Scaling up:
Challenges of large
large‐scale
scale REDD+
Donna LeeTokyo, February 2014

22‐partt presentationt ti
1 Perspectives
1.
Pti
on
challenges to scaling up
from project to national(or subnational) REDD+
2. The FCPF (Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility)
Carbon Fund
Methodologicalh d l i lFramework

Part 1: Challenges to scaling up• Why are projects ahead of large‐scalelarge scale programs?
• What challenges (and benefits) does this present?
• What is the role of projects in scaling up?
• What are the responsibilities of national
governments?
• What are remaining challenges?
• Conclusions

Wh t dWhatdoes ““scalingli up”” mean??
Verified REDD+
Projects

Large‐scale REDD+
programs

Ethiopia: Humbo(2 800 ha)(2,800Guyana – national(21 500 000 ha)(21,500,000Kenya:y Kasigau
g I,, II
(30,169 / 169,741 ha)

Amazon Fund
(420,000,000 ha)

Indonesia: Rimba Raya
(64,000 ha)

Mai Ndombe(12,400,000 ha)Why are projects ahead oflarge‐scale REDD+?
• Head start• Forces that drive projects are strong• But demand has shifted• Slow development of national REDD+

Mismatch between the pace ofproject vs. national REDD+• Challenges posted at project level:– Riskk associatedd withh uncertainty– Limitations to performance• National level concerns:– Inconsistency across projects in country– Management of future aggregate performanceHigh level of interest in nested REDD+ but noexamples
l tot dated t off operationalti
l success.

Wh t bWhatbenefits
fit ddoes thisthi present?
t?
• Pilots
Pil t can informi fnationalti
l policyli– What legal/institutional changes are critical– How to reduce emissions (reality check)• Parallel process difficult, but best approach– Need for communication between levels– Development of “official”
official pilots– Need to clarify who is responsible for what

Linking local REDD+ experiences
to national REDD+ strategies
Perspectives of REDD countries in Africa

A SSouth‐Southth S th EExchange
hi HinHawassa, Ethi
Ethiopiai

Th RoleTheR l off Projects?
P j t?
• WorkingW ki didirectly,
tl anddbbuilding
ildi ttrust,t withithcommunities– Creating alternative livelihoods– Providing day
day‐to‐day
to day management– Communication– Capacity
Ci bbuilding
ildi at theh llocall levell l– Compliance, enforcement of rules, monitoring– Conflict management

How can projects inform
national strategies?
• Providing lessons on how to tackle drivers ofdeforestation• Building confidence inin, and informing
informing, thesustainability of actions• Knowledge of transaction costs• Identifying key capacity gaps
• Transparency on delivery of benefitsThe role of national governments?
• Designing the national strategy
strategy, including– Defining the role of various actors– Identifying drivers, and providing solutions– Promoting
Pti bbroadd sectoralt l coordination
di ti• Providingg legal
g and ppolicyy frameworks forimplementation:

The role of national gov’t
gov t (con(con’d)d)• Creating standards/norms for REDD+ activities• Enhancing knowledge, technical capacity• Protecting the interests of the marginalized• Ensuring consistent communication re: REDD+• Monitoring overall REDD
REDD+ activities• Promoting vertical integration• Helping to secure funding for REDD+ activities• Participating in international negotiations

Remaining Challenges• Operatingi iin an uncertain
i environmenti– Lack of clarity on future REDD+ finance– Increasingly fragmented demand• Challenge of attribution + payments for results• Capacity a significant gap• Knowledge translation from local to nationallevel

A Few Conclusions• Trend is towards larger scale REDD+ programs,
g of experiencep
but we are still in earlyy stages• REDD+ at scale cannot be implemented by any
single actor – involves complex coordination• Transformation takes timePart 2: Scaling Up and theForest Carbon Partnership Facility• $825 million – 44 countries• Readiness Fund
• Carbon Fund
– Pilot payment for results– 5 to 6 Emission Reduction programs– Consistency with UNFCCC– Origination
gphasep

CarbonCb Fund:F d
The Methodological Framework (MF)• Approved in December 2013
• Provides gguidance to ER programsp g• Balance of flexibility vs. prescriptiveness– Need to provide guidance, ensure integrity– Allow ppiloting/testingg/
g of large
g scale p
programsg• Review after one year and modify if neededSeveral keyy elements• Scope: Limited to 5 REDD+ activities, must account fordeforestation (and degradation)• “Significant” scale• Historical reference levels, with exceptions• Discount for uncertainties• Reversal management required• Safeguards– World Bank/Cancun– Feedback ggrievance redress mechanism– Benefit sharing plan
– Land and resource tenure assessment• Non‐carbon benefits