Safeguards: Grievance and Redress Mechanisms for REDD+

The ninth session of the Safeguards and Integrity Working Group (SIWG) was held within the framework of the UN-REDD Programme in Latin America and the Caribbean on 28 April, 2025, led by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

This session focused on Grievance and Redress Mechanisms (GRMs) applied to REDD+ initiatives. GRMs—also known as grievance mechanisms, dispute resolution mechanisms, or other names—are institutionalized tools designed to receive, process, and resolve concerns, complaints, or conflicts related to the design and implementation of REDD+ policies, measures, or projects. They are based on principles such as legitimacy, accessibility, transparency, equity, and predictability, aiming to offer fair and timely responses to stakeholders.

The purpose of these mechanisms is to prevent and mitigate negative impacts, strengthen environmental governance, promote the effective participation of key actors, and facilitate concrete solutions to socio-environmental conflicts. Additionally, GRMs can function as early warning systems and institutional learning tools, by identifying conflict patterns and feeding back into REDD+ implementation.

GRMs are essential tools to ensure the fulfillment of safeguards in both public policies and programs or projects, including those led by the private sector. For this reason, they are often key requirements imposed by the safeguards frameworks of various REDD+ donors/funders, each usually with its own technical requirements. In practice, this can pose challenges, including the coexistence of multiple GRMs with different scopes. Moreover, information generated by GRMs should feed into Safeguard Information Systems (SIS), improving transparency and public access to relevant environmental data.

This SIWG session aimed to strengthen participants' technical capacities to design and implement effective, safeguards-focused GRMs. It addressed the main challenges faced by countries in the region, shared replicable best practices, and created a space for experience exchange.

The session featured contributions by experts from Costa Rica, Peru, and the UN-REDD Programme, who shared valuable lessons learned in implementing GRMs tailored to local contexts.

Shared presentations

The session was opened by Judith Walcott, Coordinator of UNEP LAC Climate Mitigation Team, who welcomed participants and highlighted the importance of grievance mechanisms as fundamental pillars for ensuring effective participation, transparency, and rights-respeced REDD+ implementation. She also emphasized the need to strengthen regional capacities to design accessible, culturally appropriate, and effective mechanisms.
 

Grievance and Redress Mechanisms for REDD+ from a safeguards perspective

The first presentation was given by Mariano Cirone, Senior Expert in Safeguards, Forests, and Climate of the UN-REDD Programme for Latin America and the Caribbean.  Cirone introduced the topic from a safeguards perspective, emphasizing that GRMs are pre-established, non-judicial procedures designed to receive, respond to, and resolve complaints, grievances, requests, or conflicts related to the formulation or implementation of REDD+ programs, policies, or projects.

He explained that GRMs may have different names—such as citizen service mechanisms, grievance redress mechanisms (GRMs), conflict resolution mechanisms, or complaint systems—depending on the institutional context, but they all share fundamental principles: legitimacy, accessibility, equity, transparency, predictability, compatibility with human rights, participation, and continuous learning. These principles are based on the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, known as the "Ruggie Principles," which are widely accepted as a reference for designing effective GRMs.

Cirone also emphasized the multiple purposes of GRMs, including:

• Strengthening a rights-based approach and effective participation.
• Preventing and resolving conflicts early.
• Promoting accountability and continuous improvement of REDD+ projects.
• Feeding information to Safeguard Information Systems (SIS) with data on claims and their resolution.

He then presented examples of how GRMs are required by different REDD+ funding sources, such as the ART-TREES standard, Verra’s VCS program, and the Green Climate Fund (GCF) requirements. While each standard has its specificities, they generally require REDD+ projects to have accessible, effective, and culturally appropriate mechanisms, especially for Indigenous Peoples and other vulnerable groups.

Finally,  Cirone underscored the importance of designing GRMs that are integrated within jurisdictional or nested REDD+ approaches, ensuring that individual project mechanisms align with national institutional frameworks to enable more coherent and effective management of social and environmental risks.

The Citizen Service Module for REDD+ (MAC REDD+) in Peru

The second presentation was delivered by Evonnie Paola Meneses, UNEP/UN-REDD consultant for the Directorate of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation at the Ministry of the Environment (MINAM) of Peru.

 Meneses introduced the Citizen Service Module for REDD+ (MAC REDD+), a mechanism created to facilitate the reception, attention, and timely and efficient response to requests related to the implementation of REDD+ actions in the country.

She explained that MAC REDD+ is supported by a solid regulatory framework, including the Framework Law on Climate Change, its regulations, and specific REDD+ regulations, such as the Guidelines for Addressing and Respecting REDD+ Safeguards and the Guidelines for the Operation of the Citizen Service Module for REDD+, approved by Ministerial Resolution No. 358-2023-MINAM.

