Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Les Cahiers de la Chaire Economie du Climat
REDD+ projects in 2014: an overview based on a new
database and typology
Gabriela Simonet1, Alain Karsenty
2, Christian de Perthuis
3,
Pete Newton4, Brian Schaap
5
There is a la k of larity a out what REDD+ proje ts are a d do. In answer to this poor
information, this paper discusses the definition of REDD+ project and presents a new
international database* of REDD+ projects, which links economic, carbon, tenure, and
livelihoods data from 329 REDD+ projects globally. We then propose a typology based on ten
themes, as a framework to analyze and categorize REDD+ projects. Using information from the
database, we provide a snapshot of REDD+ projects globally, as of May 2014, and present some
key findings. We find that, although REDD+ projects are mainly located in humid forests with a
possible strong potential for generating carbon credits, REDD+ projects do not fit the classic
model of Kyoto carbon projects, which emphasize climate change mitigation and require
financial additionality. Indeed, most REDD+ projects have a stronger focus on environmental,
social, and economic co-benefits tha o proje t’s li ate i pa ts. Moreover, in spite of the
development of a system of certification to sell forestry credits in the voluntary carbon market,
where forestry credits represent a major source of transactions, many project developers have
diversified their sources of financing to avoid dependency on the sale of carbon credits. While
this diversification can be understood as a rational decision within the context of volatility and
low prices in global carbon markets, it also makes REDD+ projects less additional in terms of
carbon financing, which might paradoxically limit their integration in compliance markets.
n° 32 • June 2014
Information and debates Series
The authors would like to thank the reviewers of this paper for their relevant comments and
suggestions, in particular Julien Wolfersberger (CEC and Laboratory of Forestry economics) and
Johan Oldekop (University of Michigan). The authors are also grateful for the contribution of Ana-
Maria Sales (TIMC Grenoble) and Fabrice Bénédet (CIRAD) on the database design and creation,
and of Coline Seyller (CIRAD) for her help on database filling.
*This database benefited from the support of the Climate Economics Chair (CEC), the French
Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD) and the University of
Michigan.
1. Climate Economics Chair and French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development.
2. French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development
3. Climate Economics Chair
4. International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) research network,
School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan
5. International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) research network
School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan
1
Contents 1- Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2
2- What are REDD+ projects? .................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Ambiguity regarding the level of action of REDD+. ....................................................................... 3
2.2 Ambiguity regarding the location of the projects. ........................................................................ 6
2.3 Ambiguity regarding the scope of activities. ................................................................................. 6
2.4 Examples illustrating the three sources of ambiguity. .................................................................. 6
2.5 Proposal for a definition of REDD+ project. .................................................................................. 8
3- Methodology for the construction of an international database of REDD+ projects ......................... 9
3.1 Analysis of information sources and selection of concepts. ......................................................... 9
3.2 Knowledge representation. ......................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Database design and filling. ......................................................................................................... 12
4-Typology of REDD+ projects ............................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Location: concentration in Latin America and in tropical humid forests. ................................... 13
4.2 Type: decline of CDM in ARR projects, focus on protected area for REDD projects. .................. 14
4.3 Size: a direct correlation with project types................................................................................ 16
4.4 Time: a recent crisis of the carbon model? ................................................................................. 17
4.5 Project developers: the private sector dominated the market. ................................................. 18
4.6 Conservation co-benefits: a third of projects prioritize conservation. ....................................... 18
4.7 Social co-benefits: ICDP tools still dominate. .............................................................................. 18
4.8 Forest context: agriculture as the main deforestation driver. .................................................... 19
4.9 Financing: carbon as a secondary source of revenue. ................................................................ 21
4.10 Carbon component: a common and core characteristic in all REDD+ projects. ....................... 21
5-Discussion: an original model of carbon projects. ............................................................................. 22
6- Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 24
Annex 1: List of the sources of information about REDD+ projects ...................................................... 25
Annex : Detail of the ta le Ca on c edit ........................................................................................ 26
Annex 3: Detail of the themes used for the typology of REDD+ projects ............................................. 27
Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................... 29
2
1- Introduction Tropical forests play a key role in conserving biodiversity and supporting the livelihoods of millions of
forest-dependent people. In the last two decades, an additional focus has emerged that emphasizes
the role of tropical forests in mitigating climate change. Indeed, tropical forests offer two levers for
climate change mitigation. First, emissions from deforestation are estimated at around 10% of global
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or 12% of global CO2 emissions (Werf, 2009; Harris et al. 2012). This
figure reaches 18% of global GHG emissions when including forest degradation, peatland degradation
and fires (Grace et al., 2014). Consequently, a large quantity of emissions could be avoided by
slowing global rates of deforestation and of forest degradation, and by promoting peatland
conservation and fire prevention. Secondly, afforestation and reforestation could capture a large
stock of carbon dioxide, turning forests globally into net carbon sinks rather than sources of GHG
emissions. Indeed, 6.79 billion tons of CO2-equivalent are sequestered yearly by tropical forests,
through plantation, the natural growth of primary forests and the regrowth of secondary forests
(Grace et al., 2014). There are thus two options for the role of tropical forests in climate change
mitigation: reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) or promoting
afforestation, reforestation and revegetation (ARR).
Both options have been discussed in the context of the international negotiations on climate change,
with ARR included under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol, and since
the mid-2000s, under the REDD+ mechanism. The official meaning of REDD+, as defined by the
United Nations F a e o k Con ention on Cli ate Change UNFCCC , is educing e issions f o deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, [including] the role of conservation,
sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing
count ies UNFCCC 2011, FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1).
Since the 11th Conference of Parties (COP) in 2005 when the REDD+ mechanism was officially
int oduced, the te ‘EDD+ p ojects has een inc easingl used to refer to on-the-ground efforts
to achieve the objectives of REDD+. Although the development of REDD+ at a local scale is well
advanced, the widely-used te ‘EDD+ p oject is still poo l defined. This poses se e al p o le s.
Fi st, the distinction et een ‘EDD+ p oject and othe te s like fo est ca on p oject , pilot p oject o ‘EDD+ initiati e is unclear. The terms are sometimes used interchangeably and there is
a lack of clarity on the distinction between them. The Global Database developed by the Center for
International Forestry Research (CIFOR), contains o e site-specific REDD+ projects [and other
forest carbon projects] unde de elop ent ac oss the o ld (Lawlar et al. 2013; CIFOR, 2013). The
Office National des Forêts International (ONFI) worldwide inventory contains fo est ca on p ojects (Chenost et al. 2011), and other estimates range as high as fo est and land-use
p ojects (Peters-Stanley et al. 2013). These three inventories use different terminology, but have
many projects in common, suggesting that the terms are not well-defined in the literature or in
practice.
Second, in spite of several portals dedicated to identifying and tracking REDD+ projects, there is
imperfect information about the exact num e of ‘EDD+ p ojects glo all .
Finally, due to a lack of information and clarity about what exactly constitutes a ‘EDD+ p oject , there has been no global analysis of the structure of these projects and of the extent to which
existing projects are likely to achieve the objectives of REDD+ that were formulated by the UNFCCC.
3
This pape ai s at cla if ing the concept of ‘EDD+ p oject through the proposition of a definition
and a typology of these projects globally. This clarification is indispensable to avoid
misunderstandings and to facilitate the discussions between REDD+ negotiators, project developers,
governments and other actors involved in REDD+. This paper also seeks to improve the transparency
and kno ledge on ‘EDD+ p ojects gi ing eade s a comprehensive overview of REDD+ projects
as of early 2014, based on a new database, hereafter referred as ID-RECCO for International
Database of REDD + projects, linking Economic, Carbon and Communities data. This database is
unique in terms of the quantity of variables selected and projects identified. It will be useful for
researchers to lead global analysis on REDD+ projects and for practitioners to better understand the
evolution of REDD+ projects and potentially build monitoring platforms on different aspects of these
projects.
Section 2 explains how the history of REDD+ and forest carbon finance led to ambiguity around the
definition of ‘EDD+ p ojects and suggests a cla ification of the concept. “ection p esents a ne international database created by the CEC, CIRAD and the University of Michigan to improve
knowledge of REDD+ projects. This database gathers general information on REDD+ projects, as well
as economic, carbon, tenure, and livelihoods data. Considering the high diversity of REDD+ projects,
section 4 suggests a typology based on ten main themes. These themes are then illustrated on the
basis of data from the projects identified in the ID-RECCO. Section 5 discusses the specificities of
REDD+ projects compared to other carbon projects and section 6 concludes.
2- What are REDD+ projects? As explained in section , the definition of ‘EDD+ p oject is still unclear, which limits the
communication between actors and the advancement of knowledge on the issue. In this section we
seek to better understand the concept of REDD+ project. To do so, we explore the history of REDD+,
the main developmental steps of which are illustrated in Figure 1.
We will see that the complex history of the integration of forests in climate change negotiations
created three main sources of ambiguity surrounding the definition of REDD+ project, illustrated by
examples in Table 1: an ambiguity concerning the level of action of REDD+, with a conflict between
the national scale of the REDD+ mechanism desired by the UNFCCC and the local scale of many
p ojects using the ‘EDD+ tag ; an ambiguity regarding the location of projects, with projects
presenting important similarities in developed and developing countries ; and an ambiguity about the
activities encompassed, with some actors rejecting ARR projects from the scope of REDD+ projects,
for the reason that ARR was already part of the CDM.
Finally, we propose a definition, based on the UNFCCC signification of the REDD+ acronym, and with
the idea that reconciliation between national and local scales of REDD+ will be necessary in the
medium term.
2.1 Ambiguity regarding the level of action of REDD+.
History of REDD+ and the duplication between national and local scales.
The preliminary intention of REDD+ was to create an international compensation mechanism for
developing countries that succeed in reducing their forest sector emissions (Pistorius, 2012). The
4
initial proposition, presented by Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica at COP 11, included an
implementation at national scale in order to limit the risk of leakage (Santilli et al 2005). At COP 15
(2009), it was agreed that the mechanism would progress through three phases, starting with
capacity-building, before moving to demonstration activities and then full implementation and
performance-based payments. At present, all countries are still in the first phase, also called
‘eadiness phase , eaning that neither implementation nor payment should have been realized
et. Ho e e , nu e ous ‘EDD+ p ojects a e losso ing a ound the o ld.
Through what developmental trajectory has REDD+, which was supposed to be implemented at a
national scale, led to hundreds of local initiatives? After COP 13 in Bali, pilot activities were
encouraged (Pistorius, 2012) and at COP 16 in Cancun, the article 71 of the Cancun Agreement
authorized the development of a subnational implementation, without providing any detail on this
critical issue. In parallel to pure readiness capacity-building activities (see examples in Table 1),
several countries are thus developing REDD+ pilot or demonstration projects which are local
initiatives integrated into the national REDD+ strategy of the countries. These pilot projects are listed
on an Internet platform developed by The Global Canopy Programme. The platform identifies, for
example, four pilot projects in Peru, eight in Tanzania and four in Indonesia (REDD desk, 2014).
Several authors (Madeira et al. 2010, Cerbu 2010, Pistorius 2012) distinguish between readiness
activities (capacity building) and pilot activities, in line with the UNFCCC vision of REDD+.
However, in parallel to UNFCCC negotiations, conservation organizations and carbon investors
appropriated the REDD+ acronym to designate forestry projects aimed at reducing CO2 emissions in
developing countries and being directly remunerated for their results. Hundreds of self-defined
‘EDD+ p ojects a e eing de eloped a ound the world, many of them without coordination with
the readiness activities of their host country. This lack of coordination can be illustrated by using the
information provided by The Global Canopy Programme. In the case of Peru for example, 19 REDD+
projects are identified, of which only four a e classified as ‘EDD+ pilot p ojects by the platform
(REDD desk, 2014).
Different sources of funding between national and local REDD+
National REDD+ Readiness is financed mainly by bilateral and multilateral public funds. Among the
main multilateral funds are the UN-REDD program (FAO, UNEP, UNDP), the Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility (FCPF, World Bank) and the Congo Basin Forest Fund (African Development
Bank). Norway is the principal financier of bilateral funds, with USD 2.8 billion committed in 2011
(Creed and Nakhooda, 2011).
Unlike national REDD+, local REDD+ initiatives attract private investments, often mixed with public
financing. Anticipating the admittance of REDD+ activities into a global carbon market, some project
developers have designed projects oriented towards generating carbon credits. A carbon credit is a
certificate or permit representing the right to emit one ton of CO2 equivalent, which can be traded in
two kinds of carbon markets: the compliance carbon market and the voluntary carbon market. A
compliance market is a market for carbon credits created by the need to comply with a regulatory
act. In a Cap-and-Trade system for example, actors purchase carbon offsets to comply with the cap or
limit imposed on their emissions. This is in contrast to a voluntary market where participants are not
subject to emission reductions requirements and buy carbon credits for public relations, Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) or personal reasons.
5
Given the current exclusion of forestry offsets from the main compliance carbon markets (European
Union Emission Trading System notably), forest carbon credits are mainly sold in the voluntary
carbon market. In 2012, REDD+ projects generated 26% (19.3 Megatons of CO2e) of the volume of
offsets transacted on the voluntary market (Peters-Stanley and Yin, 2013).
Reconciling national and local scales of REDD+
There is a clear duplication of REDD+ between national and local with the de elop ent of, on the one hand, the ‘EDD+ UNFCCC polic f a e o k […] and on the othe , the ultiplicit of initiati es and actors involved in the voluntary carbon market and pilot projects across geog aphical scales
(Corbera and Schoeder, 2011). REDD+ investors promoted project-based approaches instead of the
national approach recommended by Santilli et al. since the do not ant to depend on the goodwill of governments to share REDD+ remuneration (Karsenty, 2012). Another reason is the
potential to make more profit by selling carbon credits directly to selected clients, with total control
over the contracts.
Figure 1 below presents key dates of the parallel evolution of national REDD+ negotiations and
voluntary REDD+ projects.
Figure 1: Illustration of the evolution of REDD+ at national and local scales.
Most of these local and sub-national projects are not integrated into the national REDD+ strategies of
the host countries and are thus not recognized by the UNFCCC as part of the formal REDD+
mechanism. A REDD+ negotiator stated that fo hi ‘EDD+ p ojects do not exist (personal
communication, November 2012) as the mechanism is still in its Readiness phase, and since the
original REDD+ scheme contemplated projects as means to curb national emissions. This duplication
of scale, and the fact that local actions moved ahead more quickly than national strategies, causes
negotiators to think about the future reconciliation between local and national activities. A nested app oach is one possibility (Pedroni et al., 2009), which will aim at reconciling localized project
activities with national accounting systems and financial disbursement mechanisms. One option is
that projects will receive in priority the share of the credits corresponding to the emission reductions
they generated, and the complement will be directed to the government – as reductions attributable
6
to national policies and measures. The difficulty is that this formula is based on an ideal view of
things, in which reductions at the project and the national level go the same way. If this is not the
case, with a REDD+ project reducing deforestation in one area of the country while deforestation or
forest degradation at the broader national level is simultaneously increasing or remaining static, it
would make it impossible for the government to credit the project.
2.2 Ambiguity regarding the location of the projects.
To avoid the ambiguity of using the REDD+ acronym to designate activities which are outside the
UNFCCC echanis , the te fo est ca on p oject is so eti es used Chenost et al. , Caplow et al. 2011 ; Peters-Stanley et al., 2013). However, forest carbon projects are also
implemented in developed countries such as Canada, United State, Australia and New Zealand. As
illustrated in Table 1, forest carbon projects in developed and developing countries are divided into
similar categories and have some standards in common, the main one being the Verified Carbon
Standard (VCS). A more precise definition of a ‘EDD+ p oject ight thus be a fo est ca on project in a less-industrialized forested country .
2.3 Ambiguity regarding the scope of activities.
When focusing on REDD+ at project scale, another debate arises on the scope of activities that
should be taken into account. In particular, the inclusion of ARR projects is discussed. Some authors
(Sunderlin 2010; Cerbu 2010; Calmel et al 2010) consider that ARR projects should not be considered
as REDD+ projects if they are not associated with an avoided deforestation component. In 1997,
when the Kyoto Protocol was ratified, ARR projects were integrated in the CDM whereas avoided
deforestation was excluded for technical reasons, essentially the risk of leakage. Some take the view
that ARR projects are a component of the Kyoto Protocol and not of the REDD+ mechanism. It should
be recalled that, if REDD+ was limited to RED (or avoided deforestation) at the time of its creation, it
then became REDD+, including avoided degradation, carbon stock conservation and enhancement,
which encompasses ARR activities. Moreover, considering the low success of AR-CDM projects, most
ARR projects do not target the Kyoto market anymore, but the voluntary carbon market. In May
2014, the ID RECCO data show that 28% of ARR projects are certified CDM, 30% are not certified, and
the rest is certified by VCS, CarbonFix, Plan Vivo or other standards of the voluntary market.
2.4 Examples illustrating the three sources of ambiguity.
To illust ate the di e sit of p ojects enco passed the te s ‘EDD+ p ojects and/o fo est carbon projects , Ta le p o ides exa ples of p ojects classified in one o oth of these g oups. Examples illustrating the different levels of action are presented, with the first three rows providing
examples of local actions, whereas the fourth one informs on national actions. The two columns
tackle the issue of location. Finally, the first three rows of the table provide examples of the different
activities that could be included in REDD+ projects.
7
Table 1: Examples of REDD+ projects and Forest carbon projects
Sca
-le
Activities ↓ Location South North (forest carbon projects in
developed countries)
L
O
C
A
L
Activity 1 : REDD –
Project aiming at Reducing
Emissions from
Deforestation or from forest
Degradation
Oddar Manchey REDD project
(Cambodia). Certified CCBA1.
Goal: partner with local
communities to establish
Community Forest groups that
implement project activities to
reduce deforestation, improve
livelihoods and protect
biodiversity.
Denman Island Avoided Conversion
of Forestlands Project (Canada).
Certified CCBA2.
Goal: protect over 750 hectares of
ecologically sensitive lands in
British Columbia.
Activity 2 : ARR –
Project aiming at increasing
carbon sequestration in
trees through Afforestation,
Reforestation and
Revegetation
Reforestation of degraded land in
Chhattisgarh (India). Certified
VCS3.
Goal: rehabilitation of degraded
lands by plantation of indigenous
species and enhancement by
establishment of carbon sink.
Reforestation Across the Lower
Mississippi Valley (United States).
