Ghana's Approach to Safeguards

The 2014 SESA also triggered a Resettlement and Policy Framework in response to the World Bank OP 4.12 on involuntary resettlement. The RPF was updated to contribute to the smooth implementation of the GCFRP with regards to social impacts such as:

1. involuntary resettlement
2. acquisition of land
3. impacts on socio-cultural resources
4. impacts on livelihoods or
5. restricted access to Natural Resources.

Instances of legal Admitted farms encroachment into forest areas and illegal farms would present a challenge to successful program implementation therefore based on the RPF, such farms would be incorporated with trees over time until the trees shade out the crops and farmers would be allocated other land outside the forest area. Thereby ensuring local participation for social cohesion and sustainability of the interventions. The RPF identifies national policies, laws and regulations that need to be complied with, and also gaps between these national policies, laws and regulations and the World Bank safeguard policy on involuntary resettlement. It is clearly stated in the RPF that “Where there are gaps or inconsistencies between Ghanaian laws and the World Bank policy on involuntary resettlement, OP 4.12, the RPF which is consistent with the World Bank policy OP 4.12 will apply”. One cardinal principle of the World Bank safeguard policy on Involuntary Resettlement (OP 4.12) is that project affected persons should be “no worse-off if not better off” after the resettlement.

Ghana’s Forest Investment Program process produced two other significant and important documents which were not produced under readiness but are very beneficial to the implementation of the GCFRP. Considering the GCFRP will lessons from projects being piloted under FIP, this presents a good opportunity for integration and alignment. There is significant overlap and synergy between the FIP and the ER Programme in terms of articulated activities and the target landscapes. The FIP focal area targets the Western Region, located in the ER Programme area (cocoa forest mosaic landscape), and the Brong Ahafo Region, which encompasses part of the cocoa forest mosaic landscape. The proponents of the FIP and the ERP see this activity-based and geographic overlap as being strategic and essential for the successful implementation of the ER Programme and it has been agreed that the FIP will lead implementation of the GCFRP in one or two of the HIA landscapes. Further, the MLNR which is responsible for the FIP has a representation on the GCFRP’s Joint Coordinating Committee to ensure full integration with FIP projects and related activities.

The Process Framework (PF) prepared for the FIP has been prepared because the project may cause restrictions in access to natural resources in legally designated parks and protected areas. The Process Framework establishes a process by which members of potentially affected communities are engaged and participate in the design of project components, determination of measures necessary to achieve resettlement policy objectives and implementation and monitoring of relevant project activities (link to PF). Currently, an institutional training to ensure the smooth implementation and monitoring of the environmental and social issues and impacts identified in the FIP ESMF/PF is being implemented by the Forestry Commission.

The specific objective of the Pest Management Plan produced for the FIP is to promote the use of biological and environmental control methods for pest management and reduce the use of synthetic chemical pesticides to ensure that health and environmental hazards associated with pesticides are minimized.

Other objectives of the PMP which will be adopted and used by the GCFRP, are to:

1. Ensure integration of appropriate pest management techniques into agro-forestry technologies, and cocoa landscapes in the project area.
2. Monitor pesticide use and pest issues among participating farmers, admitted farmers within forest reserves, and local communities.
3. Promote implementation of an Integrated Crop and Pest Management (IPM) in cocoa production.

To achieve its objectives, the PMP provides relevant information on;

1. Promoting the IPM approach for the cocoa sector including the promotion and adoption of climate smart cocoa,
2. Summarizing the national pesticide use and management in Ghanaian agriculture and in the cocoa sector in particular and
3. Providing insight and recommendations on the capacity building opportunities for the promotion of IPM and rational use of pesticides in cocoa production,
4. Implementation strategies and budget for the PMP.

Ghana is defining its Country Approach to Safeguards (CAS) and developing a Safeguards Information System (SIS) in collaboration with SNV Netherlands Development Organization with technical support from Climate Law and Policy (CLP). This is funded by the German Government under the project “Operationalizing National Safeguards Requirement for Results-Based Payments from REDD+”.

