W O R K I N G P A P E R

Center for International Forestry ResearchCIFOR advances human wellbeing, environmental conservation and equity by conducting research to inform policies and practices that a� ect forests in developing countries. CIFOR is one of 15 centres within the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). CIFOR’s headquarters are in Bogor, Indonesia. It also has o� ces in Asia, Africa and South America.

To request a copy of this publication, please contact cifor@cgiar.org

www.cifor.cgiar.org

Emerging REDD+A preliminary survey of demonstration and readiness activities

Sheila Wertz-KanounnikoffMetta Kongphan-apirak

Working Paper No. 46

Emerging REDD+A preliminary survey of demonstration and readiness activities

Sheila Wertz-KanounnikoffMetta Kongphan-apirak

CIFOR Working Paper 46

© 2009 by the Center for International Forestry ResearchAll rights reserved

Printed in Denmark

CIFORJl. CIFOR, Situ GedeBogor Barat 16115Indonesia

T +62 (251) 8622-622F +62 (251) 8622-100E cifor@cgiar.org

www.cifor.cgiar.org

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of CIFOR.

This document has been produced with financial assistance from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Center for International Forestry ResearchCIFOR advances human wellbeing, environmental conservation, and equity by conducting research to inform policies and practices that affect forests in developing countries. CIFOR is one of 15 centres within the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research. CIFOR’s headquarters are in Bogor, Indonesia. It also has offices in Asia, Africa and South America.

Contents

Acronyms iv

Acknowledgements viii

Abstract ix

1 Introduction 1

2 Emerging landscape of REDD+ activities 2

3 Preliminary analysis of REDD+ activities 6

3.1 Carbon effectiveness considerations 6 3.2 Cost-efficiency considerations 8 3.3 Equity and co-benefits considerations 10

4 Preliminary conclusion 13

References 14

Annexes 16

1 Overview of all REDD+ activities 172 Overview of REDD+ demonstration activities 173 REDD+ countries: Forest context 184 REDD+ countries: Governance context 195 Survey results: REDD+ in Asia 206 Survey results: REDD+ in Africa 287 Survey results: REDD+ in Latin America 37

3E Effectiveness, efficiency, and equity, plus co-benefits

A/R Afforestation and reforestation

ACOFOP Asociación de Comunidades Forestales de Petén (Guatemala)

AD Avoided deforestation

AES Applied Energy Services (now AES Corporation)

AEP American Electric Power

AfDB African Development Bank

ANAE The National Association for Environmental Action (Madagascar)

APRIL/RAPP Asia Pacific Resources International Holding/Riau Andalan Pulp and Paper

AUD Australian dollar

AusAID Australian Agency for International Development

BAU Business as usual

BioCF BioCarbon Fund

BMU Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz Und Reaktorsicherheit (Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety)

BMZ Bundesministerium Für Wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit (German Federal Ministry for Economic Development Cooperation)

BOS Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation

CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere

CBNRM Community-based natural resource management

CDM Clean development mechanism

CEPE Centre for Energy Policy and Economics

CI Conservation International

CI-GCF Conservation International-Global Conservation Fund

CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research

CIRAD Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development)

CKPP Central Kalimantan Peatland Project

CO2e Carbon dioxide equivalent

COMIFAC Commission des Forêts d’Afrique Centrale (Central African Forest Commission)

COP Conference of the Parties

DFID Department for International Development (UK)

DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo

ECOSUR El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (Mexico)

ERM Environmental Resources Management

Acronyms

v

ExSect P Extra-sectoral policies to reduce the profitability of land conversion

FAN Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza (Friends of Nature Foundation, Bolivia)

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FAS Fundação Amazonas Sustentável (Amazonas Sustainable Foundation)

FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

FFEM Fonds français pour l’environnement mondial (French Global Environment Fund)

FFI Fauna and Flora International

FNMA Fundo Nacional do Meio Ambiente (National Environment Fund, Brazil)

FONAFIFO Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal (National Forestry Financing Fund, Costa Rica)

FORECA Forêts engagées pour le carbone (Committing forests as carbon reservoirs)

FRA Forest Resources Assessment

FRM Forest Resources Management (France)

FUNDECOR Fundación para el Desarrollo de la Cordillera Volcánica Central (Foundation for the Development of the Central Volcanic Mountain Range)

FUPNAPIB Fundación Parque Nacional Pico Bonito (Pico Bonito National Park Foundation, Honduras)

GER Global Eco Rescue (Switzerland)

GMES Global Monitoring for Environment and Security

GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit GmbH (German society for technical cooperation)

HSBC Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation

I&CV MRV Institution and capacity building for MRV

I&CV Re-funds Institution and capacity building for handling REDD funds

ICI International Climate Initiative

ICRAF International Centre for Research in Agroforestry

IDB-MIF Inter-American Development Bank – Multilateral Investment Fund

INRENA Instituto Nacional de Recursos Naturales (National Institute of Natural Resources)

IFCA Indonesia Forest Carbon Alliance

IL&Gov Improved governance and law enforcement

IPAM Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (Amazon Environmental Research Institute)

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

KFCP Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership

KfW Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (German Development Bank)

MAR Monitoring, Assessment and Reporting

vi

BMI Banco Multisectorial de Inversiones (El Salvador)

MRV Measurement, reporting and verification

Mt Metric tonne

NGO Nongovernmental organisation

ODA Official development assistance

ODI Overseas Development Institute

ONFI Office national des forêts

ORAM Organizacao Rural de Ajuda Mutua (Rural Association for Mutual Support) (Mozambique)

PA Protected area management

PDD Project Design Document

PEAM Proyecto Especial Alto Mayo (Alto Mayo Special Project)

PES Payment for ecosystem services

PNG Papua New Guinea

PROFONANPE Fondo Nacional para Áreas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado (Peruvian Trust Fund for National Parks and Protected Areas)

RED Reducing emissions from deforestation

REDD Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

REDD+ Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation including carbon stock enhancement

Rehab Forest restoration or rehabilitation

RIL Reduced impact logging

R-PIN Readiness Plan Idea Notes

R-Plan Readiness plan

R-PP Readiness preparation proposals

RRI Rights and Resources Initiative

R-strategy Preparation of national REDD strategy

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

SERNANP Servicio Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas (National Natural Protected Areas Service)

SFM Sustainable forest management

STRI Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute

tbd To be determined

TDERU Tropical Deforestation Emission Reduction Unit

TNC The Nature Conservacy

UNEP-WCMC United Nations Environmental Programme - World Conservation Monitoring Centre

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

vii

UN-REDD United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries

WB The World Bank

WCS Wildlife Conservation Society

WHRC Woods Hole Research Center

WRI World Resources Institute

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

ZSL Zoological Society of London

Acknowledgements

We thank Ken Chomitz, William D. Sunderlin, Elena Petkova and Erin Myers Madeira for valuable comments provided on an earlier draft. Any errors are those of the authors and should not be attributed to CIFOR.

This paper presents the results of a preliminary survey of emerging demonstration and readiness activities to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and carbon stock enhancement (REDD+) across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The survey was conducted between November and December 2008, and the information collected was updated until May 2009. While the results of the survey offer a useful snapshot of the landscape of REDD+ activities, they do not capture all the dynamics associated with this rapidly evolving field. As the international debate on REDD+ continues, some projects surveyed may have changed their core objectives and activities, while others may never get off the ground. Another limitation of the survey is the ongoing lack of any clear definition of what constitutes a REDD+ demonstration activity. Despite these shortcomings, this survey offers insights on current trends to inform future REDD+ investments.

In total the survey found over 100 REDD+ activities: 44 demonstration activities, 65 readiness activities (including those by the Forest Carbon Partnerhship Facility and the UN-REDD Programme) and 12 activities where carbon is not an explicit goal. Indonesia has by far the most demonstration activities in the pipeline, making Asia the region with the largest number of REDD+ activities. Many projects (68%) are still in the planning stage.

A preliminary assessment of incipient REDD+ investments shows the following. First, REDD+ initiatives, especially demonstration activities, tend to target countries where deforestation or the risk of

Abstract

deforestation is significant, which suggests realised carbon effectiveness considerations. Second, poor governance contexts do not discourage REDD+ investments, although cost-efficiency considerations may suggest otherwise. Third, although there is scope for natural equity and co-benefits, there is also a risk of trade-offs between carbon effectiveness and co-benefits. Dry forests – where many rural poor live and where there are high levels of biodiversity – tend to be carbon poor and, thus, feature far less in REDD+ demonstration activities than humid forests.

Balancing trade-offs between cost-effectiveness and co-benefit considerations will likely become a central challenge for REDD+ policies and activities. Spatially explicit, high-resolution, environmental and socio-economic data can offer new scope for REDD+ investments to enhance carbon goals while securing REDD+ co-benefits. Policy makers, donors, and other investors in REDD+ and/or REDD+ co-benefits could assemble such data to enhance their investment choices, monitor their outcomes, and thus provide valuable lessons to inform the national and global REDD+ architecture.

Although performance-based payments analogous to payments for environmental services (PES) are core features of the REDD+ idea, the survey further shows that REDD+ policies will require more than PES-type REDD+ schemes. Investments in improved governance and broader policy reforms are equally important to address the root causes of forest emissions. Finding the right policy mix in different country contexts is an important challenge ahead.

The international community now recognises reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and carbon stock

enhancement (REDD+) as a critical component of national and international strategies for mitigating global climate change. Following the call of the Bali Action Plan, agreed at the 13th Conference of the Parties (COP 13) to the United Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali in December 2007, numerous REDD+ demonstration activities got underway on the ground, supported by NGOs, the private sector, bilateral donors, and multilateral agencies.

REDD+ demonstration activities focus on experimenting with mechanisms that can reduce forest emissions in preparation for the era of conditional carbon deals. To date there is no agreed definition of ‘demonstration activities’ and activities range from site-specific projects to larger-scale activities that cover a substantial portion of a province. Key activities include the promotion of more sustainable forest management practices (e.g. reduced impact logging), forest conservation combined with incentive payment schemes, and monitoring systems that measure the change in carbon stocks and fluxes. Reliable carbon monitoring systems are a key element of these activities. Carbon deals are output-based, meaning that carbon payments are only made for certified emissions reductions. Following promising experiences with payments for environmental services schemes, conditional REDD+ payments are regarded as an incentive – financial or in-kind – to promote behavioral changes by land managers.

At the same time, many countries are in the process of developing national REDD+ strategies. In principle, REDD+ strategies are the first step in the implementation of REDD+ policies and measures, and can be compared to a roadmap to move from the situation today towards a desired future scenario of reduced forest emissions (Dutschke et al. 2008).2

1. Introduction

One major incentive for countries to design REDD+ strategy development plans has been the prospect of accessing funds from the World Bank-administered Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and, more recently, from the UN-REDD Programme, to finance REDD+ readiness activities.

REDD+ readiness activities refer to the measures and mechanisms that are necessary to establish an enabling framework for REDD+ deals. These can include land tenure reforms, effective enforcement of land use laws and regulations, and the establishment of systems to reliably monitor, report, and verify forest emissions.

In the context of these developments, this paper takes stock, and conducts a preliminary assessment, of REDD+ demonstration and readiness activities. It examines emerging trends in evolving REDD+ activities with respect to their effectiveness, efficiency, and implications for equity and co-benefits (the 3Es). The aim is to provide early feedback on REDD+ demonstration and readiness activities to host countries, donors, and project developers.

A note of caution is necessary. Since the REDD+ landscape is evolving rapidly, the survey only takes a snapshot of emerging activities. Also, because the survey relies primarily on secondary information from the public domain (internet, brochures, project documents) there may be inconsistencies between what is described in the secondary information and the actual state and nature of activities. The survey should thus be seen more as a documentation of trends in ‘marketed activities’ rather than as a description of actual activities on the ground.

This paper is organised as follows. Section 2 gives an overview of the emerging landscape of REDD+ activities. Section 3 analyses the activities according to effectiveness, efficiency and equity plus co-benefit considerations. Section 4 presents preliminary conclusions.

2 In reality a REDD+ demonstration activity very often takes place before, or in parallel with, the design and implementation of REDD+ strategies.

To map the emerging landscape of REDD+ activities and, since REDD+ activities are not always described as such, we conducted a survey of all activities that focus on reducing forest emissions and enhancing forest carbon stocks (e.g. forest restoration) (see Annexes 5-7). The survey was conducted during November and December 2008 and continuously updated until May 2009. It covers Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

We distinguish three types of REDD+ activities:

Demonstration activities.• In the absence of a clear definition, we use the term ‘demonstration activity’ to refer to activities where carbon is the explicit objective. Given the ongoing debate over the role of forest plantations in REDD+ (see Box 1), we excluded carbon forestry projects that had afforestation or reforestation as a main activity.

Readiness activities• . We use this term for all activities that are designed to create an enabling framework for REDD+ deals. These include capacity building, implementation of monitoring systems, and development of REDD+ strategies. All activities under the UN-REDD Programme and the FCPF Window II (Readiness Fund) are classified as readiness activities.

Activities without explicit carbon goals• . We use this term to refer to projects where carbon is not the

Box 1. Changing definitions: RED, REDD and REDD+

When emissions from forestry reclaimed the attention of the climate negotiations in 2005, the discussions initially focused only on ‘avoided deforestation’, i.e. ‘AD’ or ‘RED’ for short. With growing recognition that forest degradation is inseparable from reduction of forest emissions, ‘avoided degradation’ – or the second ‘D’ in ’REDD’ – was officially endorsed at the UNFCCC COP-13 in Bali in 2007. As the debate continued, it was further recognised that climate benefits can arise not only from avoiding negative changes (deforestation, degradation), but also from enhancing positive changes, in the form of forest conservation and restoration (Angelsen and Wertz-Kanounnikoff 2008). The recognition of the latter was expressed with a ‘+’, which became official vocabulary at COP-14 in Poznań in 2008. The range of forest management challenges covered by REDD+ can be illustrated by the forest transition curve (Figure 1).

One open question with REDD+ concerns the role of afforestation and reforestation (A/R). Eligible in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – and hence already part of the international toolbox to mitigate climate change – the question is whether and how A/R will become part of REDD+. Several environmental NGOs oppose including forest plantations into a global REDD+ scheme because of the risk of promoting plantation forestry at the expense of biodiversity conservation (e.g. Greenpeace 2009). However, others argue that forest plantations need to be part of REDD+ to allow for greater consistency in landscape planning and, ultimately, to reduce forest emissions (e.g. proposals by Indonesia, India and China, see Parker et al. 2009). The discussion is still ongoing.

2. Emerging landscape of REDD+ activity

explicit objective. For example, the ProAmbiente Program in Brazil aims at implementing a payment for ecosystem services (PES) scheme for enhanced ecosystem management, but it is not intended primarily for sequestering forest carbon.

As of May 2009, we found 44 REDD+ demonstration activities, 65 REDD+ readiness activities – of which 37 refer to readiness plan idea note (R-PIN) developments – and 12 activities without explicit carbon objectives. In the survey we excluded readiness plan (R-Plan, now called Readiness Preparation Proposals, R-PP ) activities (Indonesia, Guyana, Panama). This avoids double counting REDD+ strategy development activities, as R-Plans are the successors of R-PINs. However, Indonesia is an exception, as here the R-PIN exercise has been replaced by equivalent studies developed within the scope of the Indonesia Forest Carbon Alliance (IFCA) process.

The forest transition curve is an empirical model of forest cover change over time in response to economic development. The differences in REDD+ challenges are also reflected in this pattern, starting from the need to reduce forest degradation and deforestation in the early stages of the forest transition curve (Stage 1). The curve falls steeply during the early transition stage, and reducing deforestation is needed to secure climate benefits (Stage 2). In the later stage, when forest cover tends to regrow, climate benefits mainly arise from

Emerging REDD+ 3

REDD + challenges

Reduce deforestation

Continue conservation andafforestation/reforestation

Forest transitionstages

Forestcover

Reduce degradation,avoid leakage anddeforestation in BAU

DR CongoGhanaSuriname

BoliviaBrazilCameroonIndonesiaPapua New Guinea

IndiaCosta Rica

Stage 1Little disturbedforests (beyondagriculturalfrontier)

Stage 2Forest frontiers

Stage 3Forest cover stabilisation(forest-agricultural mosaics)

Figure 1. Forest transition curve and associated REDD+ challenges

Figure 2. Regional distribution of demonstration and readiness activities

Latin America Africa Asia

35

30

25

20

15

10

14

9

5

30

1

25

15

2

20

5

0

Demonstration activity Readiness activity Activity with no explicit carbon goal

continued conservation, carbon stock enhancement and afforestation and reforestation (Stage 3).The survey results show clear regional variations in the distribution of REDD+ activities (Figure 2). Demonstration activities are currently concentrated in Asia, notably Indonesia, while readiness activities are primarily clustered in Central Africa. Latin America has an intermediate number of demonstration and readiness activities.

However, most REDD+ activities are still at the beginning or planning stages (Figure 3). In Latin America more REDD+ demonstration activities are already underway compared to those in Africa and Asia.

‘Planned activities’ refer to all those that are reported to be in the planning phase and where no implementation has started. ‘Ongoing’ means project implementation has started. In total we found that 14 REDD+ demonstration activities are currently underway, while most – 30 projects – are still in the planning phase. The picture is similar for REDD+ readiness activities with 5 currently ongoing and 60 planned. Although most countries have REDD+ activities that are still in the planning stage, some countries have already developed policies, mainly forest management plans, that will facilitate the implementation of REDD+ activities (WHRC 2009).

4 Sheila Wertz-Kanounnikoff and Metta Kongphan-apirak

Latin America Africa Asia0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Demonstration - planned Demonstration - ongoing Readiness - planned Readiness - ongoing

Figure 3. Status of REDD+ activities

The size of REDD+ demonstration activities varies greatly. For those projects for which information was available, we classified them into small (<50 000 ha), medium (50 000-500 000 ha) and large (>500 000 ha) and counted the number of projects per size class

(Figure 4). Most of the small projects are found in Latin America, while the sum of medium to large-scale ones are primarily found in Asia, where projects can extend to almost an entire province, such as in the case of Berau in Indonesia.

