The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) is a World Bank programme and consists of a Readiness Fund and a Carbon Fund. The FCPF was created to assist developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, enhance and conserve forest carbon stocks, and sustainably manage forests (REDD+).
|Name of Fund||Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)|
|Official Fund Website||www.forestcarbonpartnership.org|
|Date Created||Date fund proposed: Initial discussions in 2006, concept note dated 16 March 2007.
Date fund made operational: 25 June 2008*.
*The FCPF became operational upon the operational date of the Readiness Fund.
|Proposed Life of Fund||Both the Readiness Fund and the Carbon Fund of the FCPF are established through to 2020.|
|Administrating Organisation||The World Bank|
|Objectives||The FCPF aims to:1. Provide financial and technical assistance to:
2. Pilot an emissions reduction performance-based payment system generated from 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; and
4. Disseminate the knowledge gained through the development and implementation of the FCPF and related programmes.
|Activities Supported||Activities supported by the FCPF:
|Conditions and Eligibility Requirements||Conditions for participation in the Readiness 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 (see below for further details).
|Accessing the Fund||Participation in the Readiness 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. Countries that have made considerable progress towards REDD+ readiness submit programme proposals that are assessed according to the following criteria:
|Monitoring and Evaluation Framework||Progress on the implementation of FCPF programmes is monitored through the FCPF dashboard which is updated monthly, and provides a detailed overview of the status of implementation of Readiness Preparation Proposals, and a comment on implementation issues.
In June 2013, the Facility Management Team prepared updated the Monitoring and Evaluation framework. It builds on country level monitoring and evaluation efforts to be developed as part of readiness implementation. It includes the two following core components:
· The Result Chain and Logical Framework: which together provide a strategic overview of the FCPF and support decision-making by illustrating the main results to be achieved by the Facility at various levels, and their associated performance indicators. They provide a frame to focus both the monitoring and evaluation efforts at the Facility level.
· The Performance Measurement Framework (PMF): which is based on the Logical Framework, is the key internal management tool to be used by the Facility Management Team (FMT) to manage the collection, analysis and reporting on the performance data that must nourish the monitoring and evaluation functions. It captures key elements of expected results of the FCPF at the Facility level, by outlining proposed program indicators for each results level, targets, baselines, frequency of data collection, data sources and methods, as well as responsibilities for this data collection and consolidation.
Findings from evaluations
The first independent programme evaluation in 2011 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 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’.
|Decision Making Structure||The FCPF governance structure consists of a:
Observers to the Participants Assembly:
Observers to the Participants Committee:
The Carbon Fund Participants Committee
Facility Management Team
Ad Hoc Technical Advisory Panels
|Non-Government Stakeholder Participation||Forest dwelling and indigenous peoples were not consulted prior to the launch of the FCPF in 2007. However, the World Bank responded to criticisms of this consultation failure, by organising a series of three regional consultations with representatives of forest dwellers and indigenous people in Kathmandu, Bujumbura and La Paz. As a result of these consultations, it was decided that representatives of indigenous peoples would be included on each of the FCPF Technical Advisory Panels and that they are fully consulted in the formulation of national REDD strategies.|
|Information Disclosure||The Readiness Fund and each of the Tranches of the Carbon Fund have separate records and ledger accounts. The Fund Trustees provide the Participants with all financial information relating to receipts, disbursements and fund balance via the World Bank’s Trust Funds Donor Centre secure website. Disbursement information is also made available in the FCPF Annual Report and on the FCPF website.Disclosure PolicyPrior to each Annual Meeting of the Participants Assembly, the Facility Management Team will provide annual progress reports to Participants regarding the activities of the Facility for the previous Fiscal Year.
Additionally, the Facility Management Team shall make the following documents available to the Participants and to the public:
|Safeguard Policies||The FCPF’s delivery partners are expected to follow the World Bank’s overarching safeguard policies, which fall under the following relevant categories: environmental assessments; natural habitats; forests; physical cultural resources, involuntary resettlement; and indigenous peoples.The FCPF Readiness Fund has adopted a so-called ‘common approach’ for addressing social and environmental safeguards with multiple delivery partners. The FCPF has produced joint ‘Programme Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement in REDD+’ with the UN-REDD programme, and also requires adherence to its guidance on disclosure of information.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.|
|Issues Raised||FCPF Progress
An external evaluation of the FCPF in 2011 confirmed that the FCPF has made significant progress, specifically in building in-country capacity and disseminating lessons learned. However, the report was critical of the pace of financial commitments and disbursements from the Readiness Fund, the inflexibility of rates to adjust to country needs, the lack of in-country procurement capacity and the limited country level involvement of World Bank staff.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.
Relationship with Official Development Assistance
|Inclusion as Official Development Assistance||Yes.|
|Financial Instrument/ Delivery Mechanism Used (e.g. grant, loan)||The Readiness Fund is grant-based. Within the Carbon Fund, funds are delivered in exchange for emission reductions.|
|Nature of Recipient Country Involvement||The FCPF is characterised by a governance structure that gives equal weight to developing and industrialised countries. The FCPF respects recipient countries’ national policies and sovereign rights to manage their own natural resources. Recipient countries’ determine specific strategy options and the manner in which to use the Readiness Mechanism (to prepare for REDD) or the Carbon Mechanism (to reduce GHG emissions). The countries are given autonomy to individually prepare and submit proposals to the Facility under both mechanisms.|