1. Tool/s for assessing and monitoring governance & linkages to accountability in REDD+ Neeta Hooda Facility Management Team, Forest Carbon Partnership Facility Strengthening Transparency and Accountability in REDD+ in Africa Lusaka, Zambia, April 24-26, 2012

2. PART I: About the FCPF

3. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility: A Partnership to Make REDD+ Happen REDD + Civil Society Govern- ments Develop -ment Partner s Private Sector Scientists Indigen ous Peoples 3

4. FCPF Purpose –FCPF is a demonstration activity, the design of which started in 2006 (before COP13 in Bali) –Funded voluntarily –Aligns with the emerging policy guidance of the UNFCCC –Informs the UNFCCC negotiations through country-led implementation FCPF and Phases of REDD+ –Phases 1 and 2 ‘Phase 1’: national strategies and capacity building ‘Phase 2’: implementation of strategies ‘Phase 3’: results-based activities that are fully measured, reported and verified (MRV’ed) 4 FCPF & UNFCCC

5. FCPF and REDD+: Strategic Objectives 5 1- Help countries become ready for REDD+ 2- Pilot payments based on performance (equitable and at scale) 3- Pilot ways to improve livelihoods and conserve biodiversity 4- Disseminate lessons learned FCPF

6. Readiness Fund: Country Participation Status 6 37 countries selected in 2008-2009

7. * FCPF REDD Country Participant +FIP Draft R-PP reviewed by PC Readiness grant approved by PC Candidate Country * Sudan only (not South Sudan) 2 1 10 REDD Country Participants + Candidates in Africa (as of April 15, 2012) 5 7

8. Readiness Fund: Country Participation Status (as of April 15, 2012) 23 countries have submitted a Readiness Preparation Proposal and received allocation for a Readiness Preparation Grant 8 Africa Cent. African Rep.DR CongoEthiopiaGhanaKenyaLiberiaMozambiqueRepublic of CongoTanzania* Uganda Asia CambodiaIndonesiaLao PDRNepalVietnam Latin America & Caribbean ArgentinaColombiaCosta RicaGuatemalaGuyanaMexicoPanamaPeru * No grant funding requested from FCPF

9. Readiness Fund: Country Participation Status (2) (as of April 15, 2012) 12 additional countries have requested access to Readiness Fund ▫ Belize ▫ Bhutan ▫ Burundi ▫ Chad ▫ Côte d’Ivoire ▫ Jamaica ▫ Nigeria ▫ Pakistan ▫ Philippines ▫ Sri Lanka ▫ Sudan ▫ Togo PC will decide whether and under what conditions to reopen the Readiness Fund (March 2013) 9

10. FCPF: Financial Contributors 10 Readiness Fund $230 m Australia Canada Denmark Finland France (AFD) Germany Italy Japan Netherlands Norway Spain Switzerland UK USA Carbon Fund $213 m Australia BP Canada CDC Climat European Commission Germany Norway Switzerland The Nature Conservancy UK USA Support preparation for REDD+ (2008-2020) Pay for emission reductions (2011-2020)

11. PART II: Governance and Anti-corruption

12. Linkages between anti-corruption and governance Can good governance be a mitigation measure to address corruption? What can be done to promote good governance in the REDD+ context? – Setting up a robust, country owned process from the start (e.g. readiness phase of REDD+)readiness phase of REDD+ – How? Participatory and inclusive process Awareness and Feedback mechanisms from stakeholders Assessing and addressing social, environmental, fiduciary risks upstream World Bank Safeguard policies Strategic Assessments using SESA Governance diagnostics

13. Governance Diagnostics Tool Why a Governance Diagnostics Tool? – The need to move away from ad hoc efforts at improving governance towards a systematic approach. Desirable Characteristics of a Good Tool – It would focus on reforms with a high chance of success – It would involve stakeholders from the beginning (because stakeholder knowledge and support are essential to the success of reforms) – It would point to actionable, practical interventions – It would lend itself to repeated application, to allow tracking of the progress of reform efforts