Figure 4. Size of REDD+ demonstration activities

0

4

4

Africa

9

8

5

2

5

14Asia

Large (> 500,000 ha) Medium (50,000 - 500,000 ha) Small (< 50,000 ha)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

LatinAmerica

Emerging REDD+ 5

Figure 5. Financing sources of REDD+ activities by region

Latin America Africa Asia

Government NGO Bilateral Multilateral Private sector Multi donor

0

31 0

8

12

4

8

12

16

2325

911

2

9

35

15

10

15

20

25

30

Our survey found that most REDD+ demonstration and readiness activities, especially in Africa, are financed with international public funds, i.e. official development assistance (ODA). Specifically, bilateral, multilateral and government sources fund 65%, 64%, and 61% of the REDD+ activities, respectively, in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The private sector – although financing less activities than the public sector – is still an important financier of REDD+ activities, especially in Latin America and Asia. NGOs

are comparatively more involved in financing REDD+ activities in Africa. Non-public finance (private sector, NGO) still constitutes only a small proportion of overall REDD+ financing. Note that Figure 5 shows only the sources of finance for projects, not the amount of financial support. It is therefore not possible to determine the sources that provide the most funding in absolute terms. The chart merely shows the number of projects receiving financing for REDD+ activities from the different sources.

Government financing refers to activities that are financed by the developing country government, such as in Brazil and El Salvador.

A thorough analysis of REDD+ activities is currently challenged for two reasons. First, not much information is available in the public domain – in part because many activities have only just got under way and, also, because project developers probably fear competitors or criticism that could undermine the success of their projects. Second, the sector is highly dynamic. New activities are rapidly emerging while others exist only on paper and are not implemented.

Despite these challenges, we considered it worthwhile to take a snapshot of the rapidly evolving landscape of REDD+ demonstration and readiness activities. Our objective was to identify emerging trends and to provide feedback to policy makers and practitioners on the characteristics of initial REDD+ investments. To differentiate and analyse the projects, we used the 3E criteria – carbon effectiveness, cost-efficiency, and equity plus co-benefits (Angelsen and Wertz-Kanounnikoff 2008).

3.1 Carbon effectiveness considerations

REDD+ was originally conceived as a way to secure climate benefits by providing financial incentives for reducing forest emissions. To maximise such climate benefits, the investments (financial incentives) targeted the drivers of forest emissions, in particular in areas where deforestation or the risk of deforestation is

Low deforestation rates (<0.5%)

High deforestation rates (>0.5%)

High forest cover (>40%)

Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, DR Congo, Guyana, Panama, Peru, Republic of Congo, Suriname

Bolivia, Brazil, Cambodia, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Papua New Guinea, Zambia

Low forest cover (<40%)

Argentina, Chile, Central African Republic, Kenya, Madagascar, Mexico, Mozambique, Thailand, Vanuatu, Vietnam

Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Liberia, Nepal, Tanzania, Uganda

Table 1. Countries classified by forest cover context

Source: FAO 2005, FAO data for Gabon not available

currently high – areas on the slope (high deforestation) or at the top of the slope (risk of high deforestation) on the forest transition curve (Figure 1). These areas are assumed to be where investments can really make a difference, compared to the business-as-usual scenario (without carbon finance), i.e. they are areas with the highest additionality, the central criterion for effectiveness.

To test this hypothesis, we cross-classified REDD+ countries by level of deforestation (high/low) and by forest cover (high/low) (Table 1 and Figure 6). As there are no agreed definitions of high/low forest cover or high/low deforestation rates, we chose to use a 0.5% deforestation rate as the cut-off point between high and low deforestation (although the average in developing countries is about 0.3%). For the forest cover we set 40% as the cut-off point between high and low forest cover.3 We used FAO deforestation data as it provides full coverage of tropical countries, while acknowledging data quality concerns (e.g. Kaimowitz and Angelsen 1999) and the emergence of more accurate data for humid tropical forests (see Hansen et al. 2008).As most REDD+ demonstration activities are located in countries of high deforestation, and especially in countries of high deforestation and high forest cover – on the upper part of the forest transition slope – we find some evidence supporting the hypothesis that investments are targeting the drivers of forest emissions.

3 A World Bank study (2008) uses the same cut-off points, while Fonseca et al. (2007) use 0.5% deforestation rate as the cut-off point for the deforestation rate, but 50% forest cover as the cut-off point for high/low forest cover.

3. Preliminary analysis of REDD+ activities

Emerging REDD+ 7

The picture is less clear in the case of REDD+ readiness activities. Although most readiness activities are concentrated in countries of high deforestation/high forest cover where additionality is highest, a similar proportion of activities can be found in other forest cover contexts where additionality is far lower. This pattern of channeling investments to countries at early or advanced stages of the forest transition curve (Stages 1 and 3 in Figure 1) as well as to high deforestation/high forest cover areas – may be a response to early

Figure 6. REDD+ demonstration and readiness activities by countries of high/low forest cover (cut-off point 40%) and high/low deforestation rates (cut-off point 0.5%)Source: FAO 2005

Stage 1High forest cover

Low deforestation

Stage 2 High forest cover

High deforestation

Stage 3 Low forest cover

High deforestation

Stage 4Low forest cover

Low deforestation

3

16

0

32

21

5

10

4

15

5

10

15

20

25

30

35 Demonstration activity

Readiness activity

criticisms that REDD+ excluded countries with low deforestation rates (e.g. da Fonseca et al. 2007).

The regional distribution of efforts by the UN-REDD Programme and the FCPF also reflects differences in targeting for high carbon effectiveness. Most UN-REDD efforts focus on areas of high additionality (high deforestation/high forest cover), but FCPF efforts are distributed more evenly across all forest contexts (Table 2).

FCPF UN-REDD

Low deforestation/high forest cover

Colombia, Costa Rica, DR Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Congo, Guyana, Panama, Peru, Suriname(9 countries)

DR Congo, Panama(2 countries)

High deforestation/high forest cover

Bolivia, Cambodia, Cameroon, Honduras, Indonesia, Lao PDR, PNG, Nicaragua, Paraguay(9 countries)

Bolivia, Indonesia, Paraguay, Papua New Guinea, Zambia(5 countries)

High deforestation/low forest cover

El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Liberia, Nepal, Tanzania, Uganda(8 countries)

Guatemala

Low deforestation/low forest cover

Argentina, Central African Republic, Chile, Kenya, Thailand, Madagascar, Mexico, Mozambique, Vanuatu, Vietnam(10 countries)

Vietnam

Source: FAO 2005

Table 2. Distribution of FCPF and UN-REDD efforts by forest contexts

8 Sheila Wertz-Kanounnikoff and Metta Kongphan-apirak

4 Payments for environmental services can be defined as voluntary transactions where a well-defined environmental service (or a land use likely to secure that service) is being bought by at least one environmental service buyer from at least one environmental service provider if and only if the environmental service provider secures the environmental service provision (Wunder 2005).

5 Rule of law means ‘the extent to which agents have confidence in, and abide by, the rules of society and, in particular, the quality of contract enforcement, the police, and the courts, as well as the likelihood of crime and violence’. Control of corruption means ‘the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as “capture” of the state by elites and private interests’ (Kaufmann et al. 2008).

However, two caveats apply. First, national-level aggregated data, as used here, hide important sub-national variations in deforestation rates. Deforestation rates are defined by the denominator, which can give entirely different results across spatial scales. For example, deforestation rates differ substantially if one considers Brazil as a whole, the Brazilian State of Mato Grosso, or the forest frontier in Mato Grosso. In addition to the data quality concerns mentioned with respect to the FAO data, fine resolution data (and denominators) are needed to give more accurate insights into deforestation rates and the carbon effectiveness of REDD+ investments. Second, deforestation rates – the area of forest cover lost – only serve as proxy indicators for climate benefits. The carbon benefits are ultimately defined by the carbon content of the forest biome that is being deforested (or conserved). To truly maximise carbon benefits, REDD+ investors would need to use high resolution data - for changes in forest cover and carbon density - to target areas with both high deforestation and high carbon density.

3.2 Cost-efficiency considerationsOne widespread vision for REDD+ is to have a scheme of performance payments comparable to the payments for environmental services (PES)4 schemes (e.g. Angelsen and Wertz-Kanounnikoff 2008). For REDD+ arrangements to function in a similar way to PES, certain preconditions must be met. Among these are strong institutions and good governance (Wunder 2008; Bond et al. 2009). The absence of strong institutions can make PES-type deals prohibitively

expensive because of the transaction costs associated with negotiating and enforcing (monitoring) the deals.

To show the cost efficiency of REDD+ investments, we examine the governance characteristics of the places where REDD+ activities are taking place. Specifically, we map REDD+ investments, i.e. demonstration and readiness activities, against levels of governance using two types of indicator – national governance indices and information on land tenure.

Mapping REDD+ activities against levels of national governance shows that both REDD+ demonstration and readiness activities are concentrated in countries with low governance levels (see Figure 7). The governance index we used is the mean of two variables, measuring law enforcement (rule of law) and perception of corruption (control of corruption)5 as used for the World Bank Governance Indicators (Kaufmann et al. 2008). We classify countries according to their governance index: low (<-0.5), medium (-0.5 to 0.5) and high (>0.5). The bars in Figure 7 show the number of REDD+ demonstration and readiness activities per region identified by the survey. None of the countries with REDD+ activities (except one in Latin America) have a high governance level score. Countries with low governance scores have a large share of REDD+ activities.

This result is counter-intuitive as one would expect REDD+ investments to favor high governance environments. One possible explanation is that current REDD+ finance originates primarily from public funds

Figure 7. REDD+ activities by levels of governance

Low (-0.5) Medium (-0.5-0.5) High (>0.5)

Latin AmericaAfricaAsia

6

1

23

8

4

0 0 0 00

5

10

15

20

25

10

25

12

9

53

1 0 00

Low (-0.5) Medium (-0.5-0.5) High (>0.5)

5

10

15

20

25 Latin AmericaAfricaAsia

Demonstration activities Readiness activities

Emerging REDD+ 9

(ODA, see Figure 5), for which development objectives count for more than they would for private investors. This leaning towards low governance environments offers opportunities to reduce current barriers to carbon finance for REDD+ by investing in measures to enhance governance (e.g. tenure reform, command-and-control). At the same time, governance investments or other non-PES policies can directly result in reduced emissions and, hence, function as direct instruments for REDD+. Especially in low governance contexts, policy makers, donors and other REDD+ investors could pay explicit attention to the potential of governance or other policy investments (e.g. enhanced enforcement of tenure rules and responsibilities) as a more cost-effective option than PES-type deals to directly reduce forest emissions.

Additionally, the World Bank governance indicators probably overestimate the actual governance environments for REDD+. In many countries, governance is weaker in forest frontier areas than in other areas (Kishor and Damania 2007), especially in forest frontiers where deforestation activity is concentrated. A more accurate assessment of the governance conditions relevant for PES-type REDD+ deals requires specific indicators, such as those currently developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI).6

In particular, property rights play a critical role in the governance of forests. This is because current thinking is that clear and secure forest tenure and ownership by individuals or communities encourages investment. Resource conflict is less likely to occur, and the people and communities have more power to bargain than those who live and use resources classified as state forests (Sunderlin et al. 2008). However, the reality is different. According to a survey by the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI), 77% of the global forest area is under government control and 12% is under private control (individuals and firms), while only 4% and 7% of the global forest area is designed for, used, and owned by communities and indigenous people respectively (Sunderlin et al. 2008). Although de jure land rights are not a precondition for PES provided that de facto control over land exists, this will be different for REDD+ performance payments where formal rights to carbon will likely play an important role. This suggests that there is little room for PES-type REDD+ deals that provide direct incentives to local forest stewards who have control over their lands (private or community users) unless further devolution of rights occurs.

Yet governance levels are not the only factor in the cost-effectiveness of REDD+ investments. The opportunity costs of forest conservation matter too. A spatially explicit analysis of opportunity costs can help determine the level

6 www.wri.org/project/governance-of-forests-initiative

Country Opportunity costs(US $)

Mean opportunity

costs/ha (US $)

Deforestation rates [ha/year]

(FAO 2005)

REDD+ readiness activities

REDD+ demonstration

activities

Brazil 1 977 803 000(637/ha) 637 -0.6 0 5

Cameroon 204 662 000(930/ha) 930 -1 4 1

DRC 296 760 000(930/ha) 930 -0.2 4 0

Ghana 125 366 000(1 090/ha) 1090 -2 1 0

Bolivia 363 560 000(1 346/ha) - -0.5 2 1

Indonesia 2 976 751 000(1 590/ha) - -2 4 24

Malaysia 247 961 000(1 771/ha) - 0 0

PNG 381 473 000(2 744/ha) - -0.5 3 0

Source: Grieg-Gran 2008. Countries are ranked by mean opportunity cost per hectare

Table 3. REDD+ activity and opportunity costs of forest conservation

10 Sheila Wertz-Kanounnikoff and Metta Kongphan-apirak

of compensation needed to induce changes in land use behavior. For example, Table 3 illustrates the range of absolute and relative (mean per hectare) opportunity costs in the eight major deforesting countries, Brazil, Bolivia, Cameroon, DRC, Ghana, Indonesia, Malaysia and PNG (Grieg-Gran 2008). For each country, the table also gives the number of REDD+ activities found by the survey. One can argue that, at a minimum, there should be compensation for the opportunity costs in order to avoid deforestation in these countries (see Eliasch 2008). However, it is important to recall that these cost values present national mean values, which hide sub-national variation. A more accurate assessment of the cost-efficiency aspects of REDD+ requires a high-resolution assessment of the opportunity costs of forest conservation, including the costs of activities to avoid forest degradation. Therefore, in order to make a decision on where to invest and how to design REDD+, opportunity costs need to be calculated for different locations.

3.3 Equity and co-benefits considerations

Many forests not only contain large amounts of carbon, but also provide other important non-carbon benefits (Brown et al. 2008). These include environmental services, such as water and biodiversity conservation, that are important for human well being. At the same time, forests are an important source of livelihoods for many people around the world. The potential for REDD+ to keep forests standing, and therefore protect these livelihoods, is gaining increasing attention.

Biodiversity conservation is a natural co-benefit of REDD+ despite some divergence in targeting for the highest pay-off of forest carbon and biodiversity geographically. Cross-tabulating REDD+ activities against national biodiversity indices (Figure 8) shows that 90% of the demonstration activities are located in areas of medium to high biodiversity, especially in Asia. Similarly, 96% of the readiness activities

occur in countries with at least medium levels of biodiversity, while 37% are in areas with high levels of biodiversity. For this tabulation, we used the biodiversity index derived by Ebeling and Yasue (2008) from environmental sustainability indicators (Esty et al. 2005). These consist of a variable combining the proportion of threatened species, proportion of countries’ eco-regions under threat, and overall levels of endemism. The countries are classified according to low (<40%), medium (40-60%) and high (>60%) levels of biodiversity.

REDD+ can offer important synergies for biodiversity and carbon conservation. A first step for the more accurate targeting of REDD+ activities is the use of disaggregated spatial data on biodiversity and carbon density as illustrated by the UNEP-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) demonstration (Kapos et al. 2008). To maximise biodiversity co-benefits from REDD+, more detailed cost-benefit mapping is needed. Carbon density values and levels of biodiversity (the benefits) should be mapped against the opportunity costs of conservation (the costs).

We examined national-level data and found that REDD+ activities, especially demonstration activities, are concentrated in humid forests rather than in dry forest areas (Figure 9). Readiness activities are more equally distributed between humid, semi humid, and dry forest areas. Assessing REDD+ activities more accurately by biome would require spatial analysis of geo referenced REDD+ activities overlaid with fine resolution data on forest types. For the cross-tabulation in this paper we used coarse resolution data of the predominant forest type in each country, as this data is comparable across countries.

Leaving aside inaccuracies related to the use of national-level data, one explanation for the neglect of dry forest areas is that these forests are generally poorer in carbon than humid forests (Ebeling and Yasue 2008). However, this is arguable. Dry forests cover

Figure 8. REDD+ activity by level of biodiversity

Low (-0.5) Medium (-0.5-0.5) High (>0.5)

Latin AmericaAfricaAsia

0

5

0

3

0 0

10

1

23

Low (-0.5) Medium (-0.5-0.5) High (>0.5)

Latin AmericaAfricaAsia

0

15

8

131211

02

00

5

10

15

20

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

REDD+ demonstration activity by levels of biodiversity REDD+ readiness activity by levels of biodiversity

Emerging REDD+ 11

greater areas than humid forests in the tropics and are typically more degraded, making them key target areas for terrestrial carbon storage, recovery, and ‘avoided’ deforestation projects (Glenday 2008). In addition, dry forests offer a particularly promising opportunity for targeting REDD+ co-benefits; they tend to have higher population densities than humid forests and mainly poor people (Sunderlin et al. 2008), along with high levels of biodiversity (Myers et al. 2000).

The location-specific assessments of the costs (opportunity costs, transaction costs) and benefits (carbon, biodiversity, poverty reduction) can help maximise REDD+ co-benefits by targeting interventions at high-return areas.

To examine the potential for social REDD+ co-benefits, we classified the surveyed demonstration activities according to their stated objectives. Figure 10 shows the types of objectives stated by REDD+ demonstration

activities. To capture the full range of activities, we allowed for multiple statements, i.e. if a project reported its activities to be PES, sustainable forest management (SFM) and community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), we listed all of them. Specifically, our survey found that:

Forest rehabilitation is among the most frequently •listed project activities, especially in Asia (notably Indonesia) and to a lesser, though still significant, extent in Latin America.Forest conservation is also mentioned frequently, •especially in Latin America.Community-based natural resource management •is often cited in projects conducted in Asia, while absent from projects in Africa.Sustainable forest management seems particularly •common in Asia.Payments for environmental services (PES), a •core idea of REDD+, is only mentioned in Latin American activities.

The implications for REDD+ co-benefits are as follows. Since most activities are of an ‘activity enhancing’ nature (as opposed to ‘activity reducing’ as in the case of pure forest protection), positive social co-benefits seem likely especially where community-based forest management is a significant project objective. However, the ultimate degree and nature of co-benefits depends on the design of the REDD+ scheme and how benefits and costs are distributed across the actors involved. In addition, to further secure and enhance REDD+ co-benefits, supplementary finance (e.g. international biodiversity finance, official development assistance) can help direct REDD+ investments towards areas and countries that are priorities for conservation and development.

