• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

REDD in the Democratic Republic of Congo: Civil society letter requests Free, Prior and Informed Consent, review of REDD+ approval decree, a complaints mechanism, and transparent distribution of funds

Posted on 21 June 20191 July 2019

In May 2019, the Congolese NGO Action pour la promotion et protection des peoples et espèces menacés (APEM) wrote to the coordinator of the World Bank’s Forest Investment Programme in the Democratic Republic. The letter followed a civil society monitoring mission of three REDD projects in Mai Ndombe province that was carried out in September and October 2018.

The monitoring mission found that the REDD projects are not operating with the safeguards that are supposedly in place to protect local communities’ and indigenous peoples’ rights. Communities are often unaware of what REDD is, and in many cases have not given their consent to REDD projects on their land.

This should not come as a surprise. In March 2012, staff from Forest Peoples Programme (FPP) and Cercle pour la defense de l’environnement (CEDEN) travelled to Mai Ndombe to find out more about what is now the Wildlife Works Carbon REDD project.

FPP and CEDEN found that, “none of the communities had been informed about what the carbon market actually is, or how it works”. Communities were not told what the impacts of the project might be on their livelihoods. At least one community refused to collaborate with the REDD project.

Six years after FPP and CEDEN visited Mai Ndombe, communities remain largely unaware of what REDD is. You can read about the 2018 report resulting from the monitoring mission here.

Here’s a rough translation of the declaration attached to APEM’s letter, summarising the findings of the monitoring report, and with a list of six recommendations:

Declaration of Environmental Civil Society on the REDD+ Process in Mai Ndombe addressed to the FIP and FCPF

We, actors of the environmental civil society gathered at the initiative of the NGO Action pour la promotion et protection des peoples et espèces menacés (APEM) working to monitor the rights of local communities and indigenous peoples living in and around the area of the REDD+ jurisdictional program Mai Ndombe.

After various field missions to the PIREDD Plateau implemented by WWF and the WWC concession in Mai-Ndombe we found:

  • Communities have not been sufficiently informed about REDD+;
  • REDD+ managers did not obtain free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) from communities prior to the establishment of the programme;
  • The selective participation of community representatives in Local Development Committees (CLDs), at the Steering Committee (COPIL), without community legitimacy;
  • Failure to take customary land rights into account, preventing communities from claiming their rights to carbon;
  • Failure to respect the commitments made in the framework of the various signed protocols between the project promoters and the communities concerned;
  • Misappropriation of funds for REDD+ activities on the ground that prevents equitable sharing of benefits.

In light of the above, we ask for the following:

  1. Ensure that each community involved in the process is fully informed and sensitised about the REDD+ process;
  2. To document the FPIC obtained from the communities in accordance with the methodology established by Decree no. 026 of 8 November 2017;
  3. Restructure the Local Development Committees in a participatory way and strengthen their capacities so that they fully play their role in representing the communities;
  4. Support the review of the REDD+ approval decree for a new decree to: i) mandate the REDD+ process to take into account the customary land rights of local communities and indigenous peoples; and ii) allow the communities to be the leaders of REDD+ projects and thus to have direct access to carbon payments;
  5. Make a complaint and appeal mechanism operational in each project and sensitise communities on its functioning and referral;
  6. Demand that REDD+ funds be distributed transparently, equitably, and arrive in the field (villages) through actions that deliver tangible benefits (excluding carbon benefits) to local communities and indigenous peoples; especially through community forestry.

Kinshasa, May 21, 2019

 

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • shahid on James Moore sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for his role in the Bar Works scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Delton Chen on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Chris Lang on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl

Recent Posts

  • Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Papua New Guinea Environmental Alliance letter to Pogio Ghate, Minister for Environment, Conservation and Climate Change
  • Ecomapuá Amazon REDD Project, Brazil: Pública investigation reveals Ecomapuá Conservação is selling “illegal” carbon offsets from land it does not own, without transferring the money to local communities
  • Response from Steve Zwick, Verra: “Verra will ask Kanaka Management Systems to cease and desist any actions that may mislead communities into thinking that Verra has not already rejected the project”
  • Response from Kanaka Management Services: “Please do not conduct legal trail or castigate REDD+ project developers on the website by writing text which shows the project developer in bad light”

Recent Comments

  • shahid on James Moore sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for his role in the Bar Works scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Delton Chen on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Chris Lang on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Green Climate Fund Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2022 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!