B2.2.2. National REDD+ Program benefits, risks and measures related to rights to land and forest land

A number of benefits and risks related to rights to land and forest land have been identified through REDD+ planning processes at the national and subnational levels. A 2017 assessment of potential benefits and risks arising from National REDD+ Action Program (NRAP)^[1] policies and measures identified the following relevant co-benefits and risks:

● REDD+ policies and measures may support improved access to, and strengthened use rights over, lands and forest resources (and associated natural capital);

● There is a risk of loss of productive assets such as land, access or use rights to forests/forestry lands and, therefore, potential for increasing conflicts over land tenure and/or use;

● Potential reduced access to resources, such as forest and land, for subsistence and/or livelihoods;

● There may be a lack of maintenance or abandonment of coastal forest plantations on lands that are classified as protection or special use forest.

The assessment at the national level also put forward suggested measures for enhancing the identified benefits and reducing risks related to rights to land and forest land, such as: promoting comprehensive and inclusive consultation processes for strategic environmental assessments/environmental impact assessments; and development of clear guidelines for collaborative forest management, non-timber forest product (NTFP) business models, and livelihoods interventions.

At the sub-national level, analysis of social and environmental risks and benefits was required for the development of Provincial REDD+ Action Plans (PRAPs),^[2] and assessments have also been carried out for specific sub-national programs. For example, these include the Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) for the FCPF Emission Reductions Program in the North-Central region of Viet Nam, and assessment of Environmental and Social Considerations for the Project for Sustainable Forest Management in the Northwest Watershed Area (SUSFORM-NOW) funded by the JICA.

The FCPF SESA and ESMF identify a number of risks related to land and forest use, noting that land tenure, access to resources and livelihoods are consistently cited as the most important social issues related to REDD+ implementation.^[3] Identified risks include: potential for reduced access to forest resources for forest dependent communities through improvements to forest governance; social impacts from loss of land previously used for agriculture or restrictions placed on accessing forest for NTFP collection; and possible gender and poverty issues related to access to forest. In terms of mitigation measures, a Resettlement Policy Framework has been prepared for the FCPF Program which sets out eligibility criteria of displaced persons, modes of compensation and rehabilitation, participation features and grievances procedures. A Process Framework has also been prepared to guide procedures to identify, assess, minimize and mitigate potential adverse impacts on local livelihoods by restriction of access.

In order to achieve goals related to forest protection and sustainable development, as well as REDD+, it is essential to promote more equitable and collaborative forms of forest governance, to address issues of land and resource conflict, and to ensure transparent and equitable benefit-sharing.

A framework of procedures is in place to promote consultation and collaborative management for the implementation of REDD+ interventions, based on Viet Nam’s legal framework and safeguards instruments, such as Free, Prior and Informed Consultation (FPIC) (see SIS C2.2 and D2.2) and benefit sharing mechanisms (SIS B2.3). Effective mechanisms to address contentious issues, complaints and disputes during REDD+ implementation, collectively referred to as GRMs, are also necessary as part of addressing and respecting the Cancun Safeguards, including for disputes related to rights to land and forest land. Grievance redress for REDD+ in Viet Nam is discussed in more detail under SIS B2.6.

 

[1] Summarised from 2018 assessment of potential benefits and risks arising from the NRAP and FCPF ERP. https://ewsdata.rightsindevelopment.org/files/documents/05/WB-P162605_aCVp4Yl.pdf

[2] Decision No. 5414/QD-BNN-TCLN dated December 25, 2015 on guideline to develop PRAP

[3] FCPF ERP Document (2018). https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/system/files/documents/00_FINAL%20ER-PD%20Vietnam%205%20Jan%202018__0.pdf

[4] MARD (2018) Resettlement Policy Framework https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/342091549017853009/pdf/RPF-Vietnam-FCPF-REDD-November-4-2018.pdf

[5] MARD (2018) FCPF ERP Process framework: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fdocuments1.worldbank.org%2Fcurated%2Fen%2F649181549019417056%2FProcess-Framework-ERP-Nov2017-Tarr-4th-of-November-2018.docx&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK