A complaint mechanism for REDD+
A report from the Center for International Environmental Law and Rainforest Foundation Norway, May 2011
Download the report A complaint mechanism for REDD+ here
Executive Summary
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD, or REDD+) has emerged as a forerunning strategy in the global effort to reduce carbon emissions. Many REDD+ activities have direct impacts at the local level, especially on indigenous peoples and forest-dependent communities. More specifically, these activities may result in impacts to lands, livelihoods, the environment, traditional uses of resources, and just processes. To ensure long-term success, it is essential that any international REDD+ initiative provides a means to consider, address, and minimize those impacts resulting from REDD+ activities.
Given the risks associated with REDD+-related impacts, it is vital that those affected have an opportunity to raise their concerns and, where appropriate, ask for problems to be remedied. We call the process of formally raising these concerns a “complaint mechanism.” Generally speaking, a complaint mechanism involves a set of standards and an institutional administrative office that determines whether those standards are being met in the implementation of specific activities. Complaint mechanism functions can include: fact-finding, advising, resolving disputes, assessing compliance, granting remedies, and/or awarding compensation. While various national- and sub-national court systems mediate legal matters on a case-specific basis, the availability, costs, limited jurisdiction, and procedural requirements for bringing a case may not always provide an effective or timely solution to REDD-related complaints. Moreover, national systems will not always provide effective resolution given that international organizations facilitating REDD+ activities generally enjoy sovereign immunity and cannot be sued. As such, an international complaint mechanism could provide the expertise and authority to consider REDD-related concerns in a timely and efficient manner.
In addition to providing timely responses to on-the-ground impacts, a complaint mechanism can help reduce risks and avoid “worst-case” scenario outcomes, and ultimately improve the outcomes of REDD+ activities. As such, REDD+ initiatives may be modified to minimize human and environmental harm, and address conflicts before they escalate. Maintaining a feedback mechanism to address and prevent adverse impacts to forest-dependent communities and the ecosystems on which they depend is essential, particularly in light of the rapidly evolving nature of the emerging REDD+ regime.
This report focuses primarily on opportunities to address allegations of violations to the rights of indigenous peoples and other forest-dependent communities. To be successful, a complaint mechanism for REDD+ should satisfy the principles of effective non-judicial grievance mechanisms enumerated by the U.N. Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises: legitimacy, accessibility, predictability, equitability, rights-compatibility and transparency. We consider these principles in evaluating the accountability and recourse options of existing mechanisms, as well as considering design options for a new complaint mechanism.
Several mechanisms already exist that are capable of considering at least some portion of REDD-related claims. While the UNFCCC does not currently offer any such mechanism, the World Bank Inspection Panel, human rights systems, and OECD national contact points all provide particular opportunities to address certain complaints alleging rights violations related to REDD+. Each of these mechanisms has the authority to consider claims on issues related to REDD+; however, none is currently capable of hearing the full scope of REDD-related claims spanning the full scope of potential impacts and diverse actors involved.
Given that existing complaint mechanisms offer selective opportunities for limited recourse, this paper then offers design options for a new complaint mechanism capable of addressing the full scope of REDD-related claims. This report does not present a particular design for a new mechanism but rather offers options based on scope, functions, and operational considerations. One particular option explored is the possibility of referring at least some complaints to one or more of the existing mechanisms.
The complaint process begins with the filing of a claim, usually by those harmed or potentially harmed by REDD-related activities undertaken at either the project or national level. After a complaint is received by an office authorized to receive such complaints, it should be reviewed by the office in an impartial, independent, transparent and credible manner. If a submission is deemed eligible, the office could determine whether to review the complaints in-house or refer some of the complaints to other existing bodies with specific expertise on certain subject matters related to REDD complaints. In the event that a complaint has been investigated and harm (or the threat of harm) has been determined, the investigating office could issue findings of harm and other remedies as appropriate, such as compensation, remediation and/or injunctive relief.
In addition to design considerations, certain options could help enhance the effectiveness of a REDD-specific complaint mechanism. First, in severe cases of harm, complaints could impact funding flows if a remedy is not implemented or the harmful practice continues. Second, an annual reporting requirement describing complaints received, decisions taken, lessons learned, and recommendations for future action could enhance learning, improve operations, and contribute to UNFCCC monitoring, reporting, and verification activities. Third, it may be helpful to establish project-specific complaint resolution procedures in order to help resolve disputes efficiently and at the level most familiar with impacts and available remedies. Finally, the complaint mechanism could offer formal adjudication services to help resolve disputes between different REDD+ interests.
In conclusion, no existing mechanism can adequately address the full scope of potential REDD-related claims. At the same time, creating a new office to consider a comprehensive suite of REDD-related complaints would require significant time and resources. Recognizing that many existing mechanisms could provide valuable expertise to specific types of REDD-related claims, it might be possible to process claims more efficiently by authorizing a centralized office to receive the full scope of REDD-related complaints and then refer claims to the existing mechanisms where appropriate. This could help alleviate the burden for all mechanisms to investigate claims that are beyond their jurisdiction or competency, ultimately providing a better and more efficient outcome for all involved.