Section 2. What Social And Environmental Issues Exist: Strengthening Design And Implementation of REDD+ 2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability.

Section 2. What Social And Environmental Issues Exist: Strengthening Design And Implementation of REDD+ 2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability USAID LEAF Regional Climate Change Curriculum Development Module: Social and Environmental Soundness (SES)

Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) Module Development Team
Acknowledgements Name Affiliation Surin Onprom; Co-Lead Kasetsart University, Thailand Tran Thi Thu Ha Vietnam Forestry University Penporn Janekarnkij; Co-Lead Nguyen Dinh Hai Rejani Kunjappan; Co-Lead RECOFTC Vo Mai Anh Claudia Radel; Co-Lead Utah State University Tran Tuan Viet Sarah Hines; Co-Lead US Forest Service Cao Tien Trung Vinh University, Vietnam Sidthinat Prabudhanitisarn Chiang Mai University, Nguyen T. Trang Thanh Sharifah Zarina Syed Zakaria University Kebangsaan Malaysia Nguyen Thu Ha USAID Vietnam Forests & Deltas Mohd Rusli Yacob University Putra Malaysia Maeve Nightingale IUCN MFF Kaisone Phengspha National University of Laos Guada Lagrada PACT MPE Phansamai Phengspha Le Van Trung DARD Lam Dong Kethsa Nanthavongduangsy Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh AIT Thailand Freddie Alei University of Papua New Guinea David Ganz USAID LEAF Bangkok Chay Kongkruy Royal University of Agriculture, Cambodia Kalpana Giri Soreivathanak Reasey Hoy Royal University of Phnom Penh, Chi Pham Project Coordinator Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) Module Development Team Various individuals have participated in the development of the RECCCD SES Module.

Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) Module
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1. Introduction to Climate Change 1.2. The Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation Context 1.3. Introduction to Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) 1.4. Guiding Frameworks – Sustainable Development & Ethics WHAT SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES EXIST: STRENGHENING DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REDD 2.1. Environmental Co-benefits: Introduction to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Carbon/REDD+ Project Accounting, Carbon Monitoring & MRV 2.2. Governance Regulatory Framework, Forest Tenure, and Carbon Rights Stakeholder Participation FPIC Social Co-benefits Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment Gender Analysis Tools Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index Indigenous Peoples and their Empowerment Local Livelihoods: An Introduction Livelihoods impact Case Study: April Salumei, PNG REDD+ Benefits Sharing Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability STATE OF THE ART IN ACTION: BRINGING THE PIECES TOGETHER 3.1. Safeguard Mechanisms in REDD+ Programs 3.2. Streamlining of Safeguards and Standards 3.3. Developing National Level Safeguards Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) Module The full module outline is on the slide, including subsections. Below are the number of possible teaching sessions associated with each section or topic (with subsections sessions included with the main section sessions). The estimation of possible teaching sessions is based on an assumption of 50 minutes or an hour per teaching session. Course material can be adapted to longer and shorter formats. Social & Environmental Soundness Module Outline 1.0. Introduction and Background: What is Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) and its Larger Climate Change Context? 1.1. Introduction to Climate Change (1 session) 1.2. The Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation Context – An Introduction to REDD+ (3 sessions) 1.3. Introduction to Social and Environmental Soundness (SES) (4 sessions) 1.4. Guiding Frameworks—Sustainable Development & Ethics (1 session) 2.0. What Social And Environmental Issues Exist: Strengthening Design And Implementation of REDD+ 2.1. Environmental Co-benefits: Introduction to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (5 sessions) 2.2. Governance (5 sessions) 2.3. Stakeholder Participation (4 sessions) 2.4. Social Co-benefits (1 session) 2.5. Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment (4 sessions) 2.6. Indigenous Peoples and their Empowerment (1 sessions) 2.7. Local Livelihoods: An Introduction (2 sessions) 2.8. REDD+ Benefits Sharing (2 sessions) 2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability (3 sessions) 3.0. State of the Art in Action: Bringing the Pieces Together 3.1. Safeguard Mechanisms in REDD+ Programs (1 session) 3.2. Streamlining of Safeguards and Standards (1 session) 3.3. Developing National Level Safeguards (1 sessions)

Learning Objectives At the end of this section, learners will be able to: Explain the basic economic concepts relevant to PES/REDD+ List, categorize, and identify the benefits and costs (B&C) and tradeoffs Apply the developed skills to use economic decision tools for analyzing social and environmental soundness (SES) in REDD+ Evaluate the linkages between B&C of REDD+ and how these link to SES This section relates directly to SES section 2.1, on stakeholders and their stakes—helping us to think about these in economic terms.

Outline Basic economic concepts for REDD+
Demand, supply, value Externality Economic tradeoffs SES and economic linkages Benefits and costs associated with PES/REDD+ Benefits: categories and accounting Costs: categories and accounting Economic and financial decision and assessment Benefit cost analysis Opportunity cost analysis Non-market valuation

Methodology Methods Time Lecture Brainstorming Group Discussion/debate
Case Study Group Presentation Individual exercise Time 3 sessions

Pre-Class Preparation
Students should read: Pagiola, Stefano and Benoît Bosquet (2009). Estimating the Cost of REDD at the Country Level. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, World Bank. Available at: muenchen.de/18062/1/MPRA_paper_18062.pdf

Part 1: Basic Economic Concepts for REDD+
Demand, supply Value, price Benefit, cost Externality, public good Economic tradeoffs Linking economics to SES Brainstorm questions relevant to PES/REDD+ and select those that need economic thoughts and reasoning. Key Message: There are a number of questions related to REDD+ activities that can benefit from the application of economic reasoning. However, there are other questions that really are non-economic. Brainstorm the questions associated with economic thought and questions that need economic reasoning For example, prompt the students: If a community/country considers participating in REDD+, what might they want to know that can be answered with the assistance of economic reasoning? Non-econ questions: if it considers to avoid the loss of 1 ha of forest, how much carbon could it be prevented from being emitted? What would be the actual net emissions reduction if a hectare of forests were replaced by agroforestry? What would be a change in carbon stock? Econ questions: What would it cost an individual country to reduce emissions if it considers participating in REDD mechanism? If it considers to keep 1 ha of forest over 30 years, how much income from alternative uses would be foregone? At least at what price of carbon would be paid to a land user to voluntarily forego deforestation? What would be the opportunity costs of avoiding forestation compared with deforestation? Should the country invest in emission reduction program, and also to negotiate payments for REDD+? What are the economic values of reducing GHG emission from keeping 1,000 ha as intact forest at (specific site)? Then, pull out the economic terms that need to be clarified: 2. Conceptualize the economic terminologies and list them down, e.g., price, value, externality, social rate of time preference, financial and econ benefit/cost, economic tradeoffs, on-site benefit, off-site benefit or co-benefits , local vs global benefits ..“If the global community wants to spend up to, say, $250 billion per year over the next 10 years to diminish the adverse effects of climate change, and to do the most good for the world, which solutions would yield the greatest net benefits?”.. (Copenhagen Consensus Center)

Supply & Demand Curves of Forest CO2 Sequestration: 1. Demand shift
D1 = Demand minimum D2 = Demandoptimal safe minimum standard Supply CO2 seq.min CO2 seq.optimum PES, REDD+ $/ton CO2 e Ton CO2seq./year Supply = marginal cost curve Demand = marginal benefit curve p1 p2 Key Message: This is a basic supply and demand curve, but for our example, we have modified it to be applicable to our interests and so we are talking about the supply and demand for a ton of carbon sequestered by the forest (we could just as easily be talking about the supply of and demand for wood – the same concepts apply). Here are the general principles of supply and demand (from Wikipedia): In microeconomics, supply and demand is an economic model of price determination in a market. It concludes that in a competitive market, the unit price for a particular good will vary until it settles at a point where the quantity demanded by consumers (at current price) will equal the quantity supplied by producers (at current price), resulting in an economic equilibrium for price and quantity. The four basic laws of supply and demand are: If demand increases and supply remains unchanged, leading to a higher equilibrium price. If demand decreases and supply remains unchanged, leading to a lower equilibrium price. If demand remains unchanged and supply increases, leading to a lower equilibrium price. If demand remains unchanged and supply decreases, leading to a higher equilibrium price. The price P of a product is determined by a balance between production at each price (supply S) and the desires of those with purchasing power at each price (demand D).” If REDD+ or PES is implemented, that initially will increase the demand for CO2 sequestration, due to a changed policy context. The diagram shows a positive shift in demand from D1 to D2, resulting in an increase in price (P) and quantity sold (CO2 sequestration) of the product. Therefore, both the price and quantity will theoretically increase until the market reaches a new equilibrium. But there may be a second stage to model (see the next slide). For more background information on basic supply/demand in economics, see: Reference: Adapted from Fisher, et al. (2008).

Supply & Demand Curves of Forest CO2 Sequestration: 2. Supply shift
D1 = Demand minimum safe minimum standard Supply CO2 seq.min CO2 seq.optimum $/ton CO2 e Ton CO2seq./year Supply = marginal cost curve Demand = marginal benefit curve p1 p2 New REDD, PES suppliers Here we instead model REDD+/PES as a supply shift, instead of as a demand shift. Following a shift in demand, we might next see a shift in supply as new countries and communities enter the market. Again: “the price P of a product is determined by a balance between production at each price (supply S) and the desires of those with purchasing power at each price (demand D).” There is now an increase the supply of CO2 sequestration. The diagram shows a positive shift in supply from S1 to S2, resulting in a decrease in price (P) and increase in quantity sold (CO2 sequestration) of the product. This modelling of a supply shift might naturally lead into a discussion of the concerns that there is/will be inadequate demand for REDD+ credits. The projected supply of REDD+ credits between 2015 and 2020 is between 3-39x larger than potential total demand. Reference: GCP, IPAM, FFI and UNEP FI Stimulating Interim Demand for REDD+ Emission Reductions: The Need for a Strategic Intervention from 2015 to 2020, Global Canopy Programme, Oxford, UK; the Amazon Environmental Research Institute, Brasília, Brazil; Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK; and UNEP Finance Initiative, Geneva, Switzerland.

Values of ecosystem services in tropical forests (in US$ / ha / year – 2007 values)
Average Maximum No. of studies Provisioning services 1,313 4,699 Food 75 552 19 Water 143 411 3 Raw materials 431 1,418 26 Genetic resources 483 1,756 4 Medicinal resources 181 562 Regulating services 4,426 10,492 Improvement of air quality 230 449 2 Climate regulation 1,965 3,218 10 Regulation of water flows 1,360 5,235 6 Waste treatment / water purification 177 506 Erosion prevention 694 1,084 9 Cultural Services 381 1,171 Opportunities for recreation and tourism 20 Total 6,120 16,362 109 Key Message: Have the students reflect on this figure – does it raise any questions, comments, or concerns? Do students feel like economic quantification is a valuable tool that might help us put an “appropriate value” on nature, or does quantification of economic benefits seem like a strange thing to do when it comes to ecosystems? What are the benefits or drawbacks of taking this (economic) approach? The following text is taken from p of this report: “Forests are a unique economic asset. they are the lungs of our planet and also offer a range of valuable ecosystem services. they are essential to the water cycle, supplying and purifying water. they create and maintain soil fertility for agriculture and agro-forestry. they are reserves of genetic diversity useful for crops and medicines. they provide habitats for wildlife and food and energy for rural communities, as well as timber for construction and fibre for packaging. They are a place of recreation and spiritual renewal. Forests also play a role in stabilizing the global climate. Focusing on one of these values only, like timber or carbon, may not be in the best interests of society. Policies should not focus on a single ecosystem service, such as carbon, but should aim to ensure that other services and their values are also taken into account.” Reference: TEEB (2009). TEEB Climate Issues Update.