Humid forest Humid–dry forest Dry forest

REDD+ demonstration activityREDD+ readiness activity

35

29

7

18

2

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Figure 9. REDD+ activities by forest biomesSource: WWF 2001, cited in Olson et al. 2001

Figure 10. Stated objectives of REDD+ demonstration activities

Payments forenvironmental services

Community forestry Protected Area Sustainable forestmanagement

Forest rehabilitation0

2

4

6

8

10

12 Latin AmericaAfricaAsia

7

3

1

8

0

7

11

3 3

5

2

5

8

3

11

12 Sheila Wertz-Kanounnikoff and Metta Kongphan-apirak

7 The PES literature states that formal land titles are not necessary precondition for PES to emerge as long as de-facto control over land is ensured. Whether de-facto rights will be sufficient for REDD+ is yet to be shown.

The graph shows that PES schemes play a less significant role in the surveyed REDD+ demonstration activities than expected. This finding is consistent with a study analysing REDD+ projects in Indonesia and finding that although these projects fit the definition at the scale that the carbon services are transacted, PES characteristics are not a main component of the on the ground implementation (Myers Madeira 2009). One reason therefore could be the governance or institutional constraints prevalent in many tropical forest areas, which make PES an option hardly feasible especially if formal tenure rights (including to carbon)

are required.7 Yet, despite the value of governance investments as a direct means of reducing forest emissions (as alternatives to PES), carbon finance for REDD+ will require a performance-based approach, which will strengthen PES as an important instrument for REDD+. Therefore, national policy makers, donors and other investors in REDD+ demonstration activities need to invest in, and experiment further with, the potential for PES-type performance payments to reduce forest emissions in different socio-economic, institutional, and cultural contexts.

The survey provides some preliminary insights from emerging REDD+ activities. While readiness activities are more or less evenly distributed across country and forest contexts, demonstration activities appear to be driven by carbon objectives – sometimes putting other noncarbon benefits at risk. This becomes especially clear when we examine how REDD+ activities are distributed across forest types. Dry forests – where many rural poor live, especially in Africa, and where there are high levels of biodiversity – are currently neglected as targets for REDD+ demonstration activities. Spatially explicit, high-resolution, environmental and socio-economic analysis offer new scope for targeting REDD+ investments to enhance carbon objectives while securing REDD+ co-benefits. Donors and other investors in REDD+ or REDD+ co-benefits could consider assembling such data to enhance their investment choices, monitor outcomes and, thus, learn valuable lessons to inform the national and global REDD+ architecture.

4. Preliminary conclusion

The survey further shows that REDD+ policies require more than PES. The fact that low governance is a widespread characteristic of many tropical forest areas across the globe calls for measures beyond PES-type deals, notably governance investments (e.g. enhanced command-and-control), to achieve cost-effective reductions in forest emissions. Finding the right mix of PES-type deals and governance investments in different country contexts is an important challenge ahead. Donors and other investors in REDD+ demonstration activities could pay particular attention to appropriate policy measures (PES versus governance investments) to achieve emission reductions in given contexts. These will provide important inputs for national REDD+ policy makers as they consider suitable policy mixes for REDD+, and, ultimately, the global REDD+ architecture for financing REDD+.

References

Anderson, P. and Kuswardono, T. 2008 Report to the Rainforest Foundation Norway on reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation in Indonesia. Rainforest Foundation, Oslo, Norway.

Angelsen, A. and Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. 2008 What are the key design issues for REDD+ and the criteria for assessing options? In: A. Angelsen (ed.) Moving ahead with REDD+: Issues, options and implications, 11-22. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Bond, I., Grieg-Gran, M., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Hazlewood, P., Wunder, S. and Angelsen, A. 2009 Incentives to sustain forest ecosystem services: A review and lessons for REDD+. Natural Resource Issues No. 16. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK with CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, and World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USA.

Brown, D., Seymour, F. and Peskett, L. 2008 How do we achieve REDD+ co-benefits and avoid doing harm? In: A. Angelsen (ed.) Moving ahead with REDD+: Issues, options and implications, 107-118. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Chomitz, K.M., Buys, P., Luca, G.D., Thomas, T.S. and Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S. 2007 At loggerheads?: Agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment in the tropical forests. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.

da Fonseca, G.A.B., Rodriguez, C.M., Midgley, G., Busch, J., Hannah, L. and Mittermeier, R.A. 2007 No forest left behind. PLoS Biology 5(8): 1645-1646.

Dutschke, M., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Peskett, L., Luttrell, C., Streck, C. and Brown, J. 2008 Mapping potential sources of REDD+ financing to different needs and national circumstances. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, IPAM, Brasilia, Brazil; and ODI, London, UK.

Ebeling, J. and Yasue, M. 2008 Generating carbon finance through avoided deforestation and its potential to create climatic, conservation and human development benefits. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B 363: 1917-1924.

Eliasch, J. 2008 Climate change: Financing global forests. The Stationery Office Limited, London. http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/eliasch/Full_report_eliasch_review(1) pdf.

Esty, D.C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T. and Sherbinin, A.D. 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index: Benchmarking national environmental stewardship. January 2005 Edition. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, New Haven, CT, USA.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2005 FRA 2005 global tables. In: The global forest resources assessment 2005. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 2007 State of the world’s forests 2007. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Glenday, J. 2008 Carbon storage and emissions offset potential in an African dry forest, the Arabuko-Sokoke Forest, Kenya. Environmental Monitoring Assessment 142: 85–95.

Greenpeace 2009 Summary of the ‘REDD+ from the Conservation Perspective’ report, Commissioned by Greenpeace from the University of Freiburg Institute of Forest Policy, June 2009. www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/usa/press-center/reports4/greenpeace-summary-of-the-red.pdf.

Grieg-Gran, M. 2008 The cost of avoiding deforestation: Update of the report prepared for the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK.

Hansen, M.C. et al. 2008 Humid tropical forest clearing from 2000-2005 quantified by using multi-temporal and multi-resolution remotely sensed data. PNAS 105(27): 9439-9444.

Kaimowitz D. and Angelsen, A. 1999 Rethinking the causes of deforestation: Lessons from economic models. The World Bank Research Observer 14 (1): 73-98.

Kapos, V. et al. 2008 Carbon and biodiversity: A demonstration atlas. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.

Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. and Mastruzzi, M. 2008 Governance Matters VII: Governance Indicators for 1996-2007. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/pdf/wgidataset.xls (accessed 03/05/2009).

Kishor N. and Damania, R. 2007 Crime and justice in the garden of Eden: improving governance and reducing corruption in the forestry sector. In: Campos, J.E. and Pradhan, S. (eds). The many faces of corruption: tracking vulnerability at the sector level. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.

Myers Madeira E., 2009 Assessment of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) Activities in Indonesia and the Absence of PES-like Implementation Strategies. manuscript.

Emerging REDD+ 15

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B. and Kent, J. 2000 Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853-858.

Olson, D.M. et al. 2001 Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on earth. BioScience 51(11): 933-938.

Parker, C., Mitchell A., Trivedi M., and Mardas, M. 2009 The Little REDD+ + book. Global Canopy Programme, Oxford, UK.

Saatchi, S., Houghton, R.A., dos Santos, R.C., Avala, F., Soares, J. and Yu, Y. 2007 Distribution of above ground biomass in the Amazon Basin. Global Change Biology 13: 816-837.

Sunderlin, W.D., Hatcher, J. and Liddle, M. 2008 From exclusion to ownership?: Challenges and opportunities in advancing forest tenure reform. Rights and Resources Initiative, Washington, DC, USA.

Sunderlin, W.D., Dewi, S., Puntodewo, A., Mueller, D., Angelsen, A. and Epprecht, M. 2008 Why forests are important for global poverty alleviation: A spatial explanation. Ecology and Society 13(2) art. 24.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2007 Human development report 2007/2008. UNDP, New York, NY, USA.

Woods Hole Research Center (WHRC). 2009 An overview of readiness for REDD+: A complilation of readiness activities prepared on behalf of the forum on readiness for REDD+. Johns, T. and Johnson, E. (eds) Version 1.2 (March 2009). WHRC, Falmouth, MA, USA.

World Bank. 2008 Mapping of existing and emerging sources of forest financing. In: First design meeting on the forest investment program October 16-17, 2008.The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.

Wunder, S. 2008. Necessary conditions for ccosystem service payments. In: Economics and conservation in the tropics: A strategic dialogue 31 Jan – 1 Feb 2008. Moore Foundation, Conservation Strategy Fund, and Resources for the Future, San Francisco, CA, USA.

Wunder S. 2005. Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Occasional Paper 42. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.

Annex 1. Overview of all REDD+ activities

Country

REDD+ demon-stration activity

REDD+ readiness

activity

UN-REDD country [yes = 1; no = 0]

FCPF country [yes = 1; no = 0]

REDD+ demonstration activity - planned

REDD+ demonstration

activity - ongoing

REDD+ readiness activity - planned

REDD+ readiness activity - ongoing

AsiaCambodia 1 1 - 1 1 - 1 -

Indonesia 24 4 1 1 22 2 4 -

Lao PDR - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

Nepal - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

PNG - 3 1 1 - - 3 -

Thailand - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

Vanuatu - 2 - 1 - - 1 1

Vietnam - 2 1 1 - - 2 -

TOTAL 25 15 3 8 23 2 14 1Africa

Cameroon 1 4 - 1 1 - 3 1Central African Republic - 3 - 1 - - 2 1

DR Congo - 4 1 1 - - 4 -

Equatorial Guinea - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

Ethiopia - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

Gabon - 4 - 1 - - 4 -

Ghana - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

Guinea - 1 - - - - 1 -

Kenya - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

Liberia - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

Madagascar 4 2 - 1 1 3 2 1

Mozambique - 1 - 1 - - 1 -Republic of Congo - 2 - 1 - - 2 -

Tanzania - 2 1 1 - - 1 -

Uganda - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

Zambia - 1 1 - - - 1 -

TOTAL 5 30 3 14 2 3 27 3Latin America

Argentina - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

Bolivia 1 2 1 1 - 1 2 -

Brazil 5 - - - 2 3 - -

Belize 1 - - - - 1 - -

Chile - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

Colombia - 2 - 1 - - 1 1

Costa Rica - 1 - 1 - 1 1 -

Ecuador 2 - - - 1 1 - -

El Salvador 2 1 - 1 - 1 1 -

Guatemala 1 1 - 1 - 1 1 -

Guyana - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

Honduras - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

Mexico - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

Nicaragua - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

Paraguay - 2 1 1 - - 1 -

Panama 1 2 1 1 1 - 3 -

Peru 1 2 - 1 1 - 2 -

Suriname - 1 - 1 - - 1 -

TOTAL 14 20 3 15 5 9 19 1

Overall Total 44 65 9 37 30 14 60 5

* Ongoing activities for all REDD+ types in Africa include REDD+ funds established to finance REDD+ activities.

Annex 2. Overview of REDD+ demonstration activities8

Country Readiness PES CB-NRM PA SFM Rehab

Size in haSmall <50 000

Medium is 50 000–500 000Large >500 000

Sub-national initiative

Nationalinitiative

Regional initiative

Small Med LargeAsia

Cambodia 1 - 1 - - 1 - 1 - 1 1 -

Indonesia 4 - 6 3 5 10 2 13 5 24 5 -

Lao PDR 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 -

Nepal 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 -

PNG 3 - - - - - - - - - 3 -

Thailand 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 -

Vanuatu 2 - - - - - - - - 1 1 -

Vietnam 2 1 - - - - - - - 1 2 -

TOTAL 15 1 7 3 5 11 2 14 5 27 15 -Africa

Cameroon 4 - - - - - - - 1 - 2 3Central African Republic 3 1 - - - - - - 1 - 2 1

DR Congo 4 - - - - - - - 1 - 3 2

Equatorial Guinea 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 -

Ethiopia 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 -

Gabon 4 - - - - - - - 1 - 2 2

Ghana 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 -

Guinea 1 - - - - - - - - - - 2

Kenya 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 -

Liberia 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 -

Madagascar 2 1 - 3 1 2 - 4 - 4 1 1

Mozambique 1 1 - - 1 1 - - - 1 1 -

Republic of Congo 2 - - - - - - - - - 1 1

Tanzania 2 - - - - - - - - - 2 -

Uganda 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 -

Zambia 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 -

TOTAL 30 3 - 3 2 3 - 4 4 5 21 12Latin America

Argentina 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 -

Bolivia 2 - - 1 - - - - 1 1 2 -

Brazil - 3 3 2 - 3 1 2 2 7 - -

Belize - - - 1 1 - 1 - - 1 - -

Chile 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 -

Colombia 2 - - 1 1 1 1 - - 2 1 -

Costa Rica 1 - - 1 - - 2 - - 1 1 -

Ecuador - 1 1 1 - 1 - 1 1 2 - -

El Salvador 1 2 - - - - - 1 - 2 1 -

Guatemala 1 - 2 - - 1 - 2 - 2 1 -

Guyana 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 -

Honduras 1 - - 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1 -

Mexico 1 - 2 - 1 1 1 - 1 2 1 -

Nicaragua 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 -

Paraguay 2 - - - - - - - - - 2 -

Panama 2 - - 1 - - 1 - - 1 2 -

Peru 2 1 - 2 1 - 1 2 - 3 1 -

Suriname 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 -

TOTAL 20 7 8 11 5 8 9 8 5 25 18 -

Overall Total 65 11 15 17 12 22 11 26 14 57 54 12

8 We abbreviate these activities as follows: payments for environmental services (PES), community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), protected area management (PA), sustainable forest management (SFM), forest restoration and rehabilitation (Rehab).

Annex 3. REDD+ countries: Forest context

Country

Annual forest cover change

2000-2005[%]

High/low deforestation

country[high >0.5%; low <0.5%]

Forest area 2005

[000 ha]

Land area with forests

[%]

High/low forest country

[high >40%;low <40%]

Carbon in above and

below ground biomass

[tonnes/ha]

Prominent forest type

FAO 2005 FAO 2005 FAO 2005 FAO 2007 WWF 2001

AsiaCambodia -2.0 high 10 447 59.2 high 151 Humid-dry forests

Indonesia -2.0 high 67 701 48.8 high 84 Humid forests

Lao PDR -0.5 high 88 495 69.9 high 115 Humid forests

Nepal -1.4 high 3 636 25.4 low 166 n/a§

PNG -0.5 high 29 437 65.0 high n/a Humid forests

Thailand -0.4 low 14 520 28.4 low 61 Humid-dry forests

Vanuatu 0 low 440 36.1 low n/a Humid forests

Vietnam 2.0 low 12 931 39.7 low 114 Humid-dry forests

AfricaCameroon -1.0 high 21 245 45.6 high 113 Humid-dry forestsCentral African Republic -0.1 low 22 755 36.5 low 154 Dry forests

DR Congo -0.2 low 133 610 58.9 high 216 Humid-dry forests

Equatorial Guinea -0.9 high 1 632 58.2 high 88 Humid forests

Ethiopia -1.1 high 13 000 11.9 low 24 Dry forests

Gabon n/a n/a 21 775 84.5 high 209 Humid forests

Ghana -2.0 high 5 517 24.2 low 113 Humid-dry forests

Guinea -0.5 high 6 724 27.4 low 119 Dry forests

Kenya -0.3 low 3 522 6.2 low 119 Dry forests

Liberia -1.8 high 3 154 32.7 low 180 Humid forests

Madagascar -0.3 low 12 838 22.1 low 305 Humid-dry forests

Mozambique -0.3 low 19 262 24.6 low 39 Dry forests

Republic of Congo -0.1 low 22 471 65.8 high 289 Humid forests

Tanzania -1.1 high 35 257 39.9 low 80 Dry forests

Uganda -2.2 high 3 627 18.4 low 48 Dry forests

Zambia -1.0 high 42 452 57.1 high 34 Dry forests

Latin AmericaArgentina -0.4 low 33 021 12.1 low 91 Dry forest

Bolivia -0.5 high 58 740 54.2 high 113 Humid-dry forests

Brazil -0.6 high 477 698 72.5 high 129 Humid forests

Belize 0 low 1 653 57.2 high 45 Humid forests

Chile 0.4 low 16 121 21.5 low 151 n/a

Colombia -0.1 low 60 728 58.5 high 166 Humid forests

Costa Rica 0.1 low 2 391 46.8 high 101 Humid forests

Ecuador -1.7 high 10 853 39.2 low n/a Humid forests

El Salvador -1.7 high 298 14.4 low n/a Dry forests

Guatemala -1.3 high 3 938 36.3 low 158 Humid forests

Guyana 0 low 15 104 76.7 high 143 Humid forests

Honduras -3.1 high 4 648 41.5 high n/a Dry forests

Mexico -0.4 low 64 238 33.7 low n/a Humid-dry forests

Nicaragua -1.3 high 5 189 42.7 high 173 Humid forests

Paraguay -0.9 high 18 475 46.5 high n/a Dry forests

Panama -0.1 low 4 294 57.7 high 180 Humid forests

Peru -0.1 low 68 742 53.7 high n/a Humid forests

Suriname 0 low 14 776 94.7 high 481 Humid forests

Annex 4. REDD+ countries: Governance context

Countries

Community owned or managed

Public forest (%)

Private forest (%) Rule of law Control of

Corruption

Gover-nance mean

GDP per capita

National bio-diversity index

Chomitz et al. 2006 FAO 2005 FAO 2005 World Bank 2008

World Bank 2008

UNDP 2007 Esty et al. 2005

AsiaCambodia Low 100 0 -1.06 -1.08 -1.07 564 -0.35

Indonesia Low 100 0 -0.71 -0.72 -0.72 1 651 -0.14

Laos PDR n.a. 100 0 -0.96 -1 -0.98 567 -0.16

Nepal n.a. 99.93 0.05 -0.64 -0.66 -0.65 346 -0.05

PNG High n.a. <3 -0.85 -1.05 -0.95 900 0.15

Thailand Low 13 87 -0.06 -0.44 -0.25 3 397 -0.12

Vanuatu High 0 0 0.63 0.21 0.42 n.a. n.a.

Vietnam Medium 56 18 -0.53 -0.69 -0.61 791 -0.35

AfricaCameroon Medium 100 0 -1.09 -0.93 -1.01 1 026 0.40

CAR Low n.a. n.a. -1.52 -0.9 -1.21 425 0.68

DR Congo Low 100 0 -1.67 -1.27 -1.47 139 0.60

Equatorial guinea n.a. n.a. n.a. -1.16 -1.37 -1.27 n.a. n.a.

