Introduction: the REDD+ concept - gcca.eu€¦ · Web viewImproving beekeeping and reforestation...

Briefing Sessions on Climate Funding

Opportunities

Organised by the ACP Secretariat /

Intra-ACP Global Climate Change Alliance (GCCA) Programme

Under the 10th EDF Intra-ACP Financial Framework

Session 2: Funding activities related to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+)

July 19th, 2012 – ACP Secretariat, Brussels

Handouts by Duncan Brack, [email protected], +44 (0) 20 8673 8101 / + 44 (0)7703 582 219; 54 Midmoor Road, London SW12 0EN, UK

mailto:[email protected]

Duncan Brack | Climate Funding Opportunities: REDD+ Funds 2

Contents

1 Introduction: the REDD+ concept...................................................................................41.1 Forests and the climate negotiations........................................................................41.2 What is REDD+?.......................................................................................................41.3 Key challenges..........................................................................................................51.4 Implementing REDD+...............................................................................................61.5 Finance for REDD+...................................................................................................71.6 Coordination..............................................................................................................9

2 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility...............................................................................142.1 Background.............................................................................................................14

Membership and governance.................................................................................14Readiness Fund......................................................................................................15Carbon Fund...........................................................................................................15

2.2 Applying for funds: Readiness Fund.......................................................................16Readiness Plan Idea Note......................................................................................16Readiness Preparation Proposal............................................................................16Readiness Package................................................................................................18

2.3 Applying for funds: Carbon Fund............................................................................192.4 Key links and documents........................................................................................19

3 Forest Investment Programme......................................................................................203.1 Background.............................................................................................................20

Membership and governance.................................................................................20Activities..................................................................................................................20

3.2 Applying for funds...................................................................................................213.3 Key links and documents........................................................................................22

4 UN-REDD..........................................................................................................................234.1 Background.............................................................................................................23

Membership and governance.................................................................................23Activities..................................................................................................................24

4.2 Applying for funds...................................................................................................244.3 Key links and documents........................................................................................26

5 Congo Basin Forest Fund..............................................................................................27

6 Australia’s International Forest Carbon Initiative........................................................29

7 Clean Development Mechanism....................................................................................30

8 REDD+ Funding in Practice...........................................................................................32Role and structure of the multilateral initiatives......................................................32Coordination, overlaps and gaps............................................................................33Finance...................................................................................................................33When are countries ‘ready’?...................................................................................34


Safeguards and governance...................................................................................34Stakeholder engagement........................................................................................35Knowledge transfer.................................................................................................35Private sector..........................................................................................................36National ownership.................................................................................................36Misperceptions and uncertainty..............................................................................36

9 What Does the Future Hold?..........................................................................................37

Tables

Table 1 Summary of REDD+ funding to date.........................................................................10

Table 2 Geographical distribution of REDD+ funding to date.................................................11

Table 3 Developing country participation in multilateral REDD+ initiatives............................12


1 Introduction: the REDD+ concept‘Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, plus conservation’ – REDD+ – is a simple concept which is proving difficult to implement. Since the introduction of the idea to the climate change negotiations in 2007, it has spawned a huge range of studies, discussions and projects. Donor countries have pledged billions of dollars to forest-rich developing countries to help them prepare for a fully fledged REDD+ mechanism – yet the emergence of that mechanism still seems many years off. Nevertheless, the funds now available are of importance to developing countries seeking to tackle deforestation.

1.1 Forests and the climate negotiations

Deforestation is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gases, estimated to account for about 17 per cent of global emissions, rivalling levels from transport or industry. Without tackling forest loss, it is difficult to see how stabilisation of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere can be achieved. Furthermore, compared to other means of reducing emissions, tackling deforestation is – at least in theory – relatively cheap. The Eliasch Review, a report published by the UK government in 2008, estimated that the cost of halving global emissions from 1990 levels could be reduced by up to 50 per cent in 2030 and by up to 40 per cent in 2050 if the forest sector was included.1

Emissions from forestry (and land use) were not originally included in the Kyoto Protocol primarily because of difficulties over measuring and verifying changes in emissions. With the hope of including developing countries in climate targets, however, it clearly made sense to address forest-related emissions. The Bali Road Map, adopted by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference in 2007, highlighted its importance and began a programme of work tooperationalise it. The Copenhagen Accord, adopted in 2009, recognised the crucial role of REDD+ and saw several countries commit financial support to its implementation. UNFCCC conferences in 2010 and 2011 made further progress on elaborating various components of the eventual mechanism.

It seems unlikely, however, that the final REDD+ mechanism can be fully operational until a new climate treaty is adopted, with all countries undertaking commitments to reduce their climate impact. Since the Durban conference in 2011 reached agreement to negotiate a new protocol or other legally binding instrument by 2015, and for it enter into force no later than 2020, it is difficult to see how a fully-fledged REDD+ mechanism can appear for another decade or so.

Nevertheless, it is widely recognised that countries need to carry out a significant amount of preparatory work before a full REDD+ mechanism could be made operational – and this is what current funding streams are primarily aimed at.

1.2 What is REDD+?

The basic concept of REDD+ is simple: that financial incentives should be made available to increase the value of standing forests to forest owners. At present, in most countries, greater

1 UK Office of Climate Change, Climate Change: Financing Global Forests (The Eliasch Review), 2008; available at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/other/9780108507632/9780108507632.pdf


rewards can be earned from logging forests or clearing them for agriculture than for keeping them standing. These financial calculations do not, however, recognise the value of forests to humankind as a whole in terms of absorbing carbon (and in providing other environmental services, such as watershed management or protection of biodiversity). REDD+ aims to deliver finance to forest owners to reward them for these services and compensate them for the foregone benefits of logging or clearing the forest.

Over several years’ worth of discussion, the concept has developed beyond its original simple model. ‘REDD+’ now covers five different but related activities that preserve carbon stored in forests:

Reducing emissions from deforestation requires new programmes, policies, or actions to slow or stop deforestation in high-risk areas where forest clearing occurs or is likely.

Reducing emissions from forest degradation incorporates actions that minimise negative effects on forest carbon storage in trees or shrubs within a forest, such as through logging or harvesting standards.

Forest conservation implies permanently protecting forests in zones not immediately threatened by deforestation, but which may be at risk in the future for economic or social reasons.

Sustainable management of forests ensures that forests being used for economic gain are managed sustainably and can continue to be used, thus lowering the emissions associated with their use.

Enhancement of forest carbon stocks denotes adding forest carbon, such as through tree planting.

1.3 Key challenges

Implementing REDD+ is not proving straightforward. Key issues under discussion, both within the UNFCCC and outside, include:

Reference levels.What will the reduction in emissions be measured against? Current emissions levels, historical deforestation rates or business-as-usual scenarios? Will countries with different forest covers and historic deforestation rates hold different interests in the way the reference levels are constructed?

Leakage. A reduction in deforestation in one area may simply lead to an increase in deforestation in another.

Permanence. Unlike many other forms of climate mitigation – replacing a coal-powered station with a wind farm, say, or a petrol-using vehicle with an electric one – trees only absorb carbon as long as they are alive and growing. Simply planting new trees is not enough; they need to be protected throughout their growing lifespan.

Safeguards. World-wide, more than 1.6 billion people depend on forests for their livelihoods, including for fuelwood, foodstuffs and medicinal plants, while at least 60 million indigenous


people are highly dependent on forest resources for their livelihoods.2 Forests provide cultural, spiritual and recreational functions, and are some of richest biological areas on Earth, offering habitats for a huge variety of plants, animals and micro-organisms. How can all these interests be protected, and how can any benefits be distributed, under the major changes required by a successful REDD+ mechanism?

Governance.In many countries the forest sector is highly associated with corruption and poor law enforcement. How can significant flows of additional finance to the sector be well managed?

Measuring, reporting and verifying (MRV). What mechanisms are needed – and who will operate them – to measure changes in rates of deforestation, leakage, permanence, etc.? And, similarly, how and who will monitor the implementation of safeguards and the impacts on governance?3

Finance. The Eliasch Review estimated that $17–33 billion a year was required by 2030 to halve emissions from the forest sector.4It seems highly unlikely that donor countries will provideanything like this scale of funding from government budgets. The general assumption, at least in the early years of the process, is that finance of this magnitude could only be generated through the inclusion of forest carbon credits in a global carbon trading scheme, thus providing enterprises (or countries) with the opportunity of offsetting their own emissions by purchasing (cheaper) credits for forest carbon emission reductions.

The principles both of offsetting and of deriving funding from markets are, however, controversial with several developing countries and NGOs, who have argued instead for public funding for REDD+, including from the new Green Climate Fund currently being established. In any case, it is virtually impossible to see a global forest carbon market emerging before a new global climate agreement enters into force.Forest carbon markets currently in place, however – a mixture of national and voluntary schemes – are growing, and provided an estimated $178 million for REDD+ activities in 2010.5

1.4 Implementing REDD+

The aim of REDD+ is a national programme addressing forest sector emissions as a whole, thus minimising any risk of leakage (see above). It is recognised, however, that in many cases it will be more practicable to begin REDD+ in only part of the country (sub-national actions) as an interim strategy.

2 Figures: World Bank, Forests Sourcebook (June 2008); available at http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTARD/EXTFORESTS/EXTFORSOUBOOK/0,,menuPK:3745501~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:3745443,00.html3Within the UNFCCC negotiations, ‘MRV’ only refers to measurements of forests, deforestation, carbon emissions, etc. The ‘Safeguards Information System’ (SIS) is evolving to monitor safeguards. 4 This figure assumed forest carbon was included in global carbon trading. Estimates are higher if no such mechanism exists.5 David Diaz, Katherine Hamilton and Evan Johnson, State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2011: From Canopy to Currency (Ecosystem Marketplace, September 2011); available at http://www.forest-trends.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=2963.


Given the complexity of developing programmes to manage a country’s entire forest sector, a three-phase approachhas evolved, and was codified at the Cancun UNFCCC conference in 2010:6

Phase 1includes ‘the development of national strategies or action plans, policies and measures, and capacity-building’.

Phase 2is the implementation of the REDD+ strategy, including any further capacity-building. This includes development and testing of the emissions measurement (or MRV) system, and could include initial payments for ‘results-based demonstration activities’, but is not a full pay-for-performance system.

Phase 3is a fully implemented programme with a pay-for-performance system. This includes accurate and detailed accounting of emissions reductions, with payment only for ‘results-based actions that should be fully measured, reported and verified’.

Countries can start anywhere they like along the spectrum.

The term ‘REDD readiness’ is often used to describe the efforts a country undertakes – usually with the support of multilateral or bilateral initiatives – to build its capacity to be ready for a REDD+ mechanism – i.e. broadly what is covered by Phase 1 above. This includes activities such as:

Preparation of national strategies to reduce emissions.

Designing and implementing national forest carbon accounting, including baselines and reference emissions levels and MRV systems.

Developing benefit-sharing mechanisms.

Developing safeguards and grievance mechanisms to protect the interests of forest communities, indigenous people, biodiversity, etc.

Most, if not all, of these steps should include local and national stakeholder consultations, and may often require other measures such as the clarification of national land, forest and carbon tenure rights. All are likely to need institutional, technical and human capacity-building.

1.5 Finance for REDD+

A wide range of multilateral and bilateral initiatives have been established to channel finance to these REDD activities; so far, this has mainly been aimed at the ‘REDD readiness’ activities described above.

The major multilateral initiatives on REDD+ are:

The World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), launched in 2007, comprises a Readiness Fund, designed to fund readiness activities, and a Carbon Fund, intended to provide payments for verified emissions reductions.

The World Bank’s Forest Investment Programme (FIP) became operational in 2009. One of its broader suite of Climate Investment Funds (CIFs), the FIP is

6 All quotations taken from the Cancun Agreements (4/CP.16), para 73.


designed to support REDD+ activities, including sustainable forest management, in a small number of focus countries.

The UN-REDD Programme is a multi-donor trust fund established in 2008 through a collaboration by the Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO), UN Development Programme (UNDP) and UN Environment Programme (UNEP), aimed at supporting national governments in preparing and implementing national REDD+ strategies.

The Congo Basin Forest Fund(CBFF), a multi-donor fund managed by the African Development Bank and established in 2008 to protect forests in the Congo Basin.

The Amazon Fund, created by the government of Brazil in 2009 to combat deforestation and promote sustainable forest management in the Amazon biome.

The Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund, created by the government of Indonesia in 2009.

In addition, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) has adopted a sustainable forest management / REDD+ strategy for the fifth GEF replenishment period, 2010–14. GEF is providing $250 million from its own resources, and hoping to mobilise a further $750 million. The Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol provides another route for funding afforestation and reforestation projects (see further in Section 7).

A number of donors have also established bilateral REDD+ funds; the major ones are:

Australia’s International Forest Climate Initiative, which focuses primarily on building monitoring capacity for REDD+, mainly in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.

Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative, which has provided significant funding for multilateral initiatives (including being the major funder of the UN-REDD programme and the Amazon Fund) and a large bilateral programmes with Brazil, Guyana, Indonesia and Tanzania.

A number of other donor funds, including Germany’s International Climate Initiative and the UK’s International Climate Fund, are important sources of finance for REDD+ activities, but are not solely focused on REDD+. In mid 2011, a report for the UK government estimated that 67 per cent of REDD+ donor funding was committed to bilateral programmes.7

Table 1 below summarises the funding made available through the initiatives listed above. Taking all sources of REDD+ finance together, including bilateral funds not listed here, it has been estimated that from 2008 to November 2011, $446 million was approved and $252 million disbursed – representing 13 per cent of total climate finance.

This can be compared with the Eliasch Review’s recommendations of $17–33 billion a year by 2030 for a fully fledged REDD+ mechanism achieving a 50 per cent reduction in deforestation. The report also estimated that capacity-building to prepare for entry into forest carbon credit schemes – more or less what later became known as ‘REDD readiness’ – would cost about $4 billion over five years for forty forest nations – $20 million per country (on average) per year. 7 Richard Gledhill, Charlotte Streck, Stewart Maginnis and Sandra Brown, Funding for Forests: UK Government Support for REDD+ (PwC, Climate Focus, Winrock and IUCN, July 2011); available at http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/internationalclimatechange/1832-funding-for-forests-uk-government-support-for-red.pdf


Similarly, a report for the REDD+ Partnership in 2010 estimated average country-level needs for financing of REDD+ phase 1 activities varying from $4.3 million – $39.6 million, depending on country conditions and methods of estimation.8 Financing needs for implementation of phases 2 and 3, aiming to reduce current deforestation levels by 25 per cent by 2015, were in the range of $20 billion – $24 billion globally.

The geographical distribution of spending of REDD+ finance so far is summarised below in Table 2.

Sections 2 to 5 of this paper examine the four main multilateral REDD+ initiatives in more detail: FCPF, FIP, UN-REDD, and CBFF.Table 3 lists the countries receiving funding through these four initiatives (correct as at June 2012).

Section 6 looks at the Australian IFCI, and Section 7 discusses CDM funding for afforestation and reforestation projects. Section 8 summarises some of the evidence of the effectiveness of the various REDD+ initiatives to date, and Section 9 provides some conclusions.

1.6 Coordination

One issue should be obvious from the list of multilateral and bilateral initiatives above: there is a need for coordination of the various organisations and funds. In 2010, the REDD+ Partnership was established as a global platform ‘for the Partners to scale up REDD+ actions and finance, and to that end to take immediate action, including improving the effectiveness, efficiency, transparency and coordination of REDD+ initiatives and financial instruments, to facilitate among other things knowledge transfer, capacity enhancement, mitigation actions and technology development and transfer.’It was established as an interim organisation, expecting to be replaced by, or folded into, a UNFCCC mechanism for REDD+ once it is established. Membership of the Partnership is open to any country willing to support or undertake REDD+ actions; 73 countries have so far done so.9 In general the Partnership is seen as a useful organisation, providing, among other things, a relatively informal forum for UNFCCC participants to discuss REDD+ issues outside the formal negotiations.

The Voluntary REDD+ Database was established by the REDD+ Partnership in 2010, with the aim of becoming a key provider of information to the global community on REDD+ financing, actions and results. The objectives of the database are to improve transparency and coordination around REDD+, support efforts to identify and analyse gaps and overlaps in REDD+ financing, and help share experiences and ideas on REDD+ among Partners and with other stakeholders. As of June 2012, 40 countries had reported a total of 652 ‘arrangements’, with a total funding over the period 2006–16 of $5.74 billion (as reported by funders) or $2.72 billion (as reported by recipients).10

8MarkkuSimula, Analysis of REDD+ Financing Gaps and Overlaps (REDD+ Partnership, December 2010); available at http://reddpluspartnership.org/25159-09eb378a8444ec149e8ab32e2f5671b11.pdf9 See http://reddpluspartnership.org10 See http://reddplusdatabase.org


Table 1 Summary of REDD+ funding to date

Initiative Pledged Deposited Approved Disbursed

Multilateral initiatives

FCPF Readiness Fund 229.6 229.6 27.2 9.1

FCPF Carbon Fund 204.5 179.3 1.44 0.2

Forest Investment Programme 644 459 51.0 3.2

UN-REDD 150.8 118.2 108.1 90.9

Congo Basin Forest Fund 165 165 75.0 12.1

Amazon Fund 1032.2 57.5 141.6 42.5

Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund 18.6 8.9 6.3 5.5

Total 2444.7 1217.5 410.6 163.5

Total per cent of pledged 100 49.8 16.8 6.7

Major bilateral initiatives

IFCI (Australia) 216.2 67.1 185.5 31.7

ICFI (Norway) 1607.8 0 1607.8 454.4

Notes

All figures in US$ million.

