Topics | Forest Carbon Partnership

Since 2008, the FCPF has been working with countries and donors to create a comprehensive framework for REDD+ readiness and implementation. This has been achieved by developing REDD+ tools and guidelines, and facilitating information exchanges, pilot studies and knowledge sharing on a wide range of REDD+ activities. Click any of the topics below to learn more about this work and find valuable resources developed on these subjects.

REDD+ Strategies

National REDD+ strategies define a set of policies and programs to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, while enhancing carbon uptake from other REDD+ activities. They define direct and indirect drivers of deforestation, baselines and forest monitoring systems, reference emissions levels, and social and environmental safeguards, among others. They have also become a catalyst to help countries analyze and reform wider forestry, land tenure and sustainable development policies.

National REDD+ strategies are one of the key outputs of the REDD+ readiness phase (phase 1) and guide the implementation of REDD+ implementation and subsequent results-based payments (phases 2 and 3). As countries craft different kinds of strategies to suit their unique contexts, a common principle underlies these various approaches—namely that REDD+ must result in real, measurable and long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change and align with national development strategies.

REDD+ strategies have helped to catalyze the engagement of a wider range of stakeholder groups in forest and land management, including indigenous peoples, women and other forest-dependent communities. This has given many of these groups more access and rights than ever before to forestry and land use decision making.

FCPF Readiness Assessment Framework

Country REDD+ Strategies

Forest Reference Emission Levels

Setting forest reference levels (FRLs) and/or forest reference emission levels (FRELs) is one of the first steps countries need to take to benefit from REDD+. As a key component of national forest monitoring systems, FRLs and FRELs provide a baseline against which emission reductions can be measured, and subsequent results-based payments be made.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change does not explicitly differentiate between a FRL and a FREL, but a common understanding is:

Forest Reference Level (FRL) is a benchmark for emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and removals from sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (all REDD+ activities).

Forest Reference Emission Level (FREL) is a benchmark for emissions exclusively from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD only).

More guidance on UNFCCC FRELS

Country Forest Reference Emission Levels

Guidance

National Forest Monitoring Systems

A key building block in REDD+ Readiness is setting up robust and transparent national forest monitoring systems (NFMS). The FCPF supports countries in the design of NFMS that build on existing systems and use a combination of remote sensing and ground-based forest carbon inventory approaches.

Guidance

REDD+ Decision Support Toolbox

Sound quantitative estimates of forest extent and quality are essential for REDD+. The observation of forest change is fundamental to demonstrate emission reductions that result from policies and measures. Developing forest reference emission levels (emission baselines) and monitoring capacity requires REDD+ countries to make a number of technical and policy decisions and build capacity.

To assist countries in this respect, the FCPF developed the ‘REDD+ Decision Support Toolbox’ that lets users explore policy, methodological and technological options for a specific jurisdictional area and context. It also provides comprehensive technical training materials.

How it works: The interactive toolbox is intended to be used by FCPF countries as they consider the design and technical components of their national or subnational REDD+ programs. It provides practical guidance based on existing REDD+ frameworks including the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change the FCPF’s Carbon Fund Methodological Framework.

Users are guided through four modules, some of which require data input - REDD+ Design, Reference Levels, National Forest Monitoring systems, and Reporting and Verification. The exercise usually takes about an hour to complete, and upon finishing a summary shows all the key decisions made and customized reference levels that can help countries conceptualize what decisions fit together and where the greatest opportunities for emission reductions might be under a REDD+ program.

GOFC-GOLD Training Modules

Complementary to the REDD+ Decision Support Toolbox, this set of training materials was produced jointly with the Global Observation of Forest and Land Cover Dynamics (GOFC-GOLD) initiative. This resource was created in response to country calls for technical assistance and guidance for improving operational forest monitoring and building capacity to measure, report and verify the results of REDD+ intervention.

How it works: The material includes fourteen self-guided technical modules with practical country examples and training exercises. This modular structure means the material can be used in different settings (workshops or hands-on training) and be tailored to different audiences (REDD+ policy or in-country technical experts). This material can be used in combination with the FCPF REDD+ Decision Support Tool and complementary guidance documents (such as GOFC-GOLD Sourcebook or technical guidance from the Global Forest Observation Initiative).

It is also available in Spanish and French.

Overview

Climate change often exacerbates existing patterns of poverty and inequity by placing a disproportionate burden on the marginalized and disadvantaged. Programs to reduce emissions and mitigate climate impact may overlook historically underserved populations, such as Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, youth, and the disabled, among others. These groups may reside in remote and isolated areas, with limited access to infrastructure, health, and education services.

The inclusion of marginalized people is vitally important to ensure that the needs of these unique groups are addressed—especially as they are so regularly overlooked.The FCPF actively includes socially marginalized and disadvantaged groups by engaging directly with recognized Indigenous and traditional institutions.

Engaging all relevant and affected stakeholders in emission reductions programs is essential to making sure that activities around preventing deforestation are conducted effectively and sustainably and that resources are channeled fairly and correctly. This is why the FCPF provides a number of programs and services catered to vulnerable and underserved populations.

TYPES OF ENGAGEMENT

The FCPF believes that engaging those directly affected by emission reductions programs is critical to its mission of achieving success in reducing carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.

In its programming, the FCPF follows the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Standards, which include Standard 10 on Stakeholder Engagement and Information Disclosure, and requires the collective consent of affected communities for the activities that affect them. In addition, the FCPF strives to include Indigenous Peoples and local communities in decision-making processes.

CONSULTATIONS

The FCPF grants observer status to a wide range of voices in its Participants Committee, including those of Indigenous Peoples and civil society. Observers help ensure that the voices of marginalized groups in society are included in discussions and decisions about upcoming programs.

Aside from participating in discussions on overarching FCPF strategy and direction, the views and input of marginalized communities are actively sought to be included in specific emission reductions programs through consultations both prior and during the implementation of programs.

Consultations in FCPF countries are an essential mechanism for including the voices of forest-dependent communities in national REDD+ planning and confer an active role to IPLCs for partnering with governments to implement activities. Consultations allow the FCPF to reach marginalized communities, promote understanding of the views of forest-dependent IPs and CSOs, and support potential contributions to REDD+ system design and implementation.

DIALOGUES

Regular dialogues allow marginalized communities (including Indigenous Peoples, women, youth, and the disabled) to amplify their concerns and priorities to the FCPF regarding the implementation of emission reductions programs. Such dialogues take place at the local, regional, and global level to ensure that a range of voices is heard, with communities selecting for themselves representatives to participate at higher-level meetings. Forest-dependent communities have requested support for developing their capacities to engage in REDD+ programs, directly resulting in the establishing of the FCPF Capacity Building Program that provides forest-dependent communities with an awareness and understanding of REDD+.

Over the years, dialogues have supported the continuing mission of the Capacity Building Program. As REDD+ programs reach more and more communities, and as emission reductions programs progress towards implementation, regional dialogues have allowed the Capacity Building Program to respond to new requests and support activities focused on such topics as alternative livelihoods , benefit sharing, land tenure , as well as REDD+ measurement, reporting, and verification.

The FCPF continues to conduct dialogues with a range of stakeholders in order to ensure that emission reductions programs address the concerns of marginalized groups, and that capacity-building activities meet the needs expressed by their recipients. Reports on dialogues are posted here [link to dialogue reports].

Furthermore, the FCPF provides funding to allow representatives of Indigenous Peoples to participate in relevant international fora, such as the Conference of Parties (COP) that monitors and reviews the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The presence and active contribution of Indigenous Peoples in such fora ensures their voices are heard and their case is made at the highest levels of global climate change negotiations.

SOUTH-SOUTH KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGES

As countries design, adopt, and implement emission reductions programs, and as marginalized groups actively engage in those processes, a wealth of knowledge is generated by participants. This includes valuable lessons on successful approaches to sharing benefits, developing mechanisms to lodge grievances, and evaluating past false starts. The FCPF supports South-South knowledge exchanges that allow practitioners in FCPF countries to directly share experiences with their counterparts in other FCPF countries. These exchanges allow participants to improve their understanding and engagement with REDD+ processes as well as avoid missteps that may have been made elsewhere.

South-South knowledge exchanges emphasize a variety of topics ranging from practical afforestation experiences to the adoption and implementation of laws and regulations, and from private sector involvement to ensuring that environmental safeguards are addressed. Through these exchanges, countries in the same regions may share their experiences in similar contexts, while countries in different contexts can seek new, creative solutions to the challenges they face.

Brazil-Ethiopia-Mozambique, 2015
Brazil-Colombia-DRC-Ethiopia-Indonesia-Vietnam, 2013
Costa Rica-Mexico-Ecuador, 2015
Mozambique-Ethiopia-Ghana-Liberia-Zambia-Gabon-India-Brazil, 2015
Costa Rica-Guatemala-Chile-Peru, 2014

CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM PROJECTS

----Intermediary Organization----ACICAFOCANSABASOCIACION SOTZ’ILMPIDOPACJAREPALEACTEBTEBBA

Indigenous Peoples

Capacity Building Program for Indigenous Peoples and Civil Society

0Countries With Indigenous Population

0Percentage Of World Population Comprised By Indigenous People

0Percentage Of Extremely Poor Comprised By Indigenous People

0Percentage Of World’s Bio-diversity Safeguarded By Indigenous People

About a quarter of all forest carbon is stored in trees and in the ground on communal lands, and research shows that where there are indigenous peoples present, forests tend to be better protected. Catalyzed by REDD+ efforts, the expansion and protection of tribal land rights can be one of the most cost-effective ways to protect forests and sequester carbon. Indigenous peoples and local communities have the closest connection with forests, and with the right knowledge and tools, they are best placed to manage them sustainably.

Total funding for the FCPF Capacity Building Program : $9.9 million

The FCPF Capacity Building Program for Forest-Dependent Indigenous Peoples and Southern Civil Society Organizations (CBP) works with indigenous peoples (IPs), other forest-dependent communities and southern civil society organizations (CSOs) increase their understanding of REDD+, and their engagement in REDD+ readiness and implementation. Launched in 2008, funding over three phases totals $9.9 million.

Phase 1 (2009-June 2016)

During Phase 1 of the CBP, just under $2 million in funding supported 27 projects across Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin American and the Caribbean. These innovative projects were implemented by forest-dependent IPs and southern CSOs working with the FCPF Readiness Fund, and engaged in REDD+ readiness processes.

Phase 1 projects helped to improve IP and CSO participation in the preparation of REDD+ strategies, and in the implementation of REDD+ programs. CBP projects in Phase 1 also helped to enhance the participation of IPs and local communities in international discussions on the role of REDD+ in climate change mitigation.

REPORT: FCPF CBP results from Phase 1(English | 3.42 MB | 3.42 MB)

Phase 2 (July 2016-June 2018)

With approximately $3 million in funding, Phase 2 supports national-level capacity building and awareness raising, and regional-level exchange and sharing of lessons learned. In this phase, funding goes directly to regional organizations that coordinate several capacity-building projects in their respective regions.

Phase 2 is supporting six regional organizations, one for indigenous peoples and one for civil society organizations in Africa, Asia and Latin America. All six CBP Phase 2 programs have been operative since September 2017.

Phase 3

In March 2017, FCPF’s Participant’s Committee allocated an additional $5 million to the CBP. This amount was subsequently divided among the six existing regional organizations engaged with the CBP. For Phase 3, FCPF Carbon Fund countries will be prioritized in both the scale up of existing support and the initiation of new activities.

Region	IP organization	CSO organization
Africa	Based in Kenya, Mainyoito Pastoralist Integrated Development Organization (MPIDO) is working on REDD+ capacity-building projects in Cameroon, Ethiopia, Liberia, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Sudan and Uganda.	Based in Kenya, Pan African Climate Justice Alliance (PACJA) is working on REDD+ capacity-building projects in Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Mozambique and Togo.
Asia-Pacific	Based in the Philippines, Indigenous Peoples' International Centre for Policy Research and Education (Tebtebba) is working on REDD+ capacity-building projects in Bhutan, Fiji, Vanuatu and Vietnam.	Based in Nepal, Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources (ANSAB) is gearing up projects in the Asia-Pacific region.
Latin American and the Caribbean	Based in Guatemala, Association Sotz’il (Sotz’il) is working on REDD+ capacity-building projects in Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and Suriname.	Based in Costa Rica, Asociación Coordinadora Indígena y Campesina de Agroforestería Comunitaria de Centroamérica (ACICAFOC) is working on REDD+ capacity-building projects in Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

How it works

The FCPF CBP was conceived to be a demand-driven program, in which forest-dependent IPs and southern CSOs present proposals to the FCPF’s Facility Management Team outlining their capacity-building needs. If proposals meet the FCPF’s eligibility requirements and are approved, organizations are contracted to implement projects according to a work plan of activities.

Grants for each of the six regional organizations are typically in the range of $400,000-$750,000. Sub-grants or contracts for specific regional or country-level activities are expected to be in the range of $25,000-$75,000.

To apply for funding from FCPF’s CBP, initiatives are encouraged to contact directly the appropriate regional organization engaged in FCPF’s CBP (see chart above).

More reports from FCPF’s CBP

FMT Notes on the Capacity Building Program

Gender

Across the world, women play an essential role in forest landscape management but are often not fully involved in decisions related to forest landscapes, nor the equitable distribution of benefits from forest resources.

The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility is committed to working with countries to design REDD+ readiness and larger-scale emissions (ER) reduction programs that ensure women are partners in the planning, operation and deployment of climate finance. This is critical not only to achieve sustainable forest management, but also to deliver important co-benefits such as improving women’s land tenure security, increasing their participation in forest governance and creating new streams of income for women.

At the fund and country level, FCPF activities aim to strengthen reporting on the gender components of initiatives and deliver evidence-based analysis and concrete actions plans tailored to national and subnational REDD+ strategies. FCPF programs seek to establish pathways that enhance and recognize women as transformational agents in the management and conservation of forests.

The FCPF supports three areas of gender-focused activities. These three areas of the FCPF’s gender-focused work support the World Bank’s Gender Strategy as well as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 5 devoted to achieving gender equality and empowering all women and girls.

Designing programs with gender awareness

The FCPF convenes stakeholders at the fund and country level to exchange ideas, approaches, challenges and opportunities around gender and forest landscapes, and to mobilize greater attention for gender aspects in REDD+ strategies and programs. For example, the FCPF’s Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) template highlights the importance of incorporating gender considerations into REDD+ readiness.

Gender-responsive forest pilots

The FCPF is supporting gender-responsive forest pilots at the country level to understand the differences between how, why, and where men and women access, use and manage forests. The FCPF works with country programs to develop gender analysis as part of Strategic Environment and Social Assessment, with a focus on policy implementation, institutional enhancement and capacity building. Gender action plans are developed with concrete indicators for implementation and monitoring of ER programs.

Building evidence, data and knowledge on gender awareness

The FCPF uses gender analyses and action plans to address the lack of gender-disaggregated data and identify critical gender gaps that hold back the development of gender-sensitive interventions. Actions aimed at addressing gender gaps are best identified using inclusive, participatory approaches early on for effective forest landscape projects and policies.

“Anywhere in the world where there are forests, it’s the women who have the primary role in protecting and saving these forests.”

-- Grace Balawag, Indigenous Peoples International Centre for Policy Research and Education (Tebtebba)

Country Gender Work

Guidance

Publications

REDD+ Benefit Sharing

Benefit sharing, or the distribution of results-based finance, is a critical component of greenhouse gas emission reduction initiatives, including FCPF emission reductions programs. Equitable and transparent benefit sharing arrangements ensure that all stakeholders, including indigenous peoples and communities, are fairly recognized and rewarded for their role in reducing emissions, including through forest conservation and sustainable forest management.

Benefit sharing plans are central to FCPF programs. The FCPF’s Methodological Framework outlines requirements for benefit sharing plans that must be finalized and disclosed before FCPF programs can receive payments for emission reductions. These documents must include information on beneficiaries, benefits, and benefit sharing mechanisms for the distribution of results-based payments for verified emission reductions.

Online platform
Note on Benefit Sharing for FCPF and BioCF ISFL ER Programs (Spanish, French, August 2020)
Benefit Sharing at Scale: Good Practices for Results-Based Land Use Programs
Benefit Sharing at Scale: Tools and Good Practices (Webinar, Presentation, April 2020)

For example, emission reductions programs determine whether monetary (i.e., cash) or non-monetary (i.e., in-kind) benefits, or a combination, will be shared with various beneficiaries. Examples of benefits include capacity building, trainings, seeds, equipment, and other in-kind goods that help further reduce emissions, which can have compounding effects on the potential to generate additional emission reductions and results-based finance. Some benefit sharing arrangements also include benefits for community development (e.g., schools, health facilities, boreholes, etc.), depending on feedback from stakeholders.

In all cases, stakeholder participation, including through consultations, is key in the design, implementation, and evaluation of benefit sharing arrangements to ensure they respond to the needs and interests of the full range of stakeholders for the emission reductions program.

Benefit sharing plans are currently in various stages of development in FCPF programs. In many cases, these plans are informed by other programs and approaches, including: payment for environmental/ecosystem services (PES); bilateral programs (e.g. donor/recipient programs); multilateral programs; and regional, national or sub-national results-based programs (e.g. restoration, conservation, biodiversity funds or programs).

Country REDD+ Benefit Sharing

Guidance

Publications

Safeguards

In the planning and implementation of REDD+, countries require that safeguards be put in place to ensure that REDD+ activities take into account a range of policies and rights, including those related to conservation, stakeholders, and their access to sustainable livelihoods.

A key requirement for REDD+ is developing a Safeguard Information System for providing publicly available information on how safeguards are being addressed and respected in REDD+ Readiness and implementation activities.

A Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) helps to ensure compliance with relevant safeguards by integrating key environmental and social considerations covered by the relevant safeguard policies and procedures at the earliest stage of decision making. It also creates a platform for the participation of key stakeholders, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities who depend on forest resources.

A key output of the SESA is an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF). The ESMF helps countries manage and mitigate the environmental and social risks and impacts of future investments associated with implementing a country’s REDD+ strategy. The ESMF provides a direct link to the relevant safeguard standards.

Country Safeguards

Guidance

Grievance Redress Mechanisms

A national feedback and grievance redress mechanism (GRM) needs to be effectively available, and if necessary strengthened, as part of the country's REDD+ institutional arrangements. Such a mechanism needs to be available to REDD+ stakeholders from the earliest stages of R-PP implementation to address requests for feedback or complaints by any REDD+ Readiness stakeholder, with particular attention to providing access to geographically, culturally or economically-isolated or excluded groups.

It is important to understand that the nature of grievances usually differs during the REDD+ Readiness phase and later in the implementation of REDD+ programs. Accordingly, potential grievances and disputes require a different approach during the Readiness preparation stage and the Carbon Fund operational stage.