Ethiopia n.a. 100 0 -0.54 -0.7 -0.62 223 0.08

Gabon Low 100 0 -0.6 -0.85 -0.73 n.a. 0.78

Ghana Low 100 0 -0.08 -0.17 -0.13 604 0.18

Guinea n.a. n.a. n.a. -1.47 -1.33 -1.40 411 0.16

Kenya n.a. 94 5 -0.98 -0.94 -0.96 674 0.45

Liberia Low n.a. n.a. -1.06 -0.41 -0.74 150 -0.02

Madagascar n.a. 98 2 -0.35 -0.16 -0.26 315 -0.57

Mozambique n.a. 100 0 -0.68 -0.59 -0.64 324 0.46

Republic of Congo Low 100 0 -1.26 -1.04 -1.15 1 450 0.84

Tanzania n.a. 94 <1 -0.45 -0.45 -0.45 408 0.23

Uganda n.a. 24 76 -0.54 -0.76 -0.65 339 0.51

Zambia n.a. 100 0 -0.64 -0.6 -0.62 792 0.77

Latin AmericaArgentina n.a. n.a. n.a. -0.52 -0.45 -0.49 5 973 0.10

Belize n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.02 -0.27 -0.13 n.a. n.a.

Bolivia Medium 85 10 -0.96 -0.49 -0.73 1 200 0.79

Brazil Medium n.a. n.a. -0.44 -0.24 -0.34 5 901 0.09

Chile n.a. 25 73 1.17 1.35 1.26 8 153 -0.50

Colombia Medium n.a. n.a. -0.57 -0.28 -0.43 3 259 0.32

Costa Rica n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.44 0.39 0.42 6 200 0.38

Ecuador Medium 77 0 -1.04 -0.87 -0.96 3 169 0.21

El Salvador n.a. 72 25 -0.68 -0.13 -0.41 2 786 0.36

Guatemala Medium 42 53 -1.11 -0.75 -0.93 2 508 0.37

Guyana Medium 66 0 -0.57 -0.64 -0.61 n.a. 0.88

Honduras Medium 75 25 -0.86 -0.69 -0.78 1 614 -0.07

Mexico High 59 0 -0.58 -0.35 -0.47 8 362 -0.05

Nicaragua n.a. n.a. n.a. -0.84 -0.78 -0.81 917 0.58

Panama Medium 10 90 -0.2 -0.34 -0.27 6 133 0.45

Paraguay n.a. 94 5 -0.97 -0.96 -0.97 1 700 0.57

Peru Medium 83 15 -0.71 -0.38 -0.55 3 436 0.55

Suriname Low n.a. 0 -0.24 -0.26 -0.25 n.a. n.a.

Ann

ex 5

. Su

rvey

resu

lts:

RED

D+

in A

sia

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

orga

nisa

tion

sin

volv

edTy

peO

bjec

tive

9Pr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

mes

cale

Fore

st ty

peSt

atus

Inve

stm

ent s

umRe

mar

ks

Cam

bodi

a

CFI C

arbo

n-O

ffset

Pro

ject

(O

tdar

)

• DA

NID

A, D

FID

, N

ZAID

• Clin

ton

Clim

ate

Initi

ativ

e

• Co

mm

unity

For

est

Inte

rnat

iona

l•

Mac

Art

hur

Foun

datio

n•

Prov

inci

al

Gov

ernm

ent

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• CBN

RM• R

ehab

• For

est r

esto

ratio

n an

d pr

otec

tion

• NTF

P in

dust

ries

• Com

mun

ity a

nd li

velih

ood

deve

lopm

ent (

assi

sts

rura

l pe

ople

to g

ain

lega

l ten

ure

right

s ov

er lo

cal f

ores

ts

and

ecot

ouris

m)

Sub-

natio

nal

2008

-202

8Ev

ergr

een,

Se

mi-

ever

gree

n

Plan

ning

$322

785

(bud

get

for 2

008)

, and

an

othe

r $10

0 00

0 fr

om C

linto

n Fo

unda

tion

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

71 6

25 h

a• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d: 3

26 0

44

t/ye

ar (t

otal

) 29

3 44

0 t/

year

(net

CO

2

addi

tiona

lity)

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB R

-fund

s• F

ores

t dem

arca

tion

• SFM

• CBN

RM• F

ores

try

law

enf

orce

men

t an

d go

vern

ance

• Cap

acity

dev

elop

men

t

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Mix

of

low

land

tr

opic

al m

oist

fo

rest

and

de

cidu

ous

dipt

eroc

arp

fore

sts

Plan

ning

Es

timat

ed b

udge

t re

quire

men

t: U

S$1

000

000

Indo

nesi

a

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RVN

atio

nal

2008

-201

2tb

dPl

anni

ngtb

dIF

CA p

roce

ss

repl

aces

the

R-PI

N

phas

eU

N-R

EDD

UN

-RED

D F

und

• UN

DP

• UN

EP• F

AO

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• I

&CB

MRV

(cap

acity

bu

ildin

g an

d m

onito

r de

fore

stat

ion

and

fore

st

degr

adat

ion

driv

ers

for t

he

begi

nnin

g st

age)

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Broa

dlea

f fo

rest

s, m

ount

ain

fore

sts

Man

grov

es

Swam

p

Plan

ning

App

rove

d bu

dget

of

$ 5

644

250

9 F

or R

EDD

+ de

mon

strat

ion

activ

ity: p

aym

ents

for e

nviro

nmen

tal s

ervi

ces [

PES]

; com

mun

ity-b

ased

fore

st m

anag

emen

t [C

BNR

M];

fore

st co

nser

vatio

n in

clud

ing

prot

ecte

d ar

ea m

anag

emen

t [PA

]; im

prov

ed

gove

rnan

ce a

nd la

w e

nfor

cem

ent [

I&G

ov];

susta

inab

le fo

rest

man

agem

ent i

nclu

ding

redu

ced

impa

ct lo

ggin

g [S

FM];

fore

st re

stora

tion

or re

habi

litat

ion

[Reh

ab];

extr

a-se

ctor

pol

icie

s aim

ing

at re

duci

ng th

e pr

ofita

bilit

y of

land

con

vers

ion

[ExS

ect P

].Fo

r RED

D+

read

ines

s act

ivity

: pre

para

tion

of n

atio

nal R

EDD

+ str

ateg

y [R

-str

ateg

y]; i

nstit

utio

n an

d ca

paci

ty b

uild

ing

for M

RV [I

&C

B M

RV];

insti

tutio

n an

d ca

paci

ty b

uild

ing

for h

andl

ing

RED

D+

fund

s [I&

CB

R-fu

nds]

.

Annexes 21

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

orga

nisa

tion

sin

volv

edTy

peO

bjec

tive

9Pr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

mes

cale

Fore

st ty

peSt

atus

Inve

stm

ent s

umRe

mar

ks

Indo

nesi

a (c

ont.)

Indo

nesi

a-Au

stra

lia

Fore

st C

arbo

n Pa

rtne

rshi

p

Aust

ralia

n G

over

nmen

tRE

DD

I wor

king

gro

upRe

adin

ess

• R-s

trat

egie

s• I

&CB

MRV

• I&

CB• I

&CB

R-fu

nds

• Pol

icy

deve

lopm

ent a

nd

capa

city

bui

ldin

g• D

evel

op c

arbo

n m

onito

ring

and

mea

sure

men

t sys

tem

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Broa

dlea

f fo

rest

s M

ount

ain

fore

sts

Man

grov

es

Swam

p fo

rest

s

Plan

ning

$30

mill

ion

and

anot

her $

10

mill

ion

from

bi

late

ral p

acka

ge

supp

ortin

g cl

imat

e ch

ange

This

is th

e um

brel

la

agre

emen

t for

va

rious

act

iviti

es

incl

udin

g th

e Ka

liman

tan

Fore

st

and

Clim

ate

Part

ners

hip

and

the

Bila

tera

l pa

ckag

e.U

lu M

asen

Pr

ojec

t (Ac

eh)

Mer

rill L

ynch

• A

ceh

Gov

ernm

ent

• Car

bon

Cons

erva

tion

(d

eal b

roke

r)• F

FI (i

nter

med

iary

N

GO

)

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• I&

CB• L

aw e

nfor

cem

ent

• Com

mun

ity fu

ndin

g• F

ores

t pro

tect

ion

Sub-

natio

nal

2008

-201

3 (3

0 ye

ar-

proj

ect)

Cont

iguo

us

fore

sts

Ong

oing

$9 m

illio

n in

itiat

e fu

nd fr

om M

erril

l Ly

nch

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

750

000

ha• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d: 3

.369

M

tCO

2e /y

ear o

r 10

0 M

tCO

2e ov

er

30 y

ear

Fore

st fo

r Cl

imat

e In

itiat

ive

(FFC

)

Indu

stria

lized

co

untr

ies

that

w

ant t

o re

duce

th

eir e

mis

sion

s

• Gre

enpe

ace

• WW

FD

emon

stra

tion

activ

ity• C

BNRM

• SFM

• Loc

al C

omm

unity

pa

rtic

ipat

ion

• TD

ERU

s• F

ores

t con

serv

atio

n

Nat

iona

lPo

st 2

012

tbd

Plan

ning

tbd

(The

cou

ntry

is

exp

ecte

d to

re

ceiv

e fu

ndin

g by

20

09)

• Tar

getin

g vo

lunt

ary

mar

ket

via

TDER

Us

appr

oval

by

Gre

enpe

ace

Kalim

anta

n Fo

rest

and

Cl

imat

e Pa

rtne

rshi

p

• Aus

tral

ian

Gov

ernm

ent

• BH

P’s

Bilit

on

RED

DI w

orki

ng g

roup

D

emon

stra

tion

activ

ity• I

&CB

MRV

• CBN

RM• R

ehab

• CFM

• Pea

tland

s re

habi

litat

ion

and

prot

ectio

n• B

iodi

vers

ity c

onse

rvat

ion

• Inc

entiv

e-ba

sed

paym

ents

Sub-

natio

nal

2009

-201

2Pe

atla

nd

fore

stPl

anni

ng$3

0 m

illio

n• P

roje

ct s

ize:

12

0 00

0 ha

Bila

tera

l pa

ckag

e of

su

ppor

t to

Indo

nesi

a on

fo

rest

and

cl

imat

e

• Aus

tral

ian

Gov

ernm

ent

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• D

evel

op a

nat

iona

l for

est

reso

urce

info

rmat

ion/

carb

on a

ccou

ntin

g sy

stem

• Dev

elop

nat

iona

l pol

icy

fram

ewor

k fo

r RED

D+

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Trop

ical

ra

in fo

rest

s M

onta

ne

rain

fore

sts

Man

grov

es

Swam

p fo

rest

sPe

at s

wam

p fo

rest

s

Plan

ning

$10

mill

ion

Wes

t Ka

liman

tan;

Ke

tapa

ng,

Kapu

as H

ulu

• PT

• Mac

quar

ie

Bank

• FFI

• WW

F• L

ocal

com

mun

ity

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

Reha

b• D

evel

op c

omm

unity

ca

rbon

poo

l• R

educ

e la

nd fr

agm

enta

tion

and

conv

ersi

on

Sub-

natio

nal

Mar

200

9 - ?

Peat

land

fo

rest

Plan

ning

tbd

• Siz

e: 1

57 0

00 h

a

22 Annexes

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

or

gani

sati

ons

invo

lved

Type

Obj

ecti

vePr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

mes

cale

Fore

st ty

peSt

atus

Inve

stm

ent s

umRe

mar

ks

Indo

nesi

a (c

ont.)

Mal

inau

Av

oide

d D

efor

esta

tion

Proj

ect

• PT

Inhu

ntan

i II

• KfW

• GTZ

• GER

• Mal

inau

Reg

ency

• FFI

• Dis

tric

t Gov

ernm

ent

• Tro

penb

os

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• SFM

• CBN

RM• F

ores

t man

agem

ent

plan

ning

• Com

mun

ity p

artic

ipat

ion

• Agr

eem

ent w

ith

conc

essi

onai

re to

sto

p ill

egal

logg

ing

in fo

rest

co

nces

sion

are

a

Sub-

natio

nal

tbd

Trop

ical

ra

info

rest

Plan

ning

tbd

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

260

000

ha• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d: 1

.1

MtC

O2e

per y

ear,

25 y

ear p

roje

ct• N

o fu

rthe

r inf

o av

aila

ble.

Bera

u,

Indo

nesi

a Cl

imat

e Ac

tion

Proj

ect;

Kabu

pate

n Be

rau

Fore

st

Carb

on

Prog

ram

• USA

ID• T

NC

and

othe

r loc

al

and

inte

rnat

iona

l N

GO

s• D

istr

ict

Gov

ernm

ent•

ICRA

F• S

ekal

a• U

nive

rsity

M

ulaw

arm

an• W

inro

ck

Inte

rnat

iona

l• U

nive

rsity

of

Que

ensl

and

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• SFM

• I&

CB M

RV• O

rang

utan

hab

itat

cons

erva

tion

• For

est m

anag

emen

t pl

anni

ng• C

arbo

n off

set s

ales

Sub-

natio

nal

Expe

cted

m

id 2

009-

?Tr

opic

al

rain

fore

st,

peat

sw

amp

Plan

ning

tbd

• Siz

e: 9

71 2

45 h

a• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d:

5 00

0 00

0 t/

year

Berb

ak C

arbo

n Va

lue

Initi

ativ

etb

d• E

RM• Z

SL• B

erba

k N

atio

nal

Park

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

tbd

tbd

Sub-

natio

nal

tbd

Low

land

ra

info

rest

sPl

anni

ngtb

d• S

ize:

250

000

ha

• Em

issi

ons

redu

ced:

700

000

t/

year

Kalim

anta

n:

Kual

a Ka

mpa

tbd

• WW

FD

emon

stra

tion

activ

itytb

dtb

dSu

b-na

tiona

ltb

dtb

dPl

anni

ngtb

d• S

ize:

700

000

ha

Kalim

anta

n:

Tess

o N

ilotb

d• W

WF

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

tbd

tbd

Sub-

natio

nal

tbd

tbd

Plan

ning

tbd

• Siz

e: 5

0 00

0 ha

Kalim

anta

n:

Mer

u Be

tiri

Nat

iona

l Par

k (M

BNP)

RED

D

Proj

ect

Publ

ic-P

rivat

e Pa

rtne

rshi

p (7

&i

Hol

ding

s Lt

d)

• ITT

O, G

over

nmen

t of

Indo

nesi

aD

emon

stra

tion

activ

itytb

d• ‘

impr

ove

loca

l liv

elih

oods

’• a

void

def

ores

tatio

n an

d de

grad

atio

n, a

nd

biod

iver

sity

con

serv

atio

n

Sub-

natio

nal

tbd

tbd

Plan

ning

tbd

tbd

Kalim

anta

n:

Hea

rt o

f Bo

rneo

tbd

• WW

FD

emon

stra

tion

activ

itytb

dtb

dSu

b-na

tiona

ltb

dtb

dPl

anni

ngtb

d• S

ize:

22

mill

ion

ha

Kalim

anta

n:

Kab

Jaya

pura

, • W

WF

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

tbd

tbd

Sub-

natio

nal

tbd

Peat

land

, tr

opic

al ra

in

fore

sts

Plan

ning

tbd

• Siz

e: 2

17 6

34 h

a

RED

D p

roje

ct

in C

yclo

ps

Mou

ntai

ns

near

Jaya

pura

tbd

• FFI

, Pap

ua P

rovi

ncia

l G

over

nmen

tD

emon

stra

tion

activ

itytb

dtb

dSu

b-na

tiona

ltb

dtb

dPl

anni

ngtb

d• T

he p

roje

ct is

st

ill a

wai

ting

appr

oval

from

th

e Ce

ntra

l G

over

nmen

t.

Annexes 23

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

or

gani

sati

ons

invo

lved

Type

Obj

ecti

vePr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

mes

cale

Fore

st ty

peSt

atus

Inve

stm

ent s

umRe

mar

ks

Indo

nesi

a (c

ont.)

Gun

ung

Hal

imun

Sal

ak

Nat

iona

l Par

k M

anag

emen

t Pr

ojec

t

• JIC

A• U

S G

over

nmen

t

• JIC

A• U

S G

over

nmen

tN

on-e

xplic

it ca

rbon

goa

ls• P

A

(bio

dive

rsity

Co

nser

vatio

n)• C

BNRM

• Im

prov

e pa

rk m

anag

emen

t m

etho

d• L

ocal

com

mun

ity

part

icip

atio

n

Sub-

natio

nal

2004

-200

9Br

oadl

eaf

fore

stO

ngoi

ngtb

d

Papu

a Ca

rbon

Pr

ojec

t (K

abup

aten

M

imik

a in

Pa

pua

and

Kabu

pate

n M

embe

ram

o)

• CI a

nd F

FI• C

I• N

ew F

ores

t, Em

eral

d Pl

anet

• FFI

• Loc

al c

omm

unity

• Oth

er N

GO

s

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• Reh

ab• C

BNRM

• SFM

• For

est r

esto

ratio

n an

d pr

otec

tion

from

land

co

nver

sion

• Red

uce

indu

stria

l log

ging

pe

rmit

• SFM

for l

oggi

ng c

ompa

ny

and

com

mun

ity (r

educ

ed

impa

ct lo

ggin

g)

Sub-

natio

nal

2008

?-?

Rain

fore

sts,

peat

fore

stPl

anni

ngtb

d• P

roje

ct s

ize:

265

000

ha• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d:

1 00

0 00

0 –

2 00

0 00

0 t/

year

Kam

par R

ing

and

Kam

par

Core

Pro

ject

tbd

• NG

O p

artn

ers

• Loc

al C

omm

unity

• Lea

f Car

bon

Ltd

• Gov

ernm

ent a

nd

APR

IL/R

APP

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• Reh

ab• F

ores

t con

serv

atio

n

(exi

stin

g pe

atla

nd

fore

st a

nd b

uffer

fore

st

tran

sitio

n)• E

cosy

stem

rest

orat

ion

• Bes

t pra

ctic

e hy

drol

ogic

al

prac

tice

Sub-

natio

nal

tbd

Peat

fore

stPl

anni

ngtb

d• P

roje

ct s

ize:

40

0 00

0 ha

• Em

issi

ons

redu

ced:

Em

issi

ons

avoi

ded

c.10

M

tCO

2e pe

r yea

r• C

ontin

ued

disc

ussi

ons

with

ca

rbon

par

tner

sH

arap

an

Rain

fore

st

Proj

ect

tbd

• Bur

ung

Indo

nesi

a• T

he R

oyal

Soc

iety

fo

r the

Pro

tect

ion

of B

irds

• Bird

life

Inte

rnat

iona

l

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• Reh

ab• F

ores

t and

ani

mal

co

nser

vatio

n• F

ores

t res

tora

tion

Sub-

natio

nal

2008

-?D

ry lo

wla

nd

fore

stPl

anni

ngtb

d• P

roje

ct s

ize:

10

1 00

0ha

Katig

an

Cons

erva

tion

Are

a: A

Glo

bal

Peat

land

Ca

psto

ne

Proj

ect

tbd

• Sta

rling

Res

ourc

esD

emon

stra

tion

activ

itytb

dtb

dSu

b-na

tiona

ltb

dPe

atla

nd

fore

stPl

anni

ngtb

d

Maw

as

Peat

land

Co

nser

vatio

n A

rea

Proj

ect

(Ora

ngut

an

PCA

P in

Ce

ntra

l Ka

liman

tan)

• The

Dut

ch

Roya

l G

over

nmen

t• S

hell

Cana

da

• The

Bor

neo

Surv

ival

fo

unda

tion

• The

Dut

ch R

oyal

G

over

nmen

t• S

hell

Cana

da

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

tbd

• For

est c

onse

rvat

ion

Sub-

natio

nal

tbd

Peat

land

fo

rest

Plan

ning

tbd

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

364

000

ha• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d:

1 44

2 28

8 t/

year

• Com

plet

ion

of

PDD

val

idat

ed

by W

inro

ck

Inte

rnat

iona

l

24 Annexes

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

or

gani

sati

ons

invo

lved

Type

Obj

ecti

vePr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

mes

cale

Fore

st ty

peSt

atus

Inve

stm

ent s

umRe

mar

ks

Indo

nesi

a (c

ont.)

Cent

ral

Kalim

anta

n Pe

atla

nd

Proj

ect (

CKPP

)

• Dut

ch

Gov

ernm

ent

• Wor

ld W

ide

Fund

for

Nat

ure

• BO

S M

awas

Pr

ogra

m• W

etla

nds

Inte

rnat

iona

l In

done

sia

Prog

ram

me

• CA

RE In

tern

atio

nal

Indo

nesi

a• P

alag

ak R

aya

Uni

vers

ity

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• Reh

ab• P

eatla

nd c

onse

rvat

ion

• For

est p

lant

atio

n an

d re

stor

atio

n

Sub-

natio

nal

tbd

Peat

land

fo

rest

Ong

oing

tbd

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

50,0

00 h

a (5

00 0

00 h

a)

Fore

st L

and

Use

and

Cl

imat

e Ch

ange

in

Nor

th S

ulaw

esi

(FLU

CC) i

n th

e Po

igar

For

est

tbd

• Gre

en S

yner

gies

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• PA

(pro

tect

th

e vi

rgin

fo

rest

)• R

EHA

B

• For

est p

rote

ctio

n fr

om

logg

ing

and

land

cle

arin

g• R

ehab

ilita

te lo

gged

an

d de

grad

ed fo

rest

(c

omm

unity

and

loca

l bu

sine

ss e

ngag

emen

t)

Sub-

natio

nal

tbd

tbd

Plan

ning

tbd

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

34 9

89 h

a• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d: 1

70 0

00

t/ye

ar

Mam

uju

Hab

itat

tbd

• Kee

p th

e H

abita

t• I

nhut

ani I

• CI

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• Reh

ab• C

BNRM

• SFM

(S

usta

inab

ly

man

aged

tim

ber s

uppl

y fo

r the

futu

re)

• For

est p

rote

ctio

n fr

om

logg

ing

and

land

cle

arin

g• R

ehab

ilita

te lo

gged

an

d de

grad

ed fo

rest

(c

omm

unity

and

loca

l bu

sine

ss e

ngag

emen

t)

Sub-

natio

nal

15 y

eas

and

can

be

exte

nded

Rain

fore

sts

Plan

ning

AUD

7 m

illio

n fo

r pro

ject

im

plem

enta

tion

for e

ach

year

th

roug

h th

e pr

ojec

t life

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

30 0

00 h

a• E

mis

sion

re

duce

d: 2

50 0

00

t/ye

ar

Mer

auke

-M

app-

Asm

at

dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

-RED

D+

• WW

F• W

WF

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• Reh

abtb

dSu

b-na

tiona

ltb

dtb

dPl

anni

ngtb

d

Seba

ngau

RE

DD

+ Pr

ojec

t• D

euts

che

Post

• W

WF

• Ter

raca

rbon

• Deu

tsch

e Po

st

(fund

er)

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

tbd

tbd

Sub-

natio

nal

tbd

Peat

land

sw

amp

Plan

ning

tbd

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

580

000

ha

(mig

ht b

e w

hole

na

tiona

l par

k)Pr

otec

tion

of

biod

iver

sity

th

roug

h re

duce

d de

fore

stat

ion

(RED

D+)

in th

e pe

atla

nd fo

rest

of

Mer

ang,

So

uthe

rn

Sum

atra

• Ger

man

G

over

nmen

t• I

nter

natio

nal

Clim

ate

Initi

ativ

e (

ICI)

• Ger

man

G

over

nmen

t

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

tbd

tbd

Sub-

natio

nal

2008

-?Pe

atla

nd

fore

stPl

anni

ng$2

.2 m

illio

n

Annexes 25

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

or

gani

sati

ons

invo

lved

Type

Obj

ecti

vePr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

mes

cale

Fore

st ty

peSt

atus

Inve

stm

ent s

umRe

mar

ks

Lao

PDR

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s • R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• I

&CB

R-fu

nds

• Im

prov

e go

vern

ance

and

la

w e

nfor

cem

ent

• Sec

ured

pro

tect

ed a

reas

• CFM

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Pote

ntia

l fo

rest

Co

mm

erci

al

tree

pl

anta

tion

Mix

ed

deci

duou

s fo

rest

Plan

ning

tbd

Nep

al

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s • R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• I

&CB

R-fu

nds

• CFM

• For

est c

ertifi

catio

nN

atio

nal

2008

-201

2Br

oadl

eave

d fo

rest

s M

oist

de

cidu

ous

fore

sts

Trop

ical

dry

de

cidu

ous

fore

st

Plan

ning

Estim

ated

bud

get

requ

irem

ent

$1 0

00 0

00

PNG

UN

-RED

DU

N-R

EDD

Fun

d• U

ND

P• U

NEP

• FAO

Read

ines

stb

dtb

dN

atio

nal

2008

-201

2Sa

vann

a w

oodl

ands

Sw

amps

M

angr

oves

Ra

info

rest

Plan

ning

App

rove

d bu

dget

of

$2

585

034

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• L

aw e

nfor

cem

ent

• Dev

elop

car

bon

mon

itorin

g an

d as

sess

men

t sys

tem

• Pub

lic a

war

enes

s (e

duca

tion)

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Sava

nna

woo

dlan

ds

Swam

ps

Man

grov

es

Rain

fore

st

Plan

ning

Estim

ated

bud

get

requ

irem

ent

$1 3

19 2

50

Papu

a N

ew

Gui

nea

- Au

stra

lia

• Aus

tral

ian

Gov

ernm

ent

• P

NG

Gov

Read

ines

s

• R-s

trat

egie

s • I

&CB

MRV

• I&

CB R

-fund

• Pol

icy

deve

lopm

ent a

nd

capa

city

bui

ldin

g• m

onito

ring

and

mea

sure

men

t sys

tem

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Sava

nna

woo

dlan

ds

Swam

ps

Man

grov

es

Rain

fore

st

Plan

ning

$3 m

illio

n in

initi

al

fund

26 Annexes

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

or

gani

sati

ons

invo

lved

Type

Obj

ecti

vePr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

mes

cale

Fore

st ty

peSt

atus

Inve

stm

ent s

umRe

mar

ks

Thai

land

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• M

onito

ring

syst

em

deve

lopm

ent

• Ins

titut

iona

l cap

acity

bu

ildin

g pr

oces

s on

fore

st

cons

erva

tion

• Nat

iona

l for

est r

esto

ratio

n pr

ogra

m• C

olla

bora

tion

with

ot

her G

reat

er M

ekon

g Su

b-re

gion

on

RED

D+

impl

emen

tatio

n

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Mix

ed

deci

duou

s fo

rest

Sem

i-ev

ergr

een

fore

stD

ry d

ecid

uous

fo

rest

Trop

ical

rain

ev

ergr

een

fore

stH

ill e

verg

reen

fo

rest

Plan

ning

Estim

ated

bud

get

requ

irem

ent :

$1

.62

mill

ion

Vanu

atu

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s

• R-s

trat

egie

s• I

&CB

MRV

• Agr

ofor

estr

yN

atio

nal

2008

-201

2Lo

wla

nd

rain

fore

st,

Mon

tane

cl

oud

fore

st

Seas

onal

ra

in fo

rest

M

angr

ove

fore

st L

ittor

al

fore

st

Seco

ndar

y fo

rest

Plan

ning

Estim

ated

bud

get

requ

irem

ent

$2 4

48 0

00

Vanu

atu

Carb

on C

redi

ts

proj

ect

• Uni

vers

ity o

f W

ellin

gton

an

d U

K G

over

nmen

t

• Clim

ateF

ocus

Vi

ctor

iaRe

adin

ess

• I&

CB M

RV• D

evel

op m

onito

ring

syst

emSu

b-na

tiona

ltb

dtb

dO

ngoi

ngVi

ctor

ia U

nive

rsity

U

RF g

rant

: N

Z$50

000

UK

Gov

ern-

men

t Glo

bal

Opp

ortu

nity

Fun

d:

NZ$

225

000

• Pro

ject

tim

e fr

ame

unav

aila

ble

Viet

nam

Paym

ent f

or

Fore

st C

arbo

n Ec

osys

tem

Se

rvic

es

(Lam

dong

)

• GTZ

• USA

ID• W

inro

ck• G

TZ• U

SAID

Non

-exp

licit

carb

on g

oals

• PES

tbd

Sub-

natio

nal

tbd

tbd

Plan

ning

tbd

• Em

issi

ons

redu

ced:

tbd

Base

d on

an

estim

ated

2.

2MtC

O2

sequ

este

red

by 2

038

on th

e vo

lunt

ary

mar

ket

Annexes 27

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

or

gani

sati

ons

invo

lved

Type

Obj

ecti

vePr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

mes

cale

Fore

st ty

peSt

atus

Inve

stm

ent s

umRe

mar

ks

Viet

nam

(con

t.)

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• I

&CB

R-fu

nds

• Dev

elop

SFM

fram

ewor

k• C

FM• S

tren

gthe

ning

MA

R

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Ever

gree

n/Se

mi-

ever

gree

n br

oadl

eaf

fore

st

Coni

fero

us/

mix

ed

coni

fero

us

Broa

dlea

ved

fore

st

Man

grov

e

Plan

ning

Estim

ated

bud

get

requ

irem

ent

$500

000

• FCP

F po

ssib

ly

offer

$1

000

000

to e

ach

FCPF

co

untr

y fo

r re

adin

ess

proc

ess

UN

-RED

DU

N-R

EDD

Fun

d• U

ND

P• U

NEP

• FAO

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• Rev

ise

fore

st p

olic

y• R

efor

esta

tion,

affo

rest

atio

n• I

mpl

emen

t PES

pol

icy

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Peat

land

fo

rest

M

angr

ove

Plan

ning

App

rove

d bu

dget

of

$4

384

756

• The

pro

gram

aim

s to

dem

onst

rate

so

met

hing

via

PE

S pa

ymen

t m

echa

nism

and

is

inte

rest

ed in

lo

okin

g at

and

es

tabl

ishi

ng

RED

D+

activ

ity

in o

n-go

ing

PES

proj

ect s

ite

in L

amdo

ng

prov

ince

.

Ann

ex 6

. Su

rvey

resu

lts:

RED

D+

in A

fric

a

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

or

gani

sati

ons

invo

lved

Type

Obj

ecti

ve10

Proj

ect a

ctiv

itie

sSc

ale

Tim

e sc

ale

Fore

st ty

peSt

atus

Inve

stm

ent s

umRe

mar

ks

Cam

eroo

n

RED

D

COM

IFAC

pilo

t pr

ojec

t

• KfW

• C

OM

IFAC

• GTZ

• GM

ES• F

AN

(Bol

ivia

)•

WW

F• W

orld

Ban

k

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

tbd

tbd

Regi

onal

tbd

tbd

Plan

ning

tbd

No

furt

her i

nfo

is

avai

labl

e.

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV

• SFM

pro

duct

ion

fore

st• S

ecur

e na

tiona

l par

ks• C

omm

unity

fund

ing

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Clos

ed

ever

gree

n ra

info

rest

s

Plan

ning

Estim

ated

bud

get

requ

irem

ent

$1 0

00 0

00 C

BFF

• DFI

D a

nd

Nor

weg

ian

gove

rnm

ent

• AfD

B• C

OM

IFAC

• NG

Os

Read

ines

s• I

&CB

• For

est c

onse

rvat

ion

• Loc

al a

nd in

stitu

tiona

l ca

paci

ty b

uild

ing

Regi

onal

2008

-?Cl

osed

ev

ergr

een

rain

fore

sts

Plan

ning

$100

mill

ion

(as

part

of

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tr

ansf

orm

atio

n Fu

nd)

initi

ativ

e fu

nd

and

anot

her

$1.5

bill

ion

is to

be

com

mitt

ed

from

the

Briti

sh

Gov

ernm

ent

• Dec

isio

n of

whi

ch

prop

osal

will

re

ceiv

e fu

nd w

ill

be m

ade

by M

ay

2009

Enha

ncin

g In

stitu

tiona

l ca

paci

ty o

n RE

DD

issu

es

for s

usta

inab

le

Fore

st

Man

agem

ent

in th

e Co

ngo

Basi

n

• WB

• AfD

B• W

WF,

WCS

, CI

• WB

• AfD

, CIR

AD

, CO

MIF

AC, W

WF,

WCS

, ON

FI, F

RM

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• S

tren

gthe

n in

stitu

tiona

l ca

paci

ty• T

echn

ical

ass

ista

nce

for

mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

• Ena

ble

stak

ehol

der

part

icip

atio

n

Regi

onal

2008

-201

5Sa

vann

a,

Clos

ed

ever

gree

n ra

info

rest

s

Ong

oing

Co-fi

nanc

ing

(6 C

ongo

Bas

in

Coun

trie

s, Bi

late

ral

Aid

age

ncie

s, M

ultil

ater

al

agen

cies

, N

GO

s, O

ther

s):

$13

180

000

Wor

ld B

ank:

$1

5 00

0 00

0Re

duce

em

issi

on fo

r D

efor

esta

tion

and

Deg

rada

tion

(RED

D) i

n Co

ngo

Basi

n

• WW

FRe

adin

ess

• R-s

trat

egie

s• I

&CB

MRV

• I&

CB R

-fund

s

• Tec

hnic

al a

ssis

tanc

e• E

nsur

e ad

ditio

nal f

undi

ng• C

apac

ity b

uild

ing

and

lobb

ying

issu

es re

late

d to

RE

DD

and

clim

ate

chan

ge

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

009

tbd

Plan

ning

tbd

• Pro

ject

siz

e: 1

90

mill

ion

ha (t

otal

fo

rest

cov

er o

ver

the

Basi

n)

10

For

RED

D+

dem

onstr

atio

n ac

tiviti

es: p

aym

ents

for e

nviro

nmen

tal s

ervi

ces [

PES]

; com

mun

ity-b

ased

fore

st m

anag

emen

t [C

BNR

M];

fore

st co

nser

vatio

n in

clud

ing

prot

ecte

d ar

ea m

anag

emen

t [PA

]; im

prov

ed

gove

rnan

ce a

nd la

w e

nfor

cem

ent [

I&G

ov];

susta

inab

le fo

rest

man

agem

ent i

nclu

ding

redu

ced

impa

ct lo

ggin

g [S

FM];

fore

st re

stora

tion

or re

habi

litat

ion

[Reh

ab];

extr

a-se

ctor

pol

icie

s aim

ing

at re

duci

ng th

e pr

ofita

bilit

y of

land

con

vers

ion

[ExS

ect P

]. Fo

r RED

D+

read

ines

s act

iviti

es: p

repa

ratio

n of

nat

iona

l RED

D+

strat

egy

[R-s

trat

egy]

; ins

titut

ion

and

capa

city

bui

ldin

g fo

r MRV

[I&

CB

MRV

]; in

stitu

tion

and

capa

city

bui

ldin

g fo

r han

dlin

g R

EDD

+ fu

nds

[I&

CB

R-fu

nds]

.

Annexes 29

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

or

gani

sati

ons

invo

lved

Type

Obj

ecti

ve10

Proj

ect a

ctiv

itie

sSc

ale

Tim

e sc

ale

Fore

st ty

peSt

atus

Inve

stm

ent s

umRe

mar

ks

Cent

ral A

fric

an R

epub

lic

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• P

ES

• For

est z

onin

g fo

r new

te

nure

cod

e• P

ES• F

ores

t man

agem

ent

trai

ning

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Trop

ical

fo

rest

s Bu

sh

cove

red

sava

nnah

s

Plan

ning

tbd

Enha

ncin

g In

stitu

tiona

l ca

paci

ty o

n RE

DD

+ is

sues

fo

r sus

tain

able

Fo

rest

M

anag

emen

t in

the

Cong

o Ba

sin

• WB

• AfD

B• W

WF,

WCS

, CI

• WB

• AfD

B, C

IRA

D,

COM

IFAC

, WW

F, W

CS, O

NFI

, FRM

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• S

tren

gthe

n in

stitu

tiona

l ca

paci

ty• T

echn

ical

ass

ista

nce

for

Man

dE• S

take

hold

er p

artic

ipat

ion

Regi

onal

2008

-201

5Sa

vann

aO

ngoi

ngCo

-fina

ncin

g (6

Con

go B

asin

co

untr

ies,

Bila

tera

l A

id a

genc

ies,

Mul

tilat

eral

ag

enci

es, N

GO

s):

$13

180

000

Wor

ld B

ank:

$1

5 00

0 00

0Re

duce

em

issi

on fo

r D

efor

esta

tion

and

Deg

rada

tion

(RED

D+)

in

Cong

o ba

sin

• WW

FRe

adin

ess

• R-s

trat

egie

s• I

&CB

MRV

• I&

CB R

-fund

• Tec

hnic

al a

ssis

tanc

e• E

nsur

e ad

ditio

nal f

undi

ng• C

apac

ity b

uild

ing

and

lobb

ying

issu

es re

late

d to

RE

DD

+ an

d cl

imat

e ch

ange

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

009

tbd

Plan

ning

tbd

• Pro

ject

siz

e: 1

90

mill

ion

ha (t

otal

fo

rest

cov

er

over

the

Basi

n)

No

furt

her i

nfo

avai

labl

e.