Certified VCS4.
Goal: The project sequesters
carbon by planting forests on
former agricultural land.
Activity 3: IFM –
Project aiming at Improving
Forest Management in order
to reduce carbon emissions
Kamula Doso Improved Forest
Management Carbon project
(Papua New Guinea). Ongoing
CCBA certification5.
Goal: improve natural resource
based livelihoods by preventing
logging in the Kamula Doso
project zone through
development of a carbon finance
revenue stream.
Bethlehem Authority Improved
Forest Management Project Area
(United States). Certified VCS6.
Goal: put a Pennsylvanian forest
under a 60-year term conservation
easement, employ a sustainable
level of harvesting and facilitate
improvements in the overall health
of the forest.
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
National scale initiatives –
Construction of a national
strategy to curb GHG
emissions (Readiness
initiatives for South
countries)
Example of Readiness initiative:
Making the Cameroon forest
sector transparent (Cameroon)7.
Goal: increase access to
information on forest sector
activities and support a network
of Civil Society Organizations
working on forest governance.
Other example: Capacity building
for the use of satellite imagery for
forest monitoring (Cameroon)8.
Although Readiness is not defined
for developed countries, as they
are not involved in the UNFCCC
REDD+ mechanism, several present
or are preparing a national or
regional schemes aiming at curbing
carbon emissions, mainly in
industrial sectors (countries
involved in the European carbon
market, China, New-Zealand,
California).
1 http://www.climate-standards.org/2013/08/30/reduced-emissions-from-degradation-and-deforestation-in-community-
forests-oddar-meanchey-cambodia/ 2 http://www.climate-standards.org/2012/05/11/denman-island-avoided-conversion-of-forestlands-project/ 3
https://vcsprojectdatabase2.apx.com/myModule/Interactive.asp?Tab=Projects&a=2&i=689&lat=21%2E7306184510487&lon
=83%2E4491609171772&bp=1 4 https://vcsprojectdatabase2.apx.com/myModule/Interactive.asp?Tab=Projects&a=2&i=774&lat=35%2E238785&lon=-
91%2E602826&bp=1 5 http://www.climate-standards.org/?s=kamula 6 https://vcsprojectdatabase2.apx.com/myModule/Interactive.asp?Tab=Projects&a=2&i=1060&lat=40%2E980961&lon=-
75%2E548083&bp=1 7 http://theredddesk.org/countries/initiatives/making-forest-sector-transparent-cameroon
8
2.5 Proposal for a definition of REDD+ project.
Given the confusion surrounding the concept of ‘EDD+ p oject , we chose to revert to the origin of
the REDD+ definition, formulated by the UNFCCC. Assuming that local and national REDD+ activities
will have to be reconciled before the REDD+ UNFCCC mechanism enters into its compensation phase,
we contend that the concept of ‘EDD+ p oject should encompass all the local projects that might,
in the future, be integrated into the national REDD+ accounting of a country. Referring to the
UNFCCC definition of REDD+ presented in section 1, we argue that REDD+ projects should include not
only the activities of avoided deforestation and degradation, but also all the activities leading to the
conse ation, sustaina le anage ent of fo ests and enhance ent of fo est ca on stocks . In the
rest of the paper, as illustrated in Figure 2 (black dotted circle), we will designate the following as
‘EDD+ p ojects all p ojects that eet all of the follo ing c ite ia:
-All local or landscape projects: “Activities that operate in a geographically defined site or sites, with
predetermined boundaries, including activities that aim to incorporate carbon into land use decisions
and planning across heterogeneous landscapes at a subnational scale (Sunderlin, 2010).
-All projects with an explicit aim of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation,
improving forest conservation or management, or enhancing forest carbon sequestration: This
encompasses projects of avoided deforestation and degradation (REDD),
afforestation/reforestation/revegetation (ARR) and improved forest management (IFM), with or
without logging. The three project types are exemplified in Table 1.
-All projects financed by REDD+ funds and/or carbon markets: Although most REDD+ projects are in
the process of certification and sale of carbon credits in the voluntary market, many also depend, in
whole or in part, on public funds focused on climate change, conservation or development. A main
example is the Amazon Fund, which participates in the financing of many REDD+ projects in Brazil,
and hose ai is to aise donations fo non-reimbursable investments in efforts to prevent,
monitor and combat deforestation, as well as to promote the preservation and sustainable use of
fo ests in the A azon Bio e Dec ee N. º , , dated August 1, 2008).
- All projects located in a less industrialized country with a strong forest potential and thus potentially
involved in the REDD+ mechanism: Among these countries, we can distinguish between those which
are involved in one of the main collaborative initiatives on REDD+ (UN-REDD and FCPF) and those
which follow similar initiatives but outside the main global partnerships (Brazil notably).
-All projects, whether integrated into the national REDD+ strategy or not: We distinguish between
projects implemented in coordination with the national government (pilot or demonstration
projects) and those which are not, keeping in mind that both should have their emission reductions
accounted for when countries will reach the third Compensation-phase of REDD+.
As shown in Figure 2, we will not consider as REDD+ projects:
- All forest carbon projects located in developed countries.
- All REDD+ initiatives located in developing countries but which go beyond a local or
landscape scale, meaning national capacity-building initiatives, as exemplified in the last row
of Table 1.
8 http://reddplusdatabase.org/arrangements/1337
9
Figure 2: Delineation of the scope of REDD+ project as defined in this study
The murkiness surrounding the concept of REDD+ projects is associated with the lack of information
about these projects. To enhance the knowledge and transparency of REDD+ projects, we have
constructed an international database aimed at linking economic and financing data for each project
with data conce ning the p oject’s carbon component and its impacts on communities. The next
section presents the methodology used for the creation of this database, which we will refer to as ID-
RECCO, as specified in section 1.
3- Methodology for the construction of an international database of
REDD+ projects The ID-RECCO database has been built with the collaboration of the Climate Economics Chair (Paris-
Dauphine university, France), CIRAD (Montpellier, France) and University of Michigan (United States).
Its construction involved three main steps: 1) The constitution of a set of concepts specific to REDD+
projects, hich seek to oth desc i e the p oject’s co ponents and o jecti es, and also to captu e data concerning the economic structure, carbon chapter, and localized socio-economic impacts of
the project; 2) The organization of these concepts into a conceptual database schema; and 3)
Populating the database with data extracted from the REDD+ literature. Some preliminary results
from the analysis of these data are presented in section 4.
3.1 Analysis of information sources and selection of concepts.
To identify and collect data about REDD+ projects, we first selected different sources of publicly
available information. The data used to fill this database are mainly reported by project proponents
and it is thus hard to assess their validity. The robustness of the database will increase with its review
by REDD+ experts.
10
The websites of the main standards used in the voluntary carbon market have been a key source of
information. Indeed, these standards require project developers to publish Project Design
Documents (PDD) and other reports, whose information is generally complete and accurate. The
Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS, 2014) and Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA,
2014) have been particularly used as they certified respectively 78 and 102 forest carbon projects,
mostly in developing countries. We also used the Fo est Ca on Po tal , initiated by Forest Trends,
which compiles data on more than 200 forest carbon projects, both in developed and developing
countries. These data are provided directly by project proponents (mainly from the private sector)
and are not audited by a third party as in the case of VCS and CCB validated projects, which raises the
question of their objectivity and accuracy (Forest Trends, 2014a). Yet, voluntary reporting is the
primary method by which much of the publicly accessible REDD+ information is compiled, so this
information was utilized despite its potential bias. We also relied on othe po tals like The ‘EDD Desk , implemented by The Global Canopy Programme, which focuses on readiness activities
(including pilot projects) in 22 countries (Global Canopy Programme, 2014). Several more formalized
academic sources were also used, including the REDD+ database compiled by the Institute for Global
Environmental Strategy (IGES) which examines 34 REDD+ projects (IGES, 2014), and the global
database created by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) which lists 338 REDD+
and other forest carbon projects (CIFOR, 2014).
A summary of the different sources of information identified is presented in Annex 1. In order to
highlight the differences between sources in the quantity and quality of information regarding REDD+
projects, and in the way each source category can be most appropriately used, we have classified the
sources of information into the five following (non-exclusive) categories:
1. Maps of projects: These maps (Forest Trend 2014a; Forest Trend 2014b; CIFOR 2014; Carbon
Catalog 2014; REDD+ partnership 2014; VCS 2014; SCS 2014) usefully depict the location of REDD+
projects and tend to capture and include a large number of projects. However, the information
available about each project is generally limited to a short project datasheet, or a list of links to other
websites. This category of sources is useful to identify the projects, but does not provide much
information about individual projects.
2. Certification reports: Several standards (VCS 2014; CCBA 2014; Plan Vivo 2014; CarbonFix 2014;
CDM 2014) have emerged on the voluntary carbon market, certifying carbon and/or socio-
environmental criteria. For the majority of projects which are certified, a Project Design Document
(PDD) is available. PDDs are very complete and provide high quality information but data extraction is
time-consuming due to the size of the reports
3. Projects datasheets: These datasheets (Forest Trend 2014a; IGES 2014; Global Canopy
Programme, 2014; Eco2data 2014; Code REDD 2014; Carbon Catalog 2014; VCS 2014; Plan Vivo 2014;
CarbonFix 2014; ONFI 2010) provide a brief summary of the projects, and tend to be a relatively
objective compilation of facts which are usually free of interpretation or spin, depending on the
author of the datasheet and the process of data collection utilized.