Ecological and economic linkages – FOREST ECOSYSTEM
Ecosystem services - human connection/use Ecosystem structure, process/function Biological, chemical, physical interactions Social, cultural, institutional interactions Socio-cultural aspect Ecological aspect Goods/Products (inputs&output) e.g. food/crops, fish, timber, non-timber forest products, medicines, clean water, energy Services (non-material) e.g. flood control, groundwater recharge, nutrient cycling, toxics removal, biodiversity maintenance, pest and disease control, recreation, amenity Provisioning Cultural Regulating Supporting Ecology- economics Key Message: How did academics arrive at the economic figures on the previous slide? Well, this figure provides a conceptual demonstration of how the structure, processes, and functions found in a forest ecosystem can begin to be translated into economic value. These structures, processes, and functions provide various ecosystem services, which in turn provide values to humans. Note that some values are more direct than others. Some values, like climate regulation, may seem esoteric or removed (indirect), but without climate regulation, very little would be possible in terms of our lives and economies as we know them. Source: Adapted from EFTEC (2005) and Turner et al. (2000) Benefits to human well-being Direct use value -Provisioning service -Cultural service Indirect use value -Regulating service Option value Non-use value -Supporting service Use value Total economic value Economic value

Value and price Economic value is: Anthropocentric Extrinsic
Instrumental In economics, value of thing is associated with: Its production cost peoples’ willingness to pay for it – the maximum amount of money a person is willing to pay for the last unit of a good. This normally reflects thing’s usefulness and scarcity. Anthropocentric: value derives from human-held and defined values. Extrinsic: value derives from something external to the thing valued, e.g., extrinsic value of wild elephants vary across human cultures and societies. Intrinsic – Biodiversity Instrumental: something is said to have instrumental value if it is good because it provides the means for acquiring something else of value Reference: see Farber, et al (2002)

Net value = Gross value - Cost
Value and price Forests, as natural capital, provide ecosystem services for free. In economics, we value nature from benefits we receive and our willingness to pay for it. If we had to provide them ourselves, we calculate the economic cost of these services. Economists always consider the NET VALUE or NET BENEFIT Net value = Gross value - Cost Gross refers to the total and Net refers to the part of the total that really matters. For example, net income for a business is the profit after all expenses, overheads, taxes and interest payments are deducted from the gross income. Calculating the net value of something allows you to make direct comparisons. You cannot easily compare the gross value and come to any firm conclusions because you do not know the costs involved. This is why economists always use the net value when discussing options. For the discussion questions, the CO2 price would be the “cost” whereas the CO2 value would be the “gross value” From Wikipedia, we can view a carbon price as an amount that must be paid (normally in a form of “carbon tax”) for the emission of 1 tonne of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. CO2 value refers to “social cost of carbon- SCC”. SCC is the value of damages associated with CO2 emissions in a given period. It also represents the value of damages avoided for emission reduction ,i.e., climate benefit or the benefit of a CO2 reduction. Thus, SCC is a useful measure to assess the benefits of CO2 reductions In the end, you could subtract the cost from the value to calculate the net value. Perhaps the carbon value embodies a lot of co-benefits, but the cost is relatively cheap. In that case, you would have a high net value. Discussion: What is the difference between carbon price and carbon value? How can you estimate them?

Exercise: Benefit, Cost
In-class group exercise: List all advantages and disadvantages of forest conservation Classify benefits for advantages and costs for disadvantages and categorize them (see example of benefits below). Example … benefit. Forest conservation Market benefit (wood, non-wood products, ecotourism) Non-market benefit (GHG reduction, soil and water regulation, pollination) After finishing the group exercise, it is expected that the listing of all advantages and disadvantages of the program can be categorized in terms of market/non-market on-site/off-site direct/indirect Local and global Private, external/environmental, and social Economic and financial Students may have a take-home individual exercise on benefit and cost of “REDD+/PES program” based on the pre-class reading materials. This exercise can be used later for group discussion in the beginning of sub-session II. Forest conservation On-site benefit Outside country (carbon sequestration, biodiversity enhancement) Within country (water service protection) Off-site benefit

Externality Social benefit = private benefit + external benefit
An externality is a cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit (Wikipedia) REFORESTATION can create various benefits Internal (private) benefits: woods and non-wood products received by tree owners External benefits: water stabilization, reduced atmospheric CO2 level, increased pollination, and biodiversity enhancement Social benefit = private benefit + external benefit Social cost = private cost + external cost Thus, Net social benefit = social benefit – social cost From Wikipedia: “For example, manufacturing activities that cause air pollution impose health and clean-up costs on the whole society, whereas the neighbors of an individual who chooses to fire-proof his home may benefit from a reduced risk of a fire spreading to their own houses. If external costs exist, such as pollution, the producer may choose to produce more of the product than would be produced if the producer were required to pay all associated environmental costs. If there are external benefits, such as in public safety, less of the good may be produced than would be the case if the producer were to receive payment for the external benefits to others. For the purpose of these statements, overall cost and benefit to society is defined as the sum of the imputed monetary value of benefits and costs to all parties involved.[2][3] Thus, it is said that, for goods with externalities, unregulated market prices do not reflect the full social costs or benefit of the transaction.” Now, you can see from this definition how these equations make sense! Do you think that deforestation provides a positive or negative net social benefit and why? (Answer: negative net social benefit because the social costs are huge (external cost is huge) but the social benefit is small (private benefit may be moderate, but there is little external benefit). On the whole, deforestation causes a negative net social benefit. Can you think of a different example where the net social benefit is positive? Group discussion: What are the internal and external benefits of forest conservation? What are the private cost and external costs of forest conversion?

Example of positive externality (from reforestation)
$/ha Forest area (ha) MSB = MB + MEB MC – marginal cost MB – marginal benefit MEB – marginal external benefit MB MC p2 p3 p1 500 800 MEB Reforestation of a community creates both internal and external benefits. Internal benefits (so-called private benefits, normally on-site) accrued to the community members are such as wood and non-wood products. External benefits (EB - positive externality) accrued beyond the local community are such as climate regulation, biodiversity conservation, and water supply stabilization. Each ha of reforestation create both internal and external benefits, which is called “social benefit” in sum. In this example, it is assumed that the each ha of community forest creates external benefit equally. A dollar/ha is constant for external benefit in this case. Reforestation also imposes costs to the community such as labor and materials. In this example it is assumed that no external cost exists from reforestation. An additional internal (private) benefit a community received from planting an additional ha of forest is a marginal benefit (MB). The MB curve represents a demand curve for reforestation. The curve usually slopes downward as more and more ha of forest has less and less incremental benefits to community. Additional ha of reforestation imposes cost to the community. In a normal situation, a marginal cost (MC) will increase as reforestation efforts of additional area increase. The price P1 is determined by a balance between demand (MB) and supply (MC) when planting 500 ha with no consideration of external benefits. Distance P1 an d p2 is actually MEB. In other words, P1 represents MB or MC ($/ha) of the 500th ha while P2 represents its MSB. When the full benefit is recognized, a new balance between MB and MC becomes P3 and an optimal planting area will be increased to 800 ha. In the transaction from REDD+ negotiation, the community should be paid for this carbon sequestration benefit. Thus, to create an economic incentive for reforestation, land user should be paid at least equivalent to the distance P1P3 . Photo source: Reforestation activities:: Cost – labour and materials; Internal Benefit (on-site) - wood and non-wood products External Benefit (off-site) - climate regulation, water stabilization, biodiversity enhancement