Bilateral funds are not included in the totals, as most of the Norwegian ICFI is used to support multilateral initiatives, including all those listed above; it provides almost all of the Amazon Fund’s finances.

Pledges: represent verbal or signed commitments from donors to provide financial support for a particular fund. All pledges are cumulative.

Deposits: represent the funds that have been transferred from the donor into the account(s) of the fund. Also known as committed funds. All deposits are cumulative.

Approved: represents funds that have been officially approved and earmarked to a specific project or programme. All approvals on figures are cumulative.

Disbursed: represents those funds that have been spent, either through administrative means or directly to an implementation programme or project, with proof of spend. All disbursements on figures are cumulative.


Source: Climate Funds Update website (http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/), run by the Heinrich BöllStiftung and the Overseas Development Institute; figures correct as of February – April 2012 (varies by fund).

Table 2 Geographical distribution of REDD+ funding to date

Region Approved Disbursed

Asia 94 88

– major recipient: Indonesia 42 40

Latin America 178 73

– major recipient: Brazil / Amazon Fund 143 49

Sub-Saharan Africa 119 47

– major recipient: DRC 66 16

Notes

All figures in US$ million.

Timescale is 2004–11 (different from Table 1)

Source:SmitaNakhooda, Alice Caravani and LianeSchalatek, REDD-plus Finance (Climate Finance Fundamentals Brief 5, Climate Funds Update, November 2011); available at http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/docs/7472.pdf


Table 3 Developing country participation in multilateral REDD+ initiatives

(ACP countries in bold)

Country FCPF FIP UN-REDD CBFFArgentina N N

Bangladesh N

Belize C

Benin N

Bhutan C N

Bolivia N P

Brazil P

Burkina Faso P

Burundi C P

Cambodia N P

Cameroon N N P

Central African Republic N N P

Chad P

Chile N N

Colombia N N

Costa Rica N N

Cote d’Ivoire C N

Democratic Republic of Congo P P P P

Ecuador P

El Salvador N

Equatorial Guinea N* P

Ethiopia N N

Gabon N N P

Ghana P P N

Guatemala N N

Guyana N N

Honduras N N

Indonesia P P P

Jamaica C

Kenya N N

Lao People’s Democratic Republic N P

Liberia N

Madagascar N

Mexico N P N


Country FCPF FIP UN-REDD CBFFMongolia N

Mozambique N

Myanmar N

Nepal P N

Nicaragua N

Nigeria C P

Pakistan C N

Panama N P

Papua New Guinea N P

Paraguay N P P

Peru N N

Philippines C P

Republic of Congo P P P

Rwanda P

Sao Tome & Principe P

Solomon Islands P

South Sudan N

Sri Lanka C P

Sudan C N

Suriname N N

Tanzania N P

Thailand N

Togo C

Uganda N

Vanuatu N

Viet Nam N P

Zambia P

Notes

Information correct as at June 2012.

P = full participant with R-PP grant agreements signed (FCPF), pilot country (FIP), partner with national programme (UN-REDD), COMIFAC member (CBFF)

N = full participant with R-PP prepared, but no grant agreement yet signed (FCPF), partner without national programme (UN-REDD)

* = selected as participant but no participation agreement signed yet (FCPF)

C = candidate country (FCPF)


Sources:FCPF: http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org; FIP: http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/node/5; UN-REDD: http://www.un-redd.org; CBFF: http://www.afdb.org/en/topics-and-sectors/initiatives-partnerships/congo-basin-forest-fund/.


2 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility2.1 Background

The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) is a World Bank programme, launched at the Bali climate conference in 2007 and becoming fully operational in June 2008. It has the dual objectives of building capacity for REDD+ in developing countries, through its Readiness Fund,and testing a programme of performance-based incentive payments in a small number of pilot countries, through its Carbon Fund. Both are established through to 2020.11

Membership and governance

Thirty-seven forest developing countries (14 in Africa, 15 in Latin America and the Caribbean, and eight in Asia-Pacific) are participants in the FCPF: Argentina, Bolivia, Cambodia, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, DRC, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Kenya, Lao PDR, Liberia, Madagascar, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Republic of Congo, Suriname, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, Vanuatu and Viet Nam. Equatorial Guinea has been selected as a participant, but no agreement has yet been signed.

A further 11countries are candidate participants: Belize, Bhutan, Burundi, Cote d’Ivoire, Jamaica, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sudan and Togo.

The Participants Assembly, which comprises all the countries and organisations participating in the FCPF, meets annually and elects the Participants Committee. The Participants Committee is made up of an equal number of forest (REDD+) countries (14) and financial contributors (14), and also includes observers representing indigenous peoples, civil society, international organisations, the UN-REDD Programme, the UNFCCC Secretariat and the private sector. Its current membership includes:

REDD+ participants: Central African Republic, Colombia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Indonesia, Liberia, Mexico, Nepal, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Republic of Congo, Suriname, Uganda and Viet Nam.

Financial contributors: AgenceFrançaise de Développement, Australia, Canada, Denmark, European Commission, Finland, Germany, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, The Nature Conservancy, and the US.

The Committee, which meets about three times a year, is the main decision-making body of the FCPF. It reviews country submissions, decides on grant resource allocations and approves budgets.

11 Sources for chapter: FCPF website (http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org); FCPF brochure (http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/node/13); FCPF 2011 Annual Report (http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Oct2011/FCPF_Carbon_AR_FINAL_10_3.pdf ); Climate Funds Update FCPF page (http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/forest-carbon-partnership-facility).


The World Bank (through a Facility Management Team) acts as the FCPF’s trustee, secretariat and Delivery Partner. The Inter-American Development Bank and UNDP are in the process of becoming Delivery Partners under the Readiness Fund.

Readiness Fund

The focus of the FCPF to date has been on REDD+ readiness. As at April 2012, a total of 26 countries had prepared Readiness Preparation Proposals, of which 19 had been submitted for formal assessment. Fiveparticipants (DRC, Ghana, Indonesia, Nepal and Republic of Congo) had received grants to implement their proposals. Almost US$230 million has been committed or pledged by 15 donors (each having provided at least US$5 million) for the Readiness Fund.

The aim of the Readiness Fund is to support each participating country in:

Developing national reference scenarios for REDD+.

Adopting a national REDD+ strategy that reduces emissions, conserves biodiversity and enhances the livelihoods of forest-dependent indigenous peoples and other forest dwellers.

Designing and implementing accurate measurements and MRV systems to enable reporting on emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

After initial problems, cooperation between the FCPF and UN-REDD, the FIP and GEF has improved.FCPF and UN-REDD now share a common template for national proposals for funding (the FCPF’s R-PP and UN-REDD’s national programmes – see further below). Similarly, a common approach to environmental and social safeguards has been developed, allowing the proceeds of the FCPF Readiness Fund to flow through the various Delivery Partners. However, the organisations still have different processes for activities such as environmental and social assessments, which complicates the experience of countries involved in more than one of them.

Carbon Fund

The Carbon Finance Mechanism, more commonly referred to as the Carbon Fund, became operational in May 2011. It is designed to provide payments for verified emission reductions from REDD+ programmes in countries that have made considerable progress towards REDD+ readiness – effectively, some of the REDD+ Phase 2 activities outlined above. About US$205 million has so far been committed or pledged by 10 public and private contributors (each having provided at least US$5 million).

About five REDD Country Participants will qualify for the Carbon Fund, based on a progress assessment by the FCPF Participants Committee.Procedures for the selection of the participants and the disbursement of funds are still being drawn up, but it is intended that assistance will be directed towards four main categories:

General economic policies and regulations (taxation, subsidies, rural credit, certification, law enforcement).


Forest policies and regulations (taxation, subsidies, certification, concession regimes, securing land tenure and land rights, forest law, governance and enforcement, zoning, protected areas, payments for environmental services (PES)).

Forest management (forest fires, reduced impact logging, reforestation).

Rural development (community development, rural electrification, community forestry).

2.2 Applying for funds: Readiness Fund

Countries can participate in the Readiness Fund if they are an eligible REDD country – i.e. a borrowing member state of the IBRD or IDA located in the tropical or sub-tropical areas. Priority is given to countries with:

Significant forest area and carbon stock;

High relevance of forests in the national economy; and

High current or projected deforestation or forest degradation rates.

Readiness Plan Idea Note

The first step for interested countries is to submit a Readiness Plan Idea Note (R-PIN) to the FCPF, based on a common template; this is reviewed by the Participants Committee, which considers, among other factors, the extent of programme ownership by the government and relevant stakeholders, coherence with national or sectoral strategies, and the feasibility of reducing deforestation and forest degradation.