4. Research: Some academic research programs have conducted global analyses of REDD+ projects
(IGES 2014; CIFOR 2014; Lawlor et al. 2013; Chenost et al. 2010). These research sources generally
present high quality information, but they encompass a minority of projects.
11
5. Press: Press articles sometimes reveal information that cannot be found anywhere else, notably
about carbon credit transactions. A specialized press sector (Forest Trends 2014a; Global Canopy
Programme 2014; REDD monitor 2014; Forest Carbon Asia 2014) has emerged which provides regular
information about REDD+ developments all over the world, but the quality of information is variable.
We used the different sources of information to identify the concepts commonly used in the area of
REDD+ projects. The added value of the ID-RECCO database is threefold: 1) Homogenization of the
terms used by various sources to designate key concepts about REDD+ projects; 2) Centralization of
information from different sources in a single database; 3) Organization of data in a format adapted
to research purposes and analysis.
In total, we have selected 110 variables to build the ID-RECCO database, in accordance with data
availability and with our objective to achieve better knowledge of REDD+ projects. The database
includes source fields which specify the sources from which the data came, thus helping to ensure
the transparency of data collection.
3.2 Knowledge representation.
The 110 concepts comprising the database are organized into eight main aggregated concepts:
1. Country: range of indicators about the country hosting the project, some of them being
specifically on national forests, other on demographic and economic aspects.
2. Project developer: information about the project proponent(s), with a list of contacts.
3. Contact: information about the contacts we have for each project developer.
4. Project: general data about the project, including its geographic area and extent, the
deforestation drivers affecting the project area, the objectives of the projects, etc.
5. Carbon General: general information about the carbon component of the project, mainly
certification aspects.
6. Carbon Credits: carbon credit transaction details, ith u e s’ na es and oti ations.
7. Financing: data about the different sources of financing of the project.
8. Spending for communities: indicators focusing on the socio-economic impacts of the project
on communities living near the project.
Figure 3 below presents a simplified conceptual scheme of the ID-RECCO database, showing these
eight main concepts and some of the concepts involved in their definition.
12
Figure 3: Simplified conceptual scheme of the ID-RECCO database.
Source: author, using ISIS software
This scheme was created using a knowledge-representation system called ISIS (for Information
System Initial Specification9). This system proposes two notions to describe concepts: structured
(decomposable) and atomic or terminal (not decomposable), where a structured concept is defined
by a set of atomic and/or structured concepts, and an atomic concept is connected to one and only
one structured concept. Concepts are connected by different categories of associations, as described
in Figure 3. In this example, Project and Carbon credits are structured concepts while Buyer name
and Motivation are atomic concepts.
3.3 Database design and filling.
In the third step, we designed the relational database scheme derived from the conceptual scheme.
It consists in transforming each structured concept into a table, and each atomic concept into a
variable of a table. For example, the structured concept Ca on c edit and the atomic concepts
linked to it are presented in Annex 2.
The database was built using Access 2010 software. As of May 2014, 329 projects in 47 countries
have been identified in the database, of which 297 are completely filled.
Due to the varied nature of projects, and in order to improve future analyses, the next section
presents a typology of REDD+ projects, based on ten themes identified as relevant. We then use data
9 This system was created by Ana-Maria Sales, from TIMC (Grenoble).
13
from the 297 project of the ID-RECCO with complete information to illustrate and discuss these
criteria and provide a snapshot of REDD+ projects as of May 2014.
4-Typology of REDD+ projects In spite of their high diversity, few attempts at classification of REDD+ projects can be found in the
literature. Calmel et al. (2010) classify REDD+ projects using four criteria: location, type, size and
certification standard used. In a typology of REDD+ pilot projects in Indonesia, Madeira et al. (2010)
identify three main criteria of distinction: degree of spatial planning and heterogeneity of forest
classification (site level versus landscape level), strategy for establishing long term claims of carbon
and predominant driver and agent of deforestation and degradation. Sunderlin et al. (2010) highlight
four main criteria: project objective and scope, project type (REDD, AR, etc.), project strategy and
activities and project developer status. Finally, May et al. (2004) distinguish between commercial
projects, conservation projects and developmental projects, depending on the p oject’s ain priorities and objectives.
Using the literature, we suggest a typology of REDD+ projects, based on the 10 following themes:
1- Location
2- Type
3- Size
4- Time
5- Project developer
6- Conservation co-benefits
7- Social co-benefits
8- Forest context
9- Financing
10- Carbon component
The list of themes, fully described in Annex 3, is not exhaustive and could be extended in future
research. In the next subsections, we present the ten themes adopted in the typology and use the
data collected in the ID-RECCO database to provide a snapshot of REDD+ projects as of May 2014.
The ca on co ponent criterion is discussed in greater detail in section 5, as it is a core element of
REDD+ projects.
4.1 Location: concentration in Latin America and in tropical humid forests.
As highlighted by Calmel et al. (2010) and Cerbu et al (2011), location is a key variable to analyze
REDD+ projects. We suggest that the location criterion should be divided into two sub-criteria,
namely continent and country, to analyze both regional trends and national specificities. The
distribution of REDD+ projects in 2014 is represented in Figure 4 below.
As shown in this map, the Latin American region has the most REDD+ projects globally, containing
44% of all projects. This finding is in line with Cerbu et al. who identify a bias toward Latin America in
the location of REDD+ demonstration projects in 2011. They also identify a bias against Africa, but
our research shows that the global distribution of projects appears to be less skewed than Cerbu at
al. contend, with Africa (mainly East Africa) containing 27% of all projects and Asia containing 29%.
This difference might be explained by the larger size of our sample, and the inclusion of ARR projects;
these projects were excluded in the Cerbu et al. analysis, and are predominantly located in Africa.
14
At the country level, the map shows that Brazil and Indonesia are the leading countries with 47 and
42 projects respectively, followed by Peru and the Democratic Republic of Congo, with 23 and 19
projects respectively.
The sub-criterion count included in the ID-RECCO will allow further research into possible
correlations between the number and type of projects ithin a count and that count ’s
characteristics. According to Cerbu et al., five national characteristics were correlated with the
number of REDD+ demonstration projects contained within various countries as of 2010: baseline
CO2 emissions, existing forest carbon stock, number of threatened species, quality of governance,
and region. The ID-RECCO database will make a more detailed analysis of these types of correlations
possible, revealing important trends in project characteristics based on geographic location.
In terms of corruption, the map below shows that there is not a clear indication on whether
corruption acts as an incentive or a brake on the development of REDD+ projects. While Brazil has
the most REDD+ projects of any country and also has a low level of corruption (control of corruption
estimated at -0.1 in 2012 by the World Bank), this trend does not hold in countries such as Indonesia
and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which have many projects but also higher reported levels
of corruption (control of corruption estimated at -0.7 and -1.3 respectively). The main criterion
determining the number of REDD+ projects within a country seems to be the existence of a large
area of humid forest, with a possible high potential to generate carbon credits, as discussed in
section 4.8.
Figure 4: Location of REDD+ projects in 2014
4.2 Type: decline of CDM in ARR projects, focus on protected area for REDD
projects.
We suggest that two aspects should be analyzed under this criterion. First, it seems important to
distinguish between pilot vs non-pilot REDD+ projects, and to analyze the similarities and differences
between these categorizations. As of May 2014, 23% of all project captured in the ID-RECCO
database are defined as pilot projects, meaning that they are formally integrated into the national
REDD+ strategy. In the future, it will be interesting to see if there is a difference in the evolution of
both types of projects, particularly at the point in time when national REDD+ programs are finalized
15
and formalized, and local REDD+ activities and projects will need to be reconciled with national
policies and initiatives.
Secondly, the project type can be defined by the activities developed on the ground. As explained in
section 2, we consider that REDD+ encompasses REDD, ARR and IFM activities.10
These typologies
were defined by the VCS and are now commonly used. Figure 5 shows that REDD and ARR projects
are nearly equally represented whereas IFM projects are still a minority. Moreover, 20% of the
projects utilize multiple types of these activities, highlighting the complementarity that often exists
between REDD, ARR and IFM. This criterion is particularly relevant as REDD, ARR and IFM projects
often have very different characteristics in terms of size, strategy, carbon and financing model. Their
risks and benefits for local populations are also different, as identified by Peskett et al. (2011).
Figure 5: REDD+ projects by type.
More than a third of REDD projects are located within a protected area, which might question the
additionality of these projects. In fact, in several cases like in Madagascar, protection of protected
areas was not fully effective before the implementation of the project. REDD+ thus became a way to
finance existing protected areas.11
This scenario highlights the ambiguity surrounding the concept of
additionality. Importantly, the question of whether a REDD+ project implemented in a forest area
under de jure protection but subject to de facto deforestation or degradation can be considered
additional needs to be more clearly and systematically answered.
Regarding ARR projects, we can note that they are largely inspired by the CDM but only 28% of the
projects have the CDM standard. The majority are now certified by the standards of the voluntary
market (VCS, CCB, Plan Vivo and CarbonFix). The decreasing success of CDM certification can be
explained by the cumbersome procedures required by the UNFCCC, the complexity of methodologies
(from which the majority of VCS methodologies derive) and mainly the lack of demand for CDM
forestry offsets.