During the Readiness preparation phase, numerous questions, inquiries, and grievances usually arise about the REDD+ Readiness strategy and the process of developing it (i.e. process of consultation and participation processes). The consultative part of the Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) should help to identify issues and stakeholders and provide a forum for discussion. During the Readiness preparation phase, effective mechanisms and capacity will need to be put in place to address grievances that may arise during the Carbon Fund operational stage.

During the Carbon Fund operation stage, grievances are likely to arise around the implementation of REDD+ policies and mechanisms on the ground. Grievances may relate to rules for benefit sharing, resource and tenure rights, implementation of territorial planning, etc. These types of disputes should be addressed by the grievance mechanisms that have either been designed or strengthened during the Readiness stage.

Guidance

Publications

Livelihoods

Forest landscapes are a vital source of livelihoods and sustenance for millions of people around the world. Climate finance programs aim to conserve these forests not only to prevent emissions, but also to generate co-benefits, such as improving low-carbon livelihoods of those who depend on forests and continue to preserve them.

The implementation of climate finance programs often involves establishing certain restrictions on forest use in order to ensure that forests remain protected and carbon emissions are reduced. In parallel, the FCPF designs and implements a variety of activities intended to mitigate reduced access to forests and ensure that forest-dependent communities can continue to generate income and develop alternative livelihoods. These activities are vital for addressing the economic well-being of families and communities.

In addition to the intrinsic value of supporting forest-dependent communities in their endeavors to find suitable alternative livelihoods, Indigenous Peoples and local communities with a stake in the process are more likely to embrace activities that contribute positively to emission reductions efforts. In turn, benefits that Indigenous Peoples and local communities retain from emission reductions programs incentivize participation in these programs, contributing to more effective implementation and ultimately greater climate benefits.

A wide range of tools is available for addressing livelihood concerns that stem from the implementation of climate finance programs. These tools include assured land tenure for forest-dependent communities to minimize the risk of displacement, as well as support to livelihood activities and value chains in Indigenous economies based on zero-emission principles.

Land Tenure

Forest lands used by Indigenous Peoples and local communities are mostly based on informal, collective, or customary tenure arrangements. Such tenure arrangements are continuously at risk of being lost, for instance, through legislative changes, weak enforcement of laws, encroachment, and land grabs.

While Indigenous Peoples and local communities manage large areas of forest lands in practice, they only maintain formal legal rights to about 14 percent of forest area globally. In many countries, the customary or collective forest rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities have yet to receive recognition by governments, which is compounded by a lack of documentation and registration in formal legal systems. This renders lands and forest resources vulnerable to acquisition and seizure by third parties and can lead to the displacement of populations while preventing Indigenous Peoples and local communities from accessing forest resources.

The success of REDD+ programs is impacted in part by the land and forest tenure systems in place. For example, when tenure is considered as a basis for determining carbon ownership, the right to corresponding benefits from REDD+ programs may hinge upon the clarity of existing tenure rights over land and resources. Furthermore, the implementation of REDD+ programs themselves may be impeded by tenure policies that contribute to forest conversion, weaknesses in land administration, and the prevalence of land conflicts.

Tenure security for land and forest resources is one of the key climate finance co-benefits regularly raised by Indigenous Peoples and local communities and other forest dwellers. The FCPF undertakes various analytical and advisory activities that identify how increased clarity in forest land tenure can be achieved. The overarching goal of these initiatives is to facilitate research to inform decision makers and peer-to-peer learning on innovative, practical approaches to advancing tenure security—especially among marginalized and excluded groups, such as women, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, other forest dwellers.

Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV)

As a key building block for REDD+ Readiness, the FCPF supports countries on the development of a range of MRV and carbon accounting issues, including land-use change analysis, forest degradation analysis and visual assessment reference grids, the preparation of national Forest Reference Levels, and the implementation of national MRV systems. The FCPF has generated the following resources to support countries with the implementation of their MRV and carbon accounting.

REDD+ Nesting

The FCPF has developed a number of resources to support countries in developing their REDD+ nesting strategies. The REDD+ Nesting Manual provides guidance for the design and implementation of nested systems, and along with the accompanying Decision Support Tool (DST) aims to guide decision makers through a process of planning, identifying, and implementing efficient nested REDD+ systems. The nesting design provides guidance in defining the objectives of the nesting system, various approaches to REDD+ implementation, and other design considerations. The report Approaches to REDD+ Nesting: Lessons Learned from Country Experiences is intended to share past experiences on REDD+ Nesting.

Options for Conserving Stable Forests

The FCPF has published a report Options for Conserving Stable Forests exploring and deepening the current understanding of the need and options for conserving stable forests. The report defines such forests as not already significantly disturbed nor facing predictable near future risks of anthropogenic disturbance. Together with the main report, the Executive Summary outlines the global extent of the stable forests, what their value is, and what options are available for protecting them, as they are mostly excluded from policy and financial valuations that could incentivize maintenance and ongoing protection, such as REDD+. The report is also accompanied with three annexes, Annex A: Literature Review, Annex B: Methodology and Supplementary Results, and Annex C: Case Studies. In the five case study countries (i.e., Georgia, Guyana, Indonesia, Liberia, and Republic of Congo) the stable forest loss rates varied greatly by country, with the highest rate observed in Liberia and lowest in Georgia. A main finding is that stable forest loss is not only an issue in lower income or less developed countries, but rather a global phenomenon that must be addressed.

Remote Sensing-based Estimation of Forest Carbon Stocks and Dynamics

The Full Report summarizes the technological challenges and strategies to overcome these in utilizing a remote-sensing based estimation of forest carbon stocks and dynamics, which can be grouped into four areas: data availability and access; processing and computational performance; uncertainty management; and standardization and protocols. The report further highlights the appropriate enabling environments for rolling out these innovative technologies, such as policies and regulations; institutions and stakeholders; capacity and information; finance and sustainability; and social, cultural, and behavioral factors. Based on the findings and recommendations of the report, the Policy Brief summarize the necessary policy actions to enable the implementation of a second generation MRV system, i.e., MRV 2.0. In order to launch a discussion on the recommendations of the policy brief, a side event to the GFOI Plenary was organized to discuss about the importance of in-situ data and identify solutions to promote the collection and sharing of this valuable data to enable an MRV 2.0

Lessons Learned

The Lessons Learned Report provides recommendations to relevant agencies and donors as they help countries to develop and operate their NFMS. The reports also provide recommendations for the delivery of capacity building by agencies and support from donors, including through the GFOI. The report Choices in Quantifying Carbon for Jurisdictional REDD+ provides an overview of the methodological choices made by FCPF Carbon Fund countries.

Sample Based Area Estimation

These materials are intended to support countries in the application of the sample-based approach to estimate activity data. The presentation is intended to policy makers, to socialize the need for sample-based approaches for area change estimation in the REDD+ context. The templates of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and reports are intended to support the in-country technical teams to elaborate their QA/QC systems for activity data estimation.

GOFC-GOLD Training Modules

Overview: Complementary to the REDD+ Decision Support Toolbox, this set of training materials was produced jointly with the Global Observation of Forest and Land Cover Dynamics (GOFC-GOLD) initiative. This resource was created in response to country calls for technical assistance and guidance for improving operational forest monitoring and building capacity to measure, report and verify the results of REDD+ intervention.

How it works: The material includes fourteen self-guided technical modules with practical country examples and training exercises. This modular structure means the material can be used in different settings (workshops or hands-on training) and be tailored to different audiences (REDD+ policy or in-country technical experts). This material can be used in combination with the FCPF REDD+ Decision Support Tool and complementary guidance documents (such as GOFC-GOLD Sourcebook or technical guidance from the Global Forest Observation Initiative).

It is also available in Spanish and French.

Measurement

Measurement in MRV refers to the estimation of carbon emissions and removals from forests as a result of anthropogenic activities. Estimation is conducted by combining activity data (i.e. ha/year or m3/year) and emissions factor datas (i.e. tCO2/ha or tCO2/m3) within an integrated framework.

The measurement component of the MRV function is established in the NFMS national forest monitoring system around three technical pillars:

A satellite land monitoring system to collect and estimate activity data;
A [national] forest inventory to gather information on carbon stocks and changes in carbon stocks, which are essential for estimating emissions and removals through the provision of emissions factors; and
A national greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory, which reports on anthropogenic GHG emissions by sources and removals from forests sinks.

Two types of data are required for measuring carbon emissions and removals: activity data and emissions factor data.

Activity data

Data on the magnitude of human activity resulting in emissions or removals over a given period of time is referred to as activity data. Remote sensing, such as satellite imagery, is generally the most important source of activity data. For example, visual changes in satellite imagery of forest cover allow inferences about the magnitude and spatial extent of forest growth or deforestation over time.

Emissions factor data

Emissions factors are coefficients used to quantify activity data, or emissions and removals, per unit of activity. In the context of REDD+, this translates into measurements of forest area and forest area change as well as forest carbon stock and forest carbon stock changes. Together, the information provides the basis for compiling a GHG inventory for the forest -sector. ‘Fine’ emission factors estimates are derived entirely from local data sources, whereas ‘coarse’ estimates may be derived either regionally or globally. Countries may use IPCC default values from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC Tier 1) if locally derived estimates are not available.

The IPCC and the FCPF Methodological Frameworkidentify five carbon pools that are relevant for emissions calculations: above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass, deadwood, litter, and soil organic carbon. Since IPCC guidance does not make specific reference to REDD+ activities, the Global Forest Observation Initiative’s Methods and Guidance Document provides the necessary links between IPCC guidance and REDD+ activities. The method for combining changes in specific areas (activity data) with associated changes in carbon density (EFemissions factor data) depends on the sampling and modeling approaches adopted by each national forest monitoring system.

Integration

Integration models combine remote sensing and ground-based observations to derive emissions and removals for a region of interest

Institutional arrangements, scientific considerations, and practical issues govern the selection of an integration framework for MRV. These issues include:

Reporting requirements;
Data availability;
Technical capacity;
The availability of integration tools and in-country implementing expertise;
Cost-effectiveness.

There are two main methods for integrating remote sensing and ground-based observations

Activity data is multiplied by emissions factor datas, as in AD * EF. This is representative of IPCC Tier 1 or Tier 2 methods.
Fully integrated frameworks, which are either:
a)Spatially-referenced models (, which are representative of IPCC Tier 3, Approach 2/3 methods);

b)Spatially-explicit methods (, which track individual units of land, and are representative of IPCC Tier 3, Approach 3 methods).

Integration tools range from simple spreadsheets to sophisticated stand-alone tools, such as GHG inventory software and integrated analytical systems. Examples of such software include the Agriculture and Land Use National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (ALU) and the Full Lands Integration Tool (FLINT). Integration methods are not mutually exclusive;countries may use a combination of methods to account for their specific circumstances.

Uncertainty

Uncertainty analyses are a key requirement for establishing activity data and emissions factor datas. Uncertainty in measurement stems from two main sources.

Bias, or systematic error, refers to a lack of accuracy and occurs due to flaws in measurements or sampling methods. ; In emissions calculations, systematic error may also stem from the use of an unsuitable EFemissions factor data. Systematic errors may be addressed through the implementation of strong quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures.
Random error refers to a lack of precision as random variation above or below the mean value.while some random error is unavoidable, it can be reduced by increasing the sample size or improving stratification procedures.

After reducing or eliminating systematic and random errors, the residual random error of different parameters needs to be propagated to understand the uncertainty of GHG estimates. Uncertainty may be spread through a simple propagation of errors (IPCC Approach 1), or through a more complex and sophisticated Monte Carlo Analysis (IPCC Approach 2).

Reporting

Reporting in MRV refers to processes and requirements for presenting measured information in a transparent and standardized format. This information includes forest-related data, estimates of GHGs, a record of associated methods, as well as quality assurance and control activities and uncertainty estimates.

Reporting guidelines and deliverables are different for countries participating in the FCPF Readiness Fund as compared to those participating in the FCPF Carbon Fund. Countries not participating in the Carbon Fund follow reporting guidelines set by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Reporting for the FCPF Readiness Fund

In the UNFCCC, compiled estimates for the forestry -sector are included in GHG inventories. The FCPF requires the inclusion of these estimates in national communications, which are presented every four years and address steps to implement the Convention, and in biennial update reports, presented every two years. In addition to GHG inventories,biennial update reports include measurements of mitigation actions, reports on domestic MRV systems, as well as notes on current needs and support received.

Under the REDD+ Framework countries may, on a voluntary basis, submit forest reference emission levels, forest reference levels, and results in a REDD+ Annex to the BUR biennial update reports, in order to have access to REDD+ result-based payments.

Reporting for the FCPF Carbon Fund

Countries participating in the FCPF Carbon Fund submit emissions reductions monitoring reports promptly after each reporting period. These reports include data on measured emissions reductions and possible reversals of emissions reductions, as well as information about the implementation status of programmatic elements, such as safeguards and benefit sharing. These reports also address uncertainties in the reported data. After the first reporting period, countries may submit revisions to their reference levels, with possible revisions to accompanying technical corrections, through their emission reductions monitoring reports.

Reference levels

Implementing REDD+ activities and measuring progress in reducing emissions requires participating countries to develop reference points for forests and emissions. Reference levels are expressed as tons of CO2 equivalent per year for a particular reference period.Emissions and removals during a results period are then compared to these reference levels.

Participating countries develop either forest reference emission levels (FREL), forest reference levels (FRL), or both. While the UNFCCC makes no specific distinction between the FREL and the FRL, the FREL is commonly understood to only include activities that reduce emissions, while the FRL may include additional information about the enhancement of carbon stocks.

Verification

Verification in MRV refers to the process of independently verifying the completeness, consistency, and reliability of reported information through internal and external checks. The verification process can reveal shortcomings in data, such as GHG emissions or derived parameters, as well as provide clues on potential improvements for data collection. Verification expands capacity and builds confidence in estimates and trends.

Akin to the reporting function, verification guidelines and deliverables are different for countries participating in the FCPF Readiness Fund, as compared to those participating in the FCPF Carbon Fund. Countries not participating in the Carbon Fund follow reporting guidelines under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Verification for the FCPF Readiness Fund

In the UNFCCC REDD+ framework, the reports required by the Convention and submitted by countries are subject to a specific verification process.

The REDD+ framework requires technical assessments of FREL forest reference emission levels and forest reference levels. In addition, the REDD+ Annex of in BURs biennial update reports are subjected to the an international consultation and analysis process, which consists of two steps: a technical analysis and a facilitative sharing of views. The An International Consultation Analysis is conducted by a technical team of experts under the auspices of the UNFCCC Subsidiary Body for Implementation, which aims to increase transparency over mitigation actions and impacts in developing countries. The information considered under the technical analysis of the international consultation analysis includes, among others, information on mitigation actions, methodologies, assumptions, and an analysis of the impacts of the mitigation actions1.

Reporting for the FCPF Carbon Fund

Countries participating in the FCPF Carbon Fund submit their emissions reductions monitoring reports (ER-MR) to the FCPF Facility Management Team (FMT), which checks the reports for completeness and general quality, and then forwards them to an external vValidation and verification body (VVB). This bodye VVB conducts desk reviews and country visits to assess the reports against Carbon Fund requirements, and issues a report of findings that may include requests for major corrective actions, minor corrective actions, and observations.

After appropriate revisions to the emission reductions monitoring reportER-MR are submitted, the VVB validation and verification body conducts a technical review and issues a validation/verification report. If the VVB's body's concluding opinion on the verification process is negative, additional rounds of revision are imitated initiated between the country and the validation and verification body. If its opinion is positive and the FCPF Facility Management Team approves the validation/verification report, the ER-MR emission reductions monitoring report is submitted to the Carbon Asset Trading System. The data is then used to issue verified emissions reductions according to the FCPF Carbon Fund framework.

Monitoring

Aside from MRV, monitoring represents another activity of particular importance in the REDD+ framework. In general, monitoring is defined as a management function that entails reviewing the implementation of planned objectives and goals.

In addition to serving the wider purposes of MRV, monitoring also aims to involve governance by generating information on the effectiveness of policies and forest management practices as part of REDD+ implementation

1. Verification for both NCs and BURs may be conducted at national level before submission to the UNFCCC. Although NCs are not subject to international verification, information from those submitted by developing countries is compiled and synthesized by the UNFCCC Secretariat. The Consultative Group of Experts (CGE) provides technical support and advice to developing country parties on the preparation of their NCs by providing analytical support and recommending areas for improvement. These tasks are not, however, part of the formal verification framework under the UNFCCC.

Key Institutional Arrangements

Institutional arrangements refer to the range of policies, systems, and processes that these organizations use to manage and coordinate work to provide the capabilities and meet the requirements for MRV.

A range of government agencies, community stakeholders, and non-governmental organizations and institutions may be involved in the design, development, and operation of MRV functions.To enable REDD+ implementation, countries establish institutional arrangements to estimate GHG emissions and removals from REDD+ activities. These arrangements should cover all managed lands and activities relevant to REDD+, as well as comply with theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s quality criteria for transparency, comparability, consistency, completeness, and accuracy.

Such arrangements often encompass clear institutional mandates and collaborative processes aimed at setting a national strategy or action plan, determining national forest reference emission levels, creating a robust national forest monitoring system, and providing information on safeguards. Institutional arrangements thus provide clarity and direction on the organizations, processes, and methodologies involved with MRV functions required for REDD+.

Country Needs Assessments

Country needs assessments are self-evaluations conducted by REDD+ countries to assess the status of implementation of the MRV functions in their national forest monitoring systems. They serve to identify current gaps in implementation and determine the technical, institutional, and financial needs associated with full implementation. Country needs assessments also enable countries to use existing resources more efficiently, tp streamline communications to various stakeholders, and coordinate with partners under the Global Forest Observation Initiative.

In addition, country needs assessments can assist countries in completing their readiness assessment frameworks and target additional support beyond readiness funding.

Link to Lessons Learned study
Link to the MGD

Policy And Design Decisions

Countries face a number of key policy and design decisions when planning and establishing their national forest monitoring systems. Countries are expected to expand on existing systems and provide data that is transparent and consistent over time as well as suitable for MRV.

Many of these decisions will depend on national circumstances and existing capabilities. For example, countries must arrive at a functional definition of forests for the purposes of MRV, as well as determine the scope of activities, emissions pools, and (GHGs) to be included. Countries must also consider assumptions about future changes to domestic policies, and evaluate the validity and accuracy of the information employed in the process.

Nesting

The reduction of forest-related emissions involves the implementation of a range of activities, at times with overlapping objectives and spatial impact. For example, communities may be engaged in a clean cookstove program while implementing new climate-smart agricultural practices and protecting forests in a conservation area. Other groups may be actively involved in reforestation or restoration activities.

The concept of nesting integrates existing forest carbon projects into larger-scale REDD+ programs, while allowing them to continue generating and trading carbon units. This capitalizes on existing and small-scale programs that are well-adapted to local circumstances to provide benefits to the program at large.

Many of these projects use reporting and accounting rules, apply environmental and social safeguards, and maintain registries that are inconsistent with emerging national MRV systems. Innovative approaches for MRV can integrate these programs by adopting methodologies to address inconsistencies.

In countries with nested REDD+ programs under development , (that is, where REDD+ activities exist at multiple levels), MRV must be coordinated to ensure that sub-national systems do not conflict with the national system. In addition, an MRV system should be linked to decision-making and enforcement for better adaptive management and policy implementation at the national level.

MRV Support Tools

FCPF REDD+ decision support tool

The FCPF’s decision support tool is an online tool created by the FCPF with an accessible user interface, supported by a comprehensive database drawn from publicly available and spatially- referenced information. This tool:

Informs the technical approach for reference levels (RL), forest monitoring, and MRV;
Facilitates technical and policy decisions related to RL reference levels and MRV

The tool allows users to test a variety of design and policy decisions against adjustable reference levels. Design parameters range from scale, carbon pools, and GHG to working definitions of forests. These parameters assist in generating activity data and developing emissions factor data.

REDD+ Compass

Developed and maintained by the Global Forest Observations Initiative (GFOI), the REDD+ Compass is an online resource that serves as a guide through core themes, concepts, and actions involved in the development of national forest monitoring systems for MRV. The REDD+ Compass provides contextual links to GFOI methods and guidance, space data resources, references and tools, training materials, and advances in research and development.

Access the REDD+ Compass here.

Transaction Registries

An emissions trading registry is an online database that issues, records, transfers and tracks the carbon units that are exchanged within market mechanisms or financed through results-based initiatives such as Emission Reductions Programs under the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s Carbon Fund.

What is ‘double counting’?
When a single greenhouse gas emission reduction or removal is used more than once to demonstrate compliance with mitigation targets.

Emissions trading registries are critical for avoiding “double counting”— when a single greenhouse gas emission reduction or removal is used more than once to demonstrate compliance with mitigation targets. Given the length of time and capacity needed for the development of a registry, it is essential for countries that are in the process of designing market mechanisms to factor in specific regulatory, administrative, functional and technical aspects of registry development.

The Carbon Assets Tracking System (CATS)

The Carbon Assets Tracking System (CATS) is an Emission Reduction (ER) Transaction Registry, designed and implemented to support the issuance and transactions of ER units generated under the World Bank Programs. The first release of CATS provides the foundational and central architecture for accounting and transactions of ER units under the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Carbon Fund (FCPF CF) and BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes (BioCF ISFL) ER Programs.

Below are some of the key initiatives the FCPF has undertaken to support country-specific decision making and activities related to emissions registry development.

Guidance

Presentations

Publications

Financing of Emission Reductions Programs

Billions of dollars will be required to implement the large-scale programs being designed by developing countries across the world to reduce emissions from deforestation and broader land use. Yet we know that only 3% of current climate finance is directed to addressing landscapes and forestry. Moving forward, more support from a wider variety of sources will be needed to help countries sustainably manage and protect their forests in a participatory fashion.

The portion of current global climate finance earmarked for landscapes and forestry : 3%

Building on the work done to date on REDD+ readiness, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility is working with countries to help governments direct their own investments and policies to implement ER programs. Readiness work is also being used to “crowd in” the private sector so that countries can get more resources flowing into forest development to not only reduce carbon emissions but to also create livelihoods for forest-dependent communities.

Financing plans for Emission Reduction Programs

Financing plans support credible Emission Reduction (ER) program design by outlining sources of finance and presenting financing information to reflect the feasibility of achieving the program’s overall objectives. These plans are an integral part of ER programs proposed for implementation under the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility.

In developing their financing plans, countries are expected to:

Organize data and information on land use;
Estimate the costs and benefits of program activities;
Identify sources and categories of financing;
Analyse financing surplus or gaps;
Identify options for addressing financing gaps;
Arrange for flow of funds;
Give financial and economic analysis, as well as sensitivity analysis of factors influencing the financing plan.

The type of information required for a financing plan depends on the program’s objectives, land use categories covered under a program, and categories of public and private costs and benefits of an ER program.

Scope of ER financing plans

Reducing emissions and enhancing greenhouse gas removals are key objectives for most land use mitigation programs. For programs focused solely on these objectives, the nature and scope of financial and economic analysis is expected to be limited to the achievement of reducing net emissions. However, for programs that include additional objectives such as improvement of incomes, livelihoods of communities, and ecosystem services, the nature and scope of financial and economic analysis must reflect these multiple objectives.

In programs focused solely on REDD+ under the FCPF Carbon Fund, the financing plan is expected to focus on the costs and benefits of activities addressing the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation and enhancement of removals. Programs focused on multiple land uses to promote sustainable landscape management are expected to fund a wide range of activities associated with multiple land use categories targeting emissions and removals with in agriculture, forests, grassland systems, among others. In this case, the financing plan is expected to consider activities associated with these various land uses.

Guidance

Presentations

Standards and Management

The FCPF Carbon Fund Methodological Framework was adopted by Carbon Fund Participants in December 2013. The framework provides a global standard for REDD+ transactions at scale, and guides the piloting of results-based carbon finance transactions through the FCPF Carbon Fund. More information can be found here: FCPF Standard

Pricing approach

In 2014, Carbon Fund Participants indicated a preference for fixed pricing under current conditions and a willingness to pay up to $5/tCO2e, while recognizing that the ultimate price is subject to negotiations at the time of Emission Reductions Payment Agreement (ERPA) negotiations.

Guidance

Resolution: Methodological Framework and Pricing Approach for the Carbon Fund of the FCPF English, Spanish, French
FMT Note: Recommendations of the Working Group on the Methodological and Pricing Approach for the Carbon Fund of the FCPF English, Spanish, French

Cost Assessment Tool

The FCPF is working with several countries, especially Carbon Fund Participants, to perform analysis and planning for the financing of Carbon Fund Emission Reductions Programs using the FCPF’s previously developed cost assessment tools. Such an upstream analysis has allowed countries to start structuring ERPs, and to align various streams of finance, including the resources provided through the FCPF Readiness Fund, other investment finance, and results-based finance through the Carbon Fund.

Guidance

Legal documents

The Emission Reductions Payment Agreement (ERPA) General Conditions were adopted at the FCPF’s 18th Participants Committee Meeting held in November 2014. The general conditions build on the criteria and indicators specified in the FCPF’s Methodological Framework and provide, among others, for the general legal rules and procedures that are expected to be followed during Emission Reductions Program implementation. They further provide a set of non-negotiable general rules and procedures that apply to each carbon transaction, while the ERPA covers the negotiable commercial terms of such transactions.

FAQ for ERPA General Conditions (English)

Guidance

General Conditions Applicable to Emission Reductions Payment Agreements English, Spanish, French
Emission Reduction Program Buffer Guidelines English, Spanish, French
Emission Reductions Payment Agreement Commercial Terms English, Spanish, French
FAQ on General Conditions

Transfer of title

The FCPF Carbon Fund Methodological Framework requires that country participants demonstrate their ability to transfer title to Emission Reductions. The FCPF is developing guidance on the type of evidence country participants should submit to demonstrate their ability to transfer title to Emission Reductions.

Guidance

Note on the Ability of Program Entity to Transfer Title to Emission Reductions

Overview

The FCPF’s Readiness and Carbon Funds support partner countries in engaging with the private sector by creating replicable, scalable, and innovative models in governance and finance. These models enable investments, products, and services that benefit the climate, biodiversity, and communities.

In particular, the FCPF helps countries understand and promote private sector investment by removing barriers, increasing liquidity, diminishing risks, and seeking out innovative entry points for the private sector to help scale up REDD+ activities.

The FCPF’s Private Sector Engagement Approach focuses on:

Promoting a positive enabling environment for the private sector through supportive public policies and governance;
Encouraging financial innovation and crowding in new finance, including through results-based payments, while enhancing and unlocking trapped capital;
Engaging with supply chain companies to achieve economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable value-chain operations.

The FCPF’s Methodological Framework for advancing through the stages of REDD+ readiness is recognized globally as an effective tool to deploy and coordinate finance from a variety of sources including the private sector. Also, grants from the FCPF's Readiness Fund can be used, in part, to develop and implement national strategies for effective private sector engagement.

The FCPF Carbon Fund presents an innovative way for governments and the private sector to work together. Members of the private sector form a core part of the governance structure of the fund. The Carbon Fund also allocates significant financial support to help participant countries further catalyze private sector engagement.

Why should the private sector engage with the FCPF?

Enabling environments

The FCPF can help improve national policy and regulatory environments for the private sector through grants and technical assistance. The FCPF can also help enhance public-private partnerships aimed at reducing deforestation and emissions. The FCPF offers grants and payments for emission reductions that can help governments leverage private sector engagement in REDD+ and meet national climate targets.

Climate finance and banks

The FCPF enables financial entities to increase sustainability in investment practices by improving the regulatory environment while demonstrating innovative financial mechanisms to incentivize market entry. The FCPF also provides the opportunity to invest in carbon credits, green bonds, and insurance products through its private sector partners, IBRD, IFC, and others.

Supply chain companies

Using the World Bank’s convening power, the FCPF supports the implementation of deforestation-free sourcing policies. The FCPF promotes climate-smart models and disseminates best practices through sectoral platforms. The FCPF helps to identify REDD+ funding options and pilot investment projects. By collaborating with the FCPF, companies can promote sustainable branding via global events and media, and be well-positioned to engage in sustainability certification.

PS Approach

The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility acknowledges the private sector’s pivotal role in scaling up climate smart, sustainable land use. As countries set up the building blocks for REDD+, and develop larger-scale emission reductions programs, the FCPF is playing a catalyzing role in connecting countries with private sector investments.

The FCPF helps participant countries connect with different financing agencies of the World Bank Group, including the International Finance Corporation, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Development Association.
FCPF countries can use part of their Readiness Fund grants, as well as part of their eventual results-based payments for emission reductions, to support private sector engagement.
FCPF country participants undergo a multi-stakeholder self-assessment which is a participatory and inclusive process that includes the perspectives and engagement of the private sector.
The FCPF Carbon Fund is an innovative example of governments and the private sector working together, with private sector members part of the core governance structure of the fund. In addition, the Carbon Fund has allocated significant financial support to help participant countries further catalyze private sector engagement.
The FCPF’s Methodological Framework for advancing through the stages of REDD+ readiness is recognized globally as an effective tool to deploy and coordinate finance from a variety of sources including the private sector.

Value Chains

Long-term private sector investments are critical for addressing current funding gaps in climate finance for forests and landscapes. The FCPF assesses such gaps and develops strategies to overcome barriers that hinder private sector engagement in selected jurisdictions.

Through its private sector engagement work, the FCPF focused its efforts in investigating solutions and developing strategies to help the private sector to scale up the potential of REDD+ and reduce deforestation in 7 value chains. It sought out innovative entry points, activities, and engagements to promote climate-smart and low-carbon models while working with local, national, and international key partners.

At the international level, the FCPF’s influential convening role in the global forests and climate change space is reflected in its participation as a member of the Tropical Forest Alliance, a global public-private partnership catalyzing action to drive the world's transition to deforestation-free supply chains such beef, cocoa, palm oil, soy, and paper and pulp.

To learn about FCPF’s private sector work, please refer to each of the value chains.

Unlocking Finance

Accelerating emission reductions requires joint efforts and implementation of climate smart practices, traceability, monitoring and furthermore access to finance. Innovative business and financial models are key to unlocking sustainable and deforestation-free commodity finance.

The private sector becomes a key partner in enabling the shift toward sustainability and in the broader fight against climate change, as it is uniquely positioned to mobilize finance, resources, knowledge, and innovation to catalyze climate-resilient development. Effective collaboration between partner countries and the private sector can help create replicable, scalable, and innovative governance and finance models that translate into emission reductions.

FCPF’s activities relies on a broader number of private sector stakeholders, from supply chain companies, large firms and enterprises to small businesses, community cooperatives, and local actors, to change their economic behavior by adopting more sustainable practices that reduce emissions and unlock finance.

For instance, in the past few years, the FCPF has hosted a global private sector workshop bringing together leaders, government representatives and members of the private sector from FCPF jurisdictions. Since 2021, the workshop has been virtually co-organized with FCPF’s private sector observers as well as with the BioCarbon Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes (ISFL), focusing on opportunities to partner with the private sector to drive natural solutions and exploring topics covering climate finance, enabling conditions and topical deep dives on selected sustainable supply chains.