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+ 2.3.1. FPIC ( F ree, P rior and I nformed C onsent)

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. Free, Prior, Informed Consent (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 the key concepts that define FPIC  Explain the difference between consultation, negotiation, participation, and FPIC  Explain why seeking consent is important in a REDD+ project  Identify the risks of not seeking FPIC in a REDD+ project  Explain the supporting values of FPIC within the context of REDD+  Differentiate between a rights holder and a stakeholder in a REDD+ project

5.  Key concepts in FPIC (F, P, I, C)  Defining FPIC  Difference between consultation, negotiation, participation and FPIC  Case study:  Seeking Consent in REDD+  Risks when there is no FPIC  Values that support FPIC  Difference between rights holders and stakeholders

6.  Brainstorming  Small Group Discussions  Lecture  Case Study  Group Presentations

7. Potential Readings/Viewings:  Handout “Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership Case Study.”  Video (8 minutes) on FPIC and Indigenous Peoples that explains the concepts and mechanisms of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) through a story of interaction between indigenous peoples and people requesting their consent for new development (http://vimeo.com/66708050).  Free, Prior and Informed Consent in REDD+: Principles and Approaches for Policy and Project Development. RECOFTC, 2011.  Handout “What is FPIC?”

8.  FPIC is not new  Evolved from human rights discussions on development where it was agreed that everyone has the right to determine their own development  being able to say “yes” or “no” to any project proposed or external development  A social safeguard which gives stakeholders affected by a REDD+ project opportunity to challenge, accept or refuse the project implementation

9. Specific collective rights of indigenous communities and local peoples that should be respected a community, as a whole, has the right to give or deny its Free, Prior and Informed Consent OUTCOME of an FPIC process = CONSENT or NON-CONSENT

15.  Read the REDD+ Case Study: Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership.  Divide into small groups (e.g. 3 to 5 students)  In each group, collectively try to identify the various elements of: 1. Free 2. Prior 3. Informed 4. Consent

16. Based on having identified the separate elements of: F, P, I and C, let us now define FPIC

17.  Read the following 4 definitions of FPIC, and decide which one you think is the most suitable one based on the lectures and discussions so far.  State the rationale for your choice.

18.  Definition 1: FPIC is based on principles of self-determination. It is the collective right of indigenous peoples and local communities to negotiate the terms of externally imposed policies, programs, and projects that directly affect their livelihoods and well-being.  Definition 2: FPIC is a form of decision-making that enables a community to say “yes” or “no” to a proposed project or intervention.  Definition 3: Free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) is consent that is given freely, by people fully informed of the consequences, prior to any decision being made, and according to their own decision-making processes.  Definition 4: FPIC is part of a consultation process that allows people to provide input into how their natural resources are managed.  Definition 5: FPIC is when consultation and negotiation are done without forcing people to participate in a project.

19. NOT participatory engagement! NOT consultations! NOT negotiations! Why?

20. Based on the discussion on the definition of FPIC, let’s now also discuss the key differences and similarities between these FPIC and consultation, negotiation, and participation.

21.  Consultation: Consultation is facilitating a process to both inform and receive feedback from the people about the proposal.  Negotiation: Negotiation is where conditions are proposed and compromises are made by different parties.  Participation: Is needed to reach consent, but consent itself goes much further as it gives the power to the party from whom consent is sought to say “yes” or “no.”

22. Instructions for Students: 1. Read the handout “Values that Support FPIC”. 2. Review the “Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership Case Study” in relation to the values that support FPIC. 3. Refer to the pre-class readings and references. 4. Write a 2 page report that discusses in the context of the KFCP project each of these values/concepts that support FPIC: a) self-determination b) tenure clarification c) rights holders recognition d) participatory decision making e) effective communication

23. Instructions for Students, continued: 5. These questions can help guide you in your analysis:  Was the self-determination of the affected community respected?  Were tenure issues addressed?  Who had rights? Were the rights of the community (legal and customary) addressed?  Was there a system set up for decisions to be made in a participatory manner? Was this system sustainable?  Were there adequate communications about the project to the affected communities?

24. Consent:  Is an outcome of a process.  may involve consultation and negotiation, but consent itself is an opportunity to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a proposal or project.  may be required at several points in a project cycle, and when consent is not reached, negotiation will be required.  Is the point at which people have the power to say ‘yes’ or ‘no.’  Is a safeguard to ensure that those who may be negatively affected have the power to say no  helps increase sustainability and ensures participation of a community in a REDD+ initiative

25. Rights holders are not the same as stakeholders: Stakeholder: broadly defined as a person, group, organization, or system with an interest who affects or can be affected by an organization’s or project’s actions Rights holder: an individual person or group of people within a social, legal or ethical entitlement to the area that are eligible to claim rights

26.  Consent is an outcome of a process and is an opportunity to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a proposal or project.  In FPIC, each element (free, prior and informed) of the process is significant and meaningful.  Participatory engagement, consultations, and negotiations can be tools through which FPIC is sought, but they in themselves do not indicate consent.  Failure to seek FPIC can lead to REDD+ project failure.  Key supporting values for FPIC are self-determination, tenure clarification, rights holders recognition, participatory decision making, and effective communication.  Rights holders are not the same as stakeholders.

27. 1. Anderson, P. 2011. Free, Prior, and Informed Consent in REDD+, Principles and Approaches for Policy and Project Development. RECOFTC, Bangkok, Thailand. 2. Edwards, K., Triraganon, R., Silori, C. and Stephenson, J. 2012. Putting Free, Prior, and Informed Consent into Practice in REDD+ Initiatives: A Training Manual. RECOFTC, IGES and Norad, Bangkok, Thailand. 3. Mahanty, S. and McDermott, C. L. 2013. How does ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent’ (FPIC) impact social equity? Lessons from mining and forestry and their implications for REDD+. Land Use Policy 35: 406– 416. 4. Maharjan, S. K., Carling, J. and Sherpa, L. N. 2012. Training Manual on Free, Prior and Informed Consent in REDD+ for Indigenous Peoples. AIPP and IWGIA. 5. Springer, J. and Retana, V. 2014. Free, Prior and Informed Consent and REDD+: Guidelines and Resources. WWF Working Paper. 6. UN-REDD Programme. 2013. Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent.