The Forest Investment Program (FIP) is a targeted programme of the Strategic Climate Fund (SCF) within the Climate Investment Funds (CIF). The FIP supports developing countries’ efforts to reduce deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and promotes sustainable forest management that leads to emission reductions and the protection of carbon reservoirs. It works towards this goal by providing scaled-up financing to developing countries for readiness reforms and public and private investments, identified through national REDD readiness or equivalent strategies. The FIP is active in 23 countries.
|Name of the Fund||Forest Investment Program (FIP)|
|Official Fund Website||https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/topics/sustainable-forests|
|Proposed Life of Fund||The FIP is subject to the CIF ‘sunset clause’ which proposes the closure of the CIF once a new financial architecture becomes effective under the UNFCCC regime. The implementation of the CIF ‘sunset clause’ has been suspended repeatedly and in 2019 indefinitely. Until such time, donors and recipients operate under the existing framework.|
|Objectives||The FIP is designed to support developing countries’ REDD efforts and promote sustainable forest management through four main objectives:
31 million hectares of forest landscape are expected to benefit from improved management. The stated targets are:
|Financial inputs and fund size||Contributions to the FIP total USD 785 million. The contributors include Australia, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom and the United States.
The application of all CIF finance can be classified as ODA by the partner multilateral development banks (MDBs) acting as implementing entities for the CIFs including the FIP if:
|Activities Supported||The FIP is currently active in 23 countries; these are Bangladesh, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Congo Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Indonesia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mexico, Mozambique, Nepal, Peru, Rwanda, Tunisia, Uganda, and Zambia.
The activities supported by the FIP include:
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.
|Secretariat or Administrative Unit||The CIF Administrative Unit supports the work of the SCF Trust Fund Committee and other committees, including the FIP Sub-Committee. It provides recommendations and reporting on operational and financial matters to the CIF governing bodies.
The Unit is housed in the World Bank Group’s Washington DC offices and is comprised of a small professional and administrative staff.
|Trustee||The World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development) acts as Trustee for all Climate Investment Funds, including the FIP.|
Fund Finance and Access Modalities
|Conditions and Eligibility Requirements||For a country to be eligible to receive funding from the FIP, the following is required:
|Accessing the Fund||
|Safeguards, Gender and Indigenous Peoples||
|Decision Making Structure||The FIP is part of the governance arrangements for the SCF, which includes a SCF Trust Fund Committee, a FIP Sub-Committee, and an MDB Committee.
SCF Trust Fund Committee
The list of actual SCF Trust Fund Committee members is available at: https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif_enc
FIP Sub-Committee (FIP-SC)
The FIP Sub-Committee is composed of:
Decisions are made by consensus. Members of the FIP Sub-Committee serve for one-year terms, and may be reappointed.
The list of actual FIP Sub-Committee members is available at: https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif_enc
The May 2011 FIP Results Framework has not yet been revised and it does not contain core indicators, but discussions towards agreeing on a few core indicators are ongoing. Some 32 indicators are included in the current framework. Its main purpose is to establish a basis for monitoring and future evaluation of the impact, outcomes and outputs of FIP-funded activities. In addition, it states that: “It is designed to guide pilot countries and MDBs in developing their results frameworks to ensure that FIP-relevant results and indicators are integrated in their own M&E systems at the country or the project/programme level”.
An Independent Evaluation of the CIF experience was requested by the CIF Trust Fund Committees and completed in 2014. The evaluation was conducted by a consulting firm selected and supervised by a joint working group of the independent evaluation offices of five MDBs: ADB, AfDB, EBRD, IDB, and the World Bank.
Among the findings are the following:
The CIF administrative unit has also been working with partner countries to understand their domestic frameworks for monitoring and evaluation. A strategic assessment of the environmental social and gender impacts of the CIF was completed in 2010, and IUCN conducted a Gender Evaluation of the CIF in 2012. More recently, a report evaluating the engagement of women and gender-related groups in the CIFs was released in 2020.
|Participation of Observers and Stakeholders||In designing the CIFs, consultations took place with potential donors and recipients, the United Nations family, other multilateral development banks (MDBs), civil society organisations, and the private sector. The CIFs were created on agreement from some 40 developing and industrialised countries.
Regional consultative meetings amongst Indigenous Peoples and local communities
Representatives from all FIP pilot countries, members of the MDB Committee and the Trustee may attend the FIP-SC as active observers. Active observers for the FIP-SC also include representatives from:
In addition, state and non-state stakeholder groups come together every year for a scoring workshop to assess FIP progress on MDB-approved projects.
|Transparency and Information Disclosure||Pledges, deposits and funding decisions for SCF and its subsidiary funds (PPCR, SREP and FIP) are reported to the SCF Trust Fund Committee in bi-annual trustee reports. Details on individual projects are made public and available at: https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/projects
Proposed plans are also posted on the CIF website no later than three weeks prior to review of the proposal by a Committee. In the case of proposed programmes and projects, an information document describing the proposal is to be made public at least two weeks prior to a decision on the funding of the proposal.
The policy recognises that a country or a project proponent may have justifiable reasons for not publicly disclosing all information in an investment plan or project.
|Other Issues Raised||Civil society and private sector observers have expressed concerns that the FIP criteria for country selection, which are almost exclusively technical, fail to take into account recipient countries’ governance or absorptive capacities. Some groups, such as the Rainforest Foundation, have raised concerns that FIP activities are no more than ‘business as usual’ World Bank forest sector lending – particularly in relation to plantations and ‘sustainable forest management’ (industrial-scale logging of natural forests).
A composite of critical civil society perspectives on the FIP is compiled by REDD Monitor. Although the FIP’s operational guidelines were revised to reference the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), specific criteria to comply with UNDRIP and/or to include free, prior and informed consent of affected Indigenous Peoples have not been incorporated. Furthermore, recommendations by civil society observers that FIP guidelines should comply with relevant international environmental and human rights agreements were rejected.
Global Witness has pointed out that FIP’s safeguard policies may result in a lack of coherence as different MDBs enforce different policies and procedures. The Forest Peoples Programme has raised concerns that the development of FIP investment plans by government-hired consultants in certain countries has not involved the promised level of stakeholder engagement, particularly of indigenous communities.