Emerging REDD+: a preliminary survey of demonstration and readiness activities … ·...
Transcript of Emerging REDD+: a preliminary survey of demonstration and readiness activities … ·...
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 [email protected]
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 [email protected]
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 [email protected]
www.cifor.cgiar.org
Emerging REDD+A preliminary survey of demonstration and readiness activities
Sheila Wertz-KanounnikoffMetta Kongphan-apirak