Professional Documents
Culture Documents
REDD+ Safeguards Implementation in Peru: Case Analysis of The FCPF, FIP and Joint Declaration of Intent With Norway and Germany
REDD+ Safeguards Implementation in Peru: Case Analysis of The FCPF, FIP and Joint Declaration of Intent With Norway and Germany
implementation in Peru:
Case analysis of the FCPF,
FIP and Joint Declaration
of Intent with Norway and
Germany.
REDD+ safeguards
implementation in Peru:
Case analysis of the FCPF,
FIP and Joint Declaration
of Intent with Norway and
Germany.
Climate
Governance
Integrity
Program.
Index.
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.
2.1
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.2.1
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.3
3.
4.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.3.1.
4.3.1.1
4.3.1.2
4.3.2
4.3.2.1
4.3.3
4.3.3.1
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
ACRONYMS
Executive Summary
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Good Governance
REDD+ Mechanism
Safeguards
INTERNATIONAL REDD+ FUNDS: FCPF, FIP.
2.Forest Carbon Partnership Facility - FCPF
FCPF Governance Structure
FCPF Readiness Fund
FCPF Carbon Fund
Forest Investment Fund-FIP
FIP Governance structure
MDB Joint Missions
FIP Investment Strategy
Dedicated Grant Mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (DGM)
Safeguards Common Approach
INTERNATIONAL FUNDS, SAFEGUARD AND GOOD GOVERNANCE
IMPLEMENTATION OF REDD+ SAFEGUARDS IN PERU
Background on climate funds
Safeguards: Financing and coordination of processes
Safeguards of the R-PP, ER-PIN, PI-FIP documents and the JDI with Norway and Germany
FCPF
Safeguards in the R-PP
Safeguards in the ER-PIN
FIP
PI-FIP Safeguards
Joint Declaration of Intent with Norway and Germany
Safeguards in the JDI with Norway and Germany
HOW THE LACK OF IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFEGUARDS AFFECTS THE GOOD GOVERNANCE?
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
ANNEX
BIBLIOGRAPHY
2
3
4
4
5
6
8
8
8
9
10
11
12
12
12
13
14
15
17
17
17
21
21
21
22
23
23
23
23
23
24
25
26
27
Acronyms.
AIDESEP
AU
CGR
CIF
CONAP
COP
CS
DGM
DP
ERP
ER-PA
ER-PIN
ESMF
FCPF
FIP
FMT
GEF
GHG
GORE
IDB
IPCC
JDI
MDB
MEF
MINAGRI
MINAM
MRREE
MRV
NEA
NRS
PNCB
OP
PC
PIA
PI-FIP
REDD+
R-PP
SESA
SINEA
SIS
UNFCCC
UNPFII
VIC
WB
Executive Summary.
This document aims to assess the status of implementation of REDD+
safeguards in Peru. The methodology used was the comparison of the
Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) safeguards standards with the
safeguards developed by the Forest Carbon Partnership Facilitys (FCPF)
R-PP and ER-PIN documents, the Investment Plan of the Forest
Investment Program (FIP) and the Joint Declaration of Intent with
Norway and Germany (JDI). First, the term safeguards was
conceptualized at an international level, then following the model of S.Roe
and his collaborators the Cancun safeguards were classified following
environmental, social and procedural criteria. Finally the safeguards
internationally understood as part of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were identified, then the
safeguards of the MDB, the operational policies, were identified and last
the climate funds like the FCPF and FIP instruments for "viable"
safeguards such as the Environmental and Social Strategic Assessment
(SESA), the Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF)
and the Stakeholders Involvement Plan (PIA) were identified.
The first section explains the conceptual framework of the forest
governance terms, the REDD+ mechanism and safeguards.
The second section describes the international REDD+ funds like the
FCPF and FIP, their implementation guidelines, internal procedures and
governance structures.
The third section explains the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs)
safeguards and the common approach to be taken by governments as a
framework to implement REDD+. In addition, it explains how the
safeguards and internal procedures of the MDB funds articulate with the
promotion of good governance.
The fourth section explains the context of REDD+ the preparation in the
country. In addition funding for safeguards issues, FCPF and FIP funds
information processes and participation as well as the interaction of these
processes is analyzed. Likewise, the safeguards presented so far by Peru in
the various REDD+ funds documents from the FCPF, FIP and the JDI
made between 2013 and 2014 are analyzed. The safeguards concept made
in the documents as well as the funds instruments to make them viable are
analyzed, processes interactions, consistency in the implementation and
inclusion of progress at regional level on the issue of safeguards is analyzed
too.
The fifth section highlights how the lack of implementation of safeguards
instruments and procedures supports the development of corruption risks
scenarios.
1. Conceptual Framework.
1.1 Good Governance.
The concept of governance has evolved over time. One of the first approaches to
the concept(1) was based on the way a company is managed and in which
priorities and interests are identified on the basis of consensus involving a
variety of actors. To this it was added that governance could be limited by the
way the State provides services, taking into consideration how officials and
public entities obtain and exercise power and authority to identify public
policies and provide goods and public services.
With the passage of time, the operational limits of the concept governance
started to be discussed. In the face of this came the "good governance", which is
easier to understand from its principles: Rule of law; Transparency and access
to information; Accountability; Respect for rights; Participation/inclusiveness;
Performance/effectiveness; Consensus seeking; Capacity; Anti-corruption;
Gender equality(2) .
The principles of good governance are important for a country to "govern", or
manage their REDD+ process, and it is an essential feature that contributes to
the sustainability of REDD+ initiatives. That is, good governance can create a
favorable environment to govern the REDD+ process successfully, helping to
ensure full and effective participation in decision-making, generating an image
of trust and integrity in management and in REDD+ funds management, and
promote justice, transparency and accountability during all stages of the
REDD+ initiative.