Example of negative externality (converting forest land for maize production)
$/ha Converted area (ha) MSC = MC + MEC MB1 MSC – marginal social cost MC – marginal (private) cost MB - marginal benefit MEC – marginal external cost MC p2 p1 150 p3 100 MEC This case assumes that forest land is converted to maize production. If externality is not recognized from forest conversion, land will be cleared at 150 ha for maize production as a result of balancing demand and supply. It is assumed that an externality cost for additional ha of land is constant (MEC is constant). From the social perspective, the full cost (social cost, MSC) of additional forest land loss should account for both private cost (MC) and external cost (MEC). Accordingly, only 100 ha of forest land worth to convert for maize production. The distance P1P3 is actually the MEC ($/ha) of converting the 100th ha of forest land. Flipping this graph also describes the situation for which land is restored back to forest, similar to the previous graph. In specific case, externality generated from forest carbon conserving project (REDD+/PES) refers to “non-carbon impact”. Positive externality such as biodiversity, livelihood improvement are known as “co-benefit”. Negative externality such as group conflict, unemployment are known as “co-cost”. SES in REDD+/PES is meant to avoid “negative externality”. Land conversion for maize production: Internal Cost (imposed to land user) - labour and materials; External (off-site) Cost – GHG emission, biodiversity loss, risk of soil erosion Internal Benefit (on-site) - income from logging and maize products

Economic trade-off Decision involves “trade-off” when something must be sacrificed or given up whenever a choice is made. This is due to “scarcity”. In “trading off” you need to think about “opportunity cost” or value of the next best option foregone. In “trading off” you also need to ask who are the relevant decision makers. When you do the “economic trade-offs”, you may need to do “economic analysis” Key Message: There are tradeoffs of using land for REDD+ vs other uses. After group debate, students in intermediate and advanced course are required to read the following reference: Reference: Erry Prasetyo (2013). Converting or Conserving the Forests: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Implementing REDD in Indonesia. School of Public and International Affairs, Columbia University, May 2013. Brainstorming: What are questions related to REDD+/PES programs where we need to consider economic trade-offs? How should those trade-offs be made?

Forest …………………….Oil palm
Group discussion Group debate: students are divided into two groups and debate the following issue, “To keep forest intact OR to convert land for oil palm plantation” Forest …………………….Oil palm Encourage the students to consider these questions from an economic point of view and also from a non-market perspective – the class doesn’t necessarily have to come to consensus; rather, the point of the exercise is to encourage the class to think more openly about all the possibilities related to land use and various revenue streams. Source of photo on left: commons.wikimedia.org Source of photo on right: photo by A. Rabin,

Group discussion Group debate: students are divided into two groups and debate the following issue, “should the country implement REDD+?” Forest (with REDD+ revenue)..…Conversion (with development revenue) Encourage the students to consider these questions from an economic point of view and also from a non-market perspective – the class doesn’t necessarily have to come to consensus; rather, the point of the exercise is to encourage the class to think more openly about all the possibilities related to land use and various revenue streams. Source of photo on left: commons.wikimedia.org Source of photo on right: unknown Source of clipart:

Linking Economics to “SES”
Economics of PES/REDD+ and “green economy” Forest activities and participatory forest management as part of poverty alleviation strategy, Investment in forest conservation as part of green growth Social and environmental soundness (SES) => foundational elements of sustainable development planning

Activity: Linking Economics to “SES”
Group discussion and presentation: complete column 3 of this table. SES principle Details Economic aspect Do no harm to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any possible negative social or environmental impacts. Example: Non declining in household income ……. Do good (or do more) to increase environmental or social benefits (often referred to as “co-benefits.”) No regrets Biodiversity improved, forest stock maintained/enhanced, local capacity …… Key Message: By this point, the class should be very familiar with this table of SES Principles. We’ve covered the three possibilities of “do no harm”, “do good” (actively try to promote positive social outcomes), and “no regrets” (the policy will prove to be a benefit to local communities/countries regardless if REDD+ is implemented at the global scale). Now, we want students to think about these three SES principles and think about what would be the corresponding economic aspect. The instructor/students can probably think of many more examples: ‘do good’ – households receive more revenue and/or new job opportunities; ‘no regrets’ strategy, perhaps households either have more or the same revenue, but perhaps they have also gained valuable skill sets, improved local working condition, such as safety, or improved local awareness of biodiversity and forest conservation that will serve them well regardless of whether PES/REDD+ is implemented. End of Session 1

Part 2: Benefits and Costs Associated with PES / REDD+
REDD+/PES activities Benefit Cost Activity When, for how long Direct Indirect (impact) To whom 1………….. 2.………….. 3.………….. 4.………….. 5.………….. Key Message: This chart is a template that can either be used for class discussion, or can be used as the basis for a short in-class exercise to start to encourage students to think about the ways that PES and REDD+ activities may have direct (economic) costs and benefits, as well as indirect costs. Have students list activities – for example, an activity such as a reforestation project might have a contract period of 100 years, during which direct benefits accrue to the project developer, indirect benefits may accrue to those seeking decreased CO2 emissions. Direct costs associated with the project might be borne by the project developers, whereas indirect costs MAY accrue to those indigenous peoples who, for example, are restricted from using the land because it is now part of a reforestation project. Impact: actual or potential impact (be specific as we can) To whom: house hold Level (# households), community level, provincial level, national level? Group discussion to list down all available Benefits & Costs (actual and potential) associated with the REDD activities Brainstorm how they are measured? Beginning of Session 2

Benefits and Costs of REDD+
In REDD+, countries must (1) reduce deforestation and forest degradation, and/or (2) enhance carbon stocks. These involve benefits and costs as follows: Benefit Direct benefit Monetary benefits (revenue from selling carbon) Co-benefits (market and non-market benefits from other ecosystem services, e.g., eco-tourism, non-timber products, biodiversity enhancement, recreational benefits, soil and water stabilization) Indirect benefit (improved governance, infrastructure provision, social relation, etc.) Cost Direct cost Implementation cost (forest protection, improved forest management, administration) Transaction cost (emission reduction certification and MRV) Indirect cost (forgone benefits of alternative land use) Key Message: The diagram above simplifies only the benefit and cost items that are significant for REDD+ preparation and implementation.

