FCPF

The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility’s Carbon Fund Methodological Framework

The FCPF Carbon Fund Methodological Framework and associated documents have been recognized as consistent with the criteria set out under this approach, with the exception of Criterion 6 (UNFCCC target). This means that jurisdictional programs that sign a contract (Emissions Reductions Payment Agreement) with the Carbon Fund will be assumed to meet the relevant criteria, and will not need to be assessed beyond a confirmation that the country has submitted a UNFCCC target (called a Nationally Determined Contribution for countries that have joined the Paris Agreement). As jurisdictional programs sign  ERPAs, their information will be included on this site.

  • Green: Fully met. The standard requires jurisdictional programs to meet equivalent criteria or provide the specified information.
  • Yellow: Partially met. The standard requires jurisdictional programs to meet related criteria or provide relevant information, but is not fully consistent with the criterion or question below.
  • Orange: Not met. The standard does not require jurisdictional programs to meet related criteria or provide the specified information.

 

Criteria and Subquestions Assessment (Green, Yellow, Orange)
Criterion 1: A strategy for how to reduce emissions from forests and other lands whilst increasing agricultural productivity and improving livelihoods Green
Explanation:

The Methodological Framework requires that a program be jurisdictional at scale, address to address a significant portion of forest-related emissions and removals. The Emissions Reductions Program Document (ER-PD), which contains all the details on program design (and the other required elements), and other required FCPF plans as a package may be considered the program strategy.  The program must have in place a strategy to reduce displacement of emissions, for example by maintaining agricultural production and addressing rural livelihoods. However, this requirement is not explicitly captured in a criterion or indicator. Please see table below for relevant criteria, indicators, and programmatic elements.

 

1.1: Is a strategy or action plan to reduce deforestation adopted and being implemented for the entirety of the relevant national-scale or subnational jurisdiction (e.g. country, state or province)? Green
Explanation: Criterion 1 and 2 require a strategy to be in place for jurisdiction, and define the accounting area as an area of significant scale – one or more jurisdictions, or national-government designated area. In the FCPF context, this has been taken to mean entire countries (smaller countries) or one or more states or provinces (larger countries). The strategy has to address a significant portion of emissions and removals.

 

1.2: Does this strategy or action plan contain a feasible plan for how emissions reductions from forests will be achieved in the jurisdiction, including by addressing the main drivers of deforestation? Green
Explanation:

The methodology calls for the ER Program to use “a variety of interventions from the national REDD+ strategy in a coordinated manner” (Criterion 1, indicator 1.2). Indicators 27.1 and 27.2 call for the program to “identify key drivers of deforestation and degradation” and “potential opportunities for forest enhancement” as well as “currently planned ER Program measures”

 

Criterion 1 requires the ER Program uses new or enhanced ER Program Measures to reduce and reflects a variety of interventions from the national REDD+ strategy in a coordinated manner, and to address a significant portion of emissions and removals. Programmatic criterion 5.1 requires the implementing agency to have the capacity to implement the program.

 

Indicator 1.2: The ER Program is ambitious, uses new or enhanced ER Program Measures to reduce emissions or enhance removals, is undertaken at a jurisdictional scale and/or takes a programmatic approach (i.e., involves multiple land areas, landowners or managers within one or several jurisdictions), and reflects a variety of interventions from the national REDD+ strategy in a coordinated manner.

 

Criterion 26: The ER Program describes how the ER Program addresses key drivers of deforestation and degradation.

 

Indicator 26.1: The ER Program identifies the key drivers of deforestation and degradation, and potentially opportunities for forest enhancement.

 

Indicator 26.2: The ER Program identifies currently planned ER Program Measures and how they address the key drivers identified in Indicator 26.1, and the entities that would undertake them.

 

Conclusion: requires a plan to address drivers of deforestation, feasibility will be assessed at verification

 

 

1.3: Does this strategy or action plan allow for the continuation/ enhancement of agricultural productivity, while protecting standing forests? (For example, does it include elements such as land use planning, enforcement, and technical assistance on agriculture) Yellow
Explanation:

Programmatic element 3.5 requires program design that reduces the risk of market  or

subsistence driven displacement, e.g., by maintaining the same level of production of

commodities under the ER Program that occurred prior to the Program, and by introducing and

supporting alternative sustainable livelihoods in the ER Program. Criterion 17 requires this strategy be in place before verification.

 

Criterion 27 requires the ER Program describe how the ER Program addresses key drivers of deforestation and degradation. Indicators 27.1 and 27.2 require the program identify drivers of deforestation and degradation, and identify measures to address these drivers.

 

While these requirements, taken together, imply that efforts should be made to maintain agricultural productivity in areas where agriculture is a driver of deforestation, this requirement is not explicitly captured in a criterion or indicator. Were the question rephrased as “does the strategy or action plan not preclude the continuation/ enhancement of ag productivity…” the assessment would change to green.

 

Criterion 2: A system for measuring and monitoring reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and an established baseline Green
Explanation:

Criteria 3-15 of the Methodological Framework, and associated indicators, lay out a detailed set of requirements for a monitoring system, baseline, estimation, and verification of results. Please see table below for relevant criteria, indicators, and programmatic elements. Taken together, these form a full set of requirements for a system for measuring and monitoring reductions in net GHG emissions against an established baseline, and for 3rd party acceptance of the baseline and verification of the results.

 

2.1: Has reference level been finalized by the jurisdictional program (measured in tonnes of CO2e)?

 

Green
Explanation:

Per the ER-PD template, the submission of the ER-PD must include a reference level. Criterion 3-7 and 9-13 outline guidance for the reference level.

 

2.2: Has this reference level been assessed and approved by an independent 3rd party? Green
Explanation:

A Technical Assessment Panel (acting as an independent 3rd party) assesses the reference level and provides a recommendation to the Carbon Fund participants on approval of the reference level. The assessment process is summarized here: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2015/April/CF12%202c%20%20%20ER-PD%20assessment%20process%20and%20TAP%20ToR%20-%20presentation%20rev1.pdf

 

2.3: Is a robust monitoring system in place to allow measurements of net emissions reductions consistent with the assessed baseline? Green
Explanation: The Methodological Framework outlines a detailed set of requirements for a monitoring system, and estimation of net emissions reductions against the established baseline. See table below for relevant criteria, indicators, and programmatic elements. For example:

 

Criterion 14 requires monitoring using forest monitoring systems that are transparent, consistent over time, and are suitable for measuring, reporting and verifying emissions by sources and removals by sinks.

 

Indicator 14.1 requires that monitoring use the same methods or demonstrably equivalent methods to those used to set the Reference Level.

 

Indicator 14.3 requires that emission factors or the methods to determine them are the same for Reference Level setting and for Monitoring, or are demonstrably equivalent and that IPCC Tier 2 or higher methods are used to establish emission factors (Tier 1 in exceptional cases), and the uncertainty for each emission factor is documented.

 

Deforestation must be determined using IPCC Approach 3 (Spatially explicit) per Indicator 14.2.

 

Criterion 4 calls for the program to “account for, measure, and report, and include in the ER Program Reference level, significant Carbon Pools and greenhouse gases, except where their exclusion would underestimate total emission reductions” (relevant indicators: 4.1)

 

2.4: Is there periodic monitoring of and reporting results against the reference level? Green
Explanation: Results must be monitored and reported at least twice over the life of the program.

 

Indicator 14.2 calls for activity data to be determined periodically and at least twice during the ERPA.

 

Indicator 14.2: Activity data are determined periodically, at least twice during the Term of the ERPA, and allow for ERs to be estimated from the beginning of the Term of the ERPA. The term of ERPAs is expected to vary between approximately 5 and 8 years, depending on when a program is approved. Per the ERPA General Conditions, all ERs generated by the ER Program during each reporting period shall be subject to verification by an independent reviewer. In between verification events, results may also be reported on an interim basis.

 

2.5: Are the measured results below the agreed baseline?  (Once reporting and verification begins) Green
Explanation: Reporting on verified results allows a clear understanding of whether results are achieved the agreed baseline.

 

In order to receive payments from the Carbon Fund, a program’s measured results will need to be below the reference level. The independent verification of results (see questions 2.3 and 2.6) will confirm that results are below the reference level. Per the FCPF disclose guidance, both monitoring and disclosure reports will be public.

 

Payments are based on programs delivering results below the baseline. Note that in the case of countries with high forest cover and low deforestation, there is a chance that these results could be above the historic level of deforestation in certain cases (though below the agreed baseline). These countries are clearly identified.

 

2.6: Are results verified or approved by an independent 3rd party every 5 years at a minimum? Green
Explanation:

Indicator 14.2 calls for activity data to be determined periodically and at least twice during the ERPA. The term of an ERPA may run beyond 5 years.

 

Indicator 14.2: Activity data are determined periodically, at least twice during the Term of the ERPA, and allow for ERs to be estimated from the beginning of the Term of the ERPA. The term of ERPAs is expected to vary between approximately 5 and 8 years, depending on when a program is approved. Per the ERPA General Conditions, all ERs generated by the ER Program during each reporting period shall be subject to verification by an independent reviewer.

 

Criterion 22 specifies that the first step to follow to calculate net ERs is to “Subtract the reported and verified emissions and removals from the Reference Level”. Criterion 23 also specifies that ERs offered to the Carbon Fund are “reported and verified.”

 

The Charter defines an Emission Reduction as “real and verifiable emission reductions generated from Emission Reductions Programs, which include all rights, titles and interests associated with ERs.”

 

2.7: If verification/ approval is not more frequent than every 5 years, is reporting of measured results carried out at least once in the interim period? n/a
Explanation: Per above, results are verified at least every 5 years.

 

2.8: Are these results assessed by an independent 3rd party, and verified or approved? Green
Explanation:

Per the ERPA General Conditions, all ERs generated by the ER Program during each reporting period shall be subject to verification by an independent reviewer. Per the ERPA General Conditions, all ERs generated by the ER Program during each reporting period shall be subject to verification by an independent reviewer.

 

Criterion 22 specifies that the first step to follow to calculate net ERs is to “Subtract the reported and verified emissions and removals from the Reference Level”. Criterion 23 also specifies that ERs offered to the Carbon Fund are “reported and verified.”

 

The Charter defines an Emission Reduction as “real and verifiable emission reductions generated from Emission Reductions Programs, which include all rights, titles and interests associated with ERs.”

 

2.9: Over time: For each subsequent program period, is the baseline increasingly ambitious, to lead towards zero emissions over time?

 

n/a
Explanation:

The Carbon Fund will close in 2025, so there will not be subsequent programs under the Carbon Fund. This criterion would need to be assessed for each program individually for any subsequent periods.

 

Criterion 3: A commitment to adhere to social and environmental safeguards and monitor these efforts Green
Explanation: The Methodological Framework and standard World Bank procedures require adherence to the full set of Worl Bank Environmental and Social Safeguards, and to the UNFCCC Cancun safeguards. (A crosswalk between the World Bank and Cancun safeguards has been completed.) Please see table below for relevant criteria, indicators, and programmatic elements.

 

Programmatic Element 3 requires that the ER Program meets World Bank social and environmental safeguards, promotes and supports the safeguards included in UNFCCC guidance related to REDD+, and provides information on how these safeguards are  addressed and respected, including through the application of appropriate grievance mechanisms.

 

Criterion 24 and 25, and their associated indicators, require that the program demonstrate through design and implementation how it is meeting these safeguards, and that it monitor this implementation, and provides details on regular reporting. They require that this information be made public, the disclosure policy further specifies that the safeguards plans be provided in a manner accessible to program-affected populations. The information must also be made available to inform the national Safeguards Information System.