According to FAO(3), the concept of good forest governance has three pillars to
measure the degree of evaluation. The first pillar, political, legal, institutional
and regulatory frameworks, i.e. it encompasses the coherence of policy and
institutional forestry systems. The second pillar, planning and
decision-making, includes the level of transparency, accountability and process
integration on forest management. The third pillar, implementation,
enforcement and compliance, encompasses the level of implementation of
political, legal, institutional and regulatory frameworks. It also considers the
levels of effectiveness, equity and efficiency of implementation.
(1) FAO 2007, Buena gobernanza en la tenencia y la administracin de tierras. (2) Academia REDD+. Capitulo 12: Buena Gobernanza. Programa ONU-REDD+.
(3) FAO 2011, Marco para la evaluacin y seguimiento de la gobernanza forestal.
4
Effectiveness
Efficiency
Impartiality/equity
Political, legal,
institutional and
regulatory
Frameworks
Planning and
decision making
processes
Implementation
and Application
Participation
Transparency
Source: FAO, 2011
Therefore, for this study the term good forest governance is considered
as the efficient and effective management of natural, human and financial
resources, with a fair and equitable redistribution of resources and benefits
identified with full and effective participation and transparent processes.
1.2 REDD+ Mechanism
During the 11th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP11) of the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
in 2005, countries Papua Guinea and Costa Rica, on behalf of Tropical
Forest Nations, presented an initiative for reducing GHG emissions from
deforestation and forest degradation in less developed countries (REDD).
The proposal was received by the parties, who agreed to initiate a two-year
process for its design.
During the 13th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 13), in
2007, in the city of Bali, a lot of parties expressed interest in the REDD
proposal and elaborated the "Bali Action Plan", this indicated that the
parties support the capacity building and technical assistance, facilitate the
transfer of technology to improve, inter alia, data collection, estimation of
emissions from deforestation and forests degradation, monitoring and
reporting and address the institutional needs of developing countries to
estimate and reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
In the following years, the REDD theme was very dynamic at the
UNFCCC negotiations, switching to the REDD+ term which implies
conservation and an increased capture of CO2, forests sustainable
management and enhancement of forest carbon.
(4) CMNUCC 2010, Decisin. 1/CP.16 Acuerdos de Cancn: resultado de la labor del Grupo de Trabajo Especial sobre la cooperacin a largo plazo en el marco de la Convencin. Decisin 1/CP.16 Acuerdos de Cancn: resultado
de la labor del Grupo de Trabajo Especial sobre la cooperacin a largo plazo en el marco de la Convencin. C) Enfoques de poltica e incentivos positivos para las cuestiones relativas a la reduccin de las emisiones debidas a la
deforestacin y la degradacin forestal en los pases en desarrollo; y funcin de la conservacin, la gestin sostenible de los bosques y el aumento de las reservas forestales de carbono en los pases en desarrollo. En:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/spa/07a01s.pdf
Additionally it was stated that REDD+ would have three phases for
developing countries, the first dedicated to the preparation of strategies;
the second dedicated to the implementation of strategies; and the third, to
payment by results of reducing GHG emissions.
To this we must add that during the COP19 in 2013, in the city of
Warsaw, several decisions on REDD+ were taken, this is known as "the
Warsaw framework for REDD+". Some of the most important points
are(5): 1) Countries should ensure that REDD+ activities, regardless of the
source and type of financing, are implemented consistently with the
safeguards adopted by the COP16 (the "Cancun safeguards"); and 2)
Countries should develop a system to provide information on how the
Cancun safeguards are addressed and respected. It was also agreed that
developing countries requesting and obtaining results-based payments for
REDD+ activities must provide the summary of the latest information on
how safeguards have been addressed and respected in the context of
results-based payments.
1.3 Safeguards.
In 2010 at the Conference of the Parties (COP16) of the UNFCCC in
Cancun, decisions were made to define the policy guidelines and
procedures for REDD+. One of the most important issues were the
REDD+ safeguards, defined as policies and procedures aimed to prevent
and protect against unwanted REDD+ preparation and implementation
negative effects or social or environmental damage. In addition, seven
major REDD+ safeguards were decided(6):
1. That actions complement or are consistent with the objectives of
national forest programs and relevant international conventions and
agreements;
(5) CMNUCC, 2014. Informe de la Conferencia de las Partes sobre 19 periodo de sesiones, celebrado en Varsovia del 11 al 23 de noviembre de 2013. Decisin 9/CP.19 Decisin 12/CP.19
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/spa/10a01s.pdf (6) CMNUCC 2010, Decisin. 1/CP.16 Acuerdos de Cancn: resultado de la labor del Grupo de Trabajo Especial sobre la cooperacin a largo plazo en el marco de la
Convencin. Decisin 1/CP.16 Acuerdos de Cancn: resultado de la labor del Grupo de Trabajo Especial sobre la cooperacin a largo plazo en el marco de la Convencin. C) Enfoques de poltica e incentivos positivos para las
cuestiones relativas a la reduccin de las emisiones debidas a la deforestacin y la degradacin forestal en los pases en desarrollo; y funcin de la conservacin, la gestin sostenible de los bosques y el aumento de las reservas
forestales. (7) S.Roe, C.Streck, L.Pritchard, J.Costenbader 2013, Safeguards in REDD+ and Forest Carbon Standards: A review of social, environmental and procedural concepts and application. Climate Focus.
Classification
Environmental criteria
Procedural criteria
On the other hand, in the implementation framework of the Forestry Governance and REDD+ Project from the Climate Governance Program developed
by Protica, the procedure standards will be the main elements that will help analyze the documents prepared for the FCPF and FIP funds, and the JDI with
Norway and Germany as they are linked to the evaluation of good governance understood as an efficient and effective management of natural, human and
financial resources and with a fair and equitable redistribution of resources and benefits(8). In the absence of good governance this would be a favorable
environment for the emergence of corruption risks scenarios.
(8) Organizacin de la Naciones Unidas para la Alimentacin y la Agricultura (FAO). 2011. Marco para la evaluacin y seguimiento de la gobernanza forestal.
(9)FCPF. 2013a. Gua para el marco de Evaluacin de la Preparacin del FCPF. Link: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/July2013/FCPC%20framework%207-25-13%20SPA%20web.pdf. (10)FCPF
2014a, Introduccin al FCPF y a la Inclusin Social en el Contexto de la Preparacin para REDD+ y Mas All. Del 20 al 24 de enero 2014. Guatemala. En: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/January
/1.e.%20Presentaci%C3%B3n-Introducci%C3%B3n-FCPF%26Inclusi%C3%B3n-Social.pdf (11)CMNUCC.2010. Informe de la Conferencia de las Partes sobre su 16 perodo de sesiones, celebrado en Cancn del 29 de noviembre
al 10 de diciembre de 2010. Link http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/spa/07a01s.pdf . (12) IBRC.2010.Charter Establishing The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/
sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Sep2010/FCPF_Charter-August_2010_clean.pdf (13) Los observadores de sociedad civil y pueblos indgenas son elegidos mediante una votacin entre dichas organizaciones 8
en Amrica Latina, Norte, frica y Asia.
Executors Partners
Carbon Fund
-6 countries
- Payment for verified emission
reductions
World Bank
Inter-American Development Bank
United Nations Development
Source: FCPF, 2014a
To reach its objectives, the FCPF has two funds: the Readiness Fund
and the Carbon Fund. Each of the funds has requirements that are
requested to the member countries to access financing. Next we explain in
detail each of the FCPF funds.
(14) FCPF.2013a. Gua para el marco de Evaluacin de la Preparacin del FCPF. En: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/July2013/FCPC%20framework%207-25-13%20SPA%20web.pdf.
(15) Ibid 6
9
R-PP
R-PP
Mid-Term
Progress
Report
Document
of Ideas for
Emissions
Reduction
Program
(ER-PIN)
Readiness
Package
Emission
Reduction
Program
Document
Legal Agreements
Readiness
Donation
Agreement
($200K)
Supplementary
Donation
Agreement
($3.6M)
R-PP Formulation
ERPA
($30-50M)
REDD+ Readiness
REDD+ Implementation
Source: FCPF, 2014a
The FCPF Readiness Fund has implementation guides and several steps
and filters that can make the disbursement take time, sometimes years. An
example is the case of Peru, who presented his R-PP in 2010 but given the
different comments and internal FMT processes, only on the 24th of
February 2014 the FCPF accepted the document.
2.1.3 FCPF Carbon Fund.
This fund started its function in 2011 and aims to implement REDD+
programs through positive incentives(16). Compared to the preparation
fund, here only six countries would be accepted since the amount for
payment of GHG reduction can be up to USD 50 million to each country.
Financing countries of this fund are Australia, Canada, Germany, Norway,
Switzerland, England and the United States.
Countries that want to participate in this fund, after the Midterm Report
of the Preparation Fund must submit an ER-PIN, document containing the
proposed Emissions Reduction Program (RE programs). The evaluation
criteria for RE programs are as follows(17):
(16) FCPF 2013a, Marco Metodolgico del Fondo de Carbono del FCPF. Versin final fecha 20 de diciembre del 2013.En link:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/July/Marco%20methodol%C3%B3gico%20del%20Fondo%20del%20Carbono%20%20del%20Fondo%20Cooperativo%20para%20el%20Carbono
%20de%20los%20Bosques%20version%20final%2012%202013%20(updated%20July30%202014).pdf (17) Ibid 11
10
Readiness Fund
R-PP Formulation
Carbon Fund
R-PP
Assessment
Midterm
Progress
Report
R-Package
Endorsement
Readiness Preparation
Implementation
Emissions
Reductions
Program Idea
Note
(ER-PIN)
Although the mechanisms of the FCPF, both the Carbon Fund and the
Readiness Fund, are carefully explained, the effectiveness as well as the
order of the steps are not necessarily respected in practice. An example of
this is the case of Peru, that despite not having an implementing
partner-country signed donation and therefore a midcourse report, applied
to the Carbon Fund, presenting in the first half of 2014 an Emission
Reduction Program Idea Note (ER-PIN) and it being accepted in October
2014(18).
2.2.- Forest Investment Fund-FIP.
The Forest Investment Program (FIP) is a financing program and is part
of a set of initiatives from the Climate Investment Fund (CIF), approved by
the World Bank Board in 2007.
The FIP supports the main REDD+ efforts in developing countries to
reduce carbon emissions, deforestation and forest degradation. In addition,
it uses the definitions and terms related to forests and climate change in line
with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and
recognize the new vocabulary emerged from the UNFCCC process. The
objective of the FIP(19) is to finance institutional reforms that allow
countries institutional preparation to reduce carbon emissions,
deforestation and forest degradation. It also subsidizes public and private
investments linked to REDD+ as part of a National Investment Strategy.
R-Package must be
endorsed by the PC before
and ER Program is
submitted and an ERPA is
signed
Emissions
Reductions
Program
Document
(ERPD)
Signature of
Emission
Reductions
Payment
Agreement
(ERPA)
2.
3.
4.
(18) FCPF 2014c, Resolution Eleventh Carbon Fund Meeting. October 6-8. CFM/11/2014/3.Selection of Per Emission Reductions Program Idea Note into the Pipeline En:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/october/Resolution%203%20Peru%20ER-PIN.pdf (19) CIF 2010, Directrices Operacionales del PInS. 29 de junio
del 2010. En: https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/FIP_Operational_Guidelines_final_spanish.pdf (20) CIF 2009, Documento Bsico
para el Diseo del Programa de Inversin Forestal, de Carcter Selectivo, Creado al Amparo del Fondo Fiduciario del FEC. FIP. 7 de julio de 2009. En:
https://www-cif.climateinvestmentfunds.org/sites/default/files/meeting-documents/fip_design_document_july_final_spanish.pdf
11
12
The following are general guidelines and annexes for the drafting of the
investment strategy.
Annexes
Annex 1. The proposed project and program pipeline, including the
notional FIP resource allocation, an estimate of resources that would be
leveraged, projections of potential carbon emissions reductions from both,
the co-financed portfolio as well as the larger transformational impact and
other results indicators.