DR

Cong

o

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB R

-fund

s• D

evel

op la

nd u

se p

lan

• Sus

tain

able

agr

icul

ture

• Alte

rnat

ive

ener

gy s

ourc

e

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Char

coal

w

ood

fore

st,

Sava

nna

Plan

ning

Estim

ated

bud

get

requ

irem

ent $

6.5

mill

ion

30 Annexes

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

or

gani

sati

ons

invo

lved

Type

Obj

ecti

ve12

Proj

ect a

ctiv

itie

sSc

ale

Tim

e sc

ale

Fore

st ty

peSt

atus

Inve

stm

ent s

umRe

mar

ks

Cent

ral A

fric

an R

epub

lic

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• P

ES

• For

est z

onin

g fo

r new

te

nure

cod

e• P

ES• F

ores

t man

agem

ent

trai

ning

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Trop

ical

fo

rest

s Bu

sh

cove

red

sava

nnah

s

Plan

ning

tbd

Enha

ncin

g In

stitu

tiona

l ca

paci

ty o

n RE

DD

+ is

sues

fo

r sus

tain

able

Fo

rest

M

anag

emen

t in

the

Cong

o Ba

sin

• WB

• AfD

B• W

WF,

WCS

, CI

• WB

• AfD

B, C

IRA

D,

COM

IFAC

, WW

F, W

CS, O

NFI

, FRM

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• S

tren

gthe

n in

stitu

tiona

l ca

paci

ty• T

echn

ical

ass

ista

nce

for

mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

• Sta

keho

lder

par

ticip

atio

n

Regi

onal

2008

-201

5Sa

vann

aO

ngoi

ngCo

-fina

ncin

g (6

Con

go B

asin

co

untr

ies,

Bila

tera

l A

id a

genc

ies,

Mul

tilat

eral

ag

enci

es, N

GO

s):

$13

180

000

Wor

ld B

ank:

$1

5 00

0 00

0Re

duce

em

issi

on fo

r D

efor

esta

tion

and

Deg

rada

tion

(RED

D+)

in

Cong

o ba

sin

• WW

FRe

adin

ess

• R-s

trat

egie

s• I

&CB

MRV

• I&

CB R

-fund

• Tec

hnic

al a

ssis

tanc

e• E

nsur

e ad

ditio

nal f

undi

ng• C

apac

ity b

uild

ing

and

lobb

ying

issu

es re

late

d to

RE

DD

+ an

d cl

imat

e ch

ange

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

009

tbd

Plan

ning

tbd

• Pro

ject

siz

e: 1

90

mill

ion

ha (t

otal

fo

rest

cov

er

over

the

Basi

n)

No

furt

her i

nfo

avai

labl

e.

DR

Cong

o

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB R

-fund

s• D

evel

op la

nd u

se p

lan

• Sus

tain

able

agr

icul

ture

• Alte

rnat

ive

ener

gy s

ourc

e

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Char

coal

w

ood

fore

st,

Sava

nna

Plan

ning

Estim

ated

bud

get

requ

irem

ent $

6.5

mill

ion

Enha

ncin

g In

stitu

tiona

l ca

paci

ty o

n RE

DD

+ is

sues

fo

r sus

tain

able

Fo

rest

M

anag

emen

t in

the

Cong

o Ba

sin

• WB

• AfD

B• W

WF,

WCS

, CI

CIRA

D, C

OM

IFAC

, O

NFI

, FRM

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• S

tren

gthe

n in

stitu

tiona

l ca

paci

ty• T

echn

ical

ass

ista

nce

for

Man

dE• S

take

hold

er p

artic

ipat

ion

Regi

onal

2008

-201

5Tr

opic

al

rain

fore

sts

Plan

ning

Co-fi

nanc

ing

(6 C

ongo

Bas

in

coun

trie

s, Bi

late

ral

Aid

age

ncie

s, M

ultil

ater

al

agen

cies

, N

GO

s, O

ther

s):

$13

180

000

Wor

ld B

ank:

$1

5 00

0 00

0CB

FF• D

FID

and

N

orw

egia

n go

vern

men

t

• AfD

B• C

OM

IFAC

• NG

Os

Fund

rela

ted

to

RED

D+

• I&

Gov

• For

est c

onse

rvat

ion

Regi

onal

2008

-?Tr

opic

al

rain

fore

sts

Plan

ning

£100

initi

ativ

e fu

nd fr

om B

ritis

h an

d N

orw

egia

n G

ov

• Dec

isio

n of

whi

ch

prop

osal

will

re

ceiv

e fu

nd w

ill

be m

ade

by M

ay

2009

Annexes 31

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

or

gani

sati

ons

invo

lved

Type

Obj

ecti

vePr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

me

scal

eFo

rest

type

Stat

usIn

vest

men

t sum

Rem

arks

DR

Cong

o (c

ont.)

UN

-RED

DU

N-R

EDD

Fun

d• U

ND

P• U

NEP

• FAO

Read

ines

stb

dtb

dN

atio

nal

2008

-201

2Tr

opic

al

rain

fore

sts

Plan

ning

App

rove

d bu

dget

of

$1

883

200

Redu

ce

emis

sion

for

Def

ores

tatio

n an

d D

egra

datio

n (R

EDD

+) in

Co

ngo

basi

n

• WW

F• W

WF

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• I

&CB

R-fu

nds

• Tec

hnic

al a

ssis

tanc

e• E

nsur

e ad

ditio

nal f

undi

ng• C

apac

ity b

uild

ing

and

lobb

ying

issu

es re

late

d to

RE

DD

+ an

d cl

imat

e ch

ange

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

009

tbd

Plan

ning

tbd

• Pro

ject

siz

e: 1

90

mill

ion

ha (t

otal

fo

rest

cov

er

over

the

Basi

n)

No

furt

her i

nfo

avai

labl

e

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• I

&CB

MRV

• Sta

keho

lder

par

ticip

atio

n in

fore

st m

anag

emen

t pl

anni

ng (C

apac

ity

deve

lopm

ent)

• Pol

icy

and

inst

itutio

nal

refo

rm• B

ette

r for

est m

anag

emen

t (p

rote

cted

are

a)

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Clos

ed

cano

pyW

et fo

rest

, Tr

opic

al fo

rest

A

lpin

e an

d su

b-al

pine

fo

rest

Man

grov

e fo

rest

Plan

ning

tbd

• FCP

F po

ssib

ly

offer

$1

000

000

to e

ach

FCPF

co

untr

ies

for

read

ines

s pr

oces

s

Ethi

opia

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• S

tren

gthe

n la

nd

dist

ribut

ion

proc

ess

• Ref

ores

tatio

n• S

tren

gthe

n an

d se

cure

d la

nd o

wne

rshi

p

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

015

Dry

fore

sts

Plan

ning

tbd

Gab

on

CBFF

• DFI

D a

nd

Nor

weg

ian

gove

rnm

ent

• AfD

B• C

OM

IFAC

• NG

Os

Read

ines

s• I

&CB

MRV

• For

est c

onse

rvat

ion

Regi

onal

2008

-?Cl

osed

ev

ergr

een

rain

fore

st

Plan

ning

$100

mill

ion

(as

part

of

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tr

ansf

orm

atio

n Fu

nd)

initi

ativ

e fu

nd

and

anot

her

$1.5

bill

ion

is to

be

com

mitt

ed

from

the

Briti

sh

Gov

ernm

ent

• Dec

isio

n of

whi

ch

prop

osal

will

re

ceiv

e fu

nd w

ill

be m

ade

by M

ay

2009

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• S

ecur

e pr

otec

ted

area

s• E

xten

ding

SFM

are

as• I

mpr

ove

land

tenu

re

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

tbd

Plan

ning

Estim

ated

bud

get

requ

irem

ent

$6 0

00 0

00

32 Annexes

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

or

gani

sati

ons

invo

lved

Type

Obj

ecti

vePr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

me

scal

eFo

rest

type

Stat

usIn

vest

men

t sum

Rem

arks

Gab

on (c

ont.)

Enha

ncin

g In

stitu

tiona

l ca

paci

ty o

n RE

DD

+ is

sues

fo

r sus

tain

able

Fo

rest

M

anag

emen

t in

the

Cong

o Ba

sin

• WB

• AfD

B• W

WF,

WCS

, CI

• WB

• AfD

B, C

IRA

D,

COM

IFAC

, WW

F, W

CS, O

NFI

, FRM

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• Str

engt

hen

inst

itutio

nal

capa

city

• Tec

hnic

al a

ssis

tanc

e• S

take

hold

er p

artic

ipat

ion

Regi

onal

2008

-201

2tb

dPl

anni

ngCo

-fina

ncin

g (6

Con

go B

asin

Co

untr

ies,

Bila

tera

l A

id a

genc

ies,

Mul

tilat

eral

ag

enci

es,

NG

Os,

Oth

ers)

: $1

3 18

0 00

0W

orld

Ban

k:

$15

000

000

Redu

ce

emis

sion

for

Def

ores

tatio

n an

d D

egra

datio

n (R

EDD

+) in

Co

ngo

basi

n

• WW

FRe

adin

ess

• R-s

trat

egie

s• I

&CB

MRV

• I&

CB R

-fund

s

• Tec

hnic

al a

ssis

tanc

e• C

apac

ity b

uild

ing

and

lobb

ying

issu

es re

late

d to

RE

DD

+ an

d cl

imat

e ch

ange

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

009

tbd

Plan

ning

tbd

• Pro

ject

siz

e: 1

90

mill

ion

ha (t

otal

fo

rest

cov

er o

ver

the

Basi

n)

Gha

na

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-Str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB R

-fund

s• L

aw e

nfor

cem

ent

• Im

prov

e la

nd te

nure

and

la

nd u

se p

olic

y

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Sava

nna

and

Hig

h fo

rest

Plan

ning

Estim

ated

bud

get

requ

irem

ent

$1 2

00 0

00

Gui

nea

Enha

ncin

g In

stitu

tiona

l ca

paci

ty o

n RE

DD

+ is

sues

fo

r sus

tain

able

Fo

rest

M

anag

emen

t in

the

Cong

o Ba

sin

• WB

• AfD

B• W

WF,

WCS

, CI

• WB

• AFD

, CIR

AD

• CO

MIF

AC, W

WF,

WCS

, ON

FI, F

RI

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• S

tren

gthe

n in

stitu

tiona

l ca

paci

ty• T

echn

ical

ass

ista

nce

for

mon

itorin

g an

d ev

alua

tion

• Sta

keho

lder

par

ticip

atio

n

Regi

onal

2008

-201

5Lo

w- a

nd

med

ium

-al

titud

e cl

osed

ra

info

rest

s, Sa

vann

ah,

Ever

gree

n fo

rest

Plan

ning

Co-fi

nanc

ing

(6 C

ongo

Bas

in

Coun

trie

s, Bi

l-/M

ultia

tera

l Aid

, N

GO

s): $

13 m

illio

nW

orld

Ban

k:

$15

mill

ion

CBFF

• DFI

D a

nd

Nor

weg

ian

Gov

ernm

ent

• DFI

D a

nd

Nor

weg

ian

Gov

ernm

ent

(don

ors)

• AfD

B• C

OM

IFAC

• NG

Os

Fund

rela

ted

to

RED

D+

• I&

CB• F

ores

t con

serv

atio

nRe

gion

al20

08-?

Low

- and

m

ediu

m-

altit

ude

clos

ed

rain

fore

sts,

Sava

nnah

, Ev

ergr

een

fore

st

Plan

ning

$100

mill

ion

(as

part

of

Envi

ronm

enta

l Tr

ansf

orm

atio

n Fu

nd)

and

anot

her

$1.5

bill

ion

is to

be

com

mitt

ed

from

the

Briti

sh

Gov

ernm

ent

• Dec

isio

n of

whi

ch

prop

osal

will

re

ceiv

e fu

nd w

ill

be m

ade

by M

ay

2009

Annexes 33

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

or

gani

sati

ons

invo

lved

Type

Obj

ecti

vePr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

me

scal

eFo

rest

type

Stat

usIn

vest

men

t sum

Rem

arks

Keny

a

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• P

reve

ntin

g fu

rthe

r for

est

frag

men

tatio

n• P

rom

otio

n of

impr

oved

st

ove

and

othe

r ene

rgy

cons

erva

tion

tech

nolo

gies

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Nat

ure

high

fore

st,

dryl

and

fore

st

(woo

dlan

d),

Fore

st

plan

tatio

n

Plan

ning

tbd

Libe

ria

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• I

&CB

R-fu

nds

• SFM

pra

ctic

e• S

usta

inab

le ti

mbe

r pro

cess

• Dev

elop

nat

iona

l for

est

stra

tegi

es (f

ores

t zon

ing)

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Low

land

tr

opic

al fo

rest

Plan

ning

Estim

ated

bud

get

requ

irem

ent

$650

000

Mad

agas

car

Ank

enih

eny-

Zaha

men

a-M

anta

dia

Biod

iver

sity

Co

nser

vatio

n Co

rrid

or a

nd

Rest

orat

ion

Proj

ect

• WB

• CI

• GEF

, Bio

CF• M

inis

try

of th

e en

viro

nmen

t of

Mad

agas

car

• WB

• CI

• AN

AE

(loca

l NG

O)

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• PA

• Reh

ab• S

usta

inab

le u

se p

rote

cted

ar

ea

• Ref

ores

tatio

n • W

ood

and

frui

ts g

arde

n

Sub-

natio

nal

tbd

Rain

fore

stO

ngoi

ngPa

rt o

f $1

50

mill

ion

of

the

natio

nal

envi

ronm

enta

l pr

otec

tion

prog

ram

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

425

000

ha• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d: A

t lea

st

10 M

tCO

2e ov

er

proj

ect l

ife

Vohi

draz

ana-

Man

tadi

a Co

rrid

or

Rest

orat

ion

and

Cons

erva

tion

Carb

on P

roje

ct

• Mul

tilat

eral

do

nor

• WB

(Bio

CF),

• Mad

agas

car’s

G

over

nmen

t• G

EF• U

SAID

• CI-G

CF• C

limat

e Tr

ust

• DYN

ATEC

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• PA

• Reh

ab• R

efor

esta

tion

and

fore

st

prot

ectio

n ac

tiviti

es (f

ruits

ga

rden

)• E

stab

lish

fore

st c

orrid

or

(land

frag

men

tatio

n)• S

usta

inab

le a

gric

ultu

ral

prac

tice

• Set

asi

de th

reat

ened

fore

st

Sub-

natio

nal

Firs

t car

bon

cred

it sh

ould

be

read

y by

20

17

Rain

fore

stO

ngoi

ngCa

rbon

Fun

d:

$1 5

00 0

00• P

roje

ct s

ize:

45

0 00

0 he

ctar

es• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d: 1

0 m

illio

n to

ns o

ver

30 y

ears

RED

D+

COM

IFAC

pilo

t pr

ojec

t

• KfW

• KfW

• CO

MIF

AC• G

TZ• G

MES

• FA

N (B

oliv

ia)

• WW

F• W

orld

Ban

k

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

tbd

tbd

Regi

onal

tbd

tbd

Plan

ning

tbd

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• P

rodu

ctio

n fo

rest

m

anag

emen

t• I

mpr

ove

agro

fore

stry

te

chni

ques

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

East

ern

rain

fore

st, d

ry

wes

tern

fore

st

and

Sout

hern

sp

iny

fore

st

Plan

ning

tbd

34 Annexes

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

or

gani

sati

ons

invo

lved

Type

Obj

ecti

vePr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

me

scal

eFo

rest

type

Stat

usIn

vest

men

t sum

Rem

arks

Mad

agas

car (

cont

.)

Mak

ira

Fore

st A

rea

Cons

erva

tion

Proj

ect

Mits

ubis

hi

Gro

up, N

avTe

ch

and

the

mus

ic

grou

p Pe

al Ja

m

• WCS

, CEP

E, C

I-GCF

(fu

nd)

• Maa

kira

car

bon

com

pany

• Mal

agas

y G

over

nmen

t• M

itsub

ishi

Gro

up,

Nav

Tech

and

the

mus

ic g

roup

Pea

l Ja

m (c

arbo

n cr

edit

buye

rs)

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• PA

• SFM

• Car

bon

sequ

estr

atio

n

• Bio

dive

rsity

con

serv

atio

n• D

esig

n a

new

pro

tect

ed

area

• Dev

elop

land

use

pla

nnin

g

Sub-

natio

nal

2003

-200

5Ra

info

rest

Ong

oing

WCS

$70

000

a

year

(ong

oing

)Ta

ny M

eva

Foun

datio

n $8

0 00

0 (1

yea

r, be

ginn

ing

in

2006

)Im

peria

l Tob

acco

£1

20 0

00 (3

yea

rs

begi

nnin

g in

20

06)

CI $

110

000

(ong

oing

)M

acA

rthu

r Fo

unda

tion

$90

000

(3 y

ears

, be

ginn

ing

in

2005

)

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

350

000

ha• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d: 9

.5

MtC

O2eq

ove

r 30

year

s• T

he p

roje

ct is

ex

pect

ed to

off

set c

arbo

n fo

r 30

yea

rs

FORE

CA p

ilot

proj

ect

• SD

C an

d BM

Z• I

nter

coop

erat

ion

• GTZ

• SD

C an

d BM

Z

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• P

ES

• Inc

reas

ing

inst

itutio

nal

capa

city

and

pov

erty

re

duct

ion

• SFM

• A/R

CD

M

Sub-

natio

nal

2006

-200

9tb

dO

ngoi

ngtb

d• A

lthou

gh it

is s

aid

that

FO

RECA

is a

RE

DD

+ pi

lot,

the

proj

ect o

utpu

t at

the

pres

ent

tend

s to

fall

unde

r ‘re

adin

ess’

crite

ria.