10
Although they also tackle forests, carbonization projects are not included in REDD+ projects but in energy projects. 11
The choice of the efe ence in such a case is a tho n issue: should it e a aseline scena io ithout p otected a ea , ith a pa tiall effecti e p otected a ea , etc. And the p ojection on a ea s pe iod ould the go e n ental cont ol e
more efficient in the future?) is also tricky.
16
It is interesting to note that the dominant project type varies by location. As of May 2014, Asia shows
a trend toward REDD projects, whereas Africa (mainly East Africa) contains more ARR projects. This
trend can also be observed at the country scale, with some countries being more specialized in ARR
projects (Uruguay, China and India for example) whereas others have more REDD projects
(Cameroon and Indonesia). These trends in project type clustering can be analyzed in relation to
count ies’ featu es, most notably the likely position of countries in the forest transition curve
(Simonet and Wolfersberger, 2013). However, reversal trends not in line with the transition curve are
also frequently witnessed, demonstrating that the forest transition theory cannot be a reliable
predictive tool.
4.3 Size: a direct correlation with project types.
This criterion can be divided between the scale of the project and its total area.
In terms of scale, we use the classification of Sunderlin et al. (2010) who differentiate projects that
Di ectl educe ca on e issions f o fo ests o inc ease ca on stocks in fo ests in a uantifia le way in a specific local area (i.e., site-le el p oject and p ojects that Inco po ate fo est ca on into land use policies and spatial planning at the landscape le el . A ethodolog specific fo osaic and landscape REDD project has been published by the VCS in October 2013
12. An example of a landscape
scale project is the São Felix do Xingu project in Brazil, which covers the sixth largest municipality of
Brazil.
As shown in Figure 6, although the mean area of REDD+ projects is around 300,000 ha, it varies from
less than 1000 ha to more than one million, in correlation with the type of project. Indeed, the mean
area of ARR projects is a bit less than 10,000ha whereas it nearly reaches 700,000 ha for REDD
projects (mix projects having a mean area of 200,000 ha).
Figure 6: Frequency of projects by area
12
http://www.v-c-s.org/sites/v-c-
s.org/files/VM0006%20Methodology%20for%20Carbon%20Accounting%20for%20Mosaic%20and%20Landscape-
scale%20REDD%20Projects%20Version%202.0.pdf
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0-1000 1000 - 10 000 10 000 - 100 000 100 000 -1m >1million ha
17
Projects with the largest area are mostly located in big countries like Brazil or the Democratic
Republic of Congo. Many of these projects are still in their early stages and are therefore not active in
the whole area of the project, but are focusing primarily on preliminary activities like the
identification of deforestation drivers or the clarification of tenure rights.
As of May 2014, the total geographic area covered by all of the REDD+ projects registered in our
database is around 73.5 million hectares, or nearly the size of Chile or Zambia.
4.4 Time: a recent crisis of the carbon model?
While REDD+ became an integrated part of the global mitigation agenda in 2007 during COP 13 in
Bali, around one third of current projects started before 2007, as illustrated in Figure 7. A lot of
projects were launched in 2006, probably as a result of the discussions that occurred during COP 11
(2005) in which Costa Rica and Papua New Guinea first raised the idea of the so-called RED
mechanism’. Projects which started before 2005 are either CDM or projects which were originally
simply focused on conservation but have since evolved toward the REDD+ mechanism.
The slowdown in new project development observed for 2012 and 2013 is in line with the difficulties
faced by carbon finance, particularly in the European carbon market, and with the uncertainty
surrounding the future of the REDD+ mechanism. Although data are often more difficult to collect in
the most recent years of a study due to updating delays, we believe that this is a genuine decrease
rather than an artifact of the data because the portals we used for data collection are regularly
updated.
Figure 7: Starting dates of REDD+ projects.
18
4.5 Project developers: the private sector dominated the market.
As of May 2014, 266 project developers have been identified in the ID-RECCO database, the large
majority of them (82%) belonging to the private sector. Among the private sector, 42% are for-profit
organizations, whereas 58% are Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).
This shows that REDD+ projects attracted two types of profiles: conservation or development NGOs
which customized their projects to fit the requirements of REDD+; and private sector actors looking
to seize the opportunity of newly developing carbon finance markets to start capital generating
projects focused on carbon.
4.6 Conservation co-benefits: a third of projects prioritize conservation.
The sixth criterion of our REDD+ project classification system refers to conservation co-benefits. As of
May 2014, conservation is presented as the main objective of 35% of REDD+ projects, and 100
projects (or 30%, mainly REDD projects) are located in a protected area.
Beyond climate change mitigation, REDD+ projects seem to pursue an aim of biodiversity
conservation. This is consistent with the multi-objective character of the REDD+ mechanism,
highlighted by the social and biodiversity safeguards validated after COP 16 in Cancun (2010).
4.7 Social co-benefits: ICDP tools still dominate.
In November of 2013, COP 19 in Warsaw reaffirmed the importance of accounting for local
populations in the development of REDD+ strategies. Moreover, several authors focus on the impact
of REDD+ projects on local populations (Lawlar et al. 2013, Jindal et al. 2012, Palmer and Silber 2012,
etc.) and this issue is at the core of many criticisms of REDD+. Our seventh criterion thus focuses on
social co-benefits.
A first element to look at is the degree to which economic development or livelihood enhancement is
considered as an explicit goal of the projects. As of May 2014, development was identified as the
main goal of 15% of ID-RECCO projects.
A second key element is the degree of participation of local populations in the implementation of
projects. It is interesting to note that although participation is nearly always mentioned in p oject’ documents, this participation is frequently quite limited. In most projects, local populations are
informed and consulted through a Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), but they are rarely involved in
decision-making and project design or in the management of the project. The depth of participation
in REDD+ projects by local populations should be explored further in depth, as it could be a key
element for the success of projects.
A third evidence of social co-benefits is the use of a social standard such as the Climate, Community
and Biodiversity certification system. As of May 2014, 98 projects (33%) are certified by a social
standard (75 by the CCB), which illustrates the importance of having a social label to sell in the
voluntary market. According to Peters-Stanley et al. (2013), there had been an unprecedented
demand for forestry offsets combining VCS and CCB certification in 2012 (12.2 MtCO2), showing a
specific demand among buyers for co-benefits in this market.
19
Finally, we suggest that the existence of social co-benefits could also be analyzed through different
aspects of the project, including the design and implementation of payments for local populations
(conditional or not), the creation of jobs, the creation of income generating activities and the
existence of development activities focused on education, health, water and so on. While REDD+
projects are often assumed to be Payment for Environmental Services (PES) projects, contractual
payments only occur in 20% of the projects in our database. On the contrary, most REDD+ projects
are structured more along the lines of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP),
with economic activities implemented in half of the projects and development activities mentioned
in nearly all of them. Although the use of ICPDs as indirect incentives for conservation has been
criticized for their insufficient results (Fearnside, 1997; Wunder, 2006; Ferraro and Kiss, 2002), and
even though PES projects are increasingly promoted by researchers and policy-makers, the ICDP
approach is still widely in use among REDD+ projects globally because it is often easier and less costly
to implement.
Agrawal et al. (2011) highlight the potential negative impacts of REDD+ on biodiversity and on local
populations as a central point of REDD+ debate. However, we can make the hypothesis that these
feared negative impacts might be mitigated by the importance given to certification in the voluntary
carbon market. As further detailed in section 5, certification is becoming a de facto prerequisite to
sell in this market; the reputation of project developers is too important to allow them to take any
risks that their projects may be perceived to be causing negative impacts.
4.8 Forest context: agriculture as the main deforestation driver.
Figure 8 below shows that a large majority of REDD+ projects are located in humid forests.
Figure 8: REDD+ projects by forest type
This trend might have several explanations. First, in the first proposal made by the Coalition of
Rainforest Nations, the REDD+ mechanism was intended to be limited to tropical forests. Moreover,
biodiversity is a key issue in REDD+ and is particularly high in hu id fo ests, hich contain 50
percent of all known vertebrates, 60 percent of plant species and possibly 90 percent of the world's
total species Bu le , . We can also consider the fact that conservation NGOs, which are largely
represented in projects developers, were already established in humid forests before REDD+ started.
Finally, humid forests have a higher above-ground carbon stock than dry forests, which creates the
20
idea that they are better capable to generate carbon credits. However, this statement should be
nuanced by the fact that dry forests might have a greater carbon pools in the soil and the human
population densities are much higher in dry forests than in humid ones, meaning that they are more
subject to degradation and could represent a considerable source of emissions (Skutsch and Ba,
2010).
This finding is in line with Werts (2009) who found that REDD+ demonstration projects were located
mostly in humid forests which are very rich in carbon. A better knowledge of each type of forest
he e oughl defined as hu id, dry, dry and humid could help discuss the h pothesis of La le et al. (2013) who found a tradeoff between carbon storage and poverty alleviation in REDD+ projects.
The second sub-criterion concerns deforestation agents and drivers, in line with the decision taken
during COP 19 (Warsaw, 2013) to eaffi the i po tance of add essing d i e s of defo estation and forest degradation in the context of the development and implementation of national strategies
and action plans by developing country Parties13 .