Indonesia
6. 5 millions of dollars
Mxico
6. 5 millions of dollars
Ghana
Per
Burkina Faso
Global component
5 millions of dollars
Source: Prepared by the author based on CIF, 2012
(23) CIF 2012, Directrices Operacionales del Marco de Trabajo. Mecanismo de Donacin Especfico para Pueblos Indgenas y Comunidades Locales. FIP. En:
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/13-09-12DGMGuidelines-Final_ES.pdf
13
FIP Sub-comittee
Trustee
World Bank DGM Team
Leader
Resource Flow
Reporting on DGM Project
Supervision
IInformation & Coordination
The FCPF Guidelines and the generic Terms of Reference for the Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) and the Environmental
and Social Management Framework (ESMF) associated, fulfill the safeguard policies and relevant procedures of the WB.
The FCPF / UN-REDD Guidelines on the Participation of Stakeholders Involved in the Preparation of REDD+.
FCPF Guidelines on Disclosure of Information
FCPF Guidelines on the Complaints Establishment and Repair Mechanisms at a country level.
(24) FCPF 2012b, Enfoque comn para las salvaguardas ambientales y sociales para los socios ejecutores mltiples. En
http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/Documents/tagged/Common_Approach_Fact_Sheet_SP_FINAL.pdf
14
R-PP
Evaluation
Readiness Fund
R-PP Formulation
REDD+ Readiness
Carbon Fund
Implementation
In conclusion, the safeguards aim to ensure that social and environmental issues are taken into account in a decision-making process in order to identify,
assess, prevent, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts. It is for this reason that safeguards should be present in the design, formulation and implementation
of programs and projects from the readiness and carbon funds. To this we must add that the FCPF safeguards do not replace countries national laws but they
support them through raising standards in the consultation and participation processes.
The common approach outlined above, indicates that when a country has
different implementing partners at the same time like the World Bank or
IDB, the safeguards that offers the best protection must be applied. This
means that the most robust operational protection policy for projects
financed by the FCPF and FIP will be chosen. In addition, countries should
implement the instruments to make possible the FCPF and FIP safeguards.
In the case of the FCPF(25) , it is the Strategic Environmental and Social
Assessment (SESA) and the Environmental and Social Management
Framework (ESMF). In the case of the FIP, there is the Stakeholder
Involvement Plan (PIA), according how we classified the Cancun
safeguards, these instruments have social and procedural criteria. The
following table indicates in which cases each of the instruments indicated
were used.
(25) FCPF 2013b, Gua para el marco de Evaluacin de la Preparacin del FCPF. En: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/July2013/FCPC%20framework%207-25-13%20SPA%20web.pdf
15
FCPF/ESMF
FCPF/PIA
Ensure the integration of environmental and social considerations in the formulation and implementation of REDD+
That REDD + readiness activities under the FCPF comply with all applicable safeguards
Help to identify and propose viable solutions to address the main causes of deforestation and degradation in the country
It discusses the legal, regulatory and political system within which the REDD+ Strategy will be implemented
Discusses potential environmental and social impacts of the REDD+ implementation strategy
It describes the mechanisms to manage these impacts and requirements for implementation
It establishes the framework for the management of future projects, policies and activities through which a new version of the REDD+ strategy is implemented
It is the instrument for the involvement and participation of stakeholders involved in the forestry sector during the design and
implementation of the FIP strategy.
Source: Prepared by author based on CIF, 2010 and FCPF, 2013a
The amounts of safeguards from the various funds, the bilateral agreements as well as the level of implementation are complex and it can cause confusion.
In the case of the UNFCCC safeguards these are a guiding framework for countries that must be reported by countries every two years. Instead, the FCPF and
FIP safeguards, which apply operating policies of the MDBs and their own instruments, are not reported to the UNFCCC but must be implemented for
countries to receive funding. Safeguards have different fulfillment targets (financing and international agreement), but all have social, environmental and
procedural criteria. Although each of the safeguards, operational policies and instruments aim to mitigate REDD+ actions effects it is necessary to link the
procedures and mechanisms to promote good governance following the lines of transparency, accountability, information, active participation of actors, etc.
The following table shows the different Cancun safeguards and MDB safeguards.
Operational Policies
International Funds
FCPF, FIP
GOOD GOVERNANCE
MBD
World Bank, Inter-American
Development Bank
Source: Prepared by
author based on CMNUCC,
2010; FCPF, 2013a and
FCPF, 2012b.
As we described above, both the FCPF and FIP have internal procedures that follow the logic of a sequential order and promote good governance. The
documents to be submitted to the funds like the R-PP, ER-PIN and FIP Forest Investment Strategy require transparency, participation, information,
different stakeholders involvement and consultation mechanisms. Also, the instruments that make the FCPF safeguards possible such as the SESA and
ESMF seek permanent dialogue between the parties to identify and seek solutions to the potential impacts of REDD+ actions in the country. Meanwhile, the
PIA seeks a permanent mechanism for active participation in the design and implementation of the projects identified by the FIP Forest Investment Strategy.
In addition, both the FCPF and FIP have as part of their governance structures observers from civil society, private sector and indigenous peoples who can
inform the FIP subcommittee on the implementation of the activities of the funds in their countries. All the funds mechanisms and processes described aim
to promote good governance while implementing the fund components and projects. But if these mechanisms are not monitored and examined exhaustively
they could cause expectations and/or promises that in the short run could not be fulfilled. Besides an absence or weakness in monitoring safeguards
mechanisms and instruments could generate possible scenarios of corruption, because there is no information on the decision-making processes as well as on
the active participation of stakeholder.
(5) CIF 2012, Directrices Operacionales del Marco de Trabajo. Mecanismo de Donacin Especfico para Pueblos Indgenas y Comunidades Locales. FIP. En:
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/13-09-12DGMGuidelines-Final_ES.pdf
16
4. Implementation of REDD+
Safeguards In Peru.