Moz

ambi

que

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• G

over

nanc

e de

velo

pmen

t (p

olic

y, m

onito

ring,

law

en

forc

emen

t etc

)• C

apac

ity b

uild

ing

prog

ram

• Lan

d us

e pl

anni

ng a

nd

zoni

ng d

evel

opm

ent

• Alte

rnat

ive

tech

nolo

gy

solu

tions

• Sus

tain

able

live

lihoo

d de

velo

pmen

t

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Den

se a

nd

open

fore

sts

Plan

ning

tbd

• FCP

F po

ssib

ly

offer

$1

000

000

to e

ach

FCPF

co

untr

ies

for

read

ines

s pr

oces

s

Annexes 35

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

or

gani

sati

ons

invo

lved

Type

Obj

ecti

vePr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

me

scal

eFo

rest

type

Stat

usIn

vest

men

t sum

Rem

arks

Moz

ambi

que

(con

t.)

Nha

mbi

ta

Com

mun

ity

Carb

on P

roje

ct

• DFI

D a

nd th

e Eu

rope

an

Com

mis

sion

• Loc

al c

omm

unity

• Sof

ala

Prov

inci

al

Gov

ernm

ent

• DFI

D a

nd th

e Eu

rope

an

Com

mis

sion

(d

onor

s)• O

DA

• Env

irotr

ade

Ltd.

• WW

F, G

TZ, O

RAM

an

d ot

her N

GO

s

Non

-exp

licit

carb

on g

oals

• PES

• Reh

ab• S

FM

• Agr

ofor

estr

y/ R

efor

esta

tion

• Res

tore

deg

rade

d la

nd a

nd

reha

bilit

atio

n• S

usta

inab

le a

gric

ultu

ral

and

land

use

pra

ctic

e

Sub-

natio

nal

2002

-?Tr

opic

al

sava

nna

Ong

oing

• 1.1

3 m

illio

n Eu

ro fr

om E

U

com

mis

sion

• In

2004

, far

mer

s th

at p

lant

1

hect

are

of

tree

s re

ceiv

e ar

ound

$10

0 an

d an

othe

r $25

is

pai

d in

to a

co

mm

unity

fund

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

35 0

00 h

a• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d: 5

00 0

00

tCO

2 ove

r 50

year

s (0

.79/

ha/y

r)• T

he p

roje

ct is

ex

pect

ed to

se

quen

ce c

arbo

n fo

r 50

year

s.

Repu

blic

of C

ongo

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• C

reat

e al

tern

ativ

e su

stai

nabl

e pr

oduc

tion

• Red

uce

woo

d fu

el

cons

umpt

ion

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

015

Dry

fore

st,

Floo

d fo

rest

, Sh

rub

sava

nna

Plan

ning

Estim

ate

budg

et

requ

irem

ent

$4 5

00 0

00

Enha

ncin

g In

stitu

tiona

l ca

paci

ty o

n RE

DD

+ is

sues

fo

r sus

tain

able

Fo

rest

M

anag

emen

t in

the

Cong

o Ba

sin

• WB

• AfD

B• W

WF,

WCS

, CI

CIRA

D, C

OM

IFAC

, W

WF,

WCS

, ON

FI,

FRM

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• S

tren

gthe

n in

stitu

tiona

l ca

paci

ty• T

echn

ical

ass

ista

nce

for

Man

dE• S

take

hold

er p

artic

ipat

ion

Regi

onal

2008

-201

5D

ry fo

rest

, Fl

ood

fore

st,

Shru

b sa

vann

a

Plan

ning

Tanz

ania

UN

-RED

DU

N-R

EDD

Fun

d• U

ND

P• U

NEP

• FAO

Read

ines

stb

dtb

dN

atio

nal

2008

-201

2M

onta

ne a

nd

Subm

onta

ne

fore

sts,

Low

land

fo

rest

s an

d gr

ound

wat

er

fore

sts

Plan

ning

App

rove

d bu

dget

of

$ 4

280

000

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• C

BNRM

(loc

al a

nd p

rivat

e)• P

ES• I

mpr

oved

law

enf

orce

men

t

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Mio

mbo

W

oodl

ands

,Pl

anni

ngtb

d

36 Annexes

Init

iati

veD

onor

sO

ther

or

gani

sati

ons

invo

lved

Type

Obj

ecti

vePr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

me

scal

eFo

rest

type

Stat

usIn

vest

men

t sum

Rem

arks

Uga

nda

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• Mod

erni

zing

agr

icul

tura

l pr

actic

e• S

tren

gthe

n la

nd te

nure

• Bet

ter p

rote

cted

fore

st

man

agem

ent

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Gra

ssla

nd,

Trop

ical

Plan

ning

tbd

Zam

bia

UN

-RED

DU

N-R

EDD

Fun

d• U

ND

P• U

NEP

• FAO

Read

ines

stb

dtb

dN

atio

nal

2008

-201

2Sw

amp

fore

sts,

Low

land

fo

rest

s

Plan

ning

tbd

Ann

ex 7

. S

urve

y re

sult

s: R

EDD

+ in

Lat

in A

mer

ica

Nam

e of

in

itia

tive

Don

ors

Oth

er

orga

nisa

tion

s in

volv

edTy

peO

bjec

tive

11Pr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

me

scal

eFo

rest

type

Stat

usIn

vest

men

t sum

Rem

arks

Arg

enti

na

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• L

aw e

nfor

cem

ent

• Ins

titut

iona

l de

cent

ralis

atio

n• A

ltern

ativ

e fo

rest

man

a-ge

men

t pra

ctic

e

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

tbd

Plan

ning

tbd

Boliv

ia

UN

-RED

DU

N-R

EDD

Fun

d• U

ND

P• U

NEP

• FAO

Read

ines

stb

dtb

dN

atio

nal

2008

-201

2W

et fo

rest

Dry

fore

stSa

vann

a

Plan

ning

tbd

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• I

&CB

R-fu

nd

• Law

enf

orce

men

t• R

evis

e le

gal b

enefi

ttin

g de

fore

stat

ion

inco

me

activ

ity to

def

ores

tatio

n

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Wet

fore

stD

ry fo

rest

Sava

nna

Plan

ning

Estim

ate

budg

et

requ

irem

ent

$5 8

97 0

00

Noe

l Kem

pff

Clim

ate

Actio

n Pr

ojec

t

• GTZ

• AEP

, Pac

ific

Corp

s an

d BP

• GTZ

• Bol

ivia

n G

over

nmen

t (c

arbo

n cr

edit

selle

r)• A

EP, P

acifi

c Co

rps

and

BP (c

arbo

n cr

edit

buye

rs)

• FA

N

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• PA

• Com

mun

ity fu

ndin

g• S

ecur

e na

tiona

l par

k• H

abita

t con

serv

atio

n

Sub-

natio

nal

1997

-?Sa

vann

a, D

ry

fore

stBr

oadl

eaf

fore

st

Ong

oing

$9.5

mill

ion

for

star

t up

cost

• Siz

e: 6

42 5

00 h

a• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d: 5

.8

MtC

O2e

over

30

year

s• T

he p

roje

ct is

ex

pect

ed to

se

quen

ce c

arbo

n em

issi

ons

for 3

0 ye

ars.

Braz

il

Bols

a Fl

ores

ta

Prog

ram

• Bra

desc

o• L

ocal

com

mun

ity• A

maz

onas

Su

stai

nabi

lity

Foun

datio

n• S

tate

of A

maz

onas

G

over

nmen

t• B

rade

sco

(fund

er)

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• PES

• Pay

men

t to

com

mun

ities

fo

r avo

ided

def

ores

tatio

n• C

omm

unity

fund

ing

• For

est c

onse

rvat

ion

Sub-

natio

nal

2007

-?tb

dO

ngoi

ngPa

rt o

f $20

mill

ion

of A

maz

onas

Fun

d• P

roje

ct s

ize:

17

mill

ion

ha

Mat

o G

ross

o RE

DD

+ de

mon

stra

tion

site

• Ale

x C.

Wal

ker

Foun

datio

n• T

NC

• Fed

eral

gov

ernm

ent

agen

cies

• IPA

M• W

WF

Braz

il

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• Reh

ab• F

ores

t con

serv

atio

n an

d re

stor

atio

nSu

b-na

tiona

ltb

dRa

in fo

rest

, Ce

rrad

o,

Pant

anal

Plan

ning

$25

000

appr

oved

from

A

lex

C. W

alke

r Fo

unda

tion

• Unc

erta

in a

bout

ex

act

the

nam

e of

the

pro

ject

an

d if

it ha

s al

read

y st

arte

d

11

For

RED

D+

dem

onstr

atio

n ac

tiviti

es: p

aym

ents

for e

nviro

nmen

tal s

ervi

ces [

PES]

; com

mun

ity-b

ased

fore

st m

anag

emen

t [C

BNR

M];

fore

st co

nser

vatio

n in

clud

ing

prot

ecte

d ar

ea m

anag

emen

t [PA

]; im

prov

ed

gove

rnan

ce a

nd la

w e

nfor

cem

ent [

I&G

ov];

susta

inab

le fo

rest

man

agem

ent i

nclu

ding

redu

ced

impa

ct lo

ggin

g [S

FM];

fore

st re

stora

tion

or re

habi

litat

ion

[Reh

ab];

extr

a-se

ctor

pol

icie

s aim

ing

at re

duci

ng th

e pr

ofita

bilit

y of

land

con

vers

ion

[ExS

ect P

].

For R

EDD

+ re

adin

ess a

ctiv

ities

: pre

para

tion

of n

atio

nal R

EDD

+ str

ateg

y [R

-str

ateg

y]; i

nstit

utio

n an

d ca

paci

ty b

uild

ing

for M

RV [I

&C

B M

RV];

insti

tutio

n an

d ca

paci

ty b

uild

ing

for h

andl

ing

RED

D+

fund

s [I

&C

B R

-fund

s].

38 Annexes

Nam

e of

in

itia

tive

Don

ors

Oth

er

orga

nisa

tion

s in

volv

edTy

peO

bjec

tive

11Pr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

me

scal

eFo

rest

type

Stat

usIn

vest

men

t sum

Rem

arks

Braz

il (c

ont.)

Clim

ate

Actio

n Pr

ojec

t: G

uara

queç

aba

Envi

ronm

enta

l Pr

otec

tion

Are

a

• Am

eric

an

Elec

tric

Pow

er• G

M

• TN

C (in

term

edia

ry)

• Am

eric

an E

lect

ric

Pow

er• G

M (c

arbo

n cr

edit

buye

r) Te

xaco

and

SP

VS• S

ocie

ty fo

r Wild

life

Rese

arch

and

En

viro

nmen

tal

Educ

atio

n

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• Reh

ab• C

onse

rvat

ion

ease

men

t (p

urch

asin

g ac

tive

buffa

lo

ranc

hes)

• Lan

d pr

otec

tion

• Sus

tain

able

land

use

pl

anni

ng• C

omm

unity

dev

elop

men

t

Sub-

natio

nal

1998

-?A

tlant

ic fo

rest

Ong

oing

Proj

ect l

ife is

40

year

sEs

timat

ed b

udge

t re

quire

men

t $1

0 00

0 00

0

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

64 0

00 h

a, m

ixed

aff

ores

tatio

n,

refo

rest

atio

n an

d av

oide

d de

fore

stat

ion

• Em

issi

ons

redu

ced:

47

MtC

O2e

over

40

year

sPr

oAm

bien

te

Prog

ram

me

• Am

azon

as

Stat

e G

over

nmen

t

• Loc

alfa

rmer

s• R

UPE

S• I

PAM

• Am

azon

as S

tate

G

over

nmen

t

Non

-exp

licit

carb

on g

oals

• PES

• CBN

RM• P

aym

ent f

or fo

rest

co

nser

vatio

n • C

FM• A

grof

ores

try

Sub-

natio

nal

2006

-205

0tb

dO

ngoi

ngtb

d

Jum

a Re

serv

e RE

D P

roje

ct• N

orw

egia

n G

over

nmen

t (A

maz

on

fore

st fu

nd)

• Mar

riott

Int’l

• FA

S

• Nor

weg

ian

Gov

ernm

ent

(Am

azon

fore

st

fund

) and

Am

azon

St

ate

Gov

ernm

ent

• Mar

riot I

nt’l

• FA

S

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• PA

• CBN

RM• P

ES

• CFM

(priv

ate

rese

rve)

• Rev

enue

gen

erat

ion

thro

ugh

the

prom

otio

n of

su

stai

nabl

e bu

sine

ss• L

aw e

nfor

cem

ent

Sub-

natio

nal

2003

-205

0Tr

opic

al fo

rest

Ong

oing

$2 m

illio

n fr

om

Mar

riott

Int’l

, $2

94 1

17 fr

om F

AS

from

200

8-20

11,

$105

471

from

St

ate

of A

maz

onas

fr

om 2

005-

2007

, an

d $4

69 1

75

from

200

8-20

11

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

589

612

ha• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d: 1

90

MtC

O2e

over

50

year

s

Gen

esis

Fo

rest

Pro

ject

: Re

duci

ng

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Em

issi

ons

from

D

efor

esta

tion

and

Deg

rada

tion

in th

e St

ate

of

Toca

ntin

s

Petr

obra

s, N

atur

a, H

SBC,

Ba

nk o

f Bra

zil,

FNM

A, a

nd

Braz

il Po

wer

• Ins

titut

o Ec

ológ

ica

(inte

rmed

iary

)• C

anto

r CO

2e Br

azil

• Car

bonf

und

• Pet

robr

as, N

atur

a,

HSB

C, B

ank

of B

razi

l, FN

MA

, and

Bra

zil

Pow

er

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• PA

(des

ign

prot

ecte

d ar

ea)

• CBN

RM

• Res

torin

g an

d av

oidi

ng

fore

st fr

agm

enta

tion

• Ref

ores

tatio

n an

d co

nser

vatio

n• C

omm

unity

eng

agem

ent

Sub-

natio

nal

2009

-202

9Sa

vann

a fo

rest

Plan

ning

Hyu

ndai

will

aw

ard

$35

000

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

121

415

ha• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d:

57 3

89.5

5 tC

O2 o

ver 2

0 ye

ars

(aga

inst

de

fore

stat

ion

base

line)

Mur

iqui

H

abita

t Co

rrid

or

tbd

• Min

as G

erai

s Fo

rest

ry In

stitu

te

(Loc

al N

GO

)• L

ocal

com

mun

ities

an

d fa

rmer

• CI

Non

-exp

licit

carb

on g

oals

• Reh

ab• F

ores

t and

hab

itat

rest

orat

ion

(land

fr

agm

enta

tion)

• Car

bon

sequ

estr

atio

n

Sub-

natio

nal

2008

-?A

tlant

ic fo

rest

Plan

ning

tbd

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

Curr

ent 1

80

ha w

ith fu

ture

ex

pans

ion

to

1,80

0 ha

Annexes 39

Nam

e of

in

itia

tive

Don

ors

Oth

er

orga

nisa

tion

s in

volv

edTy

peO

bjec

tive

11Pr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

me

scal

eFo

rest

type

Stat

usIn

vest

men

t sum

Rem

arks

Beliz

e

Rio

Brav

o Ca

rbon

Se

ques

trat

ion

Pilo

t Pro

ject

• Cin

ergy

, D

etro

it Ed

ison

, N

exen

, Pa

cific

Corp

, Su

ncor

, U

tilitr

ee

Carb

on

Com

pany

and

W

iscc

onsi

n El

ectr

ic P

ower

Co

mpa

ny

• TN

C, W

inro

ck• C

iner

gy, D

etro

it Ed

ison

, Nex

en,

Paci

ficCo

rp, S

unco

r, U

tilitr

ee C

arbo

n Co

mpa

ny a

nd

Wis

ccon

sin

Elec

tric

Po

wer

Com

pany

(in

vest

or)

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• PA

• SFM

• Bio

dive

rsity

con

serv

atio

n• C

reat

e bu

ffer z

one

and

prot

ectio

n zo

ne• F

ores

t rec

reat

ion

Sub-

natio

nal

1995

-203

4M

ixed

lo

wla

nd,

moi

st s

ub-

trop

ical

br

oadl

eaf

Ong

oing

Som

e en

ergy

se

ctor

s pr

ovid

e $5

.6 m

illio

n fu

ndin

g fo

r the

fir

st 1

0 ye

ars

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

21 0

00 h

a• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d: 8

.8 M

tC

over

40

year

s

Chile

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-Str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• D

evel

op m

onito

ring

met

hodo

logy

pro

cess

• For

est m

anag

emen

t ce

rtifi

catio

n

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

tbd

Plan

ning

Estim

ated

bud

get

requ

irem

ent

$3 3

55 0

00

Colo

mbi

a

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-Str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• I

&CB

R-fu

nd

• I&

CB M

RVN

atio

nal

2008

-201

2M

onta

ne

fore

sts

Dry

fore

sts

Trop

ical

fore

st

Plan

ning

tbd

RED

D+

pilo

t pr

ojec

t in

Hui

la

(Pla

net A

ctio

n)

• FFE

M• C

AM

(int

erm

edia

ry)

• FFE

M (d

onor

)• O

NFI

Read

ines

s• P

A• S

FM• E

stab

lish

Nat

iona

l par

ks

corr

idor

• Dev

elop

men

t of f

ores

try

and

agro

-fore

stry

pra

ctic

es

Sub-

natio

nal

2008

-?tb

dO

ngoi

ngtb

dTh

e ac

tual

RED

D+

dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

will

be

late

r id

entifi

ed.