“Benefit and Cost” Categories of “benefit and cost” On- and off-site
Local and global Private, external/environmental, and social Economic and financial (students learned from previous sub-session) Accounting of “benefit and cost” From which perspectives should benefits and costs be calculated? Individual household Government agencies, the country Project investor Key Message: Based on the table exercise from previous slide, students work together to become familiar with different categories of Benefits and Costs. Remember when we were introducing “SES” we often had to think about such questions as WHAT is SES? WHY are we concerned? SES for WHOM? HOW (Safeguards/standards)? Well, we should also think of some of these what/why/for whom/how questions when it comes to understanding benefits and costs. There are many perspectives at play – many stakeholders, many perspectives. Different stakeholders may bear different costs or benefits. Reference (and potential reading): Union of Concerned Scientists (2011). Estimating the Cost and Potential of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation. Policy brief#1. available at:

“Benefit” categories of a REDD Project

“Cost” categories and definitions related to a REDD Project
Activity Opportunity costs Costs resulting from the forgone benefits that deforestation would have generated for livelihoods and the national economy. The foregone cost of a different land use (the forest could instead be used for agriculture, livestock, etc.) Set-up costs Costs necessary for the implementers to establish or start a REDD+ project, taking it from design to implementation. Information search and design (e.g., carbon stocks, deforestation modeling, socioeconomic characteristics), negotiation, certification, capacity-building, procurement, etc. Implementation costs Costs directly associated with the actions leading to reduced deforestation or forest degradation, and hence to reduced emissions. The estimated costs of delivering and monitoring a REDD+ project: establishing baselines, preparing and submitting project design documents. Monitoring costs Costs necessary for the implementers of a REDD+ project to determine if a certain amount of emissions reduction has been achieved; as well as other co-benefits. All activities involved in monitoring carbon stocks, deforestation and forest degradation, and environmental and social co-benefits. Key Message: Just as benefits can be economic, ecological, or social, so too can costs. However, here we focus on the various forms of ECONOMIC costs – because there are actually several/many different types of economic costs. And all of these add up to determine – along with the benefits – whether it makes sense to do a project or not! As I mentioned, this chart only concentrates on economic costs. However, can you think of any ecological or social costs? See more at: Categories of costs like “set-up”, “implementation” and “monitoring” costs might be easy to understand. They involve an out-of-pocket expense that one needs to pay when one does a project. However, the concept of “opportunity cost” is a bit more esoteric/conceptual. Let’s look at that in a bit more detail on the next slide.

Opportunity Cost In REDD+ program, “opportunity cost” is the most important component of a country or a group of people would incur. REDD+ opportunity costs are: the difference in net earnings from conserving or enhancing forests versus converting them to other, typically more valuable, land uses or the forgone net benefit of changing land use the expenditures necessary to compensate landowners for the value of the most profitable activity on their land, such as logging or agriculture the shadow price of REDD carbon credit, which should be not lower than opportunity cost of REDD+. How does the “co-benefits”, explored in earlier session, relate to opportunity costs? Key Message: We looked at several types of costs on the previous slide. Here, let’s talk more about “opportunity costs” specifically. Ask students “how many of you have heard of opportunity cost? Can you define what it is?” (Students who were paying attention on the previous slide might also know!) What do we mean when we say “typically more valuable” land-uses? Valuable TO WHOM? Is it possible that the benefits to one person or group of people are great, but the social costs are unacknowledged/unaccounted for? So maybe the alternative land use is “valuable” in the short-run, or to a small group of people, but in the LONG run, or from the perspective of ALL stakeholders (including non-human stakeholders – other species, etc!) other land uses ARE NOT more valuable? Ask the students “How do co-benefits relate to opportunity costs?” Answer: Forests generate other environmental or ecosystem services in addition to storing carbon. Such services, or co-benefits, include biodiversity and water. The value of these services can be significantly greater than the value of carbon alone, and thereby have the potential of lowering the apparent opportunity costs of reducing emissions. Of course, I’m really trying to get you to “think big” here. Sometimes calculating an opportunity cost isn’t about thinking quite as big (opportunity costs do not take into account ALL other stakeholders) but rather is about just comparing different land-uses from the perspective of one or a few stakeholders. However, can you see how the MORE ecosystem services/co-benefits we take into account, and the more we’re able to put a value on these, this will change the dynamics of the opportunity cost question? So, for example, if we’re able to accurately value the carbon storage, water, AND biodiversity that a forest provides, all of a sudden the opportunity cost of converting that land to agriculture is very high (because ag will produce some food, but much less carbon storage, biodiversity, and clean water). Students could read: UN-REDD Programme (2012). Estimating the costs of REDD+ in Tanzania: Policy Brief, April Available at: World Bank Institute (2011). Estimating the Opportunity Costs of REDD+ A training manual, version 1.3 (March 2011). Available at: /g-wbreddneeds.pdf or at wbicms/files/drupal- acquia/wbi/OppCostsREDD+manual.pdf

Profitability of different land uses ($/ha)
Calculated with 5% discount rate over 30 year horizon To estimate the opportunity cost, we need to know: Profitability of each alternative land uses Carbon conserving capacities of each land use Key Message: When we make decisions, we often consider various economic tradeoffs. This chart shows the profitability of different land use options for a particular (hypothetical) hectare of land. What you don’t see directly, but what is represented in the numbers, is that the costs and revenues associated with each option affect the total economic outcome – some options are much more valuable than others, based simply on the associated costs and revenues. Do you think that this represents the net social value, or just the value to a particular stakeholder (hint: do all the stakeholders see these revenues?) (Note: From Investopedia - The discount rate refers to the interest rate used in discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis to determine the present value of future cash flows. The discount rate in DCF analysis takes into account not just the time value of money, but also the risk or uncertainty of future cash flows; the greater the uncertainty of future cash flows, the higher the discount rate.) Reference and graphic source: World Bank Institute (2011). Estimating the Opportunity Costs of REDD+ A training manual, version 1.3 (March 2011). Available at: or at acquia/wbi/OppCostsREDD+manual.pdf End of Session 2