As we have mentioned Peru participates in the REDD+ funds since 2008
and over the years it has participated simultaneously in the preparation of
four documents for two funds and a bilateral agreement. The documents to
request funding from REDD+ funds were prepared between 2013 and 2014,
and they should be articulated, be consistent in its implementation and
include the progress made at a regional level on the subject of safeguards as
it is mentioned in various implementation guides and guidelines of the
international funds.
This section analyzes the context of climate funds, and explains the
flagship projects for the public sector held by MINAM for the start of
REDD+ preparation. Then it analyzes the financing and schedules set out in
the R-PP, ER-PIN, PI-FIP and JDI with Norway and Germany documents.
This is to finally present a comparison of R-PP, ER-PIN, PI-FIP and JDI
with Norway and Germany safeguards through the variables of
international safeguards, national legislation and safeguards instruments.
4.1 Background on climate funds.
Peru began in 2008 the preparation of the R-PP for the FCPF, this
process involved the participation of civil society, through members of the
REDD+ Group. In March 2011 Peru presented the R-PP for the amount of
USD 3.6 million to the FCPF Participants Committee, who made
remarks(26) that the State should remedy for approval. During the years
2012 and 2013 the R-PP was updated, there was an attempt to make a
process of socialization of the R-PP new version in July 2013 during the
Forest Investment Plan workshop but it did not take place as indigenous
organizations AIDESEP and CONAP withdrew from the PI-FIP
participatory process(27).
In late December of that year, the MINAM convened a meeting for the
presentation of the R-PP newest version for the amount of USD 3.8 million,
this version was finally presented on December 31 2013, deadline for the
FCPF participating countries. Finally, the FCPF R-PP approval was given
on February 24, 2014.
As we have described, the R-PP process took several years, but this did
not mean that Peru did not agree to funding for the preparation stage of
REDD+. In those early years the KFW(28)- Support for the
Implementation of REDD+ in Peru was emblematic. This project had five
components: 1) support the implementation of the levels approach; 2)
creating a national registry for REDD+; 3) support the development of
standardized methodological frameworks for reference scenarios and
MRV; 4) funding for the development of regional reference scenarios; and
5) support the development of REDD+ financial and economic
mechanisms.
(26) El Gobierno lleg a acuerdos con AIDESEP. (27) AIDESEP CONAP 2013, Acta de los pueblos indgenas amaznicos de la mala convocatoria de reunin de la socializacin regional de los
avances en el diseo del Plan de Inversin. Yurimaguas 10 julio 2013. (28) KFW MINAM 2010, Informe final. Apoyo a la implementacin de REDD+ en el Per. Documento proyecto REDD+.
En: http://cambioclimatico.minam.gob.pe/documento-proyecto-kfw-apoyo-a-la-implementacion-de-redd-en-el-peru
17
Indicative dates
October 2013
January 2014
September 2014
Evaluation
November 2014
December 2014
May 2015
Source: CIF, 2013
To this must be added the four PI-FIP projects whose rightful execution
should have been between May and October 2015, a process that was not
made within the time scheduled and even now has not been executed yet. In
addition, according to the schedule what it shows is the budgeted funding for
the work lines of the document as well as the work plan.
18
FCPF
Other funds
Total
Amount
Amount
432
11%
1,980
24%
2,412
216
6%
1,520
18%
1,736
86
2%
80
1%
166
130
3%
380
5%
510
920
24%
1,608
19%
2,528
338
9%
1,260
15%
1,598
230
6%
260
3%
491
108
3%
88
1%
196
243
6%
0%
243
Component 3: Development of
National Reference Scenario
180
5%
325
4%
505
1,980
52%
4,432
53%
6,412
1,683
44%
4,418
53%
6,101
297
8%
14
0%
311
n.a.
288
8%
0%
288
3,800
100%
8,345
100%
12,145
On the other hand, the R-PP states that the preparation phase would be ready in the next two years, this means that between 2014 and 2016 the different
readiness components will be implemented but the SESA and ESMF process do not have an implementation timetable.
ER-PIN / FCPF.- The ER-PIN implementation will help the country to have an Emission Reduction Program (ERP) in the regions of San Martin and
Ucayali. While this ERP is point out for the year 2017, the REDD+ preparation process in the country must be previously completed. This means that before
2017 our country should have a system for monitoring, reporting and verification, a SESA and ESMF process, a design and implementation of monitoring
and reporting system of safeguards and non-carbon benefits, etc.. After this, it is estimated that between 2017 and 2020 the ERP is implemented.
The ER-PIN has a schedule for implementing each of the components of the preparatory phase of REDD+. Thus indicates that the SESA and ESMF
development and monitoring of the benefits of non-carbon depend on the design of the National Strategy for Forests and Climate Change and the FIP/ERP
projects, which are scheduled for the years 2014 and 2015.
Moreover, according to the ER-PIN the preparation stage of REDD+ would last 18 months, expected to be enough to make the REDD+ Action Plan, the
PIA implementation, the National Forest Cover Surveillance System, etc. Moreover, it indicates that mid-2016; the country could send its REDD+
preparation package report to the Participants Committee of the FCPF.
The chart below shows the amounts for each of the components for the ERP development, although this budgeted for a total of USD 303 908 000, the
FCPF accepted Peru in the Carbon Fund and therefore allocated in October 2014 the sum of USD 650,000 for the ER-PIN development.