Figure 9: Main drivers of deforestation tackled in REDD+ projects
As shown in Figure 9, the main deforestation drivers are the different types of agriculture and cattle
ranching. The most common deforestation driver is local li elihoods , hich confirms the idea that
REDD+ projects most commonly focus on small scale agents of deforestation, who often have a lower
opportunity cost. Surprisingly, indust ial ag icultu e takes the second place showing that large
agents of deforestation might also be tackled. In reality, large agents of deforestation are rarely
mentioned in project activities. Many of these projects are located in Brazil, where cattle ranchers
are quoted as a main driver of deforestation but are generally not the main target of the project.
13
Decision 1/CP.16, paragraphs 72 and 76.
21
4.9 Financing: carbon as a secondary source of revenue.
A primary reason that many project developers oriented their projects toward REDD+ was the
expectance of new revenue streams. These additional sources of revenue can be income from the
sale of carbon credits or the receipt of public funds dedicated to REDD+.
As of May 2014, we found that 54% of ID-RECCO projects expect to receive revenues from the sale of
carbon credits. In most cases, this revenue is projected and dependent on future transactions, which
may or may not actually occur. As supply currently exceeds demand in the forest carbon credits
market (Deheza and Bellassen 2012), it will likely prove difficult for project developers to find credits
buyers. The prepayment of carbon credits provides more flexibility for project developers, but only
about 15.5% of projects appear to have accessed funding from the ex-ante sale of carbon credits.
These factors help to explain why most projects rely on other financing sources in addition to carbon
financing. We found that 26% of projects rely at least in part on the private financial resources of the
p oject’s de elope s, and 24% of projects received external private financing half of which was in the
form of corporate sponsorship. Another main financing source for REDD+ projects is public aid.
Around 40% of projects received public financing, with 16% of projects receiving funding from the
p oject’s host count . Finally, 18% of projects rely, at least in part, on the sale of agricultural, wood
or other forestry products.
Our analysis shows that carbon finance is only a small part of the financing model of REDD+ projects,
which have been forced to rely on diversified financing sources in the face of uncertainty and low
prices on the voluntary carbon market. This could be referred to as a crisis of carbon finance, since
the demand for REDD+ carbon credits is not at all ensured. Although the financial additionality of
projects is required by the various certification standards, project developers are forced to use a
variety of financing in order to avoid total dependence on the uncertain future of the voluntary
carbon market.
4.10 Carbon component: a common and core characteristic in all REDD+
projects.
Unlike the nine themes previously presented in this section, the existence of a carbon component is
the only criterion which is common to all REDD+ projects. The carbon chapter could be defined as all
the elements developed by the project proponent in order to prove that the project effectively
participates in the fight against climate change (by reducing carbon emissions or increasing carbon
sequestration), justifying its ‘EDD+ status and the access to REDD+ related financing.
As illustrated in Figure 10, considering the diversity of REDD+ projects and the different levels of
focus on climate issues, this criterion can be divided into four main categories: 1) Declaration of a
climate objective; 2) Monitoring of the emission reductions and/or carbon sequestration generated
by the project; 3) Certification of the impact on climate change mitigation and 4) Existence of carbon-
related financing.
22
Figure 10: Scale representing the carbon chapter of REDD+ projects
These four categories are described in more details in section 5 to highlight the originality of REDD+
projects compared to other carbon projects.
5-Discussion: an original model of carbon projects. By analyzing the carbon component of the REDD+ projects registered in the ID-RECCO, and by
crossing this theme with others of our typology, we discover that the carbon issue is tackled
differently in REDD+ projects than in traditional carbon projects.
First, as in any carbon project, all project developers display an interest in climate change and carbon
accounting, expressed notably through the publication of an estimate of the contribution of their
project to climate change mitigation. On average, ARR projects are expected to sequester around
50,000 tCO2 per year and 1.2 million tCO2 over the life of the project, whereas these figures reach
700,000 tCO2 and 22.2 million t CO2 for a REDD project. Although methodological questions can arise
(notably about the baseline of REDD projects), the potential impact of REDD+ projects on climate
change is thus undeniable.
However, when we look deeper into the structure of these projects, it appears that carbon is rarely
at the core of the project, raising the question of their additionality. Indeed, climate is presented as
the main objective of only 14% of the projects, far behind conservation (35%). Moreover, only half of
the projects chose the path of carbon certification (mainly VCS, CDM or CarbonFix) and only 21% of
projects actually engaged in carbon credit transactions.
To understand these surprising figures, we must first go ack to the p oject de elope and co-
enefits c ite ia. As e sa in section -5, conservation NGOs are among the most common actors
in REDD+ project development. These NGOs were accustomed to developing conservation projects
and took the opportunity of REDD+ to access new financing sources, without having to change the
whole structure of their projects (notably the use of traditional ICDP tools). For-profit organizations
have also been active in REDD+ project development, generally providing advice and technical
assistance about how to effectively introduce a carbon component into the structure of these
conservation projects. This phenomenon explains why conservation is the main objective of 35% of
REDD+ projects, and why a third of projects are located in protected areas.
As shown in Figure 10, there are two paths in the fourth steps of the carbon component, with
different financing strategies. The first one focuses on REDD+ funds and do not require certification.
23
For these projects, the ‘EDD+ functions as a logo which opens the way towards new sources of
public financing specifically oriented to REDD+ activities. In Brazil for example, the Amazon Fund in
the main source of financing for REDD+ projects and does not require any carbon certification.
The second path, adopted by 54% of ID-RECCO projects, consists in selling carbon credits. Projects
following this path are generally certified. Contrary to the CDM, there is no legal authority that
controls and certifies the carbon credits sold in the voluntary carbon market, where transactions are
gene all o e -the-counte OTC . Ho e e , u e s of these c edits ha e apidly required a
guarantee about the quality of the credits they were buying. As a consequence, several standards
emerged in the voluntary market, the most common being the VCS. This emergence of a private
governance system has similarities with the creation of standards for tropical wood harvesting such
as the Forest Stewardship Council (Cashore, 2004). Although certifying a REDD+ project is a complex
and costly process, 44% of the projects identified in the database are certified by an external third
party, and 10% more are in the process of obtaining certification. This shows that certification is a
key component that drives the demand for carbon credits and will become an almost compulsory
step to access the voluntary markets. We can note that the share of ARR projects that are certified is
greater than the share of certified REDD projects, which can be explained by a larger number of ARR
methodologies and the prior experience on ARR projects, thanks to the CDM.
Although 54% of ID-RECCO projects anticipate depending to some degree on the sale of carbon
credits, the analysis of the fourth step of the carbon component reveals that, as of May 2014, we
were only able to identify 71 projects (or 21%) that have completed at least one carbon credit
transaction14
. Except for nine CDM certified ARR projects which sold their credits to public actors
(States) on the compliance market, the large majority of REDD+ credits were transacted in the
voluntary market and were purchases by private actors (for sponsorship or Corporate Social
Responsibility reasons).
Moreover, as we saw in section 4-9, few projects rely exclusively on the sale of carbon credits for
their financing, and project developers typically combine this option with public and private funds.
This choice is totally rational in the current context of uncertainty and low transaction prices within
carbon markets. Following the estimates made by project developers, we assessed that about 90
million tCO2 should be avoided/sequestered yearly and, if all projects were entirely developed, their
total delivery would reach 2.4 billion tCO2. These data must be compared to the predictions of
demand for REDD+ offsets. Peters-Stanley et al. (2013) estimated that around 28 million tons of
forestry offsets were transacted in 2012, a quarter of which came from North America. This figure
has been fairly stable since 2010. This means that, even taking into account that a small share of
emission reductions is set aside as a buffer, it is likely that the demand will continue to be much
lower than supply.
The weak dependence on carbon revenue raises the question of the financial additionality of REDD+
projects. In the methodologies developed by the CDM and taken up by the VCS, a project developer
must show that its project depends on carbon revenue for its financial viability. However, project
developers need to diversify their sources of financing and cannot depend only on the uncertain sale
of carbon credits. In the case of the VCS, they must at least start their projects with other financings,
14
. This must be considered as a lower limit (or conservative estimate), as transactions are not always
transparent and we might have missed some of them.
24
as carbon credits are issued ex-post. Paradoxically, some actors of the REDD+ field argue that the
financial additionality is verified when taking into account the important costs generated by
certification. This aises an issue of self-fulfilling necessit , if ca on-related project costs are a
precondition for financial additionality that justify the need for carbon revenues.
Finally, we can conclude that REDD+ projects follow a model which is far from the requirements of
CDM carbon projects under the Kyoto Protocol. REDD+ projects are rarely focused primarily on
climate change but more on conservation and/or development. They consider the revenue from the
sale of carbon credits (or from REDD+ funds) as a secondary or tertiary source of financing. This
allows project developers to be less vulnerable to carbon price fluctuations, which is a necessary
measure of security in the current context in which the price of offsets on the European carbon
market is below one euro. However, this raises the question of the legitimacy of REDD+ offsets to
participate in a global carbon accounting system as they would be hardly comparable to offsets
generated by carbon projects respecting the classic rules of carbon economy, notably additionality.
6- Conclusion This paper constitutes a first step toward a better understanding of REDD+ projects. After an effort to
more precisely define them, it presents a database whose aim is to centralize knowledge on REDD+
projects and allow access to this information for researchers.