Part 3: Economic and Financial Decision and Assessment
Distinction between financial and economic assessment Assessment tools Cost-benefit analysis Opportunity cost analysis Non-market valuation The third session is designed for more advanced students – it is left to the instructor’s discretion to consider how to customize this session, or whether to eliminate it, for beginner level students. Beginning of Session 3

Distinction between Economic and Financial Assessment
Economic assessment (EA) EA considers a project from the view of society as a whole in real terms. EA is more focused on overall social welfare. EA includes the consideration of social and environmental factors in the calculation of profit. Project inputs should be valued at their opportunity costs and outputs at consumers’ willingness to pay Key Message: This slide and the next details the difference between Economic Assessment and Financial Assessment. Whereas the latter is focused more on overall social welfare and considers factors beyond private sector gain and loss, financial assessment is more strictly focused on costs and benefits to the project developer / private corporation.

Distinction between Economic and Financial Assessment, cont.’
Financial assessment (FA) Only actual amount of money being paid or received is considered in a FA. FA is more focused on private profit. Financial sustainability occurs when the project remains fiscally viable (avoids running out of cash) throughout its duration. Key Message: This slide and the prior details the difference between Economic Assessment and Financial Assessment. Whereas the latter is focused more on overall social welfare and considers factors beyond private sector gain and loss, financial assessment is more strictly focused on costs and benefits to the project developer / private corporation.

Variables related to financial performance
The common ground The time frame The scale or spatial detail (eg., spatial and non-spatial boundary) The stakeholder group The difference between FA and EA Economic (real- reflecting economic efficiency) price vs. financial (or market) price Social (economic) vs. private discount rate Results of FA are the key inputs to calculating EA in REDD+ In order to make economic and financial decisions and assessments, you need to know some key variables. It may be easy to determine or choose values to represent such variables as the discount rate, the timeframe, and the scale of a project. For project sustainability, besides GHG reduction, we need to know some factors related to financial/economic performance: However, there may be differences in perspective regarding the “real” price vs. the financial price. Remember that the real price should include the net benefit – which includes all costs, including those costs that accrue to society. Also, we’ve talked a bit about the discount rate – and what we’ve actually been referring to is the “private discount rate”. However, there is also the “social discount rate”. Ask students: can anyone tell me what the social discount rate means, and how this is different from the private? Answer (from “Social discount rate (SDR) is a measure used to help guide choices about the value of diverting funds to social projects. It is defined as "the appropriate value of r to use in computing present discount value for social investments."[1] Determining this rate is not always easy and can be the subject of discrepancies in the true net benefit to certain projects, plans and policies. It may be used in estimating the value of creating a highway system, schools, or forcing environmental protection, for example. All of these things require a cost-benefit analysis where policy makers measure the social marginal cost and the social marginal benefit for each project. Almost all new policies will not even be considered until after a cost-benefit analysis has been completed. The social discount rate can appear in both calculations either as future costs such as maintenance or as future benefits such as reduced pollution emissions. Calculating the true social marginal cost can be a lot easier than measuring the social marginal benefit. Because of the uncertainty involved with calculating benefits, problems may arise. Should you put a dollar amount on time based on average wages, contingent valuations or revealed preferences? One of the big problems today is putting a value on a life. While some might say that a life is priceless, economists usually state the value to be somewhere between three to ten million dollars.[1] Another problem is that often the current generation will be paying for most of the costs while future generations will be reaping most of the benefit. Should we weigh current and future benefits differently? The proper discount rate should represent the opportunity cost of what else the firm could accomplish with those same funds.[1] If that means that the money could be instead used to invest in the private sector that would yield 5% and that is the next best alternative for using that money then 5% would be the social discount rate. The government uses a variety of discount rates but something around seven percent is what the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recommends for a pretax rate of return on private investments.[1]” Assessment for whom in REDD+/PES? Private: firm/investor, land owners/ communities Public: local and national governments

Questions to consider for using an economic and/or financial assessment framework
Can REDD+ programs provide enough incentive to conserve or restore forests; do the benefits outweigh the costs? Given the GHG mitigation target, how can the country implement REDD+/PES at the lowest possible cost? How are the stakeholders affected by a government intervention/ program/ project? Students are encouraged to consider the following questions that could benefit from financial and/or economic analysis. Do the answers to each of these questions vary or depend based upon whether one is using an economic or financial assessment?

Significant types of financial and economic assessment for REDD+
Cost-benefit Analysis Opportunity Cost Analysis Non-market valuation (for co-benefits) Key Message: The three types of analyses shown on this slide can be used in the context of financial assessment (focusing more narrowly on the results/impact to the project developer) or in the context of economic assessment (which focuses more broadly on the overall impact to society).

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA)
An economic decision tools for analyzing social and environmental soundness in REDD+ to find out the best alternative. The project with the largest net benefit yields the most benefit to society CBA can be used for a project at local or national levels In REDD+/PES, although the direct benefits are Increasing income Creating jobs Here (for a simple case), we focus the benefits on income or revenue received from REDD+ Students could read “SES_Reading_2.9 Benitez WBI” manual for this topic and “SES_Reading_2.9 Prasetyo” (Indonesia REDD+ vs. palm oil case study): Prasetyo, Erry (2013). Converting or Conserving the Forests: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Implementing REDD in Indonesia. Available at: Benitez, Pablo (2011). The Economics of REDD+ and the Importance of Opportunity Costs Analysis. World Bank Institute. Bangkok, April 25, Available at:

Three main measures and criteria for CBA
Description Criteria Calculation Net present value (NPV) the difference between the discounted total benefits (B) and costs (C) If NPV ≥ 0 NPV = Internal Rate of Return (IRR) the rate that produces a zero value for the NPV If IRR ≥ relevant discount rate IRR = k, that makes NPV = = 0 Benefit-cost ration (BCR) the ratio between discounted benefits and costs If BCR ≥ 1 (for competing projects select the one with highest BCR) BCR = [ Students in advanced class need further readings and should be given practical exercises. Note: For economic BCA, we need to compute the real terms from monetary terms. If we evaluate only one project, we do not need to calculate BCR but NPV.