19
Description
ER Program development
REDD Readiness
4.89
4.89
SNMCB
Planning
National Forest
Inventory
PES market
develop/Forest and
Carbon Fund
2.677
0.358
2.677
0.358
2.677
0.358
2.677
0.358
2.677
0.358
2.677
0.358
16.062
2.148
2
3
3.543
3.543
3.543
3.543
3.543
3.543
21.258
0.88
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.58
1.4
Subtotal
12.348
7.078
6.878
6.878
6.878
6.878
46.938
46.938
3.71
3.71
3.71
3.71
3.71
18.55
18.55
5.275
5.275
5.275
5.275
5.275
5.275
31.65
11.727
11.727
11.727
11.727
11.727
11.727
70.362
1.526
1.526
1.526
1.526
6.104
5.979
5.979
5.979
5.979
23.916
3.5
24
24
24
24
96
3,5,6
2.597
2.597
2.597
2.597
10.388
54.814
61.692
54.814
61.692
54.814
61.692
54.814
61.692
256.97
303.908
Operational and
implementation costs
2015
Land
titling (a)
Zoning/forest rights
Monitoring and
local control
Market promotion
and development
Technical
assistance/training (b)
2016
Incentives
(ag,forestry,community
forestry)
Studies/research
2017
2018
2019
2020
Total
Source
Other costs
Sub-total
Total uses
17.002
29.35
20.712
27.79
While each of the aforementioned documents have a schedule for the development of the components for the REDD+ preparation, it is the components in
common like the SESA and ESMF that will take place at the same time according the R-PP and ER-PIN. This despite the FCPF guidelines state that you must
first make the R-PP implementation and the SESA and ESMF process; and then must perform the implementation of an ERP. In addition, according to the
PI-FIP schedule, projects development should take place between May and October 2015. In other words, the country would have to implement at the same
time the FCPF and FIP funds and therefore the country would be simultaneously in the REDD+ preparation and projects implementation phase. This means
that while we prepare safeguards instruments like the SESA and ESMF, we must use them to identify whether PI-FIP projects generate a negative impact.
Although the SESA should indicate the prioritized activities of REDD+ at the national level and then the PI-FIP should take them to carry out projects.
On the other hand, the ER-PIN schedule is very ambitious because it indicates that the implementation of all preparation stage components will be held in
18 months. This is unlikely because while all components of the R-PP, the four PI-FIP projects and the design of the ERP would be implemented, it is not taken
into consideration that the funds implementation have different objectives and they respond to their own dynamics. It also remains unclear how the funding
distribution would be for common components of the climate funds. The reviewed documents make us think that there is duplicity in funding for the
preparation stage of REDD+ and this could bring as consequence that while the components of the aforementioned funds are implemented a reorganization
of the financing should be done.
Safeguards overall aim is that processes and issues addressed by these support countries to improve their governance. However, countries have national
legislation with laws concerning participation, information and consultation with indigenous peoples that promote governance. But national legislation is
sometimes not enough for REDD+ safeguards standards as well as good governance. So the funds instruments are based more in the processes instead of the
national laws compliance verification as it is necessary that the discussion dynamics of the REDD+ issue involves innovative procedures for public
management.
20
(29) LThe R-PP elaboration starts in 2008, after an upgrade process it is finished in 2013.
21
Budget
R-PP Component
Component 1b: Shared information and early dialogue with key players
USD 86.000
USD 130.000
USD 243.000
USD 297.000
Source: FCPF, 2013c
According to the R-PP information the components 1b, 1c, 2d and 4b are
linked to the safeguards of participation, information, consultation and to
the safeguards system design itself. These components add up the total
amount of USD 756,000. In other words, nearly 20% of the R-PP budget
total (3.8 million US dollars) is destined to the process of drafting the NRS
and the SESA.
The R-PP, at regional level has the regional REDD+ roundtables as
stakeholders but it is not stated how they would be involved in the drafting
process of the NRS, SESA and ESMF. In addition there is no clear definition
of roles in the participation processes and there is no reference regarding the
inclusion of progress made on the safeguards issue at regional level.
4.3.1.2 Safeguards in the ER-PIN.
At an international safeguards level.- The ER-PIN document, FCPF
Carbon Fund, indicates that the international safeguards they will follow are
those of the World Bank. What would help elaborate them will be the
Emissions Reduction Program (ERP) that according to its schedule will
take place between 2014 and 2015.
At a national legislation level.- The document generally indicates that
Peruvian law will be applied like the prior consultation law and the National
Assessment System of Environmental Impacts (SINEA).
We found a coordination sign between the FCPF and the FIP but the
PIA mentioned in the ER-PIN document draws the attention, because so
far for the FIP fund a participation plan was made for the PI-FIP design
and the PIA only refers to the CIF implementation guide. It is not clear
which document or version of the PIA the ER-PIN document refers to.
On the other hand, the ER-PIN document indicates that the SESA and
ESMF process would take place between 2014 and 2015 at the same time
that the design period for the Emission Reduction Program (ERP). In
addition, the SESA and ESMF development depend on the National
Strategy for Forests and Climate Change, FIP projects and Emission
Reduction Program designs.
Although each fund is different, the FCPF carbon fund and readiness
fund, the interaction between the FCPF safeguards instruments such as
the SESA and ESMF, that must be applied to the readiness and carbon
funds, is not indicated. Moreover, the ER-PIN notes that the SESA and
ESMF would be made while designing the ERP, even if the FCPF
implementation guide indicates that at the time we have finished the SESA
and ESMF process and now we should have an NRS. This shows that while
funds have their implementation guides procedures and mechanisms that
support good governance, these same funds approve documents that
contradict their rules, creating a duality between what they have as
standards and what they approve to the countries.
22
4.3.2 FIP.
(31) CIF 2013, Reunin del subcomit del FIP. Ciudad de Washington. 30 de octubre de 2013.Punto 4 del temario. Decisin propuesta. En link:
https://www-cif.climateinvestmentfunds.org/sites/default/files/meeting-documents/fip_sc.11_4_peru_ip_.summary_spanish_0.pdf (32) Activities related to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
and the role of conservation, forests sustainable management and increase carbon stocks in developing countries.
23
6. Conclusions.
The R-PP and ER-PIN are documents to apply for funding from the
FCPF fund. Both the R-PP and ER-PIN of Peru does not present an
articulation when it is time to implement the safeguards ot the safeguards
instruments. In the analyzed documents there is not a vision regarding the
safeguards implementation. There is a vision regarding the implementation
done for each fund but not a vision as one national process.
We found that the R-PP's institutional framework is the National
REDD+ Strategy and the ER-PIN's institutional framework is the National
Strategy for Forests and Climate Change, which results in an outdated
R-PP in time and at an institutional level. One of the consequences that the
REDD+ institutional framework is now based on the National Strategy for
Forests and Climate Change is that work actions identified in the R-PP and
ER-PIN must adjust to the new strategy. It is also questioned whether the
SESA and ESMF process will be applied to the National Strategy for
Forests and Climate Change.