14. Approach to Developing a Governance Diagnostics Tool WHAT? – Framework for Assessing and Monitoring Forest Governance (PROFOR-FAO, June 2011) – Designed for use from country perspective – Helps identify governance weaknesses and reforms especially associated with the fundamental drivers of deforestation, and ways and means to address them HOW? – Create an Indicator set based on the governance framework, to guide stakeholder consultations – Evaluation of these questions will identify areas of forest governance needing reform help draft a forest governance reform strategy For WHOM? – Disseminate the draft strategy. Build ownership and consensus. Evolve to an “action plan

15. Pillars of governance

16. Pillars of governance (2) – The common framework is organized as 3 pillars of governance:  good policies, laws, and institutions;  good decision-making processes; and  good implementation – Each pillar is divided into more specific components and subcomponents. – The whole framework reflects six underlying principles of good governance: accountability, effectiveness, efficiency, equity/fairness, participation, and transparency.

17. Sample Question from the Indicator Set Extent to which the legal framework recognizes and protects forest-related property rights, including rights to carbon Q. Beyond land and vegetation, is the ownership of other resources tied to the land (e.g. carbon, genetic resources, wildlife, water, minerals) clear? Rationale Old rights systems do not always fit evolving uses of the forest. The law should clarify who has the right to emerging resources. NOTES In some places, these new resources will belong to whoever owns the rights to the land; however this is not the only possible ownership regime. Some of these resources may belong to the state. Some may be subject to complex licensing or priority systems that are independent of land ownership. Possible Responses: The law clearly determines who has the rights to resources like carbon, genetic materials, wildlife, water, and minerals. The law clearly determines who has the rights to some of these resources. The law is silent on who has the rights to these resources.

18. Sample Question from the Indicator Set Q. Beyond land and vegetation, is the ownership of other resources tied to the land (e.g. carbon, genetic resources, wildlife, water, minerals) clear? Rationale Old rights systems do not always fit evolving uses of the forest. The law should clarify who has the right to emerging resources. NOTES In some places, these new resources will belong to whoever owns the rights to the land; however this is not the only possible ownership regime. Some of these resources may belong to the state. Some may be subject to complex licensing or priority systems that are independent of land ownership. Possible Responses: The law clearly determines who has the rights to resources like carbon, genetic materials, wildlife, water, and minerals. The law clearly determines who has the rights to some of these resources. The law is silent on who has the rights to these resources.

19. Sample Question from the Indicator Set Extent to which the legal framework provides opportunities for public participation in forest-related policies and decisions and opportunities for redress and remedy Do laws give stakeholders opportunities for input in the creation of forest policies, public forest management plans, and subsidiary rules? Rationale Stakeholder participation should not be left to the whims of the government. The law should require it. Possible Responses: The law gives stakeholders formal opportunities for input in the creation of all of these. The law gives stakeholders formal opportunities for input in the creation of some of these. The law does not give stakeholders opportunities for input in the creation of these

20. Field-Testing the tool in Burkina Faso, Kenya and Uganda Why was it done? – Burkina—primarily to inform their FIP – Kenya—to inform the Miti Mingi Maisha Bora (MMMB) Program – Uganda—to support sector reform as required by their latest 5 year national plan How was it done? (An overview of how the tool is used in a country setting, need for facilitator, costs, materials and advance work done/ required) Users’ guide: http://www.profor.info/profor/knowledge/assessing-forest- governance-burkina-faso

21. Sample Tabulation of Results-Uganda

22. Sample Tabulation of Results-Burkina Faso

23. Reflections on the Tool – Self-assessment by countries based strongly on multi- stakeholder consultations. – Consensus-based identification of priority issues and “home-grown” solutions. – In the context of REDD+, this approach can facilitate consensus-building around contentious issues of sharing of carbon benefits, recognition of traditional and indigenous rights, etc. – Can identify indicators with which to monitor progress of proposed reforms.

24. Looking forward – Align with international monitoring requirements for REDD+, such as UN-REDD, FLEGT-VPA – Create a vibrant forest governance community of practice – Revise and improve the PROFOR-FAO Framework – Work with other ongoing initiatives..as governance reforms in other sectors equally important to contain potential corruption. For example World Bank’s ‘Governance and anticorruption’ unit

25. Thank you www.forestcarbonpartnership.org