As an example, Ghana submitted its R-PIN in October 2007; it was approved in July 2008. The 25-page document contains background information on forestry and deforestation in the country, together with current policies and strategies. Potential further policies and programmes were then briefly described, covering issues such as improvements in forest governance, land tenure and land use regulations, and building institutional capacity for REDD+. Other relevant cross-sectoral policies were listed (such as poverty reduction and agricultural strategies) and stakeholder consultation processes outlined. Challenges to implementing REDD+ policies were described, together with potential monitoring and implementation systems. Finally, a plan and tentative budget (of $4.82 million) were included.12

Readiness Preparation Proposal

The next step is to prepare and submit a Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP); a formulation grant of $200,000 per country is available for this. The R-PP is where the country sets a clear plan, budget and schedule to undertake REDD activities, underpinned by a common vision shared by high levels of national and sub-national government, civil society, land users and other stakeholders.The Participants Committee reviews and assesses Readiness Plans, and on that basis decides the allocation of FCPF grants to countries.

12 All relevant documents for Ghana’s participation in the FCPF process are available at http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/GH


Sticking with the example of Ghana, the country started work on its R-PP in May 2009 with a week-long mission, including an FCPF team, aimed at engaging key actors within the forestry sector. A draft R-PP was submitted in September 2009 and a final draft in January 2010. This was approved,subject to revision,by the Participants Committee in March 2010, and a final revised R-PP was submitted in December 2010. The $200,000 formulation grant was disbursed in November 2010.

Ghana’s final R-PP is a 128-page document which ‘aims to assist Ghana to prepare itself for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), and become “ready” for the implementation of an international mechanism for REDD. The document provides a roadmap of preparation activities needed and will remain a living document throughout the preparation process.’13

It envisaged the readiness phase stretching through 2009–11, and the implementation of the REDD+ strategy in 2011–12, with the country ‘REDD+ Ready’ thereafter. A detailed budget was included for the period 2010–13, for a total of $7.334 million, of which the contribution from FCPF was set at $3.6 million, the maximum for a FPCF Readiness Preparation Grant (the remainder was to be contributed by the government ($1.7 million) and other development partners). As noted above, Ghana is one of five FCPF participants so far to have been approved for a preparation grant.

The Plan itself is broken down into six components, following the FCPF template:

Component 1: Organise and Consult

o 1a. National Readiness Management Arrangements

o 1b. Stakeholder Consultation and Participation

Component 2: Prepare the REDD Strategy

o 2a. Assessment of Land Use, Forestry Policy and Governance

o 2b. REDD Strategy Options

o 2c. Arrangement for REDD Implementation

o 2d. Social and Environmental Impacts

Component 3: Develop a Reference Scenario

Component 4: Design a Monitoring System

Component 5: Schedule and Budget

Component 6: Design a Program Monitoring and Evaluation

(For the further development of the template, in common with UN-REDD, see below in Section 4.2.)

Progress sheets for the implementation of the Ghana R-PP have been issued roughly every four months. The latest available, for March 2012, shows progress with:

Management arrangements, including a National REDD+ Technical Working Group and a Carbon Credit Policy Committee.

13 Readiness Preparation Proposal Ghana: final, December 2010, p. 8.


Stakeholder consultations and communications, including: a consultation and participation plan (under development); the use of existing consultation processes round the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Voluntary Partnership Agreement with the EU (a bilateral agreement aiming to improve forest governance and prevent illegally logged timber from Ghana being exported to the EU); and a capacity-building workshop in January 2012 for REDD+ pilot proponents and regional forest managers.

Development of a detailed REDD+ strategy, covering timber policy and supply, and wider aspects of forest policy, and selection of seven REDD+ pilot projects for on-the-ground implementation.

Preparation of terms of reference for a strategic environmental and social assessment.

Preparation of terms of reference for developing a reference scenario, and production of a carbon baseline map.

Developing MRV systems, including an assessment of existing monitoring systems for carbon stocks, livelihoods, governance reforms and biodiversity indicators.

Readiness Package

The third stage is the preparation of a country’s Readiness Package (R-Package), towards the end of the preparation phase, when the majority of the activities proposed in the R-PP have been implemented. The R-Package is designed to move the country on to Phase 2 of REDD+, demonstrating that activities are tested within a transparent framework and social and environmental risks are mitigated, thus providing confidence to national and international actors that the country is making progress.

It is intended that producing an R-Package will provide an opportunity to take stock, draw on early lessons learned, document early results, assess remaining gaps and identify actions for the way forward. Further funding will be required for continued capacity-building (e.g. development of a forest monitoring system) and the design and implementation of pilot programmes that have the potential to have a net effect on emissions from forests.

In many instances, R-PPs have not been exclusively funded through the FCPF, and a significant share (in some cases the majority share) of funding has come from other programmes, such as UN-REDD, or bilateral partners. The scope of the R-Package is aimed to encompass the complete set of activities performed in the context of readiness, not just FCPF-funded ones. In the context of the FCPF, however, endorsement of the R-Package is required before a country can participate in the Carbon Fund.

The content and assessment of the R-Package is still under development, and was a major item for discussion at the Participants Committee meeting in late June 2012.

2.3 Applying for funds: Carbon Fund

It is intended that a small number of countries (about five) that have successfully participated in the Readiness Fund will be selected, on a voluntary basis, to participate in the Carbon


Fund. As noted, endorsement of a country’s Readiness Package will be a prerequisite for participation in the Carbon Fund.

It is anticipated that countries will submit programme proposals that will be assessed according to the following criteria:

Potential for generating high-quality sustainable emissions reductions and social and environmental benefits;

Scale of implementation;

Consistency with emerging compliance standards under the UNFCCC and other regimes;

Potential to generate learning value for the FCPF and other participants;

Clear and transparent benefit-sharing mechanisms with broad community support; and

Transparent stakeholder consultations.

The intention is that the process – which is still being designed – will be similar to that described above for the Readiness Fund, with Emission Reduction Programme Idea Notes (ER-PINs) and Emission Reduction Programme Documents leading to Emission Reduction Programme Agreements (ERPAs).

It is anticipated that ERPAs will provide an average amount of $30 million – $40 million each and cover a period of five years. The FCPF aims to have at least three ERPAs signed by mid 2014.

2.4 Key links and documents

FCPF website: http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org

FCPF 2011 Annual Report: http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Documents/PDF/Oct2011/FCPF_Carbon_AR_FINAL_10_3.pdf

Country documents (R-PINs, R-PPs, etc.): http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/node/394

Harmonised FCPF RPP UN-REDD template: http://www.unredd.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=1448&Itemid=53

Climate Funds Update FCPF page (http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/forest-carbon-partnership-facility).


3 Forest Investment Programme3.1 Background

The Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) are financing instruments designed to pilot low-carbon and climate-resilient development through the multilateral development banks (MDBs). They comprise two trust funds – the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) and the Strategic Climate Fund (SCF). The SCF is an overarching fund aimed at piloting new development approaches; it consists of three targeted programmes: the Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience (PPCR), the Programme for Scaling Up Renewable Energy in Low Income Countries (SREP) and the Forest Investment Programme (FIP).

The Forest Investment Programme (FIP) became operational in July 2009. Its objective is to direct scaled-up finance to reduce deforestation and forest degradation and to promote sustainable forest management, including by addressing the drivers of deforestation, in a small number of pilot countries. Almost $650 million has so far been pledged to the FIP,from thirteen donors, the largest contributions being from the UK, US, Norway and Japan. It is subject to the CIFs’ ‘sunset clause’, which enables the CIFs to close once a new financial architecture becomes effective under the UNFCCC regime.14


The Strategic Climate Fund Trust Fund Committee (eight representatives from contributor countries, eight from eligible recipient countries, one representative of the World Bank and one from the MDBs) established a FIP Sub-Committee to oversee and decide on the operations and activities of the FIP.

This comprises up to six representatives from donor countries to the FIP (currently Australia, Denmark/Spain, Japan, Norway, UK and US), and six representatives from eligible recipient countries (currently Brazil, DRC, Indonesia, Mexico, Nepal and Yemen). Decisions are made by consensus. Representatives from all FIP pilot countries may attend the FIP Sub-Committee as observers, and other observers include representatives from civil society, the private sector, indigenous peoples, and the secretariats of the FCPF, GEF, UNFCC and UN-REDD. An Expert Group of eight experienced individualshas been established by the Sub-Committee to make recommendations on the selection of pilot programmes for the FIP.

Activities

The FIP is designed to support developing countries’ efforts to reduce deforestation and forest degradation and to promote sustainable forest management that leads to emission reductions and the protection of carbon reservoirs. It aims to achieve this by providing scaled-up financing to developing countries for readiness reforms and public and private investments, identified through national REDD readiness or equivalent strategies.

14 Sources for chapter: FIP website (http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/node/5); FIP sub-committee meeting documents (accessible via website); Climate Funds Update FIP page (http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/forest-investment-program).


The FIP takes into account country-led priorities and strategies for REDD, while building on existing forest or related initiatives. It promotes programmatic investments aimed at transformational change in the forest sector or sectors affecting forests. It supports in particular:

Investments that build institutional capacity, forest governance and information;

Investments in forest mitigation efforts, including forest ecosystem services; and

Investments outside the forest sector necessary to reduce the pressure on forests such as alternative livelihood and poverty reduction opportunities.