 

Please see table below for relevant criteria, indicators, and programmatic elements.

 

 

There is no requirement that a country must be up to date on its reporting to the UNFCCC on how the Cancun safeguards are being addressed and respected.

 

3.1: Does the program have in place relevant policies, laws and regulations and/or safeguard plan(s) to address social and environmental risks of the strategy or action plan to reduce deforestation, and to address and respect relevant social and environmental safeguards, including the UNFCCC Cancun safeguards?

 

Green
Explanation:

Criterion 24 and 25 call for the program to have in place policies that ensure the program meets the World Bank and Cancun safeguards.

 

Programmatic Element 3 and Criterion 24 requires programs to meet World Bank social and environmental safeguards, promotes and supports the safeguards included in UNFCCC guidance related to REDD+; Indicators 24.1 and 24.2 require the program demonstrate and provide information on how they meet these safeguards.

 

Criterion 25, and Indicators 25.1 and 25.1, describe how reporting on how these safeguards are met. Both the World Bank safeguards and the Cancun safeguards cover a wide range of social and environmental safeguards intended to minimize the risks of actions implemented.

 

Indicator 23.2  requires that Safeguards Plans address social and environmental issues and include related risk mitigation measures identified during the national Readiness process, e.g., in the SESA process and the ESMF, that are relevant for the specific ER Program context (e.g., land tenure issues), taking into account relevant existing institutional and regulatory frameworks. It also requires that Safeguards Plans are prepared concurrently with the ER Program Document, and are publicly disclosed in a manner and language appropriate for the affected stakeholders.

 

The World Bank also require a full set of plans or frameworks for safeguards that are triggered by any project or program, including ER-Programs.

 

The FCPF did a crosswalk (FMT Note CF-2013-3 ) of the Cancun and World Bank safeguards and determined that the Cancun safeguards were covered by the World Bank safeguards and determined that the Cancun safeguards were covered by the World Bank safeguards (see link below).

 

3.2: Is the country’s Safeguard Information System in place and operational?

 

Yellow
Explanation: Indicator 25.2 requires information on the implementation of Safeguards Plans is included in an annex to each ER monitoring report and interim progress report. This information is made available as an input to the national systems for providing information on how safeguards are addressed and respected (SIS) required by the UNFCCC guidance related to REDD+, as appropriate. While the reporting on the safeguards is mandatory and the information must be made available to the SIS, this does not imply the SIS is fully operational.

 

3.3: Is this Safeguard Information System, or another system, being used to monitor and regularly report on how the safeguards are addressed and respected throughout the implementation of the program?

 

Green
Explanation: The Methodological Framework requires regular monitoring and reporting on how safeguards are addressed and respected.

 

Criterion 25: Information is provided on how the Program meets the World Bank social and environmental safeguards and addresses and respects the safeguards included in UNFCCC guidance related to REDD+, during ER Program implementation.

 

Indicator 25.1: Appropriate monitoring arrangements for safeguards referred to in Criterion 23 are included in the Safeguards Plans.

 

Indicator 25.2 requires that information on the implementation of Safeguards Plans is included in an annex to each ER monitoring report and interim progress report.  This information is publicly disclosed, and the ER Program is encouraged to make this information available to relevant stakeholders.

 

The application of these safeguards also forms part of the regular World Bank monitoring of programs; see details on the application of World Bank due diligence to ER-Programs.

 

3.4: Is this information accessible to all stakeholders on a regular basis?

 

Green
Explanation: Information on safeguards, and other related elements of ER-Programs, must be disclosed to stakeholders.

 

Indicator 24.2 requires Safeguards Plans are prepared concurrently with the ER Program Document, and are publicly disclosed in a manner and language appropriate for the affected stakeholders.

 

Indicator 25.2 requires that information on the implementation of the safeguards plans that is included in an annex to each ER monitoring report and interim progress report is publicly disclosed, It also encourages the program to make this information

available to relevant stakeholders.

 

Per the Disclosure Guidance, Draft reports, specifically Environmental Assessment (EA) reports, Social Assessments, Indigenous Peoples Plans/Indigenous Peoples’ Planning Frameworks, and Resettlement Plans/Resettlement Policy Frameworks/Resettlement Process Frameworks, are disclosed before appraisal begins. Final reports are disclosed by the World Bank when the country (or designated entity) officially transmits the final report to the World Bank. No later than 60 days, in the case of Category A projects, and 30 days, in the case of Category B projects, prior to signature of Emission Reductions Payment Agreement (ERPA) (unless this is a condition of effectiveness.)

 

The government must disclose the plans in a form, manner and language understandable to project-affected people in one or more convenient. Draft reports are disclosed before appraisal begins.  Final reports are disclosed no later than 60 days, in the case of Category A projects, and 30 days, in the case of Category B projects, prior to signature of Emission Reductions Payment Agreement (ERPA) *  (unless a condition of effectiveness).

 

3.5: Are the relevant safeguards identified for the program consistent with the national safeguards approach for REDD+, and is the program contributing to the national safeguards information system and the summary of information on safeguards submitted to the UNFCCC? Green
Explanation:

Indicator 25.2 requires information on the implementation of the safeguards plans to be made available as an “input to the national system for providing information on safeguards are addressed and respected… required by the UNFCCC guidance related to REDD+.” The safeguards applied for a program are World Bank and Cancun safeguards. As it is the national governments implementing the programs in the context of a country’s circumstances, this might be considered a national safeguards approach. Several of the countries in the pipeline have a formal national approach and are specific in how this is being used.

 

3.6: Has the country submitted their summary of information on safeguards to the UNFCCC? Orange
Explanation:

The FCPF does not require that the country provide information on having submitted its summary of information on safeguards to the UNFCCC. Information on this would need to be collected separately.

