Institutional Mechanisms for REDD+ - Case Studies Working Paper

Monitoring and Verification:
A monitoring committee will be established including one representative each from the District Soil and
Watershed Conservation Office, ANSAB, district-level organization of Dalits, and women network. The
Committee will be responsible for monitoring and reporting on carbon data, payment distribution, and
payment utilization with respect to the FCTF operational guidelines. An independent verification agency,
consisting of a multi-disciplinary team of technical experts, will also analyze and verify these aspects.
4.3.5 CONSULTATION OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES
The FECOFUN is responsible for facilitating the consultation and participation of the CFUGs during the
early stages of the project. In particular, the FECOFUN supported each CFUG to identify two local resource
people within the community. These local resource people received training in Kathmandu, and were tasked
with raising awareness and building capacity within the CFUGs regarding climate change, REDD+, and the
proposed demonstration project. The CFUGs were given an option as to whether or not they wanted to
participate in the project. According to the members of the Watershed REDD Networks that were
interviewed for this case study, all CFUGs in their respective watersheds were eager to participate, and there
were no major concerns voiced regarding the project or the proposed benefit sharing mechanism. The only
outstanding concern raised repeatedly during the interviews was whether international REDD+ markets
would actually materialize after 2012.
Although it was not possible to verify these claims through interviews with individual community members,
an interview with Pasang Dolma Sherpa from NEFIN suggested that at least one household within the
Chitwan watershed had not been adequately informed of the project. Members from this household had
reported their concern that the project would force them to stop shifting cultivation practices. Overall, this
situation led Pasang Dolma Sherpa to conclude that Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of indigenous
households had not been adequately undertaken.
The FECOFUN also facilitated the establishment of the three Watershed Network Groups. Once
operational, these groups effectively transfer the responsibilities for community engagement to the
communities themselves.
4.3.6 GRIEVANCE AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION MECHANISMS
According to the FCTF operational guidelines, any disputes or disagreements between parties will be resolved
by the FCTF Advisory Committee, which makes decisions by consensus of its members. Interviews with the
two Watershed REDD Networks indicated that communities expect to rely on existing conflict resolution
mechanisms, including the CFUGs themselves for intra-community disputes and local FECOFUN offices for
disputes involving multiple CFUGs. However, the Network members also emphasized that disputes,
particularly with regard to benefit sharing, are generally uncommon.
4.3.7 EVALUATIONS OF PAST PERFORMANCE
At this stage, it is still too early to evaluate the performance of the REDD+ demonstration project. The
project stakeholders interviewed at the local and national level spoke positively about the experience to date
and did not cite any emerging problems. The only negative critique came from the NEFIN representative
with respect to the FPIC process.
However, since the project builds heavily from existing community institutions, evaluations of the past
performance of CFUGs with respect to benefit sharing may provide relevant insights. There is a large body of
literature on this topic. While inequity and elite capture are recognized weaknesses of some CFUGs (Bleaney,
2009), CFUGs are generally considered to be an important local institution in Nepal that has significantly
strengthened community level governance since the 1990s. Furthermore, it appears that pro-poor and social
equity considerations (widely known as ―second generation‖ issues) are an increasing focus of CFUG
84 PRRGP INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR REDD: CASE STUDIES – WORKING PAPER