Simple steps of calculating CBA
Preparing project cash flow - predict the future cash flow stream for the life time of the project Selecting discount rate (r) - we typically use the discount rate offered by the central bank of the country. Calculating the NPV - future cash flow (CF, revenue-expense) has to be discounted by the discount rate. Then all of the numbers are summed up and finally the initial investment is subtracted. NPV = - initial investment NPV = - initial investment (the cash flow from year zero is the initial investment) Calculating IRR: NPV = - initial investment = 0 For advanced students: In excel spreadsheet, you need to prepare a series of cash flows (called a value range) The formula for NPV: = NPV(value range;r) The formula for IRR: =IRR(value range;0).

Opportunity Cost Analysis of REDD
ton C/ha $/ha 400 250 50 10 Field crop Forest Field crop Forest Carbon density Profit (NPV) Changing from Field crop to Forest: Calculating opportunity cost/ha ( = $ 350/ha) is not correct Calculating opportunity cost of REDD must be per carbon basis Loss of profit = dollar/ha Gain of carbon = ton C/ha Opportunity cost of REDD equals 350/240 = dollar/ton C Note: Other ecosystem services of forest are not included. Key Message: This is an example of calculating opportunity costs, which is different from and more inclusive than direct costs. Reference: Adapted from Pagiola, Stefano and Benoît Bosquet (2009). Estimating the Cost of REDD at the Country Level. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, World Bank. Available at:

Non-market Valuation (for co-benefits of REDD+)
Non-market valuation estimates the value individuals derive from goods and services not traded in conventional markets. Non-market valuation relies on either revealed or stated preferences. Economic value is determined by people’s willingness to pay, or make tradeoffs, to consume a good or service. Economic valuation for REDD+: we value changes in ecosystem serices as an impact of ecosystem changes. See slide #10 for the linkages of economic values and ecosystem functions and services. “When the co-benefits of forests are high, the costs of REDD from the country’s perspective fall, and might in fact become negative. Consider a forest generating $10/ha/yr in on-site benefits, and which would generate $150/ha/yr if converted to cropland. The opportunity costs of avoiding deforestation in this area appear very high, at $140/ha/yr. Suppose, however, that cutting down this forest would cause $200/ha/yr in downstream damages such as sedimentation of reservoirs, or increased flood damage. Preserving the forest would avoid these damages. If the value of these co-benefits were to be included, the actual opportunity cost to the country would be negative: -$60/ha/yr.15 In this case, it would be in the country’s interest to seek to avoid such deforestation even in the absence of any REDD payment.16 Omitting the value of co-benefits thus makes opportunity costs appear to be higher than they are.” Reference: Pagiola, Stefano and Benoît Bosquet (2009). Estimating the Cost of REDD at the Country Level. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, World Bank. Available at:

Economic Valuation for forest ecosystem services from economic principle
Welfare effect to individuals If welfare gain  BENEFIT If welfare loss  COST Consumers Consumer surplus, compensating surplus, equivalent surplus Producers Profit, producer surplus, compensating surplus, equivalent surplus Willingness to pay for the tradeoff (WTP) Willingness to accept compensation (WTA) Change in ecosystem services REDD+ project Impact on land use Key Message: This flow chart demonstrates not only how a REDD+ project may result to a change in ecosystem services, but also how this translates into an economic tradeoff to individuals and/or society. Economic value of change in Ecosystem services Economic valuation of ecosystem services (co-benefits) - bring the less obvious items to more tangible and translate into monetary terms

Total Economic Value Use value Option value Non-use value
Direct use value -Provisioning service -Cultural service Indirect use value -Regulating service -Supporting service Outputs/services that can be consumed directly Extractive (timbers, food, fuel, etc.) Non-extractive (tourism, research, etc.) Functional benefits used as intermediate inputs for production of final goods and services to humans water purification waste assimilation Pollination and disease control for food production Biological support Carbon sequestration Global life-support value for preserving the option to use such services in the future either by the individual (option value) or by others or heirs (bequest value) Endangered and charismatic species Threatened wildlife habitats Aesthetic landscapes ‘Way of life’ and traditional use based on moral convictions, usually known as existence value (or, onetimes, conservation value or passive use value) See slide #10 for the linkages of economic values and ecosystem functions and services. For further illustration of this concept, students can consider reading: Concept of Ecosystem Values and Valuation Approaches. In: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press Available at: Source: adapted from Pagiola (2005) and Batemann et al., (2007)

Two ways to know the economic value for “non-market goods and services”: The most you would be willing to pay for the item if you had to, and if you could get it by paying. = maximum willingness to pay (WTP) The minimum compensation you would be willing to accept to give the item up. = minimum willingness to accept compensation (WTAC) We may prefer one approach or the other, as each has drawbacks, in particular: WTP is influenced by ability to pay, therefore, may systematically disadvantage poor people/communities WTAC may create incentives to overstate your value (and is theoretically infinite).

Method of Economic Valuation (practical approach- different from economic class)
Methods based on types of data availability 1. Valuation using conventional market price 1.1 direct market based value (actual value) 1.2 indirect market based value (value of other goods with related type of services) 2. Valuation using surrogate market 2.1 travel cost 2.2 hedonic price Students can read more details from economic valuation textbooks, such as: Haab, Timothy C. and Kenneth E. McConnell Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: the Econometrics of Non-market Valuation. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, USA. Champ, Patricia A., Kevin J. Boyle, and Thomas C. Brown (eds.) A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bateman, Ian J. et al Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, UK. Freeman III, Myrick The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. 2nd edition. Resources for the Future, Washington, D. C.

Methods based on types of data availability 3. Valuation using hypothetical/simulated market (survey of “willingness to pay/willingness to accept” value) 3.1 contingent valuation 3.2 contingent choice method or choice modeling 4. Valuation using other techniques, i.e., benefit transfer and participatory environmental valuation Students can read more details from economic valuation textbooks, such as: Haab, Timothy C. and Kenneth E. McConnell Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: the Econometrics of Non-market Valuation. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, USA. Champ, Patricia A., Kevin J. Boyle, and Thomas C. Brown (eds.) A Primer on Nonmarket Valuation. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Bateman, Ian J. et al Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, UK. Freeman III, Myrick The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory and Methods. 2nd edition. Resources for the Future, Washington, D. C.