 

 

Criterion 4: High-level political commitment to, and support for, the compact’s design and implementation from government partners Green
Explanation:

The ER-PD template requires a letter of endorsement for the program from the REDD+ country’s national authority assigned with the responsibility to approve ER Programs in accordance with national laws and regulations, as well as national REDD+ management arrangements. The ERPA General Conditions note that the Letter of Approval should come from the Host Country department responsible for approving REDD+ projects, and authorize the ER-Program.

 

In cases where an existing legal or regulatory framework governing the ability of the ER Program Entity to demonstrate its authority to enter into an ERPA with the Carbon Fund prior to the start of ERPA negotiations does not exist, a letter outlining such authority must be granted by the relevant government body or authority. Please see table below for relevant criteria, indicators, and programmatic elements.

 

 

4.1: Does the program demonstrate the support and commitment of high-level officials in country (for example through statements of support by the president, minister or governor, or through incorporation into national development plans or sectoral strategies? Green
Explanation:

ERPD template: By completing and sending the ER Program Document, a REDD+ Country Participant or its authorized entity officially submits the ER Program to the Carbon Fund.

 

The ER-PD template (Section 17.1) requires a letter of endorsement for the program from the REDD+ country’s national authority assigned with the responsibility to approve ER Programs in accordance with national laws and regulations, as well as national REDD+ management arrangements. The formal letter of approval for the ER Program issued by this national authority must confirm that:

a)      The REDD Country Participant endorses the proposed ER Program and its consideration for inclusion in the FCPF Carbon Fund; and

b)      The ER Program Entity that is proposing the ER Program, whether it be the national government or another entity authorized by the national government, is authorized to enter into an ERPA with the Carbon Fund. This authorization can be provided through the letter of approval or by providing reference to an existing legal and regulatory framework stipulating such authority.

 

4.2: Does the program participate in a an international initiative that provides support for jurisdictional forest and climate programs (for example FCPF Carbon Fund, VCS Jurisdictional and Nested REDD Initiative, Governors Climate and Forest Fund, REDD Early Movers, major bilateral results-based payment partnership)? Green
Explanation:

By definition, FCPF ER Programs are supported by the FCPF Carbon Fund.

 

4.3: If no, are there other partners involved in supporting the implementation of the program? n/a
Explanation:

n/a

 

Criterion 5: Stakeholder engagement in the program’s development and implementation Green
Explanation: Stakeholder engagement in development and implementation of an ER-Program is integrated throughout the Methodological Framework. Please see table below for relevant criteria, indicators, and programmatic elements.

 

 

Programmatic Element 4 on Stakeholder participation requires the design and implementation of ER Programs is based on and utilizes transparent stakeholder information sharing and consultation mechanisms that ensure broad community support and the full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular affected Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

 

Criterion 26: An appropriate Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanism (FGRM) developed during the Readiness phase or otherwise exist(s), building on existing institutions, regulatory frameworks, mechanisms and capacity.

 

Indicator 26.2 on the Feedback and Redress Grievance Redress Mechanism calls for a specific process to “receive, screen, address,monitor, and report feedback on, grievances or concerns submitted by affected stakeholders.”

 

Indicator 28.1 states that the ER Program must demonstrate “that the additional assessment has been conducted in a consultative, transparent and participatory manner, reflecting inputs from relevant stakeholders.”

 

Programmatic Element 5 on Benefit sharing specifies the ER Program use clear, effective and transparent benefit-sharing mechanisms with broad community support and support from other relevant stakeholders.

 

Criterion 31 calls for the benefit-sharing arrangement to be designed in a “consultative, transparent, and participatory manner appropriate to the country context,” with indicator 31.1 calling specific for “inputs by relevant stakeholders” and “broad community support” in the design of a benefit-sharing mechanism.

 

Indicator 34.2, on non-carbon benefits calls for “stakeholder engagement process carried out for the ER Program design and for the readiness phase inform the identification of such priority Non-Carbon Benefits.”

 

The Guidance on Stakeholder Engagement in REDD+ Readiness provides guidelines on stakeholder engagement for programs.

 

5.1: Was the strategy or action plan developed in consultation with representatives of all stakeholder groups? Green
Explanation:

Programmatic Element 4 requires the design and implementation of ER Programs is based on and utilizes transparent stakeholder information sharing and consultation mechanisms that ensure broad community support and the full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular affected Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Criterion and indicators throughout the Methodological Framework require participation in different ways; as noted above, this is also a key component of the implementation and monitoring of the safeguards plans.

 

ERPD template 5.1: Description of stakeholder participation process includes “Please describe the stakeholder information sharing and consultation mechanisms or structures that have been used in the design of the ER Program, including the identification of the priority Non-Carbon Benefits, the implementation of necessary safeguards and so forth. As part of this description, explain how the information sharing and consultation mechanisms or structures were in a form, manner and language understandable to the affected stakeholders for the ER Program.”

 

 

5.2: Is there a plan for stakeholder consultation and engagement during the implementation of the program? Green
Explanation:

As noted above, Programmatic Element 4 requires stakeholder engagement in the implementation, as well as the design, of the program. Criterion 26, 28, 30, 31, 34 and associated indicators, as well as the World Bank safeguards processes, all require continued stakeholder engagement.

 

The ERPD Template requires, for the implementation phase of the ER Program, an overview of the plans for consultations and meetings, a description of publications and other information used and the mechanisms for receiving and responding to feedback, in order to show how the consultation process will be structured and maintained during this phase.

 

It asks for a description of how the sum of these actions will result in the full, effective and on-going participation of relevant stakeholders. Provide information on how the process builds on the stakeholder outreach and consultation process implemented as part of national REDD Readiness activities.