FIP investments also mainstream climate resilience considerations and contribute to multiple co-benefits such as biodiversity conservation, protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, and poverty reduction through rural livelihoods enhancements.

The FIP currently has eight pilot countries: Brazil, Burkina Faso, DRC, Ghana, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Mexico and Peru.

3.2 Applying for funds

The FIP’s eight pilot countries were identified from 45 expressions of interest. Transformational impact through a few programmes was prioritised over a limited impact across numerous programmes. The selection of pilot countries was based on a set of criteria developed by an expert working group, including:

Programme potential to contribute and adhere to FIP objectives and principles;

Country preparedness and ability to undertake REDD initiatives; and

Existing pilot programme distribution across regions and biomes, ensuring that pilot programmes generate lessons on scaling up activities.

Depending on the availability of resources, further pilot countries may be selected by the FIP Sub-Committee. An Expert Group report in June 2010 identified a further three potential pilot counties: Philippines, Mozambique and Nepal.15

In each pilot country, country-led joint MDBs missions have assisted in the development of the investment plans, which were then endorsed – or are still being endorsed – by the FIP Sub-Committee. A similar process is followed for specific projects.

Of the eight pilot countries, Brazil, Burkina Faso, DRC, Lao PDR and Mexico have finalised their programming processes and had their investment plans endorsed. A pipeline of specific projects has been established, for which funding will be approved starting in July 2012. Examples of projects include:

DRC: addressing deforestation and degradation in the Kinshasa supply area ($36.9 million, expected to be approved December 2012; $0.8 million was approved in June 2011 for a project preparation grant.

15 ‘FIP Expert Group: Recommendations for Additional Pilots under the FIP’ (FIP/SC.4/7 June 4, 2010); available at http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/FIP%207%20Expert%20Group%20June%202010%20ds.pdf


Mexico: strengthening the financial inclusion of ejidos [areas of communal agricultural land] and communities through technical assistance and capacity-building for low-carbon strategies in forest landscapes ($2.9 million, expected to be approved July 2012); $0.1 million was approved in February 2012 for a project preparation grant.

Lao PDR: smallholder forestry project ($3.0 million, expected to be approved September 2012); $0.3 million was approved in January 2012 for a project preparation grant.

The investment plan for Burkina Faso was endorsed in principle in June 2011 while recognising that further work needed to be carried out on REDD Readiness before the plan could be finalised. The government undertook to submit an equivalent document to an FCPF Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP), but $5 million was approved to allow readiness activities to begin immediately.

Programming processes are continuing in the other three pilot countries, Ghana, Indonesia and Peru, and investment plans are under preparation; funding from the FIP has been made available for their completion. It is anticipated that all FIP investment plans will have been endorsed by the end of 2012.


FIP website: http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/node/5

Country programmes and project listings available from FIP home page

Climate Funds Update FIP page: http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/forest-investment-program.


4 UN-REDD4.1 Background

The UN-REDD Programme was established in 2008 by three UN organisations: the Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO), UN Development Programme (UNDP) and UN Environment Programme (UNEP). Through its initial country programmes in Africa, Asia and Latin America, it is supporting national governments to prepare and implement national REDD+ strategies. It is less well resourced than FCPF or FIP, with $151 million pledged as at February 2012, but it is seen as an attractive source of funds by a number of developing countries – partly because it is not associated with the World Bank, and partly because it has the best funding record of any of the multilateral REDD+ initiatives, with $90 million actually disbursed so far.16


UN-REDD currently supports 42 partner countries spanning Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America. Sixteen are currently receiving support for national programme activities: Bolivia, Cambodia, DRC, Ecuador, Indonesia, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Republic of Congo, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Viet Nam and Zambia.

Partner countries not receiving direct support to national programmes engage with the Programme in a number of ways, including as observers to the Programme’s Policy Board, and through participation in regional workshops and knowledge sharing. These countries areArgentina, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Kenya, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, South Sudan, Sudan and Suriname.

The Programme Policy Board provides overall leadership and sets the strategic direction of the Programme, as well as deciding on financial allocations. The Policy Board comprises three full members from donor countries (currently Denmark/Spain (shared), Japan and Norway), one full and two alternate countries for each of the three regions (Africa, Asia-Pacific, Latin America-Caribbean) from programme countries (currently Papua New Guinea, Paraguay and Zambia (full) and Cambodia, DRC, Ecuador, Nigeria, Panama and Viet Nam (alternates)), one civil society representative and three civil society observers (the four consisting of one from each region plus one from a developed country), the Chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and three indigenous people observers (one from each region) and representatives of the three UN organisations involved. All partner countries are able to attend the Policy Board as observers.

The Programme Secretariat ensures that policies and strategies are implemented and adhered to, and manages the programme review process and the UN-REDD Programme’s overall monitoring and evaluation function.The UNDP Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF) Office is the Administrative Agent of the Fund, managing the distribution of resources and

16 Sources for chapter: UN-REDD website (http://www.un-redd.org/); Climate Funds Update UN-REDD page (http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/un-redd-programme).


overseeing the work of UNDP country offices that are involved.Each of the three participating UN organisations assumes full programmatic and financial accountability for the funds disbursed to it by the Administrative Agent; all three participate in the design, implementation and oversight of country programmes.

Within each country, anational REDD Steering Committee provides day-to-day management of the programme, coordinates national REDD activities, ensures government-wide responses, and integrates REDD into national development planning processes.

Activities

The UN-REDD Programme comprises two components. National Programmes are designed to assist developing countries prepare and implement national REDD strategies and mechanisms. They focus on seven work areaswhich aim to achieve the following outcomes:

REDD+ countries have capacities to develop and implement MRV and monitoring systems.

Credible, inclusive national governance systems are developed for REDD+ implementation.

National systems for transparent, equitable, credible and accountable management of REDD+ funding are strengthened.

Indigenous peoples, local communities, civil society organisations and other stakeholders participate effectively in national and international REDD+ decision making, strategy development and implementation.

Multiple benefits of forests are promoted and realised in REDD+ strategies and actions.

REDD+ strategies and related investments effectively catalyse shifts to a green economy.

Knowledge is developed, managed, analysed and shared to support REDD+ efforts at all levels.

The Global Programme provides complementary support to national REDD+ action through developing common approaches, analyses, methodologies, tools, data and best practices on the same seven work areas.All partner countries of UN-REDD may access support from the Global Programme.

4.2 Applying for funds

Criteria for prioritising funding allocations for new national programmes were adopted in 2011.17 Applications could only be made by UN-REDD partner countries, and in awarding funding, the Policy Board is to aim for a regional balance of investments. Prioritisation was then to be made on the basis of the following criteria:

17 UN-REDD Programme, ‘Criteria for Prioritising New National Programmes’; available at http://www.unredd.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=5519&Itemid=53


Contribution of UN-REDD to the national readiness process (i.e. countries already receiving support from other initiatives would not be a high priority).

Effective engagement of UN agencies at country level.

REDD+ potential of the country (extent of forest cover, annual rate of change, and potential importance of forests to the poor).

In addition, countries needed to display a commitment to applying the principles of the UN-REDD Programme, including a demonstrated commitment to the human-rights based approach to development, adherence to UN-REDD operational guidance (e.g. on engagement of indigenous peoples), UN-REDD social and environmental principles and criteria, and consistency with the overall REDD+ framework emerging from the UNFCCC and other agreements, in particular the REDD+ safeguards agreed at Cancun in 2010.

As noted above, FCPF and UN-REDD have collaborated to minimise the bureaucratic hurdles faced by countries applying for funds, and now share a harmonised template for national programmes (or, in FCPF terms, Readiness Preparation Plans). The document, which includes extensive guidance notes, outlines six essential components:

Component 1: Organise and Consult

o 1a. National Readiness Management Arrangements

o 1b. Information Sharing and Early Dialogue with Key Stakeholder Groups

o 1c. Consultation and Participation Process

Component 2: Prepare the REDD-plus Strategy

o 2a. Assessment of Land Use, Land Use Change Drivers, Forest Law, Policy and Governance

o 2b. REDD-plus Strategy Options

o 2c. REDD-plus Implementation Framework

o 2d. Social and Environmental Impacts during Readiness Preparation and REDD-plus Implementation

Component 3: Develop a National Forest Reference Emission Level and/or a Forest Reference Level

Component 4: Design Systems for National Forest Monitoring and Information on Safeguards

o 4a. National Forest Monitoring System

o 4b. Designing an Information System for Multiple Benefits, Other Impacts, Governance, and Safeguards

Component 5: Schedule and Budget

Component 6: Design a Program Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

The draft national programme is reviewed first by the secretariat and finally by the Policy Board; each has the right to request modification and clarification. The Policy Board makes the final decision on whether to approve, partially approve or reject the programme.


The national programmes are available through the UN-REDD website. The kind of activities covered are illustrated in the following examples:18

Ecuador: $4 million allocated for 2011–13. Expected outcomes include: design and implementation of a National Forest Monitoring System; national implementation of a REDD+ consultation process involving civil society, indigenous communities, peoples and nationalities, Afro- Ecuadorian and Montubio peoples and communes; development of policies and instruments for the implementation of REDD+; development of the operational framework for the implementation of REDD+; ensuring multiple environmental and social benefits; design and implementation of a benefit-sharing system.

Viet Nam: $4.4 million allocated for 2009–12. Expected outcomes include: improved institutional and technical capacity for national REDD+ coordination; improved REDD+ management capacity and incorporation of economic incentives and other tools into sustainable development planning; improved knowledge of approaches to reduce regional displacement of emissions.

Zambia: $4.5 million allocated for 2011–13. Expected outcomes include: capacity to manage REDD+ Readiness strengthened; broad-based stakeholder support for REDD+ established; national governance framework and institutional capacities for the implementation of REDD+ strengthened; national REDD+ strategies identified;MRV capacity to implement REDD+ strengthened; assessment of Reference Emission Level and Reference Level undertaken.


UN-REDD website:http://www.un-redd.org/

UN-REDD Programme Strategy 2011–2015: http://www.unredd.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=6346&Itemid=53

Request form to participate in UN-REDD activities: http://www.un-redd.org/AboutUNREDDProgramme/NationalProgrammes/tabid/584/Default.aspx

Harmonised UN-REDD FCPF RPP template: http://www.unredd.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=1448&Itemid=53

National programme documents (and other country-related information): http://www.unredd.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=181&Itemid=53

Climate Funds Update UN-REDD page: http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/un-redd-programme

18 Taken from UN-REDD Programme, ‘2011 Year in Review’; available at http://www.unredd.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=6346&Itemid=53


5 Congo Basin Forest FundThe Congo Basin Forest Fund was established in June 2008, as an initiative of the African Development Bank, the UK and the Central Africa Forests Commission (COMIFAC). Its aim was to mobilise resources to finance activities and projects aimed at promoting the equitable and sustainable use, conservation and management of the Congo Basin forests and ecosystems for poverty alleviation, sustainable social-economic development, regional cooperation and environmental conservation.19

A total of $165 million has so far been pledged to the Fund, entirely from the UK and Norway.Eligibility for financing is limited to COMIFAC member countries: Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, DRC, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Sao Tome & Principe.

The CBFF governing council provides strategic direction and oversight of the Fund, and ensures broad donor and stakeholder participation, while a Reference Group acts as a forum for consultations. The secretariat is based in the African Development Bank’s headquarters.

Areas for CBFF grant funding are intended mainly to be those that slow the rate of deforestation, reduce poverty amongst forest dwellers, and contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions while maximising the storage of carbon. Key thematic areas are:

Forest management and sustainable practice.

Livelihoods and economic development.

Monitoring, assessment and verification.

Benefits from carbon markets and payment for ecosystem services.

Capacity-building in REDD; in monitoring, assessment and verification; and in sustainable forest management.

Two calls for grant proposals have so far been made, the first in 2008 and the second in 2009–10. As well as central and local governments, NGOs, civil society organisations, community-based organisations, research and training institutions, regional, sub-regional and sectoral organisations,and private sector institutions are all eligible to apply. Concept notes are submitted to the secretariat in response to calls for proposals; the secretariat can also provide assistance to applicants to develop full project proposals. Final approval is by the Governing Council.

A few examples of projects funded include:

Alternatives to mangrove destruction for women's livelihoods in Central Africa (Cameroon; $0.38 million, approved 2009).

Civil society and government capacity-building within the REDD framework (DRC, $4.26 million approved, 2011).

19 Sources for chapter: CBFF website (http://www.cbf-fund.org/); African Development Bank CBFF page (http://www.afdb.org/en/topics-and-sectors/initiatives-partnerships/congo-basin-forest-fund/); Climate Funds Update CBFF page (http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/congo-basin-forest-fund).


Improving beekeeping and reforestation around the Bagandou forest, Central African Republic ($0.35 million approved, 2011).

Promoting community land tenure rights in the Congo Basin (Cameroon, Central African Republic, Gabon, Republic of Congo and DRC, $0.73 million approved, 2009).

Quantifying carbon stocks and emissions in the forests of Cameroon and the Republic of Congo ($1.74 million approved, 2009).

Reconciling the needs of the logging industry with those of forest-dependent people (Cameroon, Gabon and DRC, $2.19 million approved, 2010).


6 Australia’s International Forest Carbon Initiative

Australia's International Forest Carbon Initiative (IFCI) supports global efforts to establish a REDD+ mechanism under the UNFCCC, and enables Australia to work closely with developing countries to find practical ways to reduce forest emissions. Established in 2007,the Australian government has so far made $216 million available to the Initiative.20

The aims of the Initiative are to:

Build the capacity and ‘REDD+ readiness’ of developing countries to enable participation in a future REDD+ mechanism;

Help to shape a robust global REDD+ architecture, including credible systems for measurement, reporting and verification (MRV); and

Demonstrate REDD+ payment mechanisms, and promote sustainable market-based approaches to REDD+ that can provide fair and effective benefits for communities.

The initiative is jointly managed by the Australian Government’s Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (DCCEE) and AusAID. Decisions regarding fund disbursement are made jointly, and where appropriate, in consultation with partner governments and other donors. Projects funded are mainly based in the Asia-Pacific region, and in particular in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. Examples include:

The Kalimantan Forests and Climate Partnership, the first large-scale REDD+ demonstration activity of its kind in Indonesia ($43 million approved). It aims to demonstrate a credible, equitable and effective approach to REDD+, including tackling deforestation arising from the degradation of peatlands, that can inform a future climate change agreement. Key activities focus on 120,000 ha of degraded and forestedpeatland in Central Kalimantan.

The Sumatra Forest Carbon Partnership – similar to the Kalimantan Partnership, but in a different location and forest type (on mineral soils rather than peatland) ($27.6 million approved).

Papua New Guinea-Australia Forest Carbon Partnership ($3 million in initial funding), including technical, scientific and analytical support for government policy development on REDD+.

Roadmap for Access to International Carbon Markets – a multi-phased strategy assisting Indonesia to develop the necessary technical, system and financial prerequisites for participation in future international carbon markets for REDD+.

Partnership with the Clinton Climate Initiative on carbon monitoring – providing high-quality, low-cost forest carbon data to developing countries (including Guyana, Tanzania, Kenya and Cambodia) for incorporation into their national forest monitoring systems, providing a sound basis for verification of reductions in deforestation and forest degradation.

IFCI funding has also been used for contributions to the FCPF and FIP.20 Sources for chapter: IFCI website (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/international-forest-carbon-initiative.aspx); Climate Funds Update IFCI page (http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/listing/ifci).


7 Clean Development MechanismThe Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is one of the flexibility mechanisms defined in the Kyoto Protocol. It helps Annex I parties (essentially, industrialised countries) meet their emissions reduction targets by earning ‘certified emission reductions’ (CERs) from emission reduction projects in developing countries. The process is subject to a degree of oversight to ensure that these emission reductions are real and additional. The CDM is supervised by the CDM Executive Board under the guidance of the conference of the parties of the UNFCCC.21

Effectively, therefore, the CDM operates in a similar way to an emissions trading scheme, delivering – at least in theory – emissions reductions where they can be carried out at least cost. Between 2001, the first year that CDM projects could be registered, and 2012, the end of the Kyoto first commitment period, the CDM is expected to produce some 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent in emission reductions, mainly through renewable energy, energy efficiency, and fuel switching.

Forestry projects are eligible for the CDM, but only under carefully defined circumstances; many of the challenges affecting REDD+ projects, including problems of leakage and permanence, are very similar for the CDM. Only afforestation and reforestation activities are eligible: 'afforestation' is the direct human-induced conversion of land that has not been forested for a period of at least 50 years to forested land, while 'reforestation' is the direct human-induced conversion to forested land of land that was forested but had been converted, before 1990, to non-forested land. This still permits a wide variety of projects: the established forests may be managed, harvested and used for agro-forestry, bio-energy, timber production or even urban forestry.

Due to concerns over permanence, and given that wood eventually decays and releases its carbon into the atmosphere, credits (CERs) earned from CDM forestry projects – unlike those from other CDM projects – are time-limited, either for five years, thirty years or twenty years (renewable twice). Buyers of temporary CERs must replace them with permanent credits before their expiry date.

Thanks to the difficulties in drawing up these rules, the general uncertainties surrounding forestry and climate change, and the decision of the EU to exclude forestry credits from the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (which represents the bulk of the global carbon market), there have been very few CDM forestry projects – one recent estimate put it at about 30, less than 1 per cent of all CDM projects by number and even less as a percentage of CERs earned.22Examples include:

Chile: Restoration of Degraded Lands of Small and Medium Farmers through Afforestation and Reforestation – aiming at the reforestation and sustainable management of 2,900 hectares of marginal and degraded ‘Secano Interior’ (dryland) lands.

21 Sources for chapter: CDM Rulebook website (http://cdmrulebook.org/); CDMCapacity. Org website (http://www.cdmcapacity.org/); BioCarbon Fund website (http://wbcarbonfinance.org/Router.cfm?Page=BioCF)22Forests and Climate Change After Durban: An Asia-Pacific Perspective (RECOFTC, FAO, and CoDeREDD, April 2012); available at http://www.recoftc.org/site/uploads/content/pdf/FCC%20after%20Durban%20v.3a%20(web%20version)_242.pdf


China: Facilitating Reforestation for Guangxi Watershed Management in Pearl River Basin – aimed at establishing 3,000 hectares of multiple-use forests with mostly native species.

India: Improving Rural Livelihoods – mobilising resource-poor farmers to raise tree plantations on highly degraded agricultural lands, across 1,600 ha in Orissa and Andhra Pradesh.

Nicaragua: Precious Woods – aiming to reforest 813 hectares of degraded pasture lands near Sapoá and Esperanza with teak and native wood species.

Uganda: Nile Basin Reforestation – aiming to establish 2,000 hectares of pine and mixed native species plantations in the Rwoho Central Forest Reserve, grassland areas previously degraded due to deforestation and erosion.

To date, most CDM forestry credits have been generated from(and purchased by)projects proposed by the BioCarbon Fund, a public-private initiative set up in 2004 and housed in the World Bank. About 80 per cent of the Fund’s resources (about $90 million) have been earmarked to afforestation or reforestation CDM projects. The CERs generated by these projects are purchased by the Fund on behalf of its participants and are subsequently transferred to them in proportion totheir financial participation in the Fund.

As of May 2011, the Fund had contracted 8.6 million CERs from 21 CDM forestry projects. These projects are located in 16 countries and five regions of the world, and include projects on degraded lands: half to projects with environmental restoration purposes, 25 percent for fuelwood and 21 percent for timber. All of the projects directly benefit poor farmers; in 17 of them, farmers are planting their own lands.23

The future of CDM forestry projects is not clear. The projects undertaken to date have generated valuable lessons – not least that climate mitigation projects can also directly improve rural livelihoods – but the temporary nature of the CERs generated, and the lack of access to major carbon markets inevitably limits their development. On top of that, the uncertainties over the future of the climate regime (with negotiations for a new treaty getting off to a slow start), and the CDM itself, and over the development of REDD+, and the inter-relationship between CDM and REDD+, are not helping.

Nevertheless, as long as the CDM remains in existence, there appears to be a valuable role for it as a source of project funding for afforestation and reforestation activities.

23BioCarbon Fund Experience: Insights from Afforestation and Reforestation Clean Development Mechanism Projects (World Bank, May 2011); available at http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ENVIRONMENT/EXTCARBONFINANCE/0,,contentMDK:23011452~menuPK:5221277~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:4125853~isCURL:Y,00.html


8 REDD+ Funding in PracticeAll of the initiatives described in this paper are relatively recent, and much of their effort to date has been spent on their initial set-ups, with the result that experience of how they work to deliver REDD+ activities is limited. Nevertheless, a number of assessments and comparative studies are beginning to be published – including a 2011 assessment of the FCPF, FIP, UN-REDD and GEF – which help paint a picture of how they work on the ground.24

The following summary of the issues most frequently raised uses these assessments to identify some common themes, looking primarily at FCPF, FIP and UN-REDD.Quotes from those surveyed for the 2011 comparative assessment are included as good illustrations of the issues, together with some other references.

Role and structure of the multilateral initiatives

A major issue is the sheer proliferation of different initiatives and funds. Although understanding of the roles of the FCPF and UN-REDD appears to be spreading, awareness of the FIP and other initiatives is more limited.

UN-REDD is recognised as having been able to deliver funds and technical support more quickly than FCPF, partly because it operates through implementing agencies with an existing presence in most developing countries; it is also seen as more flexible in adapting to the national context. The FCPF tends to be perceived as more effective for setting standards and focusing on issues such as governance and safeguards (though see further below), and is also viewed as more valuable in the longer term, given its Carbon Fund and links to FIP.

‘FCPF is more of a standard-setting body, with peer review process and opportunity for observers to comment, leading to a sort of “stamp of approval”. UN-REDD is more of an assistance and aid delivery mechanism.’ Developed Country Partner

‘The UN agencies can be really good technically but sometimes treat us like a contracting agency not the owners of the process.’ Developing Country Partner

‘We are not sure how we were selected to be involved in FIP … the subsequent process has also lacked clarity, including difficulties with agreement on the overall budget.’ Developing Country Partner

24 Patrick Hardcastle, Deborah Davenport, Phil Cowling and Charlene Watson, ‘Discussion of Effectiveness of Multilateral REDD+ Initiatives’ (IDL Group, October 2011), available at http://reddpluspartnership.org/29149-0db58e819221ae34c06b8182087d74669.pdf. See also ‘First Programme Evaluation for the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (Baastel / Nordeco, June 2011), available at http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/node/300; and UN-REDD Programme, ‘Lessons Learned: Asia-Pacific’ (UN-REDD, 2011); available at http://www.unredd.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=6422&Itemid=53. For a notably critical view of the FCPF, see Kate Dooley, Tom Griffiths, Francesco Martone and SaskiaOzinga, ‘Smoke and Mirrors: A Critical Assessment of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’ (FERN and Forest Peoples Programme, February 2011), available at http://www.fern.org/smokeandmirrors.


Coordination, overlaps and gaps

Criticism of a lack of coordination between the multilateral initiatives is very common, although the situation appears to be improving in terms of communication and developing common approaches, for example on safeguards (though not on the processes for applying them), MRV and administrative processes – as noted above, FCPF and UN-REDD now share a common template for national proposals for funding.

Indeed, increased coordination between FCPF and UN-REDD has led some to query the point of having two separate organisations – particularly given the increasing number of countries looking to access funds from both.

‘Coordination is improving: there is movement toward common documents, e.g., for proposals. There is no problem in starting with different approaches and different governance structures and ending up with different things; if they then converge you have something more solid.’ Developed Country Partner

‘There has been a lot of joint progress between UN-REDD and FCPF on things they both work on but if you are applying to both you have to attend all the meetings and then present your application at each one – sometimes several times, this takes a lot of time and effort.’Developing Country Partner

‘Coordination at a national level is the responsibility of the host government – they need to set up a central point for donors to deal with on REDD+ otherwise it becomes very confusing.’ Developing Country Partner

Finance

A look at the figures in Table 1 will confirm how poor the rate of disbursement of funds has been and remains, with only 6.7 per cent of total pledged funds disbursed. FCPF is seen as having a particular problem, with long lead times, complicated procedures and high levels of scrutiny resulting in only 4 per cent of pledges for the Readiness Fund being disbursed to date. UN-REDD, in contrast, has managed to disburse a sum equivalent to 60 per cent of its pledges. The UN agencies involved in UN-REDD tend to have more staff on the ground in REDD+ countries than does the World Bank, which can help accelerate the rate of disbursement.

In addition, part of the problem, in many countries, appears to be the difficulty in identifying good projects to spend REDD+ money on. The familiar problems of the forest sector, which is often associated with poor standards of governanceand law enforcement, corruption and a general lack of capacity, contribute to a reluctance among donor countries to provide funding for projects which may well not deliver good value for money.

‘Getting approval for funding can take a long time and requires a lot of revisions of documents – this causes people to lose interest and motivation at home.’ Developing Country Partner

‘The FCPF disbursement problem is real. Strong support from WB at high level but regional level management is risk averse. They operate at a very large scale overall while


REDD+ related financing is small and complex, time consuming and potentially controversial.’Developed Country Partner

‘We don’t really see this funding as long term what we want is to use it as an incentive to help switch our economies towards things that are more sustainable.’ Developing Country Partner

When are countries ‘ready’?

Addressing REDD+ through the three-phase approach agreed at Cancun is generally accepted as a sensible approach. However, there is no hard and fast definition of ‘readiness’, and wide divergence of opinion as to when countries are likely to be ‘ready’ for the next phase. Notwithstanding this, almost all the early estimates of how quickly countries would become ‘ready’ have proved to be far too optimistic; the first UN-REDD national programme documents, for example, envisioned durations of 20 months for phase 1 activities, far below what is proving to be the case.

‘Building capacity of a variety of stakeholders, raising awareness of thousands, if not millions of people, and training sufficient numbers of people for tasks that lie ahead takes time.’ UN-REDD, ‘Lessons Learned: Asia-Pacific’

Safeguards and governance

Few issues have raised as much controversy as safeguards, for factors such as the rights of forest communities and indigenous people, biodiversity, and governance, and there is a substantial literature available. FCPF attempts to streamline their approval process have led to accusations of sidelining safeguards.