There is no ocial document that identies the actions taken for the
REDD+ safeguards building process between the years analyzed in this
study. Also, there is no official document comparing the UNFCCC
safeguards and the national processes or laws that we have and that could
support the safeguards construction.
Although the SESA framework and implementation are
conceptualized and even activities are planned for the beginning of the
SESA process, it is not understood how this instrument that makes
safeguards "viable" contributes to the complaints or claims mechanism. In
addition, according to the R-PP and ER-PIN documents the relationship
between the SESA and ESMF with the FCPF readiness fund and carbon
fund is not clear.
The MDB funds have operational policies for protection and
instruments to make safeguards viable. Even though the funds must review
the countries submitted documents, this review is not necessarily
exhaustive and does not comply the funds own implementing guidelines. It
seems that there is some sort of duality between the safeguards framework
requested by the international funds and the countries safeguards
implementation. In other words, there is some sort of alliance between the
funds "operational" flaws and the lack of planning in the REDD+ topic.
The conceptual frameworks of the FCPF and FIP safeguards and of
the SESA and ESMF guidelines are very general and they do not
necessarily help to have a strong impact assessment. In addition, regional
level progress on safeguards is not reflected in any of these documents. This
make us conclude that although participatory processes at regional level for
the FCPF and FIP funds were performed, the final wording of the
documents was kept at a centralized level.
24
7. Recomendations.
Establish REDD+ actions in the country and for it have a REDD+
Action Plan to guide the funds components implementation. REDD+
planning should not only look at the financing needs but it should be based
on a national vision that includes the progress made by the regions to reduce
pressure on forests.
FCPF and PI-FIP documents update; especially in the SESA and
ESMF case it should be done in an open discussion space involving different
actors of civil society, public sector and indigenous peoples. In addition, the
SESA and ESMF should not be use only for the funds application but they
should support the solutions identification of activities that put pressure on
forests.
Have a trained team of specialists (legal, social, ecosystem, indigenous
peoples and information systems) and a budget for the completion of the
SESA, ESMF and PIA processes.
Although we have not identied the countrys REDD+ actions, it is
necessary based on the FCPF and PI-FIP documents lines of work
identified like land titling, community forest management, value in
non-timber products, etc. to begin to design the SESA and ESMF. In
addition, advances and regional level recommendations on safeguards
offered by the regions of Madre de Dios, Ucayali and San Martin should be
taken into consideration when designing the SESA and ESMF.
Create a REDD+ participation or involvement plan for stakeholders
that links the REDD+ funds implementation in the country, and not aim for
participation plans for each REDD+ climate fund. Therefore participation
plans as well as the development of the funds safeguards instruments could
be effective and active. Also participation plans should not to be understood
only as a schedule of national and regional workshops, but they should
promote an active participation of stakeholders and generate mechanisms
of transparency and consultation for the entire process.
Create a REDD+ and Forest Management Working Group that works
as a decision-making space and has among his members representatives of
public institutions with decision-making power from the following
Ministries: Ministry of Economy and Finances (MEF), Ministry of
Environment (MINAM), Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation
(MINAGRI), Vice Ministry of Culture (VIC), National Audit Office
(CGR), the Ombudsman Office (DP) and Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(MRREE). Furthermore, it should involve decision-makers of indigenous
organizations like AIDESEP and CONAP, two REDD+ Regional
Roundtables representatives, a REDD+ Group representative and a
representative of the private sector.
25
8. Annex.
Table 14: RPP, ER-PIN, PI-FIP and JDI Norway And Germany Safeguards Documents Comparative Table.
FCPF
Readiness Fund R-PP
Dec.2013
International
Safeguards
Forest Investment
Program
Carbon Fund ER-PIN
Oct. 2014
National
Legislation
Safeguards
Instrument
Joint Declaration of
Intent with Norway
and Germany
Sep. 2014
Establish a system to
monitor, report and ensure
REDD+ safeguards (2015)
Post the first report that
defines the current status of
REDD+ in Peru regarding
safeguards and measures to
ensure that all safeguards
will be respected, consistent
with decision 12/CP.19 of
the UNFCCC.
Establish a Safeguards
Information System
containing updated and
consistent information, that
is transparent, accessible to
stakeholders, it provides
information on all Cancun
safeguards, and if possible it
is built on existing systems,
and assigns government
entities responsible for
reporting and implementing
the safeguards, consistent
with relevant decisions of
the UNFCCC.
26
9. Bibliography.
CMNUCC 2007, rgano Subsidiario de Asesoramiento Cientfico y Tecnolgico. 27
periodos de sesiones. Bali 3 al 11 de diciembre de 2007. Tema 5 del programa
Reduccin de las emisiones derivadas de la deforestacin en los pases en desarrollo:
mtodos para estimular la adopcin de medidas .Proyecto de decisin -/CP.13
Reduccin de las emisiones derivadas de la deforestacin en los pases en desarrollo:
mtodos
para
estimular
la
adopcin
de
medidas.
En:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/sbsta/spa/l23a01r01s.pdf
CMNUCC 2010, Decisin. 1/CP.16 Acuerdos de Cancn: resultado de la labor del
Grupo de Trabajo Especial sobre la cooperacin a largo plazo en el marco de la
Convencin. Decisin 1/CP.16 Acuerdos de Cancn: resultado de la labor del Grupo
de Trabajo Especial sobre la cooperacin a largo plazo en el marco de la Convencin.
