3. Fundraising
Funder Proponent Focus Status
BMU GFI Addressing agricultural Concept note
drivers of (Mar)
deforestation
DFID GFI/EPE/PEP Land grabbing & Full proposal
industrial agriculture (Apr)
in Africa
Norad GFI REDD & governance Concept note
(May)
4. GFI Tools & Analysis
GFI Framework of Indicators
5. GFI Tools & Analysis
GFI Guidance Manual
Assessment Conducting Using the Advocacy and Indicator
Planning the Research Research engagement guidance
Defining
Creating a Stakeholder Assessment
Objectives and Analyzing results
Workplan identification object
Scope
Developing a
Prioritizing Research Methods and
Presenting data communications
Indicators Methods Sources
strategy
Interpreting
Adapting
Review of results elements of
Indicators quality
6. GFI Tools & Analysis
GFI Guidance Manual
Examples of worksheets and tools
1. Planning for costs and budgets
2. Stakeholder mapping matrix
3. Designing an interview questionnaire
4. Completed worksheet sample
5. Developing an outreach plan
7. GFI Tools & Analysis
GFI Global Report
Culmination of the Norad grant, bringing your
research and experiences to a global audience
Outline
• Intro: overview of forest governance, GFI
methodology, country contexts
• Analysis:
transparency, participation, accountability, coor
dination
• Conclusions: key lessons learned and
recommendations
8. Collaboration
FAO/World Bank Initiative
Supporting a community of practice
to mainstream forest governance
assessment and monitoring
• Phase 1: a common framework
• Phase 2: guidance on indicator
selections and data collection
9. REDD+ Research
Study on Benefit Sharing
For USAID
• Analysis of institutional mechanisms for
REDD+ benefit sharing
-Case study examples from five countries:
Mexico, Nepal, Indonesia, DRC, Tanzania
• Institutional assessment tool
for REDD+ benefit sharing
10. REDD+ Research
Report on National Safeguard Systems
Based on:
• Research and analysis
– Policies of IFIs etc
– International laws
– Secondary sources
• Conversations with government and non-
governmental actors, primarily in:
– Brazil
– Mexico
– Indonesia
• Lessons from GFI assessments
11. REDD+ Research
REDD+ Safeguard Systems in Indonesia,
Brazil & Mexico
Help partners develop a more systematic method for thinking
about the development of a national safeguard
system, including:
Potential approaches and issues already being considered
The intersection between national and international
safeguard systems and the challenges of managing that
intersection
Added Mexico as they have had a somewhat unique approach
(and Cameroon is not moving very quickly on REDD right now).
12. REDD+ Research
Conceptual Framework for Report on
National Safeguard Systems
Elements
Functions
Rules
Anticipate
Actors
Rules
Avoid
Goals Actors
Principle/ Rules
Criteria Manage Results
Actors
Rules
Monitor
Actors
Rules
Respond
Actors
14. REDD+ Advocacy
UNREDD
Provide input on the role and format of the:
1. Social & Environmental Principles and Criteria
• The “guiding framework” for UN-REDD
2. Benefits and Risk Tool
• Voluntary tool
3. FPIC Guidelines
• Still under development
4. Grievance procedures
• Still under development (UNDP moving ahead)
15. REDD+ Advocacy
FCPF – Readiness Package
A progress report prepared at the end of R-PP
implementation. Required to access the Carbon
Fund, otherwise optional.
Clarifying the purpose
• For REDD+ countries
• For donors
• For civil society
Designing the methodology
• Country self-assessment
• PC review
CelineDefining: considerations when defining scopePrioritizing: lead you through the indicators, how to pick out individuals or clusters
Celine
Crystal
- Establish common terminology and concepts- Help potential users navigate tools and methodologies Synthesize and share lessons and experiences from the existing initiatives
Lauren
Gaia/Florence
Gaia/Florence
Gaia/Florence
FlorenceInternational SIS: Brazil blocking the negotiations, Mexico. Indonesia has moved forward with SIS at national level, but reluctance to bring it up to the international. Recommendation was therefore to allow countries to develop at their own pace, but not yet close the door. MRV vs. monitoring. Monitoring is data collection in all areas. Pushing mandate for transparency. Whereas MRV is about how to measure performance. Q debated: is it worth investing that much in measuring performance for emissions reductions for credits, WHEN the demand is so low right now? Also costs: Costa Rica at FCPF: the level of uncertainty is bigger than the estimated emissions reductions, and the cost to monitor is a lot more than what the credits would generate. Mexico: socially impossible to engage in markets, PNG pushing very hard. Drivers: Annex I countries to take care of, TRADE is an issue that came up, but can’t have trade under the UNFCCC.
GaiaUNDP wants to be a FCPF delivery partner– therefore pushing on with fulfilling the Common Approach requirements.
For REDD countries: critical self-assessment of progress to inform next steps, highlight key achievements and outstanding gaps to communicate to donors For donors: credible assessment of gaps and needs, help to prioritize additional readiness financing and phase 2 financing For civil society: transparent check point, hold governments accountable for the things they said they’d do in their RPPs