The

Colo

mbi

a Sa

n N

icol

as

Carb

on S

ink

and

Arb

orea

l Sp

ecie

s Re

cove

ry

Proj

ect

• WB

(Bio

Carb

on

Fund

)

• WB

• Coo

pera

tion

for S

usta

inab

le

Man

agem

ent o

f the

Fo

rest

s• T

he A

uton

omou

s Re

gion

al

Coop

erat

ion

for

the

Rio

negr

o-N

are

Regi

on

Non

-exp

licit

carb

on g

oals

• Reh

ab• A

ffore

stat

ion

and

refo

rest

atio

n on

deg

rade

d la

nd• C

arbo

n off

set s

ales

Sub-

natio

nal

2007

-?tb

dO

ngoi

ng$4

735

000

from

Ca

rbon

Fun

d (W

B)Ex

pect

ed p

roje

ct

cost

: $18

mill

ion

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

5 00

0 ha

avo

ided

de

fore

stat

ion

and

1 40

0 ha

aff

rore

stat

ion

• Em

issi

ons

redu

ced:

0.2

0 M

tCO

2e by

201

7

40 Annexes

Nam

e of

in

itia

tive

Don

ors

Oth

er

orga

nisa

tion

s in

volv

edTy

peO

bjec

tive

11Pr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

me

scal

eFo

rest

type

Stat

usIn

vest

men

t sum

Rem

arks

Cost

a Ri

ca

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-Str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• I

&CB

R-fu

nds

• PES

• Str

engt

hen

cons

erva

tion

area

s• D

evel

op la

nd u

se p

olic

y

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Mon

tane

fo

rest

sTr

opic

al

fore

sts

Rain

fore

st

Plan

ning

tbd

• FCP

F po

ssib

ly

offer

$1

000

000

to e

ach

FCPF

co

untr

ies

for

read

ines

s pr

oces

sM

itiga

tion

of

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Em

issi

ons

thro

ugh

Avoi

ded

Def

ores

tatio

n of

Tro

pica

l Ra

info

rest

s on

Priv

atel

y-ow

ned

Land

s in

Hig

h Co

nser

vatio

nVa

lue

Are

as o

f Co

sta

Rica

tbd

• Nat

iona

l Bio

dive

rsity

In

stitu

te (I

NBi

o)• N

atio

nal F

ores

try

Fina

ncin

g Fu

nd

(FO

NA

FIFO

)• F

UN

DEC

OR

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• PES

• Bio

dive

rsity

an

d ec

osys

tem

co

nser

vatio

n an

d pr

otec

tion

• PES

• Mon

itor r

esul

t aga

inst

ba

selin

e• V

olun

tary

recr

uit p

rivat

ely

owne

d fo

rest

farm

ers

Sub-

natio

nal

2009

- 20

19Pr

emon

tane

ra

info

rest

Trop

ical

wet

fo

rest

Mon

tane

fo

rest

Wet

fore

stBa

sal b

elt

tran

sitio

n

Ong

oing

Estim

ated

to

tal c

ost o

f $1

0 00

0 00

0

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

12 0

00 h

a• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d:

1 61

4 88

7 t C

O2

ECO

LAN

D:

Peid

ras

Blan

cas

Nat

iona

l Par

k

• Ten

aska

Po

wer

Par

tner

• Rai

nfor

est

Aust

ria• N

atio

nal F

ish

and

Wild

life

Foun

datio

n

• Ten

aska

Pow

er

Part

ner (

inve

stor

)• C

osta

Ric

an

Gov

ernm

ent

• Rai

nfor

est A

ustr

ia

(NG

O) a

nd C

osta

Ri

can

NG

O• T

rexl

er A

ssoc

iatio

n an

d ot

hers

• Nat

iona

l Fis

h an

d W

ildlif

e Fo

unda

tion

Non

-exp

licit

carb

on g

oals

• PA

• Pur

chas

e pr

ivat

e la

nd

with

in th

e na

tiona

l par

k• M

anag

e th

e pu

rcha

sed

land

to b

ecom

e se

cure

d na

tiona

l par

k (fo

rest

pr

eser

vatio

n an

d na

tura

l re

gene

ratio

n)

Sub-

natio

nal

1995

-201

0Ra

in fo

rest

Ong

oing

• Pro

ject

de

velo

pmen

t: $1

50 0

00 fr

om

Tena

ska

• Pro

ject

im

plem

enta

tion:

$5

00 0

00

from

Tena

ska,

$2

00 0

00 fr

om

Rain

fore

sts

Aust

ria,

$250

000

from

N

atio

nal F

ish

and

Wild

life

Foun

datio

n (*

EcoS

ecur

ities

sa

id Te

nask

a re

quire

d to

pay

$1

mill

ion

to

offse

t a p

ortio

n of

CO

2 from

thei

r pl

anne

d fa

cilit

y)

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

2 50

0 ha

• Em

issi

ons

redu

ced:

44

Mt

CO2/1

2 M

t C./y

ear

• The

firs

t ful

ly

fund

ed fo

rest

ry

proj

ect u

nder

th

e U

.S In

itiat

ive

on Jo

int

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Annexes 41

Nam

e of

in

itia

tive

Don

ors

Oth

er

orga

nisa

tion

s in

volv

edTy

peO

bjec

tive

11Pr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

me

scal

eFo

rest

type

Stat

usIn

vest

men

t sum

Rem

arks

Ecua

dor

Cons

erva

tion

and

Refo

rest

atio

n Pr

ojec

t in

the

Cord

iller

a Ch

ongó

n Co

lonc

he

• KfW

• FA

N• I

UCN

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• PA

• CBN

RM• R

ehab

• Ref

ores

tatio

n• F

ores

t pre

serv

atio

n• S

ecur

e la

nd te

nure

Sub-

natio

nal

1988

-200

8D

ry fo

rest

Ong

oing

€1 5

30 4

00• P

roje

ct s

ize:

Mor

e th

an 1

54 0

00 h

a

Soci

o Bo

sque

pr

ogra

mKf

W (N

atio

nal

Envi

ronm

enta

l Fu

nd)

• Ecu

ador

G

over

nmen

t• C

I

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• PES

• Com

mun

ity fu

ndin

g• F

ores

t con

serv

atio

nSu

b-na

tiona

l20

08-?

tbd

Plan

ning

?tb

d• P

roje

ct s

ize:

4

mill

ion

ha• I

ncen

tives

for

cons

erva

tion

rang

e fr

om $

5-$1

0 to

indi

vidu

al

who

pro

tect

a

hect

are

of fo

rest

El S

avad

or

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• P

ES• F

ores

try

law

rela

ted

to c

limat

e ch

ange

de

velo

pmen

t• C

apac

ity b

uild

ing

and

trai

ning

pro

gram

mes

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Plan

ning

Estim

ated

bud

get

requ

irem

ent:

$465

000

Avoi

ded

Def

ores

tatio

n in

the

Coffe

e Fo

rest

in E

l Sa

lvad

or

• BM

I• G

over

nmen

t of

El S

alva

dor

• BM

I• C

offee

farm

ers

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• PES

(deb

t re

lief)

• Sus

tain

able

agr

ofor

estr

ySu

b-na

tiona

l20

08-2

027

tbd

Ong

oing

The

gove

rnm

ent

of E

l Sal

vado

r ha

s sp

onso

red

a 30

% d

ebt r

elie

f pa

ymen

t to

coffe

e gr

ower

s in

the

prog

ram

from

20

06-2

007

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

160

000h

a• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d:

6 69

2 73

8 to

ns

thro

ugh

proj

ect

life

• BM

I fun

ded

the

proj

ect i

nitia

tive

Gua

tem

ala

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• S

FM th

roug

h ex

istin

g pr

ogra

mm

es a

nd p

olic

y• F

ores

t zon

ing

and

plan

ning

• Fire

woo

d co

nsum

ptio

n m

anag

emen

t• I

nstit

utio

nal t

rans

pare

ncy

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Subt

ropi

cal

moi

st fo

rest

Plan

ning

tbd

42 Annexes

Nam

e of

in

itia

tive

Don

ors

Oth

er

orga

nisa

tion

s in

volv

edTy

peO

bjec

tive

11Pr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

me

scal

eFo

rest

type

Stat

usIn

vest

men

t sum

Rem

arks

Gua

tem

ala

(con

t.)

The

May

a Bi

osph

ere

Rese

rve

Cons

erva

tion

Carb

on

Initi

ativ

e

• USA

ID• I

DB-

MIF

• Gib

or a

nd

Bare

n• R

ainf

ores

t A

llian

ce

• CI

• WCS

• Oth

er N

GO

s• R

ainf

ores

t Alli

ance

(in

term

edia

ry)

• USA

ID• A

COFO

P• I

DB-

MIF

• Gib

or a

nd B

aren

(c

arbo

n in

vest

or)

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• Reh

ab• C

BNRM

• SFM

(cre

ate

mul

tiple

use

zo

ne)

• CFM

pro

gram

(com

mun

ity

land

use

pla

nnin

g)• F

ores

t con

serv

atio

n

Sub-

natio

nal

1990

-?H

igh

and

med

ium

lo

wla

nd

fore

st,

Sava

nnas

Ong

oing

$825

000

from

In

ter-

Am

eric

an

Dev

elop

men

t Ba

nk

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

150

000

ha• E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d: o

ver 8

9 M

tCO

2 by

2012

Mi B

osqu

e Pr

ojec

t• A

ES• C

ARE

Gua

tem

ala

(inte

rmed

iary

)• A

ES (i

nves

tor)

• WRI

, Win

rock

Non

-exp

licit

carb

on g

oals

• CBN

RM• A

grof

ores

try

man

agem

ent

• Dev

elop

met

hodo

logy

for

carb

on m

onito

ring

• Str

engt

hen

envi

ronm

enta

l go

vern

ance

Sub-

natio

nal

1990

-?tb

dO

ngoi

ng$2

mill

ion

from

A

ES fo

r 10

-yea

r pe

riod

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

121

000

ha• T

he p

roje

ct

has

a 25

yea

rs

impl

emen

tatio

n pe

riod.

Guy

ana

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• I

&CB

R-fu

nds

• Sus

tain

able

land

use

• Est

ablis

h pr

otec

ted

area

s• S

take

hold

er e

ngag

emen

t

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Rain

fore

st,

Dry

fore

sts,

Swam

p fo

rest

, M

angr

oves

Plan

ning

Estim

ated

bud

get

requ

irem

ent

$700

000

The

coun

try

alre

ady

has

a pr

opos

al fo

r the

‘R

-pla

n’.

Hon

dura

s

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• I

&CB

MRV

• Sta

keho

lder

par

ticip

atio

n co

nsul

tatio

n• S

tren

gthe

ning

the

regu

lato

r fra

mew

ork

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Broa

d le

af a

nd

prod

uctiv

e co

nife

rous

fo

rest

s

Plan

ning

tbd

Pico

Bon

ito

Fore

st

Rest

orat

ion

• WB

(Bio

Carb

on

Fund

)

• FU

PNA

PIB

• Eco

logi

cal

Dev

elop

men

t Fun

d• B

osqu

es P

ico

Boni

to• B

rinkm

an A

ssoc

iate

s• W

B

Non

-exp

licit

carb

on g

oals

• Reh

ab• P

A• S

FM

• For

est S

tew

ards

hip

Coun

cil-C

ertifi

ed

plan

tatio

n• S

usta

inab

le fo

rest

and

ag

ricul

tura

l man

agem

ent•

Ca

rbon

offs

et s

ales

Sub-

natio

nal

tbd

tbd

Ong

oing

tbd

• Pro

ject

siz

e: 2

600

ha • E

mis

sion

s re

duce

d:

0.5

MtC

O2e

from

avo

ided

de

fore

stat

ion

(2 5

00 ,0

00 to

ns

for 1

0 ye

ars)

Annexes 43

Nam

e of

in

itia

tive

Don

ors

Oth

er

orga

nisa

tion

s in

volv

edTy

peO

bjec

tive

11Pr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

me

scal

eFo

rest

type

Stat

usIn

vest

men

t sum

Rem

arks

Mex

ico

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• P

ES• C

FM p

lann

ing

• Law

enf

orce

men

t

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Trop

ical

fo

rest

sCl

oud

fore

sts

Oak

fore

stM

angr

ove

Ripa

rian

fore

sts

Plan

ning

tbd

Scol

el Te

: Ca

rbon

Se

ques

trat

ion

and

Sust

aina

ble

Fore

st

Man

agem

ent

in C

hiap

as

• DFI

D• S

mar

tWoo

d• P

lan

Vivo

• Loc

al fa

rmer

s• E

COSU

R (in

term

edia

ry)

• DFI

D

Non

-exp

licit

carb

on g

oals

• CBN

RM• S

FM• A

grof

ores

try

• CFM

• Ref

ores

tatio

n• C

arbo

n se

ques

trat

ion

Sub-

natio

nal

1997

-202

7Tr

opic

al

fore

sts

Ong

oing

$380

300

fo

r pro

ject

de

velo

pmen

t$3

300

000

fo

r pro

ject

im

plem

enta

tion

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

13 0

00 h

a

La C

ojol

ita

Selv

a La

cand

ona

Carb

on

Initi

ativ

e

• CI

• CI

• Loc

al c

omm

unity

Non

-exp

licit

carb

on g

oals

• CBN

RM• R

ehab

• Con

serv

atio

n ag

reem

ent

with

the

loca

l• R

efor

esta

tion

• Agr

o-fo

rest

ry

Sub-

natio

nal

tbd

Rain

fore

stPl

anni

ngtb

d• P

roje

ct s

ize:

1.8

m

illio

n ha

Nic

arag

ua

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• P

rom

otin

g fo

rest

go

vern

ance

• Mod

erni

zing

fore

st

man

agem

ent s

yste

m• I

ncre

ase

prot

ecte

d la

nd

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Broa

dlea

f fo

rest

Pine

fore

stD

ry fo

rest

s

Plan

ning

tbd

• FCP

F po

ssib

ly

offer

$1

000

,000

to

eac

h FC

PF

coun

trie

s fo

r re

adin

ess

proc

ess

Para

guay

UN

-RED

DU

N-R

EDD

Fun

d• U

ND

P• U

NEP

• FAO

Read

ines

stb

dtb

dN

atio

nal

2008

-201

2U

pper

Par

aná

Atla

ntic

fo

rest

, Cha

co

woo

dlan

d,

Atla

ntic

fore

st

Plan

ning

tbd

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• Pol

icy

refo

rm• E

mpo

wer

loca

l go

vern

men

t• S

tren

gthe

n in

stitu

tiona

l an

d te

chni

cal c

apac

ity

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Upp

er P

aran

á A

tlant

ic

fore

st, C

haco

w

oodl

and,

A

tlant

ic fo

rest

Plan

ning

tbd

44 Annexes

Nam

e of

in

itia

tive

Don

ors

Oth

er

orga

nisa

tion

s in

volv

edTy

peO

bjec

tive

11Pr

ojec

t act

ivit

ies

Scal

eTi

me

scal

eFo

rest

type

Stat

usIn

vest

men

t sum

Rem

arks

Pana

ma

UN

-RED

DU

N-R

EDD

Fun

d• U

ND

P• U

NEP

• FAO

Read

ines

stb

dtb

dN

atio

nal

2008

-201

2M

angr

ove,

Sw

amp

fore

sts,

Plan

ning

$35

000

000

shar

ing

amon

g U

N-R

EDD

co

untr

ies

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• C

reat

e M

andE

sys

tem

• I

ndig

enou

s pa

rtic

ipat

ion

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Clou

d fo

rest

s, M

angr

ove,

Plan

ning

tbd

The

coun

try

alre

ady

has ‘

R-pl

an’.

The

Ipet

i RE

DD

+ de

mon

stra

tion

activ

ity

• HSB

C, W

WF,

Blue

moo

n fu

nd, G

EF

• STR

I• L

ocal

com

mun

ity• H

SBC,

WW

F, Ea

rthw

atch

and

th

e Cl

imat

e G

roup

, Bl

uem

oon

fund

• GEF

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• PA

• For

est p

lant

atio

n• F

ores

t con

serv

atio

nSu

b-na

tiona

l20

08-?

tbd

Plan

ning

tbd

• Siz

e: 3

145

ha

• Em

issi

ons

redu

ced:

43

, 689

.9 M

tCO

2e ov

er 2

5 ye

ars

Peru

Alto

May

o Fo

rest

• GTZ

• CI

• IN

REN

A, P

EAM

Dem

onst

ratio

n ac

tivity

• PES

• Agr

ofor

estr

y• C

omm

unity

con

serv

atio

n ag

reem

ent

• For

est P

lant

atio

n

Sub-

natio

nal

2003

-200

7Ra

info

rest

, A

ndea

n fo

rest

Plan

ning

tbd

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

180

000

ha

FCPF

• WB

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• Rev

ise

law

that

favo

r de

fore

stat

ion

activ

ities

• Pro

mot

e su

stai

nabl

e fo

rest

ry a

ctiv

ities

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Clou

d fo

rest

sM

onta

ne

fore

stD

ry fo

rest

Man

grov

es

Plan

ning

Estim

ated

bud

get

requ

irem

ent

$5 4

00 0

00

Avoi

ded

Def

ores

tatio

n in

Cen

tral

Sel

va

• BM

U• K

fW (i

nter

med

iary

)PR

OFO

NA

NPE

(in

term

edia

ry)

SERN

AN

P• M

inis

try

of

Envi

ronm

ent,

Peru

Non

-exp

licit

carb

on g

oals

• PA

• SFM

• Bio

sphe

re R

eser

ve• S

usta

inab

le d

evel

opm

ent

proj

ect i

mpl

emen

tatio

n

Sub-

natio

nal

2008

-?Pl

anni

ng€1

932

000

The

amou

nt o

f do

nate

d fu

nd w

ill

be la

st fo

r 3 y

ears

.

• Pro

ject

siz

e: 8

00

ha

RED

thro

ugh

the

prot

ectio

n of

fore

st e

co-

syst

ems

of

prot

ecte

d ar

eas

in th

e re

gion

of

Am

azon

ia

Inte

rnat

iona

l Cl

imat

e In

itiat

ive

(KfW

)

• Ger

man

G

over

nmen

tRe

adin

ess

• I&

CB M

RV• P

A• C

arbo

n st

ock

mon

itorin

g• P

rote

cted

are

a an

d bu

ffer

zone

man

agem

ent

Sub-

natio

nal

2008

-?Ra

info

rest

Plan

ning

$3.0

mill

ion

• Pro

ject

siz

e:

300

000

ha

Suri

nam

e

FCPF

• WB

Read

ines

s• R

-str

ateg

ies

• I&

CB M

RV• L

and

use

plan

ning

de

velo

pmen

t (in

cl

sust

aina

ble

agric

ultu

re a

nd

logg

ing

man

agem

ent)

• Mon

itorin

g m

echa

nism

• Cap

acity

bui

ldin

g

Nat

iona

l20

08-2

012

Hig

h dr

ylan

d fo

rest

Mix

ed

mar

sh fo

rest

Hig

h sw

amp

fore

stCr

eek

fore

st

Plan

ning

tbd

W O R K I N G P A P E R

Center for International Forestry ResearchCIFOR advances human wellbeing, environmental conservation and equity by conducting research to inform policies and practices that a� ect forests in developing countries. CIFOR is one of 15 centres within the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). CIFOR’s headquarters are in Bogor, Indonesia. It also has o� ces in Asia, Africa and South America.

To request a copy of this publication, please contact cifor@cgiar.org

www.cifor.cgiar.org

Emerging REDD+A preliminary survey of demonstration and readiness activities

Sheila Wertz-KanounnikoffMetta Kongphan-apirak