1. Provide financial and technical assistance to:
   • Assist eligible countries with their REDD+ efforts to achieve emission reductions from deforestation and/or forest degradation
   • Build recipient country capacity for benefitting from possible future systems with positive incentives for REDD+.
2. Pilot an emissions reduction performance-based payment system for REDD+ activities, to ensure equitable benefit sharing and promote future large-scale positive incentives for REDD+
3. Test ways within the REDD+ approach to conserve biodiversity and sustain or enhance livelihoods of local communities
4. Disseminate the knowledge gained through the development and implementation of the FCPF and related proposals and programmes for readiness and emissions reductions.

• The Readiness Fund: USD 400 million
• The Carbon Fund: USD 900 million.

FCPF is supported by government and non-governmental entities, including private companies (required to make a minimum contribution of USD 5 million) and NGOs.

Readiness Fund Contributors:
European Commission, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, UK and USA.

Carbon Fund Contributors:
European Commission, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Norway, Switzerland, UK, USA, BP Technology Ventures Inc., The Nature Conservancy.

All financial inputs can be attributed as official development assistance (ODA).

• The Readiness Fund helps prepare developing countries for participation in a future, large-scale, system of positive incentives for REDD+. This includes support for:
  • 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, monitoring and verification systems to enable reporting on emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.
• The Carbon Fund provides payments for verified emission reductions from REDD+ programmes in countries that have made considerable progress towards REDD+ readiness. Assistance is divided into 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).

1. Administering the Funds
2. Making proposals to the FCPF Participants Committee
3. Providing country advisory services and REDD+ methodological support.

Conditions for participation in the Readiness Fund

1. REDD+ Country eligibility
   • An eligible REDD+ country is:
     1. A borrowing member state of the IBRD or IDA; and
     2. Located in the tropical area or sub-tropical area
2. Relevance of Country in the REDD+ context
   • Priority should be given to countries with the following characteristics:
     1. Significant forest area and carbon stock;
     2. High importance of forests in the national economy; and
     3. High current or projected deforestation or forest degradation

Conditions for participation in the Carbon Fund
A few countries that have successfully participated in the Readiness Fund may be selected, on a voluntary basis, to participate in the Carbon Fund.

The FCPF governance structure consists of a:

• Participants Committee;
• Participants Assembly:
• Carbon Fund Participants Committee;
• Facility Management Team;
• Trustee of the Readiness Fund;
• Trustee of the Carbon Fund; and
• One or more Ad Hoc Technical Advisory Panels.

Participants Committee
The Participants Committee is the managerial body responsible for overseeing and facilitating operations of the FCPF. It meets twice a year to review submissions and select new participant countries, as well as approve funding allocations, rules of procedure, budgets and new methodologies. The Committee consists of 28 members (14 REDD+ Country Participants and 14 members collectively from Donor Participants and Carbon Fund Participants) and each member is entitled to one vote. Decisions are made by consensus but should efforts to reach consensus fail, a two thirds majority of members present and voting will suffice.

Participants Assembly
The Participants Assembly meets annually to elect the Participants Committee and provides oversight and guidance to the Participants Committee. Primarily a forum for information exchange and knowledge sharing, it is attended by participants from the Carbon Fund, eligible REDD+ countries and donor countries. To overturn decisions of the Participants Committee, a minimum of two-thirds majority from REDD+ Country Participants and two-thirds collective majority from Donor Participants and Carbon Fund Participants is required.

The Carbon Fund Participants Committee
The Carbon Fund Participants Committee makes decisions on specific carbon transactions.

Facility Management Team
The Facility Management Team is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the FCPF.

Ad Hoc Technical Advisory Panels
One or more Ad Hoc Technical Advisory Panels may be established by FCPF’s governance bodies (Participants Committee or the Facility Management Team, etc.) for the purpose of securing technical advice and information. Each Ad Hoc Technical Advisory Panel is independent and impartial.

In May 2019, the FCPF adopted an updated programme-level Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. This framework includes:

1. a revised FCPF results framework (revised impact, outcome and output statements, and revised indicators);
2. an indicator-by-indicator overview and reporting guidance (rationale for indicators, data sources, measurement approaches, reporting responsibilities);
3. a revised progress reporting templates;
4. an outline of options for future FCPF evaluations.

The Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) template includes a section for monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the R-PPs at the country level, which requires countries to design a monitoring and evaluation framework. The template advises that locally-based M&E can feed into M&E at the national level. ‘The M&E framework would monitor each component of the R-PP, such as organisation and consultations, preparation of REDD+ strategy, development of a national reference scenario, design of systems for national forest monitoring and information on safeguards, and schedules and budgets’. However, the World Bank’s Independent Evaluation Group 2012 review suggests that ‘the R-PPs do not appear to allocate adequate resources for M&E’.