C) Enfoques de poltica e incentivos positivos para las cuestiones relativas a la
reduccin de las emisiones debidas a la deforestacin y la degradacin forestal en los
pases en desarrollo; y funcin de la conservacin, la gestin sostenible de los bosques
y el aumento de las reservas forestales de carbono en los pases en desarrollo. En:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/spa/07a01s.pdf
CMNUCC 2012a, Informe de la Conferencia de las Partes sobre su 17 periodo de
sesiones, celebrado en Durban del 28 de noviembre al 11 de diciembre de 2011. En:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/cop17/spa/09a02s.pdf
CMNUCC 2012b, Informe de la Conferencia de las Partes sobre su 18 perodo de
sesiones, celebrado en Doha del 26 de noviembre al 8 de diciembre de 2012. Decisin
1/CP.18 Conclusin acordada de conformidad con el Plan de Accin de Bali. C)
Enfoques de poltica e incentivos positivos para las cuestiones relativas a la reduccin
de las emisiones derivadas de la deforestacin y la degradacin de los bosques en los
pases en desarrollo; y funcin de la conservacin, la gestin sostenible de los bosques
y el aumento de las reservas forestales de carbono en los pases en desarrollo. En:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/cop18/spa/08a01s.pdf
CMNUCC 2013, Resoluciones COP18 1/CP.18, 2/CP.18, 4/CP.18. Resoluciones
CMP
1/CMP.8,
2/CMP.8,
3/CMP.8
4/CMP.8,5/CMP.8
En:
http://unfccc.int/meetings/doha_nov_2012/meeting/6815/php/view/decisions.ph
p
CMNUCC, 2014. Informe de la Conferencia de las Partes sobre 19 periodo de
sesiones, celebrado en Varsovia del 11 al 23 de noviembre de 2013. Decisin 9/CP.19
Decisin
12/CP.19
En:
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/spa/10a01s.pdf
FCPF 2011 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Eighth Participants
Committee meeting March 23-25, 2011. Dalat, Vietnam. Resolution PC/8/2011/7
Perus
Readiness
Preparation
Proposal.
En:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/
Documents/PDF/Mar2011/Resolution%207%20Peru%20R-PP.pdf
FCPF 2012a, Decisiones de Cancn y Durbn sobre Salvaguardas para REDD+, y los
Pueblos Indgenas. Evento Dilogo de los pueblos indgenas de meso y Sudamrica y
del Caribe con el FCPF. Lima, Per 22-24 de agosto de 2012.En:
http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/Documents/tagged/2_UN
FCCC%20Safeguards%20and%20the%20FCPF_Sp%20Final.pdf
FCPF 2012b, Enfoque comn para las salvaguardas ambientales y sociales para los
socios
ejecutores
mltiples.
En
http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/Documents/tagged/Com
mon_Approach_Fact_Sheet_SP_FINAL.pdf
FCPF 2013a, Marco Metodolgico del Fondo de Carbono del FCPF. Versin final
fecha
20
de
diciembre
del
2013.En
link:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/July/Marco%20m
ethodol%C3%B3gico%20del%20Fondo%20del%20Carbono%20%20del%20Fo
ndo%20Cooperativo%20para%20el%20Carbono%20de%20los%20Bosques%2
0version%20final%2012%202013%20(updated%20July30%202014).pdf
FCPF 2013b, Gua para el marco de Evaluacin de la Preparacin del FCPF. En:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/July2013/FCPC%
20framework%207-25-13%20SPA%20web.pdf
FCPF 2013c, Propuesta para la Fase de Preparacin para REDD+. Per. En:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/February/R-PP%
20Per%C3%BA%20Final%20Dec%202013-RESALTADO.pdf
FCPF 2013d, FMT Note CF-2013-3.World Bank Safeguard Policies and the
UNFCCC
REDD+
Safeguards.
August
28,
2013.
En:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/june2013/FMT%
20Note%20CF-2013-3_FCPF%20WB%20Safeguard%20Policies%20and%20
UNFCCC%20REDD%2B%20Safeguards_FINAL.pdf
FCPF 2014a, Introduccin al FCPF y a la Inclusin Social en el Contexto de la
Preparacin para REDD+ y Mas All. Del 20 al 24 de enero 2014. Guatemala. En:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/January/1.e.%20P
resentaci%C3%B3n-Introducci%C3%B3n-FCPF%26Inclusi%C3%B3n-Social.
pdf
FCPF 2014b, Emission Reductions Program Idea Note (ER-PIN).Peru En:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/september/PERU
_ER-PIN_Sept.%2012.2014.pdf
FCPF 2014c, Resolution Eleventh Carbon Fund Meeting. October 6-8, 2014.
CFM/11/2014/3.Selection of Per Emission Reductions Program Idea Note into
the
Pipeline
En:
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/october/Resolutio
n%203%20Peru%20ER-PIN.pdf
CIF 2009, Documento Bsico para el Diseo del Programa de Inversin Forestal,
de Carcter Selectivo, Creado al Amparo del Fondo Fiduciario del FEC. FIP. 7 de
julio
de
2009.
En:
http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/fil
es/FIP_Design_Document_July_final_spanish.pdf
CIF 2010, Directrices Operacionales del PInS. 29 de junio del 2010. En:
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/fi
les/FIP_Operational_Guidelines_final_spanish.pdf
CIF 2012, Directrices Operacionales del Marco de Trabajo. Mecanismo de
Donacin Especfico para Pueblos Indgenas y Comunidades Locales. FIP. En:
https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/fi
les/13-09-12DGMGuidelines-Final_ES.pdf
CIF 2013, Reunin del subcomit del FIP. Ciudad de Washington. 30 de octubre de
2013.Punto
4
del
temario.
Decisin
propuesta.
En
link:
https://www-cif.climateinvestmentfunds.org/sites/default/files/meeting-docume
nts/fip_sc.11_4_peru_ip_.summary_spanish_0.pdf
BIC 2013, Polticas de Salvaguardia Socio Ambiental y Enfoque Comn del FCPF:
Fichas tcnicas de las salvaguardas Banco Mundial y socios ejecutores: BID y
PNUD.
En
link:
http://www.bankinformationcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Politicasde-Salvaguardia-Socio-Ambiental-y-Enfoque-Comun-del-FCPF_BankInformati
onCenter_agosto2013.pdf
27
28
www.proetica.org.pe
www.transparency.org
facebook.com/ProeticaPeru
twitter.com/ProeticaPeru