A legal analysis has been conducted on each of the Cancun safeguards outlining what is on paper and what is being practiced, the gaps with respect to Policies, Laws and Regulations (PLRs) on paper and practice and recommendations for addressing the gaps. However, the results of the legal analysis and of the SESA clearly identify legislative and policy gaps which will require reforms.

Ghana’s SIS will provide information on how safeguards are being addressed and respected throughout implementation of the GCFRP ER programme. The SIS contains indicators for monitoring the compliance on the World Bank Safeguards, Cancun safeguards and other Donor safeguards requirements, Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanism (FGRM), benefit sharing, co-benefits, etc.

An online web platform has been developed to host Ghana’s REDD+ SIS. Ghana’s SIS web address is www.reddsis.fcghana.org . A SIS design document that clearly describes how the SIS will function (flow of information) has been developed. Ghana submitted its first Summary of Safeguards Information (SoI) to the UNFCCC in June, 2019.

The National REDD+ Secretariat (NRS) has successfully trained Safeguards Focal Persons (SFPs) who are mainly Forestry Commission’s Assistant Regional Managers, Assistant District Managers, and Assistant National Park Managers. They were trained on national and international safeguards requirement as well as Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanism (FGRM). These focal persons are responsible for the effective monitoring and reporting of safeguards compliance in their various regions and districts. The SFPs led landscape level capacity building programmes where they sensitized relevant Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) as well as MMDAs and local community leaders who would be involved in the implementation of the REDD+ programme.

The SFPs will also lead the formation of safeguards teams at their various regions and districts for safeguards reporting purposes. The safeguards teams will compose the district/regional safeguards focal person, as well as representatives of HIAs and Consortiums from HIA Management Boards, the private sector, NGOs, District Assembly members, Traditional Authority, and opinion/religious leaders. The teams will be responsible for ensuring safeguards compliance and reporting.

In terms of Safeguards reporting, the regional and district SFPs will collect data and information and in collaboration with the various partners and stakeholders. Once collected, they will ensure that the data and information is reviewed and verified by the safeguards team(s) before it is submitted to the Programme Management Unit (PMU) Safeguards Specialist. The PMU Safeguard Specialist will then forward the programme’s safeguard information and data on to the National Safeguards Specialist for final validation and approval, with the knowledge of the Acting Director for Climate Change. The Acting Director, will give final validation of safeguards information and then trigger reporting to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the UNFCCC (national communication), the World Bank, and enable web-based publication and updates into the SIS for relevant stakeholders and the general public.

Ghana has established a Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanism (FGRM) for receiving, evaluating, and addressing project-related grievances from affected communities or stakeholders at the community or project level, region, or country.

Potential conflict sources are;

• Resource use and access
• Land and tree tenure
• Benefit Sharing
• Participation and inclusiveness
• Resettlement and compensation payment, among others.

The REDD+ Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanism (FGRM) will be operationalized in four steps. Parties seeking to have any REDD+ dispute resolved will file their complaint at the district FGRM office within the ER programme area where it will be received and processed before it is communicated to the National FGRM coordinator.

1. If the parties are unable or unwilling to resolve their dispute through negotiation, fact-finding or inquiry a mediator chosen with the consent of both parties would be assigned to assist the Parties to reach a settlement.
2. Where the mediation is successful, the terms of the settlement shall be recorded in writing, signed by the mediator and the parties to the dispute and lodged at the FGRM registry. The terms of the settlement will be binding on all parties.
3. If the mediation is unsuccessful, the Parties will be required to submit their dispute for compulsory arbitration, by a panel of five (5) arbitrators, selected from a national roster of experts.
4. The awards of the arbitration panel will be binding on the Parties and can only be appealed to the Court of Appeal. All questions of law would be referred to the High Court.

The five (5) member Arbitration Panel will be made up of a qualified arbitrator, a lawyer, a forestry/natural resources expert and a governance expert. At least one of them should be a woman. The proposed timelines for the FGRM process is forty-five (45) working days.

FGRM steps and time-frame