 

5.3: Is there an effective, transparent and accessible grievance redress mechanism for the strategy or action plan? Green
Explanation:

Criterion 26 requires that a Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanism (FGRM) be developed during the Readiness phase or otherwise exist(s), building on existing institutions, regulatory frameworks, mechanisms and capacity. Indicator 26.1 requires that an assessment of existing FGRM, including any applicable customary FGRMs, is be conducted and is made public and that the FGRM applicable to the ER Program demonstrates Legitimacy, accessibility, predictability, fairness, rights compatibility, transparency, and capability to address a range of grievances, including those related to benefit-sharing arrangements for the ER Program; and access to adequate expertise and resources for the operation of the FGRM. Indicator 26.2 requires a full description of the FGRM procedures, and the relationship to safeguard plans and the ER-PD.

 

 

Criterion 6: Location in a country with an ambitious national UNFCCC target (currently called an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution or INDC) Orange
Explanation:

 

The Methodological Framework (adopted in 2013) does not reference UNFCCC targets. This would need to be assessed separately.

 

6.1: Has the country submitted an ambitious Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC)[1]? Orange
Explanation:

The Methodological Framework (adopted in 2013) does not reference UNFCCC targets. This would need to be assessed separately.

6.2: Does the country’s NDC include forests and/ or land use? Orange
Explanation:

The Methodological Framework (adopted in 2013) does not reference UNFCCC targets. This would need to be assessed separately.

 

Global Standards

In addition to the substantive criteria addressed above, global standards which are recognized under this approach will demonstrate the following, to ensure the integrity of their process of assessment of jurisdictional programs:

G1: The standard administrator is an entity that has no conflict of interest with respect to administering the standard. Green
Explanation:

The Trustee of the FCPF is the World Bank, which does not generate profit from the approval of any specific program, or based on the sale of ERs generated under the program or from administering the Carbon Fund.

 

G2: The standard has been developed through a process of public and stakeholder consultation. Green
Explanation:

The Methodological Framework was designed through a multistakeholder process. The Participants Committee, which includes representatives from more than 50 countries, civil society, indigenous peoples, international organizations, and the private sector, developed a series of programmatic elements on which the Methodological Framework was built. Stakeholder input, through a request for input, informed the design. A series of independent experts contributed to the design and drafting of the Framework. The Carbon Fund Participants ultimately adopted the Methodological Framework.

 

Additional information on the process can be found here:

https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/development-carbon-fund-methodological-framework-0

https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/working-group-methodological-and-pricing-approach-carbon-fund-fcpf

 

G3: The standard is publicly available. Green
Explanation:

The Methodological Framework is available on the World Bank FCPF website, and has been translated into French and Spanish.

 

G4: Jurisdictional programs are assessed for compliance with the requirements of the standard through a transparent process based on third party assessment and all final documents and associated assessments are publicly available. Green
Explanation:

The program design, including technical, social, design, and legal aspects are assessed by a Technical Assessment Panel of independent experts. The Carbon Fund Participants ultimately approve each jurisdictional program based on this assessment. The World Bank, as Trustee, is responsible for continual monitoring against program requirements. Final documents are available on the World Bank and/or FCPF websites, and often the relevant government website; the Disclosure Guidelines specify where and how documents are made publically available. Compliance with the Emissions Reductions are verified by a 3rd party, as described above.

 

G5: Jurisdictional programs are assessed periodically, at least every 5 years, for continued compliance with the requirements of the standard. Green
Explanation:

The World Bank, as trustee, provides continued monitoring of the program. The Disclosure Guidance outlines the periodicity of this monitoring, and how information is made public. Verification of emissions reductions is completed at least two times over the length of the program (approximately every 5-8 years). The due diligence process is summarized here:

http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/Documents/tagged/5a World Bank Due Diligence Process_CF5_Final.pdf

G6: The standard administrator maintains a public list of jurisdictional programs that meet the requirements of the standard. Green
Explanation:

Information on the status of jurisdictional programs is available on the FCPF website, along with the relevant documentation (including ER-Program Idea Notes and ER-Program Documents).

 

 

 

Relevant documentation:

Methodological Framework: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2014/MArch/March/FCPF%20Carbon%20Fund%20Methodological%20Framework%20Final%20Dec%2020%202013.pdf

 

ER-PD Template: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/Nov2013/CF8%203b.%20Draft%20ER-PD%20template.pdf

 

ERPA General Conditions:

https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/erpa-general-conditions

 

Carbon Fund Disclosure Guidance:

http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2015/March/FCPF%20Carbon%20Fund%20Disclosure%20Guidance.pdf

 

FCPF Charter:

https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2015/FCPF%20Charter%20-%2011-23-15%20clean.pdf

 

Summary of ER-PD Assessment Process and TAP Process: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2015/April/CF12%202c%20%20%20ER-PD%20assessment%20process%20and%20TAP%20ToR%20-%20presentation%20rev1.pdf

 

Crosswalk of World Bank and Cancun safeguards: https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/2013/june2013/FMT%20Note%20CF-2013-3_FCPF%20WB%20Safeguard%20Policies%20and%20UNFCCC%20REDD%2B%20Safeguards_FINAL.pdf

 

World Bank Safeguard Policies: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/EXTSAFEPOL/0,,menuPK:584441~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:584435,00.html

 

World Bank Due Diligence for ER-Programs:

http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/Documents/tagged/5a%20World%20Bank%20Due%20Diligence%20Process_CF5_Final.pdf

 

Process for Developing the Methodological Framework:

https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/development-carbon-fund-methodological-framework-0

https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/working-group-methodological-and-pricing-approach-carbon-fund-fcpf

 

 

Relevant text sections for each criterion

Criterion Relevant Text
1 Criterion 1: The proposed ER Program is ambitious, demonstrating the potential of the full implementation of the variety of interventions of the national REDD+ strategy, and is implemented at a Jurisdictional scale or programmatic scale.