‘It is unclear whether specific FCPF safeguard measures are mandatory requirements or are optional at different stages of the REDD process. Rather than strengthening and implementing the Bank’s safeguards, the FCPF has created a dense set of guidelines that appear to water down existing policies and obfuscate minimum standards.’ FERN / FPP, Smoke and Mirrors

‘Governance’ is often listed as a safeguard, but should really be seen more as a precondition for the delivery of an effective REDD+ process. Many forest-rich countries suffer from poor levels of governance and law enforcement – constant problems for many natural resource sectors. Over the last ten to fifteen years, significant efforts have been made to tackle this issue, with a series of majorForest Law Enforcement and Governance conferences, and a number of initiatives through which consumer and producer country governments have worked together to exclude illegal timber from international supply chains – including in particular the EU’s Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) initiative.

The process of improving standards of forest governance is frequently, however, a slow one, and does not usually benefit from being rushed. In the early years of the REDD+ process, some countries appeared to lose interest in the slow progress of FLEGT and other initiatives, in the hope that billions of dollars of REDD money would prove more easily accessible. This is probably of less concern now – given that billions of dollars of REDD money is clearly not


available – and there is increasing interest in REDD+ learning from the experience of FLEGT.

Stakeholder engagement

Both FCPF and UN-REDD are seen as having made significant efforts to engage with stakeholders at the international level, with representatives of civil society and indigenous peoples included in their governing bodies. Engagement has proved more problematic at the national level, with several countries reporting difficulties in identifying and coordinating civil society and forest community representatives on the ground. NGOs have often been critical of rushed consultative processes in country.

‘FCPF and UN-REDD started slowly but are actually of a high standard in terms of stakeholder engagement at all levels – all they have to do is to keep it up, keep improving and stay committed to implementing what they promise!’Northern NGO

‘We are very concerned about consultations that want to get to the grassroots level: they create excessive expectations at the community level. We have been extremely careful not to raise expectations about what REDD+ implies. The last thing we want is to have grassroots consultations on a mechanism that has not even been born, with no idea of the money that is there.’Developing Country Partner

‘National consultations on draft R-PPs have been either non-existent or inadequate, and core observations and proposals of forest peoples are being disregarded or only given superficial treatment, in particular recommendations relating to land and territorial rights.’ FERN / FPP, Smoke and Mirrors

‘It would be fair to say that full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders was originally viewed with some suspicion. Treading carefully in the beginning, discomfort about participatory approaches has over time turned into embracing the concept and results justify inclusive ways of working. Many stakeholders have also expressed their appreciation for being asked, having space for their voices to be heard and being recognised as important partners.’ UN-REDD, ‘Lessons Learned: Asia-Pacific’

Knowledge transfer

Less progress appears to have been made in the area of knowledge transfer, with several countries reporting feeling overawed by the level of information and knowledge available through different channels, and the difficulty in identifying reliable and up-to date sources of information. Capacity-building at national level is highly varied, with civil society and private sector groups often feeling left out of the flow of information. South-south learning is, however, increasing.

‘The (REDD+) Partnership is good because it has a broader forum for sharing information than either of the other initiatives.’ Developing Country Partner


Private sector

In general, in most countries, the private sector has not been particularly engaged in REDD+ discussions and processes. It is anticipated that the FIP may help to improve this situation due to its more comprehensive framework for private sector engagement. At a global scale, the considerable early interest from investors and carbon traders has waned rapidly in the face of uncertainty over the long-term future of REDD+, and the familiar risks of forest-related investments.

‘REDD is long term and the ideal investors are those that are willing to invest for long periods. Such investors seek relatively low returns but only when the investment can be assured to be low risk. Regulatory and political risks are the main issues, technological risk is better understood. The present uncertainty over REDD is driving these investors away at present.’ Private Sector Representative

National ownership

In the early years, REDD+ was often seen as something imposed on countries by donors. This has more recently become less of a problem, with developing countries increasingly taking the lead in international discussions. UN-REDD appears to have been particularly successful in placing agency personnel in ministries, where they have been able to establish a good working relationship with national officials – though on occasion this can result in them taking over the process. However, it is also true to say that in many countries ownership of the REDD+ process is seen as limited to a very small cadre of people within particular ministries; this is less of a problem in countries with senior political buy-in.

Misperceptions and uncertainty

A particular problem in the early years was the frequent references by supporters of the concept to the substantial sums of money that could, in theory, be associated with a REDD+ mechanism. Often this was translated into the belief that billions of dollars were just around the corner. The slow rate of disbursement of funding has largely put an end to these beliefs, but at the cost, sometimes, of a lack of faith in the entire process. Unrealistic expectations have also sometimes led to tensions arising between ministries over control of the processes.

Equally, concerns have often been raised about the possibility that REDD+ will threaten livelihoods and forest communities. Surveys also show that even when awareness of REDD+ is relatively high, it is often seen as a forest conservation policy, not an approach designed to increase the value of – and therefore income from – standing forests.

None of this is helped, of course, by the continuing uncertainty over the long-term future of REDD+. As pointed out above, there is no certainty about the future of the Kyoto Protocol, or its potential successor agreement, and how REDD+ might fit into it.

‘We need significant changes to happen but that is difficult to achieve when there is no certainty (regarding the future of REDD+) and the money is small and slow to come – it makes us very vulnerable within the government.’ Developing Country Government


9 What Does the Future Hold?‘REDD is moving ahead, but at a slower pace and in a different form than we expected when it was launched at Bali in 2007.’

That is the first sentence of a major recent survey of developments,Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices.25 As the book points out, while REDD+ as an idea has certainly been successful, gaining wide global recognition very quickly, at the same time it has been such a broad concept that a very wide range of ideas has emerged as to what it actually means in practice.

When the idea was first introduced to the UNFCCC process, it was expected that REDD+ would operate in the context of a new international agreement on climate change, mobilising, whether through carbon markets or public funding, significant sources of long-term performance-based finance. Since this has not yet materialised, funding for REDD+ activities has derived largely (two-thirds, at present) from development aid budgets. Yet that potentially risks losing the payment-by-results performance basis originally envisaged – a transaction, in which forest owners and communities are paid for the carbon benefits of their forests. Whether the REDD+ process is able to generate this kind of transformational change, in the current global political and economic environment, is not clear.

In addition, as has been touched on at several points throughout this paper, REDD+ processes – which, overwhelmingly to date, means readiness activities – have been slower and more expensive than originally expected. They have also created problems of international collaboration, cross-government coordination and local consultation – though also thrown up innovative means of tackling these and other problems.

Yet at the same time, two things are clear. First, greenhouse gas emissions are not yet being controlled, despite many national and international efforts. Second, it is impossible to conceive how dangerous climatic change could be successfully avoided without reducing emissions from deforestation. Given this, there is no doubt that there will be a continued focus on REDD+ at the global level.

Some tentative conclusions can be drawn:26

Funding will continue to be made available for REDD+ activities from donors (both developed country governments and philanthropic institutions) and, to a limited extent, from carbon markets (mostly voluntary). The principle of payments-for-results will be retained, as far as possible (clearly, for phase 2 and 3 of REDD+ rather than for phase 1).

The glacial speed of disbursement of the funds will speed up, but the slowness of most of the multilateral institutionsin making finance available means that donorswill increasingly focus on their own funding mechanisms and bilateral arrangements (as is already happening).

REDD+ readiness activities will continue to develop slowly, but should not be rushed. The need for national ownership and proper consultation, coupled with the multiple functions of

25ArildAngelsen et al (eds.), Analysing REDD+: Challenges and Choices (CIFOR, 2012), available at http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BAngelsen1201.pdf.26Partly drawn from Angelsen, Analysing REDD+, partly paper author’s views.


forests – and hence multiple impacts of REDD+ – mean that activities, if they are to succeed, must be grounded in a legitimate domestic political process. This takes time to develop.

Forest governance is an important part of the solution, and the various international governance and law enforcement initiatives, such as FLEGT, will grow in perceived importance. Reducing illegal logging can be a highly cost-effective way of reducing deforestation, and hence emissions.

Even if the finance for phase 3 of REDD – long-term performance-based payments – does not emerge, the activities in phases 1 and 2 by themselves have value, increasing knowledge and data about forests and their role in the local and global environment, and improving national capacity to manage them sustainably.

Interest will grow in the root causes of deforestation. In the absence of significant sums of long-term finance for simply keeping trees standing, attention will switch to other means of addressing deforestation – for example, by seeking to reduce the rate of clearance of forests for agriculture. Private and public sector initiatives, such as attempts to establish sustainability standards for commodities such as palm oil or soy, will become increasingly important.

All these factors, and more, go together to suggest that the idea of REDD+ will have continuing validity for many years to come. As Analysing REDD+ concluded:

The litany of problems encountered by the first generation of REDD+ initiatives can make for discouraging reading. But despite adverse changes in the broader context, and hard lessons learned from early experience, the potential of REDD+ continues to capture the imagination and attract continuing investment at all levels … REDD+ as a worthy objective is still very much alive.

Date post:	09-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times