time when people of different cultures or ethnic origins arrived”  Emphasizes role of inhabiting a territory earlier  Indigenous Peoples ≠ ethnic minorities who migrated to the land later

12.  Indigenous Peoples should be regarded as those with a social or cultural identity distinct from the dominant or mainstream society, which makes them vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the processes of development.  Indigenous Peoples include:  descent from population groups present in a given area, most often before modern states or territories were created and before modern borders were defined; and  tribal groups or cultural minorities who have migrated into areas to which they are not indigenous, but have established a presence and continue to maintain a definite and separate social and cultural identity and related social institutions.

13.  In some other contexts, indigenous peoples are referred to by governments using terms like ethnic minorities, hill tribes, tribal people, aboriginal people, native people, or others.  Need to be clear of what the term means in the specific contexts of the research, or project, or documents.  This course will apply the definition as used by the Asian Development Bank.

15. From Article 33: 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. This does not impair the right of indigenous individuals to obtain citizenship of the States in which they live. From Article 26: 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. 2. Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired. 3. States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources. Such recognition shall be conducted with due respect to the customs, traditions and land tenure systems of the indigenous peoples concerned. Note emphases on: (1) self-identification, (2) territory

16. View the 17 minute animated film made by Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP): http://vimeo.com/54351554 http://vimeo.com/54351554 For Discussion: 1.How does this film, made for sharing with indigenous peoples, portray the relationship between indigenous peoples and forests? Between indigenous peoples and climate change? 2.How does the film portray the role of indigenous peoples in REDD+? 3.How does the film treat diversity within indigenous communities? For Discussion: 1.How does this film, made for sharing with indigenous peoples, portray the relationship between indigenous peoples and forests? Between indigenous peoples and climate change? 2.How does the film portray the role of indigenous peoples in REDD+? 3.How does the film treat diversity within indigenous communities?

17. Activity in Small Groups (3 to 5 students): 1. Generate a list of the various ways that members of communities can be different from each other. 2. Generate a second list of how each dimension of difference might translate into different interests with respect to forests and forest resources. 3. Share these lists among the groups to generate two “master” class lists. Is everyone in a community the same? No, of course not.

19. Having read the Greiner & Stanley (2012) case study prior to class, discuss the following questions: 1. What benefits did the aboriginal communities realize in this case study? Categorize these benefits according to an approach outlined earlier in the course, e.g. types a, b, and c (module section 2.4). 2. Who realized these benefits and how? 3. Were the communities in question “empowered” through their participation in the PES program? (refer to SES module section 2.5) How might the PES program have been designed to further facilitate this empowerment?

20. 1.Lifeline 2.Transect with walk 3.Venn-Diagram 4.Cycles 5.Drawing 6.Historic diagram 7.Life cycle 8.Village map 9.Calendar 10.Mindmap 11.Matrix 12.Fishbone 13.Ethno-classification Some Topics: A.From whom I learn… B.Where and what do we play… C.My daily activities (mother, father, child…) D.I am now… I will be in 20 years… E.Family life F.Production and food G.Ceremonies H.Gender differences I.Plants and animals J.My changing environment

21. To be submitted at a later time, determined by instructor Assignment Objective: Further apply the introduced concept of empowerment from SES Module Section 2.5 to an indigenous community co-benefits case study. Directions: Write a 2-3 page analysis of the Greiner & Stanley case study in which you apply Kabeer’s (1999) conceptual framework for empowerment (resources, agency, and achievements) to the case. In your analysis, consider as well the following questions: (a) Does an empowerment lens lead to any different conclusions from simply considering the anti-poverty or wellbeing co-benefits? (b) Communities are not homogeneous or single entities. For this case study, do the authors provide any information on the distribution of co-benefits within the community? If not, what questions might you ask to gather this information and to understand potential social impacts of the distribution?

22.  Who exactly qualifies as indigenous peoples could be debated, as no one definition exists.  However, the United Nations has adopted a particular approach that emphasizes self-identification.  Territory plays a key role in the self-identity of many indigenous groups.  Indigenous peoples or communities are not homogenous; ethnicity intersects with other aspects of identity such as gender or class status.  Use of an “empowerment lens” may lead to a different assessment of project outcomes compared to use of a benefits lens focused more narrowly on income and employment.

23. 1. Agrawal, A. and C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation. World Development, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 629-649. 2. Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Pact (AIPP) and the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA). 2010. REDD+ and Indigenous Peoples: A Briefing Paper for Policy Makers. 3. Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Pact Website: http://www.aippnet.org/home/index.php (various documents and videos available) http://www.aippnet.org/home/index.php 4. Greiner, R., & Stanley, O. 2012. More than Money for Conservation: Exploring Social Co-benefits from PES Schemes. Land Use Policy 31: 4-10.

24. 5. Kabeer, N. 1999. Resources, Agency, Achievements: Reflections on the Measurement of Women's Empowerment. Development and Change. 30 (3): 435-64. 6. United Nations. 2008. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 7. United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Voices. Factsheet. 8. Waylen, K.A., Fischer, A., McGowan, P. and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2013. Deconstructing Community for Conservation: Why Simple Assumptions are Not Sufficient. Human Ecology 41:575–585.