How the Safeguard is RESPECTED

1. Description of how culturally appropriate assemblies are being promoted and conducted in the interior under REDD+ and how district hearings are promoted and conducted in coastal areas under REDD+.
   This information is still pending
2. Types of engagement of stakeholders facilitated by projects (being informed, consulted, co-design/management, mechanisms for joint decision-making).
   This is a cumulative indicator that will be compiled from analysing projects by type of engagement. The result could be presented as a graph:
   
   
3. a. Number of grievances and complaints received regarding engagement activities undertaken, participation, information sharing, gender-inclusiveness of participatory events, FPIC processes.
   b. Percentage of grievances concluded.
   This is a cumulative indicator that will be compiled from analysing grievances received by topic.
   
4. Description of gender specific provisions included in the ESMF and efforts taken to achieve gender equality.
   The ESMF includes the following gender specific provisions:
   • The Action Matrix that resulted from the SESA process includes a separate priority on the topic (section 4.3, Table 8, page 44): Priority 4: Strengthening of gender inclusive REDD+ implementation, which includes actions on continued gender capacity building, gender literacy education, an increased role of the Bureau Gender Affairs and the development of gender specific processes, such as gender checklists and gender specific budgeting.
   • The Matrix also includes an action to incorporate cultural and gender aspects into the community engagement strategy referred to under measure 2.A.3 of the National REDD+ Strategy (see priority 3 of table 8 in the ESMF, page 44).
   • The Framework for implementing the Policies and Measures included in the National REDD+ Strategy considers gender in different places:
     • Project proposals need to include a description on how gender-specific issues are addressed by planned activities and of gender-sensitive approaches as part of stakeholder consultation before, during and subsequent to project implementation and information disclosure, using gender checklists adjusted to the context of Suriname. They should also include information on gender-specific budget allocation. (ESMF section 5.1, pages 48/49).
     • Where a social assessment has to be conducted to feed into an Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Plan, it should be done in a gender-sensitive manner. (ESMF section 5.4, page 53).
     • Where a Resettlement Plan is required, it needs to consider gender equality. (ESMF section 5.7, page 56).
   Where REDD+ implementing (sub-) projects aim to create income opportunities, the issues of gender and income equality need to be addressed in the proposal and during implementation. (ESMF section 5.9, page 57).
5. Gender tools developed as requested in ESMF, including check-lists, surveys and analyses: yes/no/pending; if yes: percentage of REDD+ projects that have used gender tools and include gender-specific budget.
   This information is not yet available.
   
6. Provisions included in the ESMF to ensure application of FPIC and percentage (%) of REDD+ projects that demonstrate compliance with FPIC
   
   • Priority 1 of the action matrix on “Clarification of topics currently unclear and causing mistrust and confusion” recommends, at national level, to agree on an official government position with regards to FPIC, “in line with stakeholder expectations, SESA findings and international commitments” and to develop a communication plan to inform stakeholders accordingly. It is further recommended to develop and implement official guidelines for seeking and obtaining FPIC, in line with UN-REDD Programme (2013) (see section 4.3, table 8, page 41). (It should be noted that Suriname’s R-PP included some indicative elements that should be included in the process of obtaining FPIC, see Republic of Suriname (2013), page 81 and 82.).
   • Priority 3 of the action matrix on “Institutional and governance strengthening” requests under priority reform area “Coordination and communication” to “Incorporate cultural and gender aspects into the REDD+ community engagement strategy referred to under measure 2.A.3 (of the National REDD+ Strategy), including reference to FPIC (see section 4.3, table 8, page 44).
   • Under section 5.1 Proposal preparation it is requested that the topic of FPIC gets covered as part of the description of Stakeholder consultation before, during and subsequent to implementation and information disclosure, including gender-sensitive approaches” (page 49).
   • Section 5.2 Screening re-emphasises that “Provisions regarding FPIC and the applicable grievance redress mechanism (see respective sections in the ESMF) apply to all REDD+ implementing (sub-) projects”.
   • In section 5.3 Scoping, table 9 on pages 50 and 51 specifies that FPIC applies for category A, B and C projects that are happening in or near ITP areas.
   • Section 5.4 Assessment prescribes that a social assessment should include, as needed: (a) an assessment of the potential negative and positive impacts of the project with the affected ITPs’ communities based on principles of FPIC; and (b) Based on principles of FPIC and together with affected ITPs’ communities, the identification and evaluation of measures necessary to avoid adverse effects or if such measures are not feasible, the identification of measures to minimize, mitigate, or compensate for such effects, and to ensure that the Indigenous Peoples receive culturally appropriate benefits under the project (page 53).
   • Section 5.6 Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Plan specifies that, where an ITP plan is generated, it needs to include a summary of the results of the FPIC process and a framework for ensuring FPIC during project implementation (page 55).
   • The need for FPIC is emphasised in section 5.10 Stakeholder engagement (page 60).
   • Section 6 Institutional arrangements and capacity building for ESMF implementation highlights the likely need for capacity building of actors involved in the implementation of the ESMF on different topics, including FPIC.
   • The additional screening questions in Annex 1 include a specific questions to cover FPIC (Annex 1, table 13, page 75).

   Information on percentages of projects applying FPIC will be created over time.

7. Number of separate meetings held by sex (M/F) and across different age groups to ensure all voices are being heard. (2)
   This information is not yet available.
8. Ways in which PMU promotes stakeholder engagement in REDD+.
   PMU prepares an Annual Stakeholder Engagement Plan and Communication plan as part of its annual workplan, which are setting out how stakeholders will be engaged in any REDD+ related activities in the course of the year.
   
   [2] It should be noted that age groups may need to be classified according to cultural context, i.e. age groups used in the context of ITP representation may differ from those used in the context of national level stakeholder representation.