Key features of MAC REDD+ include:

• Diverse communication channels: In-person channels at MINAM and Regional Government offices, manned telephone helplines, online services through digital platforms, social media, and email.
• Rights-based approach: MAC REDD+ ensures the right to access public information, the right to petition, the right to participate in public policy formulation, and the right to file complaints regarding REDD+ implementation.
• Application of intercultural, gender, and intergenerational approaches: Ensuring that services are culturally relevant and accessible to Indigenous Peoples and other vulnerable groups.
• Interoperability: MAC REDD+ connects with the REDD+ Safeguard Information Module (MIS REDD+) and the National Mitigation Measures Registry (RENAMI), enabling integrated information management on REDD+ actions.

 Meneses illustrated how MAC REDD+ works using fictional cases, such as indigenous community inquiries about carbon credit commercialization and complaints regarding contractual breaches by private companies. These examples demonstrated how the mechanism facilitates grievance handling, promotes rights protection, and helps prevent socio-environmental conflicts in REDD+ intervention areas.

She concluded by highlighting that MAC REDD+ aims not only to address complaints or conflicts but also to build trust between citizens, Indigenous Peoples, and authorities, while promoting effective participation and the continuous improvement of REDD+ implementation in Peru.

The Information, Feedback, and Grievance Mechanism (MIRI) in Costa Rica

The third presentation was delivered by Rebecca Rivera Bialas, safeguards expert for Costa Rica’s Results-Based Payment Project.  Bialas presented the Information, Feedback, and Grievance Mechanism (MIRI), implemented to address suggestions, questions, concerns, and complaints related to Costa Rica’s National REDD+ Strategy. She explained that MIRI was built through institutional coordination, and based on existing Service Ombudsman Offices:

• The SINAC Service Ombudsman Office, focused on conservation, national parks, illegal logging, and other environmental offenses.
• The FONAFIFO Service Ombudsman Office, focused on forestry services, contracts for Payment for Environmental Services (PES), forestry credits, and management in indigenous territories.

MIRI channels various types of communications—including complaints, grievances, information requests, and comments—through multiple access points, such as WhatsApp, online forms, and email.

Bialas emphasized the following key challenges faced:

• Capacity-building: The need to train ombudsman personnel on specific REDD+ procedures and culturally appropriate approaches.
• Internal communication: Improving coordination among institutions to deliver faster and more consistent responses.
• Mechanism consolidation: Despite having existing foundations, it was necessary to strengthen structure, systematize complaints, and promote territorial articulation through the creation of Environmental and Forestry Territorial Plans (PAFT) in indigenous communities.

She also shared key lessons learned, including:

• The importance of institutional ownership to ensure the mechanism’s sustainability.
• The need to coordinate among government agencies (particularly in environment and agriculture) to consolidate deforestation-related emissions data.
• The importance of incorporating technology to improve information management.
• The value of GRMs as tools to detect social and environmental risks early and inform public policy implementation.

 Bialas concluded by echoing  Meneses’ points - that GRMs should not be seen merely as “complaint boxes”, but rather as strategic environmental governance tools that strengthen transparency, participation, and rights protection in REDD+ processes.

Open dialogue

Following the presentations, an open dialogue was facilitated by UN-REDD’s Cirone, where participants reflected on the challenges, opportunities, and lessons learned in designing and implementing GRMs in REDD+ contexts.

Key themes from the discussion included:

• Local context adaptation: Emphasis was placed on ensuring that GRMs are culturally relevant, accessible in local languages, and tailored to territorial realities, especially in indigenous and rural communities.
• Capacity-building: Several participants highlighted the need for ongoing training for GRM staff, both technically and in intercultural communication and gender-sensitive approaches.
• Technological accessibility: Tools like WhatsApp, online forms, and digital reporting systems were praised for facilitating access from remote areas, though the digital divide remains a barrier that must be addressed.
• Inter-institutional coordination: Participants noted that GRMs function more effectively when institutions involved in REDD+ implementation are well coordinated, avoiding fragmented or contradictory responses.
• Institutional learning: GRMs should not only address individual grievances but also serve as early warning systems to identify patterns of conflict and inform safeguard systems and strategic decision-making.
• Visibility and outreach: A recurring challenge is the lack of awareness among communities about GRMs. Participants proposed strengthening outreach and awareness campaigns on the existence, objectives, and procedures of these mechanisms.

Good practices that could be replicated elsewhere were also shared, such as integrating existing ombudsman offices, setting defined response timelines, and including community-based committees in the territorial management of grievances.

Summary of the Ninth Session of the UN-REDD Programme’s Safeguards and Integrity Working Group in Latin America and the Caribbean