Thanks to the 329 projects registered in this database, and to the ten-criteria typology suggested in
this paper, we are able to provide a more accurate picture of REDD+ projects globally. We notably
show that REDD+ projects are novel in some important ways compared to traditional carbon
projects. Indeed, although these projects actually participate in climate change mitigation, through
avoided emissions or carbon sequestration, they are less tightly focused on climate issues and less
dependent on carbon revenue for their viability, in answer to the volatility of the voluntary market
and the difficulty to find buyers. A minority of credits has been sold compared to the previsions of
emission reductions, leading project developers to diversify their sources of financing.
REDD+ projects present some original features compared to CDM projects, notably their weaker
financial additionality, which would need to be tackled in the case of an integration of REDD+
projects into a global UNFCCC scheme. Such integration would allow striking a balance between
REDD+ credits supply and demand15
, in contrast to the current over-supply. In such a global scheme,
another main concern would be to decide the way to integrate the credits already sold in the
voluntary market, in the national or jurisdictional systems.
Thanks to a large quantity of variables compiled for 329 projects around the world, the ID-RECCO will
be useful to improve the knowledge of REDD+ projects. The main weakness of this database is the
incompleteness of publicly available data and the near impossibility or cross-checking or validating
the information provided by project developers themselves. In the future, allowing REDD+ experts
and project developers to review and update the data would be an important step in improving the
data quality. We plan to eventually make the database publicly accessible in order to enable further
research investigations, with the aim of enhancing knowledge concerning the structure, economic
model, conservation and development impacts of REDD+ projects.
15
See http://theredddesk.org/markets-standards/supply-demand for simulations
25
Annex 1: List of the sources of information about REDD+ projects
Type(s) Name of the source and number of projects
identified.
Link to Internet page.
1, 3, 5 Forest Carbon Portal, by Forest Trends: 244 forest
carbon projects, of which 145 are in developing
countries.
Forest Trends (2014a)
3, 4 REDD+ database, by the Institute for Global
Environmental Strategy (IGES): 34 REDD+
projects.
IGES (2014)
3, 5 The REDD country database (Collaborative
resource for REDD Readiness), by The Global
Canopy Programme: REDD+ readiness activities,
notably pilot projects, in 22 countries.
Global Canopy Programme (2014)
1, 4 Global database on REDD+ and other forest
carbon projects, by the Center for International
Forestry Research (CIFOR): 338 projects
(including some readiness activities).
CIFOR (2014)
3 Eco2data (limited access): around 100 projects,
mainly AR.
Eco2data (2014)
3 Code REDD: REDD projects. Code REDD (2014)
1, 3 Carbon Catalogue: 131 forest carbon projects, 67
of which are in developing countries.
Carbon Catalogue (2014)
1, 3 Voluntary REDD+ Database, by the REDD+
Partnership: Readiness arrangements only, with a
focus on financial flows.
REDD+ Partnership (2014)
1 REDD X- Tracking Forest Finance, by Forest
Trends: limited to 12 REDD+ countries with a
focus on financial flows.
Forest Trends (2014b)
1, 2, 3 Agriculture, Forestry, Land use projects, Verified
Carbon Standard (VCS) database: 78 forestry
projects, of which a few in developed countries.
VCS (2014)
2 The Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance
(CCBA) database: 102 projects.
CCBA (2014)
2, 3 Plan Vivo database: 8 projects registered and 11
in the process of registration.
Plan Vivo (2014)
2, 3 CarbonFix database: 16 ARR projects, of which 5
are in developed countries.
CarbonFix (2014)
1 SCS global services (and other verifiers) SCS (2014)
4 Co unit Pa ticipation and Benefits in ‘EDD+: A ‘e ie of Initial Outco es and Lessons , Lawlor et al. 2013: 41 REDD+ projects.
Lawlor et al. (2013)
4 Bringing forest carbon to market, by Chenost et
al. 2010.
Chenost et al. (2010)
3 « REDD+ à l'échelle projet - Guide d'évaluation et
de développement », by ONF International: 5
case studies.
ONF (2010)
5 REDD monitor: news. REDD monitor (2014)
5 Forest Carbon Asia : news. Forest Carbon Asia (2014)
Source : authors
26
Annex 2: Detail of the table Carbon credit
Secondary
Concepts
Definition List, interval of values and/or unit
issuance_period Period of contractualization
for the transaction of carbon
credits.
Defined by a starting year and an ending
year (9999-9999 when no data).
Sold_quantity Quantity of carbon credits sold
during this transaction.
In t CO2 (9999 when no data).
Buyer_name Name of the buyer of the
carbon credits
buyer_status Legal status of the buyer. Public; Private; Public and private
buyer_sector Sector of the buyer. Energy; Industry; Agriculture; Finance;
Leisure and entertainment; Agrifood;
Carbon; Services; Forest conservation;
Other.
Buyer_nationality Nationality of the buyer. List of all countries worldwide.
Buyer_motivation Motivation of the buyer. Compliance-precompliance; Sponsorship;
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR);
Resale-investment; Other; ND.
Market Market where the transaction
occurs.
Voluntary ; Compliance.
Credit_price Purchase price of the credits. In dollars (at the date of data entry).
Id_carbon_credit Automatically generated.
Source: authors
27
Annex 3: Detail of the themes used for the typology of REDD+ projects
Category: Characteristics: Specification (list or unit):
1-Location. 1-1-Continent. Africa; Asia; Latin America.
1-2-Count ’s aseline. In 1000tons of CO2 equivalent.
1-3- Count ’s defo estation ate. In %.
1-4-Count ’s co uption cont ol. [-2.5 ; 2.5].
1-5-Count ’s Hu an Development
Index.
[0; 1].
1-6- Count ’s go e nance’s effectiveness.
[-2.5 ; 2.5].
1-7-Count ’ ‘-PP submitted. Yes; No.
2-Type. 2-1-Activities. REDD; ARR; IFM; other.
2-2-Pilot. Yes; No.
3-Size. 3-1-Scale. Site-level; Landscape-level.
3-2-Area. In ha.
4-Time. 4-1-Date of start. In years.
4-2-Duration. In years.
5-Project
developer
10-1-Status For-profit organization; NGO; Research
institute; Public; Partnership public-
private; Partnership private-private;
Partnership public-public; Other;
5-2-Domestic Yes; No.
5-3-Partners Yes; No.
6-Cobenefits:
conservation
6-1- Conservation Objective. Main; Secondary; Not mentioned.
6-2-Protected Area. Yes; No.
7-Cobenefits:
local
communities
7-1- Development Objective. Main; Secondary; Not mentioned.
7-2-Participation type. No; Informed; Consulted; Involved in
decision-making; Involved in
management.
7-3-Social certification status. No; Intended; Ongoing; Certified.
7-4-Social standard. CCB; Plan Vivo; BMV; CarbonFix; Social
Carbon.
7-5-Payments. No ; Direct ; Linked to practices (PES-
like) ; Guaranteed purchase system.
7-6- Jobs. No; Yes no data; 0-50; 50-100; More
than 100.
7-7-Economic activities. No; Agriculture (activities linked to
agricultural changes); Agroforestry;
Tree planting; Microenterprise;
Sustainable mining activities;
Ecoturism; Economic interest groups;
Sport hunt; Processing and
commercialization; Micro-credits;
7-8-Development activities. Education (Training and school
building); Water; Health;
Roads/building; Supplies; Other
infrastructure.
8-Forests. 8-1-Deforestation driver scale. Small ; Large.
8-2-Deforestation driver type. local livelihoods; industrial agriculture
or cattle ranching; slash and burn
28
agriculture; mining; illegal logging;
industrial wood exploitation; energy
wood; charcoal production; fire;
infrastructure; oil extraction; ND.
8-3-Forest type. Dry; Humid; Peatland; Other.
9-Financing. 9-1-Carbon Financing. No; Carbon future scheduled; Carbon
future transacted; Carbon
Prepayment; Carbon Fund investment.
9-2-Domestic public fund. Yes; No.
9-3- Non domestic public fund. Yes; No.
9-4-Internal private investment linked to
project developer: Personal/private
equity investment or private loan or
NGO/Foundation funding.
Yes; No.
9-4-External private investment: firm
sponsorship and other commodity.
Yes; No.
9-5-Sale of timber or agricultural
products or non-timber forest products.
10-Carbon
chapter.
10-1-Climate objective. Main; Secondary; Not mentioned.
10-2-Yearly emission reductions. In tons of CO2 equivalent.
10-3-Total emissions reductions. In tons of CO2 equivalent.
10-4-Carbon certification status. No; Intended; Ongoing; Certified.
10-5-Carbon standard. VCS; ACR; CDM; Plan vivo ; ISO-14064 ;
Carbon Fix (Gold Standard) ; CAR;
Natural Forest Standard; Internal;
10-6-Sale of carbon credits status. No; Scheduled; Actual.
10-7-Carbon main source of financing. Yes; No.
Source: authors
29
Bibliography
Burley, J. (2002), 'Forest biological diversity: an overview', UNASYLVA-FAO-, 3--9.
Calmel, M.; Martinet, A. & Grondard, N. (2011), 'REDD+ à l'échelle projet. Guide d'évaluation
et de développement.', Technical report, ONFI.
Caplow, S.; Jagger, P.; Lawlor, K. & Sills, E. (2011), 'Evaluating land use and livelihood impacts
of early forest carbon projects: Lessons for learning about REDD+', Environmental Science &
Policy 14(2), 152--167.