 

Indicator 1.1: The ER Program Measures aim to address a significant portion of forest related

emissions and removals.

 

Indicator 1.2: The ER Program is ambitious, uses new or enhanced ER Program Measures to reduce

emissions or enhance removals, is undertaken at a jurisdictional scale and/or takes a programmatic

approach (i.e., involves multiple land areas, landowners or managers within one or several

jurisdictions), and reflects a variety of interventions from the national REDD+ strategy in a

coordinated manner.

 

Criterion 2: The Accounting Area matches a government designated area that is of significant scale.

 

Indicator 2.1: The Accounting Area is of significant scale and aligns with one or more jurisdictions; or a national government designated area (e.g., ecoregion) or areas.

 

3.5  Accounting for Displacement (Leakage)

Emphasis should be placed on good Program design that reduces the risk of market  or

subsistence driven displacement, e.g., by maintaining the same level of production of

commodities under the ER Program that occurred prior to the Program, and by introducing and

supporting alternative sustainable livelihoods in the ER Program.

 

Criterion 17: The ER Program is designed and implemented to prevent and minimize potential Displacement.

 

Indicator 17.1: Deforestation and degradation drivers that may be impacted by the proposed ER

Program Measures are identified, and their associated risk for Displacement is assessed, as well as

possible risk mitigation strategies. This assessment categorizes Displacement risks as high, medium or

low.

 

Indicator 17.2: The ER Program has in place an effective strategy to mitigate and/or minimize, to the extent possible, potential Displacement, prioritizing key sources of Displacement risk.

 

Indicator 17.3: By the time of verification, the ER Program has implemented its strategy to mitigate

and/or minimize potential Displacement.

 

Programmatic Element 1: Endorsement and implementing capacity

The ER Program is endorsed by the national government (or governments, as appropriate) and is

implemented by an entity (or entities) that has (have) the capacity to implement the proposed REDD+

interventions, potentially via a stepwise approach.

2 Criterion 3: The ER Program can choose which sources and sinks associated with any of the REDD+ Activities will be accounted for, measured, and reported, and included in the ER Program Reference Level. At a minimum, ER Programs must account for emissions from deforestation.  Emissions from forest degradation also should be accounted for where such emissions are significant.

 

Indicator 3.1: The ER Program identifies which anthropogenic sources and sinks associated with any

of the REDD+ Activities will be accounted for in the ER Program.

 

Indicator 3.2: The ER Program accounts for emissions from deforestation.

 

Indicator 3.3: Emissions from forest degradation are accounted for where such emissions are more

than 10% of total forestMrelated emissions in the Accounting Area, during the Reference Period and

during the Term of the ERPA. These emissions are estimated using the best available data (including

proxy activities or data).

 

Criterion 4: The ER Program should account for, measure, and report, and include in the ER Program

Reference Level, significant Carbon Pools and greenhouse gases, except where their exclusion would

underestimate total emission reductions.

 

4.1: The ER Program accounts for all Carbon Pools and greenhouse gases that are significant within the Accounting Area, both for Reference Level setting and Measurement, Monitoring and reporting (MMR).

 

Indicator 4.2: Carbon Pools and greenhouse gases may be excluded if:

i. Emissions associated with excluded Carbon Pools and greenhouse gases are collectively estimated to amount to less than 10% of total forestMrelated emissions in the Accounting Area during the Reference Period; or

ii. The ER Program can demonstrate that excluding such Carbon Pools and greenhouse gases would underestimate total emission reductions.

 

Criterion 5:  The ER Program uses the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

guidance and guidelines, as adopted or encouraged by the Conference of the Parties as a basis for estimating forest-related greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks2.

 

Indicator 5.1:  The ER Program identifies the IPCC methods used to estimate emissions and removals

for Reference Level setting and Measurement, Monitoring and reporting (MMR).

 

Criterion 6: Key data and methods that are sufficiently detailed to enable the reconstruction of the Reference Level, and the reported emissions and removals (e.g., data, methods and assumptions), are documented and made publicly available online. In cases where the country’s or ER Program’s policies exempt sources of information from being publicly disclosed or shared, the information should be made available to independent reviewers and a rationale is provided for not making these data publicly available. In these cases, reasonable efforts should be made to make summary data publicly available to enable reconstruction.

 

Indicator 6.1: The following methodological steps are made publicly available:

·         Forest definition;

·         Definition of classes of forests, (e.g., degraded forest; natural forest; plantation), if

·         applicable;

·         Choice of activity data, and pre-processing and processing methods;

·         Choice of emission factors and description of their development;

·         Estimation of emissions and removals, including accounting approach;

·         Disaggregation of emissions by sources and removal by sinks;

·         Estimation of accuracy, precision, and/or confidence level, as applicable;

·         Discussion of key uncertainties;

·         Rationale for adjusting emissions, if applicable;

·         Methods and assumptions associated with adjusting emissions, if applicable.

Criterion 7: Sources of uncertainty are systematically identified and assessed in Reference Level setting and Measurement, Monitoring and reporting.

 

Indicator 7.1: All assumptions and sources of uncertainty associated with activity data, emission

factors and calculation methods that contribute to the uncertainty of the estimates of emissions and

removals are identified.

 

Criterion 8: The ER Program, to the extent feasible, follows a process of managing and reducing uncertainty of  activity data and emission factors used in Reference Level setting and Measurement, Monitoring and reporting.

 

Criterion 9: Uncertainty of activity data and emission factors used in Reference Level setting and

Measurement, Monitoring and reporting is quantified in a consistent way, so that the estimation of

emissions, removals and Emission Reductions is comparable among ER Programs3.

 

Accounting Element 2: Reference Level

ERs from an ER Program should be conservatively measured and reported relative to a transparently

presented and clearly documented Forest Reference Emission Level or Forest Reference Level for the

ER Program Measures Area, following the guidance of the Carbon Fund Methodological Framework

and informed by the emerging national Forest Reference Emission Level or Forest Reference Level.

 

Criterion 10: The development of the Reference Level is informed by the development of a Forest Reference

Emission Level or Forest Reference Level for the UNFCCC.

 

Indicator 10.1: The Reference Level is expressed in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

 

Indicator 10.2:  The ER Program explains how the development of the Reference Level can inform or

is informed by the development of a national Forest Reference Emission Level or Forest Reference

Level, and explains the relationship between the Reference Level and any intended submission of a

Forest Reference Emission Level or Forest Reference Level to the UNFCCC.

 

Indicator 10.3: The ER Program explains what steps are intended in order for the Reference Level to

achieve consistency with the country’s existing or emerging greenhouse gas inventory.

 

Criterion 11: A Reference Period is defined. 

 

Indicator 11.1: The end-date for the Reference Period is the most recent date prior to 2013 for which

Forest-cover data is available to enable IPCC Approach 3.  An alternative end-date could be allowed

only with convincing justification, e.g., to maintain consistency of dates with a Forest Reference

Emission Level or Forest Reference Level, other relevant REDD+ programs, national communications,

national ER program or climate change strategy.

 

Indicator 11.2: The start-date for the Reference Period is about 10 years before the end-date.  An

alternative start-date could be allowed only with convincing justification as in Indicator 11.1, and is

not more than 15 years before the end-date.

 

Criterion 12: The forest definition used for the ER Program follows available guidance from UNFCCC decision 12/CP.17.

 

Indicator 12.1: The definition of forest used in the construction of the Reference Level is specified. If

there is a difference between the definition of forest used in the national greenhouse gas inventory

or in reporting to other international organizations (including an Forest Reference Emission Level or

Forest Reference Level to the UNFCCC) and the definition used in the construction of the Reference

Level, then the ER Program explains how and why the forest definition used in the Reference Level

was chosen.

 

Criterion 13: The Reference Level does not exceed the average annual historical emissions over the Reference Period. For a limited set of ER Programs, the Reference Level may be adjusted upward by a limited amount above average annual historical emissions6.  For any ER Program, the Reference Level may be adjusted downward.

 

Indicator 13.1: The Reference Level does not exceed the average annual historical emissions over the

Reference Period, unless the ER Program meets the eligibility requirements in Indicator 13.2. If the

available data from the National Forest Monitoring System used in the construction of the Reference

Level shows a clear downward trend, this should be taken into account in the construction of the

Reference Level.

 

Indicator 13.2: The Reference Level may be adjusted upward above average annual historical

emissions if the ER Program can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Carbon Fund that the

following eligibility requirements are met:

i. Long-term historical deforestation has been minimal across the entirety of the country, and the country has high forest cover;

ii. National circumstances have changed such that rates of deforestation and forest degradation during the historical Reference Period likely underestimate future rates of deforestation and forest degradation during the Term of the ERPA.

 

Indicator 13.3: For countries meeting the eligibility requirements in Indicator 13.2, a Reference Level

could be adjusted above the average historical emission rate over the Reference Period.  Such an

adjustment is credibly justified on the basis of expected emissions that would result from

documented changes in ER Program circumstances, evident before the end-date of the Reference Period, but the effects of which were not fully reflected in the average annual historical emissions

during the Reference Period. Proposed adjustments may be rejected for reasons including, but not

limited to:

i. The basis for adjustments is not documented; or

ii. Adjustments are not quantifiable.

 

Indicator 13.4: An adjustment of the Reference Level above the average annual historical emissions

during the Reference Period may not exceed 0.1%/year of Carbon Stocks.

 

3.4  Measurement, Monitoring and Reporting on Emission Reductions

Accounting Element 3: Consistency with monitoring system

ER Program monitors and reports ERs and other non-carbon variables consistent with the emerging

national forest monitoring system, using methods appropriate for ER Program circumstances, including

community monitoring that are transparently presented and clearly documented

Criterion 14: Robust Forest Monitoring Systems provide data and information that are transparent, consistent  over time, and are suitable for measuring, reporting and verifying emissions by sources and removals by sinks, as determined by following Criterion 3 within the proposed Accounting Area.

 

Indicator 14.1: The ER Program monitors emissions by sources and removals by sinks included in the

ER Program’s scope (Indicator 3.1) using the same methods or demonstrably equivalent methods to

those used to set the Reference Level.

 

Indicator 14.2: Activity data are determined periodically, at least twice during the Term of the ERPA,

and allow for ERs to be estimated from the beginning of the Term of the ERPA. Deforestation is

determined using IPCC Approach 3. Other sinks and sources such as degradation may be determined

using indirect methods such as survey data, proxies derived from landscape ecology, or statistical

data on timber harvesting and regrowth if no direct methods are available.

 

Indicator 14.3: Emission factors or the methods to determine them are the same for Reference Level

setting and for Monitoring, or are demonstrably equivalent. IPCC Tier 2 or higher methods are used

to establish emission factors, and the uncertainty for each emission factor is documented. IPCC Tier 1

methods may be considered in exceptional cases.

 

Criterion 15:  ER Programs apply technical specifications of the National Forest Monitoring System where possible.

 

Indicator 15.1: ER Programs articulate how the Forest Monitoring System fits into the existing or

emerging National Forest Monitoring System, and provides a rationale for alternative technical

design where applicable.

 

ERPA General Conditions:

Section 8.02 Verification

(a) All ERs generated by the ER Program during each Reporting Period shall be subject to Verification by an Independent Reviewer

 

FCPF Disclosure Guidance.

3 Programmatic Element 3: Safeguards

The ER Program meets World Bank social and environmental safeguards, promotes and supports the safeguards included in UNFCCC guidance related to REDD+, and provides information on how these safeguards are  addressed and respected, including through the application of appropriate grievance mechanisms.

 

Criterion 24: The ER Program meets the World Bank social and environmental safeguards and promotes and supports the safeguards included in UNFCCC guidance related to REDD+.

 

Indicator 24.1: The ER Program demonstrates through its design and implementation how it meets

relevant World Bank social and environmental safeguards, and promotes and supports the

safeguards included in UNFCCC guidance related to REDD+, by paying particular attention to Decision

1/CP.16 and its Appendix I as adopted by the UNFCCC.

 

Criterion 25: Information is provided on how the ER Program meets the World Bank social and environmental safeguards and addresses and respects the safeguards included in UNFCCC guidance related to REDD+, during ER Program implementation.

 

Indicator 25.1: Appropriate monitoring arrangements for safeguards referred to in Criterion 24 are

included in the Safeguards Plans.

 

Indicator 25.2: During ER Program implementation, information on the implementation of

Safeguards Plans is included in an annex to each ER monitoring report and interim progress report.

This information is publicly disclosed, and the ER Program is encouraged to make this information

available to relevant stakeholders. This information is also made available as an input to the national

systems for providing information on how safeguards are addressed and respected (SIS) required by the UNFCCC guidance related to REDD+, as appropriate.

 

Indicator 28.2: The ER Program explains how the relevant issues identified in the above assessment

have been or will be taken into consideration in the design and implementation of the ER Program,

and in the relevant Safeguards Plan(s).  If the ER Program involves activities that are contingent on

establishing legally recognized rights to lands and territories that Indigenous Peoples have

traditionally owned or customarily used or occupied, the relevant Safeguards Plan sets forth an

action plan for the legal recognition of such ownership, occupation, or usage.  Beyond what is

required for the successful implementation of the ER Program, the ER Program is encouraged to

show how it can contribute to progress towards clarifying land and resource tenure in the Accounting

Area, where relevant.

 

World Bank safeguards

 

World Bank/ Cancun safeguards crosswalk

 

4 ER-PD template
5 Programmatic Element 4: Stakeholder participation

The design and implementation of ER Programs is based on and utilizes transparent stakeholder information sharing and consultation mechanisms that ensure broad community support and the full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular affected Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

 

Criterion 26: An appropriate Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanism (FGRM) developed during the Readiness phase or otherwise exist(s), building on existing institutions, regulatory frameworks, mechanisms and capacity.

 

Indicator 26.1: An assessment of existing FGRM, including any applicable customary FGRMs, is

conducted and is made public. The FGRM applicable to the ER Program demonstrates the following:

i) Legitimacy, accessibility, predictability, fairness, rights compatibility, transparency, and capability to address a range of grievances, including those related to benefit-sharing arrangements for the ER Program;

ii)     Access to adequate expertise and resources for the operation of the FGRM.

 

Indicator 26.2:  The description of FGRM procedures, included in the Benefit-Sharing Plan and/or

relevant Safeguards Plans, specifies the process to be followed to receive, screen, address, monitor,

and report feedback on, grievances or concerns submitted by affected stakeholders.  As relevant, the

Benefit-Sharing Plan and/or relevant Safeguards Plans and/or ER Program Document describe the

relationship among FGRM(s) at the local, ER Program, and national levels.

 

Indicator 26.3: If found necessary in the assessment mentioned in Indicator 26.1, a plan is developed

to improve the FGRM.

 

Criterion 28: The ER Program has undertaken and made publicly available an assessment of the land and resource tenure regimes present in the Accounting Area.

 

Indicator 28.1: The ER Program reviews the assessment of land and resource tenure regimes carried

out during the readiness phase at the national level (i.e., SESA) and, if necessary, supplements this

assessment by undertaking an additional assessment of any issues related to land and resource tenure regimes in the Accounting Area that are critical to the successful implementation of the ER

Program, including:…

The ER Program demonstrates that the additional assessment has been conducted in a consultative,

transparent and participatory manner, reflecting inputs from relevant stakeholders.

 

Programmatic Element 5: Benefit sharing

The ER Program uses clear, effective and transparent benefit-sharing mechanisms with broad community support and support from other relevant stakeholders.

 

Criterion 30: The Benefit Sharing Plan will elaborate on the benefit-sharing arrangements for Monetary and Non-Monetary Benefits, building on the description in the ER Program Document, and taking into account the importance of managing expectations among potential Beneficiaries.

 

Indicator 30.1: The Benefit-Sharing Plan is made publicly available prior to ERPA signature, at least as

an advanced draft, and is disclosed in a form, manner and language und

 

Criterion 31: The benefit-sharing arrangements are designed in a consultative, transparent, and participatory manner appropriate to the country context.  This process is informed by and builds upon the national readiness process, including the SESA, and taking into account existing benefit-sharing arrangements, where appropriate.

 

Indicator 31.1: The Benefit-Sharing Plan is prepared as part of the consultative, transparent and

participatory process for the ER Program, and reflects inputs by relevant stakeholders, including

broad community support by affected Indigenous Peoples.   The Benefit-Sharing Plan is designed to

facilitate the delivery and sharing of Monetary and Non-Monetary Benefits that promote successful

ER Program implementation.  The Benefit-Sharing Plan is disclosed in a form, manner and language

understandable to the affected stakeholders of the ER Program.

 

Indicator 34.2: Stakeholder engagement processes carried out for the ER Program design and for the

readiness phase inform the identification of such priority Non-Carbon Benefits.

 

6 n/a
Standards World Bank due diligence for ER-Programs

http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/sites/fcp/files/Documents/tagged/5a World Bank Due Diligence Process_CF5_Final.pdf

 

Descriptions of the Methodological Framework development process:

https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/development-carbon-fund-methodological-framework-0

https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/working-group-methodological-and-pricing-approach-carbon-fund-fcpf

 

 

[1] Note NDCs will replace INDCs when a country formally joins the Paris Agreement.