• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

The World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility “has not saved a single hectare of forest”

Posted on 17 November 201610 September 2019

FCPFThe World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility is supposed to help countries in the Global South reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. It was launched at COP 13 in Bali in 2007. The Fund capital stands at US$850 million, of which US$1.12 billion is for the Readiness Fund, and US$750 million is for the Carbon Fund. But after nine years, the FCPF cannot point to a single country in which it has actually reduced deforestation.

Norway is the largest contributor to the FCPF. Over the years, Norway has handed over a total of about US$275 million. A recent article in the NORAD-funded Bistandsaktuelt questions the effectiveness of all this generosity.

The article quotes Rainforest Foundation UK’s criticism that the FCPF has spent too much money on operations, consulting, methodological support and administration, while the concrete results in terms of forest conservation and purchase of carbon offsets are on hold.

From the beginning, the FCPF was supposed to “jump-start a forest carbon market”.

Rainforest Foundation UK calculates that almost two-thirds of the money spent under the FCPF since 2009 has gone on the World Bank’s own administration, consulting expenses and transaction costs.

Simon Counsell, Executive Director of the Rainforest Foundation UK told Bistandsaktuelt that all this money, “has not saved a single hectare of forest or prevented a single gram of CO2 from being released into the atmosphere”.

FCPF evaluation: slow disbursements, lack of understanding, complexities

The World Bank’s response to Bistandsaktuelt is that a large number of countries have gone through the Readiness Fund process into the pipeline portfolio in the Carbon Fund. Breen Byrnes at the World Bank claims that administration costs are only one-quarter of the payments made, and that this figure will drop further when results-based payments are made.

But a recently completed evaluation of the FCPF carried out by Finnish consulting firm Indufor found that,

The FCPF has faced challenges in reaching advanced stages of readiness at the portfolio level and securing investments for the Future Emissions Reduction Programs. Slow disbursements at the country level, lack of understanding of Delivery Partner policies, and coming to terms with technical complexities have led to delays in the FCPF program. The uncertainty on how the required upfront investments for the future Emission Reduction Programs will be financed has created challenges across the portfolio in managing stakeholder expectations with respect to timing and the availability of funds for REDD Countries.

Indufor also noted that,

It is unclear to what extent the FCPF will reduce emissions in the long term, as it has yet to pilot the legal aspects of its results-based framework (i.e. Emissions Reduction Purchase Agreements ERPAs).

NICFI: Carbon Fund is the best multilateral payment mechanism for REDD

Per Fredrik Ilsaas Pharo, Director of the Government of Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative at the Ministry of Environment told Bistandsaktuelt that,

The Ministry has been clear with the World Bank that we wanted faster progress in the FCPF. But results and important milestones in the fund have been achieved, although payments for emission reductions have not yet been made.

According to Pharo, access to long-term and predictable funding is one of the greatest challenges to achieve REDD. Pharo argues that,

It has therefore been important for Norway and other donor countries to help build up and put money into the Carbon Fund, which is the best multilateral payment mechanism that currently exists for payment for emission reductions from forests in developing countries.

The Carbon Fund may well be the “best multilateral payment mechanism” for REDD. Let’s face it though, there’s not much competition. And best or not, the Carbon Fund has not saved a single hectare of forest or prevented a single gram of CO2 from being released into the atmosphere.

And even if the performance-based payments do start pouring out of the Bank, that is no proof of anything, given the impossibility of verifying baselines, and that the concept of additionality is entirely meaningless.
 

3 thoughts on “The World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility “has not saved a single hectare of forest””

  1. John H. Dick says:
    17 November 2016 at 7:19 pm

    I have reviewed six REDD+ reports from 2011 to 2014. Only one report was satisfactory. Every country cited illegal and unsustainable harvesting, poor land-use controls and inadequate law enforcement as the major cause of D&D, but 4/6 thought the solution was a carbon credit/marketing system. Trouble is that these systems only work with competent, transparent, relatively incorrupt governance, and that commodity is in short supply in most of these countries.

  2. wampalgeorgegmail says:
    22 November 2016 at 6:30 am

    I am George Wampal of April/Salome humlet of Nawei under Nom Investment Limited the one of 5;landowners co, carbon redd+ project.

  3. wampalgeorgegmail says:
    22 November 2016 at 6:42 am

    my comment or question what if the world bank would assist the Landowners to complete the incomplete process of redd+project before the project to jet of the ground for the beneficiaries of the people of April /Salome.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

SUBSCRIBE!

Enter your email address to receive notification of new posts.

Recent themes
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • shahid on James Moore sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for his role in the Bar Works scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Delton Chen on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Chris Lang on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl

Recent Posts

  • Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Papua New Guinea Environmental Alliance letter to Pogio Ghate, Minister for Environment, Conservation and Climate Change
  • Ecomapuá Amazon REDD Project, Brazil: Pública investigation reveals Ecomapuá Conservação is selling “illegal” carbon offsets from land it does not own, without transferring the money to local communities
  • Response from Steve Zwick, Verra: “Verra will ask Kanaka Management Systems to cease and desist any actions that may mislead communities into thinking that Verra has not already rejected the project”
  • Response from Kanaka Management Services: “Please do not conduct legal trail or castigate REDD+ project developers on the website by writing text which shows the project developer in bad light”

Recent Comments

  • shahid on James Moore sentenced to more than 11 years in prison for his role in the Bar Works scam
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Delton Chen on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Kathleen McCroskey on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl
  • Chris Lang on Offsetting is not an option if we are serious about addressing the climate crisis. My response to Hartmut Graßl

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Deforestation FCPF FERN Financing REDD Forest definition Fossil fuels FPP Friends of the Earth FSC Green Climate Fund Greenpeace Guest post ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations Poznan R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Germany Guatemala Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Laos Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA Vietnam West Papua
©2022 REDD-Monitor | Powered by WordPress and Superb Themes!