Carbon Catalog (2014), http://www.carboncatalog.org/, last visit January of 2014.
CarbonFix (2014), http://www.carbonfix.info/, last visit January of 2014.
CCBA (2014), http://www.climate-standards.org/category/projects/ last visit January of
2014.
CDM (2014), http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/4/2/296, last visit January of 2014.
Cerbu, G. A.; Swallow, B. M. & Thompson, D. Y. (2011), 'Locating REDD: A global survey and
analysis of REDD readiness and demonstration activities', Environmental Science & Policy
14(2), 168--180.
Chenost, C.; Gardette, Y.; Demenois, J.; Grondard, N.; Perrier, M. & Wemaere, M. (2010),
Bringing forest carbon projects to the market, UNEP.
CIFOR (2014) http://www.forestclimatechange.org/redd-map/#, last visit January of 2014.
CodeREDD (2014), http://www.coderedd.org/, last visit January of 2014.
Corbera, E. & Schroeder, H. (2011), 'Governing and implementing REDD+', Environmental
Science & Policy 14(2), 89--99.
Creed, A. & Nakhooda, S. (2011), 'REDD+ finance delivery: lessons from early experience',
Climate Finance Policy Brief of the Overseas Development Institute (ODI).
Deheza, M. & Bellassen, V. (2012), 'Developping the forestry sector with carbon markets',
Technical report, Proparco.
Eco2data (2014), http://eco2data.com/services, last visit in January of 2014.
Fearnside, P., 1997. Transmigration in Indonesia: Lessons from its Environmental and Social
Impacts, Environmental Management 21 (4): 553–570.
Ferraro, P. J. and A. Kiss (2002). Direct Payments to Conserve Biodiversity. Science 298:
1718-1719.
30
Forest Carbon Asia (2014), http://www.forestcarbonasia.org/, last visit in January of 2014.
Forest Trends (2014a), http://www.forestcarbonportal.com/project/, Forest Trend, last visit
in January of 2014.
Forest Trends (2014b), http://reddx.forest-trends.org/, Forest Trend, last visit in January
2014.
Grace, J.; Mitchard, E. & Gloor, E. (2014), 'Perturbations in the carbon budget of the tropics',
Global Change Biology.
Harris, N. L., Brown, S., Hagen, S. C., Saatchi, S. S., Petrova, S., Salas, W., Hansen, M. C.,
Potapov, P. V. and Lotsch, A. (2012). "Baseline Map of Carbon Emissions
fromDeforestationinTropicalRegions." Science 336 (2012).
IGES (2014), http://redd-database.iges.or.jp/redd/ last visit in January of 2014.
IPCC (2000), Robert T. Watson, Ian R. Noble, Bert Bolin, N. H. Ravindranath, David J. Verardo
and David J. Dokken (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, UK.
Jindal, R.; Kerr, J. M. & Carter, S. (2012), 'Reducing Poverty Through Carbon Forestry?
I pacts of the N’ha ita Co unit Ca on P oject in Moza i ue', World Development
40(10), 2123--2135.
Karsenty, A.; Vogel, A. & Castell, F. (2012), '"Carbon rights", REDD+ and payments for
environmental services', Environmental Science and Policy.
Lawlor, K.; Madeira, E. M.; Blockhus, J. & Ganz, D. J. (2013), 'Community Participation and
Benefits in REDD+: A Review of Initial Outcomes and Lessons', Forests 4(2), 296--318.
Madeira, E.; Sills, E.; Brockhaus, M.; Verchot, L. & Kanninen, M. (2010), 'What is a REDD+
pilot? A preliminary typology based on early actions in Indonesia', InfoBrief 26.
ONF (2010), http://www.onf.fr/lire_voir_ecouter/++oid++1226/@@display_media.html
Palmer, C. & Silber, T. (2012), 'Trade-offs between carbon sequestration and rural incomes in
the N’ha ita Co unit Ca on P oject, Moza bique', Land use policy 29(1), 83--93.
Pedroni, L.; Dutschke, M.; Streck, C. & Porrúa, M. E. (2009), 'Creating incentives for avoiding
further deforestation: the nested approach', Climate Policy 9(2), 207--220.
Peskett, L.; Seth, P. & Gernot, B. (2011), 'Carbon livelihoods: social opportunities and risks of
carbon finance', Technical report, World Bank.
Peters-Stanley, M.; Gonzalez, G. & Yin, D. (2013), 'Covering new ground: state of the forest
carbon market 2013', Technical report, Ecosystem Marketplace.
31
Pistorius, T. (2012), 'From RED to REDD+: the evolution of a forest-based mitigation
approach for developing countries', Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability.
Plan Vivo (2014), http://www.planvivo.org/projects/registeredprojects/, last visit in January
of 2014.
REDD desk (2014), Collaborative resource for REDD Readiness by the Global Canopy
Programme (2014), http://www.theredddesk.org/countries, last visit in May 2014.
REDD monitor (2014), http://www.redd-monitor.org/,, last visit in January of 2014.
REDD+ partnership (2014), http://www.reddplusdatabase.org/#introduction, last visit in
January of 2014.
“i onet, G. and Wolfe s e ge , J. , Forest Transition and REDD+ in developing
count ies: challenges fo cli ate change itigation’, Climate Economics in Progress 2013,
Perthuis and Jouvet Eds.
“antilli M., Moutinho P., “ch a tz an “., Nepstad D., Cu an L., No e, C. , T opical Deforestation and the Kyoto Protocol: a new proposal’, Pape p esented at CoP-9, UNFCCC,
December 2003, Milan.
SCS (2014), http://www.scsglobalservices.com/verified-carbon-offset-projects, last visit in
January of 2014.
Skutsch, M. M. & Ba, L. (2010), 'Crediting carbon in dry forests: The potential for community
forest management in West Africa', Forest Policy and Economics 12(4), 264--270.
Sunderlin, W. & Atmadja, S. (2009), 'Is REDD+ an idea whose time has come, or gone?',
Realising REDD, 45.
Sunderlin, W. D.; Larson, A. M.; Duchelle, A.; Sills, E. O.; Luttrell, C.; Jagger, P.; Pattanayak, S.;
Cronkleton, P. & Ekaputri, A. (2010), Technical guidelines for research on REDD+ project sites
with survey instruments and code book, CIFOR.
UNFCCC (2011). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its sixteenth session, held in
Cancun from 29 November to 10 December 2010Report
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf.: United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change.
VCS (2014), http://www.vcsprojectdatabase.org/, last visit in January of 2014.
WUNDER, S. « Are Direct Payments for Environmental Services Spelling Doom for
Sustainable Forest Management in the Tropics? », Ecology and Society 11(2), 2006
Les Cahiers de la Chaire Economie du Climat
n° 32 • June 2014
Information and debates Series
Contact us:
Chaire Economie du Climat - Palais Brongniart (4e étage)
28 Place de la Bourse, 75 002 Paris, France
Tel : +33 (0)1 73 01 93 42
Fax : +33 (0)1 73 01 93 28
Email : [email protected]
La Chaire Eco o ie du Cli at est u e i itiative de CDC Cli at et de l’U iversité Paris-
Dauphine
sous l’égide de la Fo datio I stitut Europlace de Fi a ce
sous l’égide de la Fo datio I stitut Europlace de Fi a ce
Directeur de la publication : Frédéric Gonand
Les opinions exposées ici n’engagent ue les auteu s. Ceux-ci assument la responsabilité
de toute erreur ou omission
Quel prix du CO2 pour le déploiement des techniques de captage, transport
et stockage géologique du CO2 ?
par Marie Renner
n° 25 • June 2013
Overview of the policy toolbox for low-carbon road mobility in the European
Union
by Claire Papaix and Bénédicte Meurisse
n° 26 • July 2013
Back to the Future: A comprehensive analysis of carbon transactions in
Phase 1 of the EU ETS
by Vincent Martino and Raphaël Trotignon
° 27 • Septe ber 2013
Biomass for Power Generation in the EU-27: Estimating Potential Demand,
CO2 Abatements and the Biomass and CO2 Breakeven Prices for Co-firing
by Vincent Bertrand, Benjamin Dequiedt and Elodie Le Cadre
n° 28 • December 2013
Forest Transition and REDD+ in developing countries: challenges for climate
change mitigation
by Gabriela Simonet and Julien Wolfersberger
n° 29 • February 2014
Overview of Climate Change Policies and Development of Emissions Trading
in China
by Simon Quemin and Wen Wang
n° 30 • March 2014
Success factors for implementing low-carbon mobility instruments in cities:
Learning from European, American and Asian case studies
by Pierre-Franck Edwige and Claire Papaix
n° 31 • April 2014
REDD+ projects in 2014: an overview based on a new database and typology
by Gabriela Simonet, Alain Karsenty, Christian de Perthuis, Pete Newton and
Brian Schaap
n° 32 • June 2014
![REDD+/CDM/ /PFM Projects March 2015 - REDD+ Ethiopia · 2015] REDD+/CDM/ /PFM Projects March [This piece collates basic information on forest projects in Ethiopia with a special focus](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5ac25f4b7f8b9a4e7c8e2c9b/reddcdm-pfm-projects-march-2015-redd-ethiopia-reddcdm-pfm-projects-march.jpg)