Independent Evaluations
FCPF programmes have been evaluated in 2011 and 2016. The first independent programme evaluation was commissioned by the Participants Committee of the FPCF and was conducted by the Nordic Agency for Development and Ecology in 2011. They found that “since its inception in 2008, FCPF has made significant progress in meeting the first and last objectives (building in-country capacity and disseminating lessons learned in readiness), but less progress has been made on the two other objectives as would be expected at this early stage (piloting a performance-based system of payments; enhancing livelihoods & conserving biodiversity)”.

The second independent evaluation was led by Indufor Team in 2016. The main findings on relevance are:

1. “The FCPF continued to add value to REDD Countries through its common readiness framework and structured approach to REDD Readiness,
2. In some countries, the FCPF Delivery Partners had not integrated REDD+ agenda into their country engagement strategies even if they supported REDD+ through the FCPF,
3. Most Financial Contributors had common strategic priorities to which the FCPF had responded appropriately”.

Complaint mechanisms
The World Bank’s applicable policies and procedures on grievance and accountability mechanisms apply through the ‘Common Approach’ for FCPF Readiness Fund delivery partners and regulate the establishment of FCPF related grievance and redress mechanisms. FCPF has a country/programme feedback and grievance redress mechanism. Stakeholders (including geographically, culturally or economically-isolated or excluded groups) can use this mechanism during the preparation phase and the operation stage to address their grievances.

In addition, affected communities can file complaints to the World Bank Inspection Panel when they feel that FCPF programmes cause harm to people or the environment.

Stakeholders participate in FCPF’s core decision-making process via the Participants Committee and the Participants Assembly where they are invited as observers. For the Participants Assembly, representatives of relevant International Organisations, relevant Non-governmental Organisations, Forest-Dependent Indigenous Peoples and Forest Dwellers and relevant private sector entities, may be invited by the Facility Management Team to attend Annual Participant Assembly Meetings as observers.

In the Participants Committee, one representative each from relevant International Organisations, Non-governmental Organisations, Forest-Dependent Indigenous Peoples and Forest Dwellers, private sector entities, the UN-REDD Programme and UNFCCC Secretariat, is invited to attend the meetings of the Participants Committee as observers. These representatives do not have voting rights, but may express their views on issues under discussion.

The full list of official observers can be found at: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/official-observers

In-depth details about individual funded projects are publicly available at: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/countries

Prior to each Annual Meeting of the Participants Assembly, the Facility Management Team provides annual progress reports to Participants regarding the activities of the Facility for the previous Fiscal Year.

Additionally, detailed guidance notes on information disclosure for FCPF documents exit separately for the Readiness Fund and the Carbon Fund.

They stipulate for the Facility Management Team to make numerous documents available to the Participants and to the public, including:

• Readiness Fund Grant Agreements, reports on implementation of Grant Agreements and any other information submitted by REDD+ Country Participants;
• Reports and conclusions of the Participants Committee;
• Information on Emission Reductions Programmes selected by the Carbon Fund Participants;
• Where appropriate, findings and advice from the Ad Hoc Technical Advisory Panels;
• Information on good practices and lessons of experience learned through operation of the Facility; and
• Any other information as deemed appropriate by the Facility Management Team.

Non-government Stakeholder Consultation and Participation
The FCPF was criticised for its failure to adequately consult non-government stakeholders prior to its public launch in 2007. It responded to these criticisms (see above) however failure to facilitate full consultation and participation of Indigenous and Local Peoples is a recurring criticism.

Human Rights, Indigenous Rights and Traditional/Customary Rights
In a report by the Forest Peoples Programme and FERN, the World Bank was criticised for failing to uphold commitments on human rights. The FCPF Draft Charter fails to include any safeguards for indigenous rights, and there are concerns that the process and content of FCPF ignores traditional and customary rights, implying that all control of forest lands rests with governments.

Project/Programme Failings
Civil society groups, including Rainforest Foundation and Global Witness have criticised the Peru R-PP for presenting an incomplete picture of the drivers of deforestation and governance issues, specifically in relation to the on-going conflicts between indigenous groups and industrial logging companies and mining concessionaires. The FCPF process in Cameroon sparked similar concerns, glossing over critical land tenure, carbon rights, and benefit sharing issues.

FCPF’s Safeguard Approach
The Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) advocates a human rights-based approach to REDD+ safeguards that is consistent with international human rights obligations and centred on a “do no harm” approach to interventions. It has criticised the FCPF’s safeguard approach for not being sufficiently rights-based, because the World Bank’s policies and procedures do not fully reflect existing human rights obligations. On the other hand, CIEL approves the FCPF’s explicit recognition of the need for a grievance and redress mechanism for instances when REDD+ activities have unintended negative consequences on local stakeholders.