1. Valuation using market prices 1.1 Direct market based value To value forest products with established markets. Local market prices (on-site sale value) can be a good approximation where such prices are available. The approach is the most obvious means of establishing a value for extractive uses of an environmental good This slide further enumerates some of the information contained on the previous slide. This slide gives more examples for 1.1 “Direct market based value” than on the previous slide.

1.2 Indirect market based value To value Forest goods and services that have no immediate market values, e.g., those are home-consumed and have never reached market. For example, kerosene price are used as firewood benefits. The approach is applicable for forest services derived from regulating function (by looking at substitute cost/replacement cost/preventive expenditure) This slide further enumerates some of the information contained on the previous slide. This slide gives more examples for 1.2 “Indirect market based value” than on the previous slide.

2. Valuation using surrogate market 2.1 Travel cost method (TCM) To value cultural services from forest by estimating the “demand function” 2.2 Hedonic price method (HPM) To value regulating services from forest by estimating the “hedonic price function”, the influence of environmental attributes on property value. This slide further enumerates some of the information contained on the previous slide. This slide gives more examples for 2.1 and 2.2.

3. Hypothetical Market 3.1 Contingent valuation method (CVM) We construct a hypothetical market in which users are asked to express their willingness to pay (WTP) for the benefits or willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for losing them 3.2 Contingent choice method (CM) We construct/design the choice set that involves with the price attribute along with different resource attributes/change in G&S then ask people to rank/rate/choose alternatives rather than explicitly express a WTP or WTA This slide further enumerates some of the information contained on the previous slide. This slide gives more examples for 3.1 and 3.2.

Examples of economic valuation methods applied to co-benefits of REDD+ from forest services
Market price Travel cost Hedonic price Contingent valuation Choice modelling Benefit transfer Non-timber products  Recreation/tourism Water services Climate regulation This is an advanced slide – suitable only for use with advanced classes. In this slide, note how the more intangible co-benefits require use of different market valuation tools that are less direct than “market price”. This table shows that there are a variety of ways to determine or derive economic valuation of REDD+ co-benefits/ecosystem services.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE Economic rationale is one factor (among others) that guides decision making. Costs of REDD+ include opportunity costs, implementation costs, transaction costs (set-up and other monitoring costs), and political costs. Benefits of REDD+ include monetary revenues and co-benefits of REDD+. Opportunity costs will change as relative demand and supply conditions for land use change. When the co-benefits of forests are high, the costs of REDD+ from the country’s perspective fall, and might in fact become negative (leading to more likely adoption of REDD+). There are issues about dynamics, permanence, and uncertainty related to REDD+ projects. These issues should be reflected in the project design as well as in the discount rate for a project.

References For basic course:
Benitez, Pablo (2011). The Economics of REDD+ and the Importance of Opportunity Costs Analysis. World Bank Institute. Bangkok, April 25, Available at: acquia/wbi/6%20-%20Economics%20of%20REDD+%20and%20OCA%20- %20P.Benitez.pdf Bond et al Incentives to sustain forest ecosystem services: A review and lessons for REDD. Natural Resource Issues No. 16. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK, with CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, and World Resources Institute, Washington D.C., USA. Available at: GCP, IPAM, FFI and UNEP FI Stimulating Interim Demand for REDD+ Emission Reductions: The Need for a Strategic Intervention from 2015 to 2020, Global Canopy Programme, Oxford, UK; the Amazon Environmental Research Institute, Brasília, Brazil; Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK; and UNEP Finance Initiative, Geneva, Switzerland. Slides 53 and 54 list references for the basic course; slide 55 lists references that would be useful for a more advanced course.

References, cont. For basic course (cont.):
Nepstad, Daniel. (2007). The Costs and Benefits of Reducing Carbon Emissions From Deforestation and Forest Degradation in the Brazilian Amazon. The Woods Hole Research Center. Available at: Pagiola, Stefano and Benoît Bosquet (2009). Estimating the Cost of REDD at the Country Level. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, World Bank. Available at: Peskett, L Benefit Sharing in REDD+: Exploring the Implications for Poor and Vulnerable People. World Bank and REDD-net. TEEB (2009). TEEB Climate Issues Update. Union of Concerned Scientists (2011). Estimating the Cost and Potential of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation. Policy brief#1. Available at: costs.pdf UN-REDD Programme (2012). Estimating the costs of REDD+ in Tanzania: Policy Brief, April Available at: Slides 53 and 54 list references for the basic course; slide 55 lists references that would be useful for a more advanced course.

References For intermediate or advanced course:
Fisher, Brendan, et al (2011). “Implementation and opportunity costs of reducing deforestation and forest degradation in Tanzania”. Nature Climate Change. (advanced online publication). Available at: Harja, Degi, et al (2012). REDD Abacus SP: User Manual and Software. Available at: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press. (Ch. 6) Prasetyo, Erry (2013). Converting or Conserving the Forests: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Implementing REDD in Indonesia. Available at: Benefit_Analysis_of_Implementing_REDD_in_Indonesia UN-REDD Programme (2011). Final Report: Analysis of Opportunity Cost for REDD+ UN- REDD Program, Vietnam (April 2011). Available at: redd.org/Upload/Download/File/UN-REDD_OCA_Final_Report_3211_4432.pdf World Bank Institute (2011). Estimating the Opportunity Costs of REDD+ A training manual, version 1.3 (March 2011). Available at: wbreddneeds.pdf Slides 53 and 54 list references for the basic course; slide 55 lists references that would be useful for a more advanced course.

Section 2. What Social And Environmental Issues Exist: Strengthening Design And Implementation of REDD+ 2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Section 2. What Social And Environmental Issues Exist: Strengthening Design And Implementation of REDD+ 2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Section 2. What Social And Environmental Issues Exist: Strengthening Design And Implementation of REDD+ 2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Section 2. What Social And Environmental Issues Exist: Strengthening Design And Implementation of REDD+ 2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback