(DRAFT)
WHICH REGIONAL FINANCING PLATFORM (RFP) AT THE BENEFIT OF CPMF PARTNER COUNTRIES - ALGERIA, LEBANON MOROCCO, TUNISIA, TURKEY? JUSTIFICATION, OPPORTUNITIES, CHALLENGES.
Ludwig LIAGRE, GIZ consultant January 2015
This publication has been written in the framework of the Regional Project GIZ-CPMF www.gizcpmf.org and answers the need for increasing the mobilization of resources for sustainable forest management in the partner countries of the Collaborative Partnership on Mediterranean Forests (CPMF). N.B. This publication does not reflect the point of view of GIZ, neither of the CPMF secretariat. It is meant to be a neutral analysis and presentation of potential opportunities for structuring a financing platform at the benefit of the CPMF partner countries. The author wishes for comments and reactions to be brought in the design process of the RFP. Special thanks for their deepened contributions to partner institutions : GIZ, FAO, Global Mechanism of the UNCCD, Silva Mediterranea, especially to Mr Reinhard Alexander Kastl (GIZ), Mr Rao Matta (FAO), Mr Sven Walter (GM-UNCCD), Mrs Ines Chaalala (GM-UNCCD), Mr Pedro Lara Almuedo (GM-UNCCD), Mr Christophe Besacier (FAO), Mrs Magali Maire (FAO) and Mrs Anne Martinet (FAO / ONF International). A list of all contributors and interviewed partners is in annex 2.
2
Table of content Résumé pour décideurs ......................................................................................................................... 6 Summary for decision-makers ............................................................................................................... 7 1. Context............................................................................................................................................ 9 2. Financial needs in the forestry sector ? ....................................................................................... 10 3. Forest finance : an emerging issue in MENA ............................................................................... 13 4. Possible drivers for increasing means of implementation for SFM in the CPMF Partner Countries : a mix of financing solutions ............................................................................................... 15 5. Benchmark of existing financing platforms................................................................................... 19 6. RFP : a tentative definition ........................................................................................................... 21 7. Which potential (new) donors and partners ? .............................................................................. 22 8. Which form this RFP should have ? ............................................................................................. 26 9. Which objectives and thematical priorities for the RFP ?............................................................. 31 10. Climate Finance and Biodiversity Finance opportunities ............................................................. 33 11. Preparation phasis of the RFP: opportunity of a GEF project ?................................................... 38 Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................... 39 List of references.................................................................................................................................. 40 Annexes ............................................................................................................................................... 42 Annex 1: Minutes of the meeting on the design of a RFP in support of the CPMF partner countries, Roma, June 26, 2014 Annex 2: List of interviewed partners in the framework of the study Annex 3: Ongoing Forest Finance related initiatives in CPMF partner countries Annex 4: List of complementary initiatives on Biodiversity Finance Annex 5: Survey to potential beneficiaries Annex 6: Overview of Forest Financing Sources (Simula, 2008) Annex 7: Forest investment potential in developing countries (Simula, 2008)
List of figures Figure 1 : SWOT analysis: window of opportunity for the CPMF to work on the design of a RFP ....... 9 Figure 2: Funding plan for the Decennal Tunisian Forest Strategy 2015-2014 .................................. 11 Figure 3: Financing streams : a schematic view.................................................................................. 15 Figure 4: Key principles of the RFP ..................................................................................................... 26 Figure 5: Possible relation between the RFP and the CPMF .............................................................. 27 Figure 6: Proposed “reduced” steering committee of the RFP............................................................ 27 Figure 7: The national forest finance focal point (N-FF-FP) ant its key national counterparts ........... 28 Figure 8: RFP concept: elements of vizualization ............................................................................... 30 Figure 9: Abatments costs of REDD+ options in CPMF partner countries ......................................... 35
List of tables Table 1: Possible RFP models: country-driven, organization-driven, a mixed model......................... 29 Table 2: A possible model for a RFP in support to the CPMF : a synthetic proposal ......................... 30 Table 3: Examples of climate finance readiness programmes............................................................ 36
3
Acronyms ABS
Access and Benefit Sharing, under the Nagoya Protocol
AF
Adaptation Fund
AFD
French Development Agency
AfDB
African Development Bank
AHEG
Ad-hoc Expert Group
A/R
Afforestation & Reforestation
BIOFIN
Biodiversity Finance Initiative
BMZ
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
CBA
Cost Benefit Analysis
CBD
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
CBFF
Congo Basin Forest Fund
CEPF
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
CF
Climate finance
CIF
Climate Investment Funds
CPF
Collaborative Partnership on Forests
CPMF
Collaborative Partnership on Mediterranean Forests
CPMF-PC
CPMF partner countries
CSO
Civil Society Organization
CSR
Corporate Social Responsibility
EFR
Environmental Fiscal Reforms
EFIMED
European Forest Institute - Mediterranean Office
EU
European Union
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FFEM
French Global Environmental Facility
FFF
Forest & Farm Facility
FGS
Forest Goods and Services
FGP
Forest Governance Program (BMZ)
FIP
Forest Investment Program (CIF)
FONAFIFO
Costa Rican National Forest Fund
GCF
Green Climate Fund
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GIZ
German Development Cooperation
GM-UNCCD
Global Mechanism of the UNCCD
GPFLR
Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration
INDC
Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
IPBES
Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
IsDB
Islamic Development Bank
4
LULUCF
Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry
MDG
Millenium Development Goal
MENA
Middle East North Africa
MFW
Mediterranean Forest Week
NAMA
Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action
NFF
National Forest Funds
NIE
National Implementing Entity (NIE)
NFP
National Forest Program
N-FF-FP
National Forest Finance Focal Points
NLBI
Non-Legally Binding Instrument on all kinds of forests
NPIF
Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund
NTFP
Non Timber Forest Products
ODA
Official Development Aid
PER
Public Expenditure Review
PES
Payments for Ecosystem Services
PFES
Payments for Forest Ecosystem Services
PPP REDD
Public Private Partnership Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
Regional project Regional project GIZ “Adapting Forest Policy Framework Conditions to GIZ-CPMF Climate Change in the MENA region” in the framework of the Collaborative Partnership on Mediterranean Forests RFP
Regional Financing Platform
RIE
Regional Implementing Entity
SDG
Sustainable Development Goal
SFMF
Strategic Framework on Mediterranean Forests
SoMF
State of Mediterranean Forests
SMEs
Small and Medium Enterprises
STAR
System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (GEF)
SWOT
Strenghts-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats
TEEB
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
TEV
Total Economic Value
UNCCD
United Nations Convention on Combating Desertification
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNFF UN-REDD
United Nations Forum on Forests The United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services
WAVES
5
Résumé pour décideurs Pour résumer la présente publication, les points clés suivants peuvent être mis en avant: Des ressources financières additionnelles sont nécessaires dans les pays du PCFM face aux défis de la gestion durable des forêts et en vue d’atteindre les objectifs des conventions de Rio. La mise en place d’une plateforme régionale de financement (PRF) en appui aux pays du PCFM est une opportunité pour mobiliser de manière durable des ressources financières sur le long-terme. Une PRF devrait capitaliser sur les initiatives nationales existantes en matière de financement des forêts dans les pays du PCFM, et elle devrait soutenir les échanges de bonnes pratiques et de leçons apprises. Le PCFM offre une base solide pour établir une telle plateforme car il dispose, parmi d’autres critères pertinents, i) d’une structure de gouvernance avec des pays et organisations partenaires impliqués; ii) d’une stratégie claire et d’objectifs précis inclus dans un plan d’opération et iii) d’une stratégie de communication associée à une identité visuelle. Il est recommandé de considérer toutes les sources de financement possibles : nationales, internationales, publiques, privées, basées sur un marché ou non. Une combinaison stratégique de ces sources de financement est une clé de la durabilité de la disponibilité de moyens de mise en œuvre. o Les efforts en cours sur les ressources publiques, par exemple à travers la conception et la gestion de fonds nationaux forestiers, les réformes fiscales environnementales, les revues des dépenses publiques pour le secteur forestier, etc. pourraient être renforcés grâce à la PRF. o La promotion d’un environnement favorisant pour les investissements du secteur privé, p.ex. à travers les approches RSE et le développement d’incitations aux “investisseurs responsables” devrait être un des axes phares de la PRF. o Les opportunités de financements internationaux, de bailleurs multilatéraux et bilatéraux, ainsi que de fondations internationales, représentent un « carburant » et des « intrants » pertinents pour pérenniser la mobilisation de ressources sur le long-terme. Dans le cadre de la PRF ces financements internationaux devraient servir à soutenir le développement de mécanismes nationaux pour le financement pérenne des forêts. Des bailleurs pertinents pas encore mobilisés dans le contexte du PCFM pourraient être invités à rejoindre la PRF. o Parmi les opportunités de financements internationaux, la finance climat devrait être considérée comme une des thématiques principales de la PRF. Dans ce sens, les 4 aspects de la combinaison ‘Forêts & changement climatique’ importants pour les pays du PCFM devraient être reconnus : 1) l’Atténuation basée sur les Forêts, 2) l’Adaptation basée sur les Forêts, 3) l’Adaptation des Forêts, ainsi que le rôle combiné des forêts pour des solutions d’Atténuation basée sur l’Adaptation. o Le potentiel REDD+, intégrant les co-bénéfices non-carbone de la REDD, a été confirmé par des études récentes au sein des pays du PCFM, et il devrait être considéré de manière adéquate par la PRF afin de saisir les opportunités associées. o La finance pour la biodiversité est aussi un axe prometteur et davantage d’efforts devraient être effectués pour développer des schémas APA et PSE, ainsi que pour connecter le PCFM aux initiatives pertinentes comme TEEB, IPBES, etc. Dans la phase de conception de la PRF, d’autres plateformes de financement pourraient représenter des sources d’inspiration comme par exemple le « Fonds Forestier du Bassin du Cogo », le « Fonds Amazonien » et l’ « Initiative de la Grande Muraille Verte pour le Sahara et le Sahel », parmi d’autres. Une PRF devrait disposer de solides racines au niveau national, par exemple à travers des plateformes nationales pour le financement des forêts, animées par des points focaux nationaux pour le financement des forêts.
6
Un modèle de gouvernance judicieux de la plateforme pourrait associer dans la coordination opérationnelle un pays partenaire et une organisation support. Afin de concevoir la PRF et de procéder au développement des capacités nécessaire des points focaux et coordinateurs, il est suggéré de mobiliser des ressources pour assurer la phase de préparation de la PRF. Un projet régional FEM programmatique (en cours de conception) pourrait représenter une fenêtre d’opportunité. Dans ce processus, l’expertise de conseil en matière de financement des forêts développée par des membres du PCFM comme la GIZ, la FAO et le Mécanisme Mondial de la CNULCD pourrait être mise à profit.
7
Summary for decision-makers To put the present publication in a nutshell, we can draw attention on the following points: Additional financial resources are required in CPMF partner countries in order to address all the challenges of sustainable forest management and contribute properly to the Rio conventions objectives. Building a regional financing platform (RFP) in support to the CPMF partner countries is an opportunity to sustain the mobilization of financial resources on the long-run. A potential RFP should capitalize on existing forest finance initiatives at the national level in CPMF partner countries and support the exchange of good practices and lessons learned. The CPMF offers a good basis for establishing such a platform since it disposes, among other important features, of i) a governance structure with involved partner countries and organizations, ii) a clear strategy with a set of objectives translated into an operational planning, iii) a communication strategy and a visual identity. It is recommended to work on all existing financing streams, combining national, international, public, private, market-based and non-market based sources. A strategic mix of these financing resources is key to sustainability of available means of implementation. o Ongoing work on public sources, e.g. through National Forest Funds design and management, Environmental Fiscal Reforms, Public Expenditure Reviews for the forest sector, etc. could be reinforced through the implementation of the RFP. o Promoting enabling conditions for private sector investments, e.g. through CSR approaches and developing incentives to “impact investors” would be among the drivers to be strengthened. o International funding opportunities, from multilateral and bilateral donors, as well as international foundations, represent relevant fuels and inputs to sustain the mobilization of resources on the long-run. In the framework of the RFP they should support the development of long-term country-driven forest finance mechanisms. Relevant international donors not yet mobilized in the context of the CPMF could be invited to join the RFP. o Among international funding opportunities, climate finance should be considered as one of the most important focus of the RFP. In this sense the 4 aspects of the nexus ‘Forests & Climate Change’ relevant for the CPMF partner countries should be acknowledged: 1) Forest-based Mitigation, 2) Forest-based Adaptation, 3) Adaptation of Forests and even the combined role of forests in “Adaptation-based Mitigation” solutions. o REDD+ potential, integrating REDD non-carbon co-benefits, has been confirmed by recent studies in CPMF partner countries and should be addressed adequately by the RFP to seize related opportunities. o Biodiversity finance is also promising and more efforts should be made to develop ABS and PES schemes and connect with relevant initiatives e.g TEEB, IPBES, etc. In view of the design phasis of the RFP, sources of inspiration can be found in other financing platforms such as the Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF), the Amazon Fund and the Great Green Wall for the Sahara and the Sahel Initiative (GGWSSI) among others. A RFP should have strong roots at the national level e.g. through national forest finance platforms animated by National Forest Finance Focal Points (N-FF-FP). A sensible governance model of the platform should associate a target country and a support organization as lead operational coordinators; In order to design the RFP and proceed to the necessary capacity development of focal points and coordinators, it is suggested to mobilize resources for the preparation phasis of the RFP. A regional GEF programmatic project (in design) could be a window of opportunity. In this process the forest finance advisory expertise of CPMF member organization, e.g. GIZ, FAO, GM-UNCCD will be an added-value.
8
1. Context The Collaborative Partnership on Mediterranean Forests (CPMF), created in October 2010, aims at improving the framework conditions for sustainable forest management in targeted countries of the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region disposing of a significant forest cover: Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey. Today, eighteen organizations joined the partnership as signatoree members. Among them a majority are technical partners but not financing organizations as such. In order to sustain on the long-term the regional cooperation initiated in the framework of the CPMF (cf operation plan of the CPMF1) and to implement newly identified work axes (cf Strategic Framework on Mediterranean Forests2), it is proposed to think about a mechanism facilitating financial resources mobilization at the regional level. The idea of a RFP benefitting the target countries of the CPMF has been initiated during the workshop on « Sustainable financing mechanisms for the forest sector in the MENA region » held in Rabat (Morocco) from April 3-5, 2013. It was further discussed during the CPMF steering committee organized in Hammamet (Tunisia) on December 4th, 20133. The present analysis targets in particular the CPMF partner countries, namely Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey which have been engaged together in cooperation since the signature of the CPMF in 20104. A rapid SWOT analysis (fig.1) highlights the window of opportunity for the CPMF partner countries to work on the design of such a Regional Financing Platform (RFP) to sustain the means of implementation for SFM on the long run. Strengths • Well established communication, cooperation and dialogue between CPMF partner countries (CPMF-PC) • CPMF-PC are used to deal with and work together with CPMF partner organizations • Active regional dynamic (SoMF, SFMF, project GIZ-PCFM, project AFD-FFEM) • External visibility (Voluntary commitments, international side-events, e.g at Rio+20 conference5, etc.) • Current CPMF partners have extensive forest finance advisory experience, e.g. FAO, GM-UNCCD and GIZ
Weaknesses • National vs regional priorities. • Maintaining momentum for regional cooperation is a continuous challenge. • Unsufficient financial and human resources in the FAs for regional activities. • No financial contributions from the FAs to the CPMF work agenda
Opportunities • Numerous new potential donors (multilateral, bilateral, foundations, etc.) • South south cooperation potential (need for involving cooperation agencies of CPMF-PC) • Potential stronger implication of the private sector (value chains, Corporate Social Responsibility, etc). Incentives need to be designed and implemented
Threats • Competition of other regions / forest basins • Visibility of Mediterranean forest issues
FIGURE 1 : SWOT ANALYSIS: WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CPMF TO WORK ON THE DESIGN OF A RFP.
1
See operation plan of the CPMF. http://www.fao.org/forestry/silvamed/66624/fr/ See the Strategic Framework on Mediterranean Forests (SFMF). http://www.fao.org/forestry/3630509b49e250133aca90ec63959d92ad1617.pdf 3 Report of the 4th CPMF steering committee. http://www.fao.org/forestry/399950eae60142059518612783799526d7fcac.pdf 4 http://www.fao.org/forestry/36748-0da0daf97010af0c98cce660f15273b8.pdf 5 Side-event at Rio+20, June 18, 2012, "Mediterranean Forests for Development : a key for adapting policies, territories and populations to climate change in the MENA region" http://www.gizcpmf.org/tl_files/pdf/Flyer_Rio+20_Mediterranean%20Forests%20for%20Development.pdf 2
9
2. Financial needs in the forestry sector? The forestry sector has more and more responsibilities. On top of the traditional forest management issues6, the Rio conventions have led to new work areas such as desertification control, biodiversity conservation and valorization (e.g. through National Parks management, implementation of the Nagoya Protocol, etc.), climate change mitigation and adaptation. In the international development agenda, the forest sector is called as part of the solution to address many environmental and development challenges. In this sense forests are meant to bring key contributions to CBD Aichi Targets, the UNFCCC REDD+ goal and the Rio+20 land degradation target, etc. Forests are also needed to foster sustainable rural development and to generate incomes in family farming systems. Through all their cobenefits - environmental, social, and economic - forestry projects are needed to build green economies and contribute to generating green jobs. A study 7 conducted by the FAO forestry department highlights that a significant investment in the forestry sector globally (amounting 40 billion USD) could result in the creation of 10 to 15 million new green jobs 8 . Finally current discussions acknowledge the role of forests for achieving Millenium Development Goals9 and voices call for forest specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)10. So the international development agenda is significantly relying on the forest sector. But what are the current financial means to match these expectations? Are the current financial resources at the disposal of the forest administrations enough? If not, which drivers and financing tools should be developed? Simula (2008) already pointed out that “many low-forest-cover countries do not receive substantial external support (in particular ODA support) in managing and conserving their forests or tree resources”. This was clearly the case in the MENA region. In the period 2000-2007, CPMF partner countries were barely addressed by donors funding efforts (fig 2). While the situation has evolved, the MENA region is still behind many other forest basins. Some countries within the CPMF have already well defined their current financing gap. For example Tunisia calculated recently the financing requirements for implementing the newly defined decenal National Forest and Grassland Strategy (2015-2024).The estimated financing need amounts 850 Million DT, ab. 380 Million Eur11 i.e. 67 Eur/Ha. The related funding plan (fig 3) suggests that the national budget will represent about 60 per cent of the all funding requirement, and more than 20 per cent should be covered by tunisian international development partners. The remaining 20% would be financed by national partners, in particular through partnerships with the private sector and the
6
Including forest inventories, management plans elaboration and implementation, forest fires prevention and control, water basin management, regulation of forest products collection and valorization, etc. 7 “Forests and the global economy: 10 million new jobs. Sustainable forest management could become a means of creating millions of new green jobs”, FAO, 2009 http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/10442/icode/ 8 In particular in the fields of: plantation, forest management and conservation, forest fires prevention and control, protected areas management, agroforestry development, urban and peri-urban forestry. 9 http://www.fao.org/forestry/26559/en/ “Forests have a significant impact on two of the most articulate development goals: Goal 1, on poverty and hunger reduction, and Goal 7, on environmental sustainability” 10 http://www.ictsd.org/bridges-news/biores/news/forests-in-the-sustainable-development-goals “10 key targets for forest and trees in SDGs” 11 http://www.xe.com/fr/currencyconverter
implementation of a national funding mechanism which form
12
still needs to be defined.
FIGURE 2: NUMBER OF DONORS OPERATING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES IN THE PERIOD 2000-2007 (SIMULA, 2008)
FIGURE 3: FUNDING PLAN FOR THE DECENNAL TUNISIAN FOREST STRATEGY 2015-202413
12
This national funding mechanism could be based on a planned National Forest Fund (NFF), following a payment for ecosystem services (PES) approach 13 Ref: National Strategy for the Development and Sustainable Management of Forests and Rangelands & Action plan, 2015-2024, Ministry of Agriculture of Tunisia, General Directorate for Forestry, Oct. 2014
11
In Lebanon, the 40 Million trees programme, consisting in reforesting 70.000 Ha of public lands would require an approximate budget of 340 Million Eur, i.e. ab. 4850 Eur/Ha which still needs to be raised. While it is difficult to access precise data on funding needs in other countries, the examples of Tunisia and Lebanon highlights that the current state allocations are often not sufficient to cover the whole financing need for SFM. Besides, due to differences in forest policies, forest administration capacities, and objectives as well as forest types and conditions, there are significant differences in financing requirements. Nonetheless the survey conducted in the framework of this study confirmed that all CPMF forest administrations look for additional funding opportunities in order to unleash the full contribution of the forest sector to contribute to inclusive green economies14.
14
See Croitoru & Liagre (2013) “Contribution of the forest sector to a green economy in MENA”
12
3. Forest finance: an emerging issue in MENA In the framework of the Collaborative Partnership on Mediterranean Forests, several initiatives addressing the lack of finance for SFM have emerged. First, economic valuations of forest goods and services have been considered as important studies to raise attention on the value of forests for national economies. Several studies are relevant in this sense and contributed significantly to increasing political interest and public awareness. A book “Valuing Mediterranean Forests: Towards total economic value (TEV)” written by Merlo & Croitoru (2005) presents TEV figures for several MENA countries including CPMF partner countries. In Tunisia a study on the TEV of Tunisian forests was published in 2011 and was a key source data for convincing the tunisian ministry of finance to increase its allocation to the Tunisian forestry sector15. In Lebanon an update of the economic valuation study was released in 2014 16 in the framework of the Lebanese National Forest Program (NFP) elaboration17. In Morocco the economic valuation exercise is going on through a dedicated working group at the High Commissariat for Water, Forests and Desertification Control (HCEFLCD), the “environmental accounting unit”. Between 2013 and 2014 the HCEFLCD received the support of EFIMED18 to develop a valuation methodology adaptable to all ecoregions defined in the Moroccan National Action Plan for Desertification Control. Secondly capacity development and strategic work have been conducted. Following steps can be highlighted: A conference “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: recognizing and capturing the value of forest ecosystems services in the MENA region” (Tunis, June 2011, 150 participants), co-organized by GIZ, Silva Mediterranea and WWF; A TEEB capacity-building workshop in MENA co-organized by UNEP/TEEB, GIZ, the CBD Secretariat, UNESCWA and the League of Arab States (Beirut, Feb. 2012, 80 participants)19. A regional workshop on “Sustainable financing mechanisms for the forest sector in the MENA region” co-organized by GIZ, FAO and the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD (Rabat, 3-5 April, 2013)20, enabled 40 participants from CPMF partner countries to learn from forest finance experts and to think of adapted mechanisms to be implemented in their countries. The idea to work on a financing platform concept for the CPMF-PC was one of the main output of this workshop.
15
Evaluation économique des biens et services des forêts tunisiennes, DGF, FAO, 2012 http://www.fao.org/forestry/37727-0ac5f97c6680a6a313c77675966ee816b.pdf 16 Sattout, E. Economic values of forest ecosystem services in Lebanon: Indicators guiding national forest policy and management practices. Submitted to Ecosystem Services Journal 2014. 17 The NFP elaboration as well as the economic valuation study have been financed by the regional project GIZ-CPMF 18 Support financed by the regional project GIZ-CPMF 19 Workshop documentation : http://www.cbd.int/doc/?meeting=WSCBTEEB-MENA-01 20 All presentations can be found here : http://www.giz-cpmf.org/thematic-issues/greeneconomy/innovative-financing-mechanisms/
13
The Strategic Framework on Mediterranean Forests (SFMF) highlights recommendations and orientations for the mobilization of financial resources, especially the strategic line 9 “Adapting existing financing schemes and develop innovative mechanisms to support implementation of forest policies and programmes “21.
Then practical approaches on specific financing mechanisms are observed: Use of National Forest Funds (Morocco, Turkey) and willingness of forest administrations to implement NFF (Tunisia, Lebanon). Pilot REDD+ projects are being tested in Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria in the framework of a regional project FFEM-AFD. Good practices of Payments for Ecosystem Services are being exchanged between Morocco and Costa Rica in the framework of a triangular cooperation project Morocco-Costa RicaGermany implemented by the regional project GIZ-CPMF. National CSR platforms for forests emerge e.g. the “Partnership for Moroccan Forests” and the “Pact for a Green Tunisia”. Annex 3 sums up some of the ongoing efforts on Forest Finance in the CPMF partner countries. Despite these ongoing approaches many challenges remain, and a need for structuring forest finance activities is prominent. As it has been developed in other regions of the world, catalytic regional financing platforms can support collaboration and synergies in the efforts for increasing resources mobilization for SFM. But which drivers should be addressed in this platform? The following section provides inputs to answer this question.
21
http://www.fao.org/forestry/36305-09b49e250133aca90ec63959d92ad1617.pdf
14
4. Possible drivers for increasing means of implementation for SFM in the CPMF Partner Countries: a mix of financing solutions Different drivers are meaningful for increasing the available budget for SFM. In a simplified way, we can identify four main financial streams, which can be interlinked: -
Public sources Private sources National sources International sources
National streams are in general more sustainable and predictable, while international mechanisms tend to be dependent upon political, thematical and geographical priorities of donors (see schematic fig.4). In the conception of the RFP, it is recommended to consider international funds as bonuses to efforts made to raise financial resources at the national level (fig. 4).
FIGURE 4: FINANCING STREAMS : A SCHEMATIC VIEW N.B. The more complex schematization by Simula (2008) can offer another framework of analysis of funding opportunities in the forestry sector (see annex 6). A qualitative attempt to characterize investment potential in developing countries is given in annex 7 (Simula, 2008). Even if it should be considered carefully, it illustrates where future investment in SFM, REDD, afforestation and reforestation (A/R), and forest restoration could be directed, in particular in the case of low forest cover countries.
15
To be more specific, let us have a closer look to these potential financial streams. Private resources at the national level Private sources of funding can be looked for at the national level. In the framework of corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies and strategies, private companies are already interested in investing in forestry projects, partly for their ‘green image’, but more and more for the social and environmental impacts associated with the supported projects. Off-setting and in-setting 22 solutions can be offered to companies. These ‘impact investors’ need to be interested with specific mechanisms, such as ‘CSR platforms for forests’23. Such type of platforms is under design in Morocco and Tunisia but more efforts are needed from the forest sector side to offer reliable incentives to the private sector. The Mirlo 24 project in Spain and the Reforest’action 25 initiative in France offer good examples of “business clubs” associated with reforestation efforts. Other financing mechanisms can be developed for investors looking for return on investments. For this, a close relationship between the forestry sector and the financial sphere (equity investors, banks, micro-finance agencies, etc.) need to be reinforced (if not to be established). Public resources at the national level Public fundings at the national level can be considered as very sustainable if they have been designed based on a transparent public and intersectoral concertation. Environmental Fiscal Reforms (EFR), as well as the design of National Forest Funds (NFF) can play a key role for raising additional resources for SFM. The example of FONAFIFO, the National Forest Fund in Costa Rica, is very relevant in this sense. It offers the possibility to channel oil taxes and water tariffs to SFM through a ‘Payments for Ecosystem Services’ approach. As a key to the green economy development of Costa Rica, the governance of FONAFIFO is intersectoral through a board comprised of representatives from various ministries. Among CPMF partner countries, Morocco and Turkey dispose of NFFs. Tunisia and Lebanon used to have the legal conditions to implements NFFs and are in the process of discussing a possible up-date and reforms of these legislations for their reactivation. In order to plan for a better use of fiscal tools for SFM it is recommended to conduct exhaustive Public Expenditure Reviews (PER) on the forest sector at national level26. New identified possible taxes should be compared to the potential benefits offered by investments in the forestry sector. Such exante Cost-Benefit Analysis of Environmental Fiscal Reforms could be very relevant to convince decision-makers.
“In-setting”: “Where compensation actions of the traditional "offsetting" are held in a separate location and use uncorrelated actors and technical activities, "the Insetting" integrates socio-environmental commitments at the heart of the companies’ sectors and occupations” (definition, Pur Projet www.purprojet.com ) 23 Morocco and Tunisia have designed such platforms, respectively the « Partnership for Moroccan Forests » and the « Pact for a Green Tunisia ». 24 http://mirlo.co/es/ 25 http://www.reforestaction.com 26 See World Bank guidance on the forest sector PERs: World Bank (2011), Forest Sector Public Expenditure Reviews: Review and Guidance Note; PROFOR 22
16
Public resources at the international level This driver corresponds to all forms of bilateral and multilateral cooperation activities for SFM. Many international development agencies, among them AFD, BMZ, JICA, World Bank etc are active in providing financial resources for cooperation projects in the forestry sector. These agencies regularly provide funds to forest administrations through dedicated programmes and mechanisms, e.g. the Forest Governance Program (FGP) of the BMZ, the French Global Environment Facility (FFEM) through the AFD. International funds with windows for SFM should be considered carefully in the framework of the RFP design, such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Climate Investment Funds (CIF) with the Forest Investment Program (FIP) and potentially the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Adaptation Fund (AF) and the Land Degradation Neutrality (LDN) Fund (in development) among others. Further several mechanisms under the Rio conventions benefit the forest sector and are potentially accessible to CPMF partner countries: 1. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) under the UNFCCC. Two initiatives are ongoing to support the integration of CPMF partner countries in this international mechanism: (1) AFD/FFEM project - component 4: Testing REDD+ on pilot sites in Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey27; (2) GIZ regional initiative: « Positioning partner countries of the CPMF in the international REDD+ debate: which costs and benefits for REDD+ in Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey? ». Specific funds are available for implementing REDD approaches, in particular the: UN-REDD Programme 28 promoting the development of the REDD mechanism in partner countries (Tunisia and Morocco are part of them). Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)29 of the World Bank. Forest Investment Program (FIP)30 of the Climate Investment Funds. 2. The Nagoya Protocol and Access and Benefit-Sharing under the CBD. In order to plan for a regional cooperation on the ABS thematic, a regional workshop on the Nagoya Protocol took place in Algiers, April, 28-30, 201331 . National ABS projects exist in CPMF partner countries, e.g. in Morocco with UNDP and GIZ supports and in Algeria where a UNDP/GEF national project on ABS is under planning. GEF proposes a specific fund to finance ABS projects: the Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund (NPIF)32. Several international initiatives on forest finance are sources of inspiration and drive the vision on the means for implementation for sustainable forest management. Among these initiatives, we can point out the following: The Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF)33 with an Ad-Hoc Expert Group (AHEG) on Forest Finance. The CPF produced a sourcebook 34for funding sustainable forest management. 27
AFD/FFEM project website : http://www.fao.org/forestry/82782/fr/ http://www.un-redd.org/ 29 https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/ 30 https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/node/5 31 Report, Regional ABS project document available under http://www.giz-cpmf.org/thematicissues/green-economy/innovative-financing-mechanisms/ 28
32
http://www.thegef.org/gef/category/keywords/nagoya-protocol-implementation-fund-npif
33
http://www.cpfweb.org/en/ Consult the CPF sourcebook http://www.cpfweb.org/73034/en/s
34
17
The United Nations Forum on Forests is also engaged on a work axis on the means of implementation for SFM. The UNFF 10 session in March 2014 highlighted in particular the difficulty to set up a Global Forest Finance mechanism. The Global Partnership on Forest and Landscape Restoration (GPFLR) is “a proactive network that unites governments, organisations, communities and individuals with a common goal: restoring the world's degraded and deforested lands. The Partnership was initiated with the purpose of catalyzing and reinforcing a network of diverse examples of restoration of forests and degraded lands that deliver benefits to local communities and to nature, and fulfil international commitments on forests”.35
These global initiatives pave the way to national approaches and enhances the regional and national dialogues on Forest Finance. The CPMF forest administrations are invited to follow attentively the orientations provided in these fora. Mixed models Mixed models are pragmatic approaches combining all sources. An example in the CPMF partner countries is the financing approach of the “40 million trees” program in Lebanon, aiming at mixing the support from international donors, from national private companies and potentially from individuals. An adapted mix of financing sources guarantees a better sustainability of the financing scheme. In the framework of the RFP design it is thus recommended to think of mixed financing models. RFP are excellent fora enabling the combination of different kinds of supports. As it has been developed in other regions of the world, catalytic regional financing platforms can support collaboration and synergies in the efforts for increasing resources mobilization. The following section presents a rapid benchmark of existing financing platforms.
35
http://www.forestlandscaperestoration.org
18
5. Benchmark of existing financing platforms The following financing platforms can be a source of inspiration in the design phasis of a RFP benefitting the target countries of the CPMF. TerrAfrica is a regional platform aiming at mobilizing financial resources for sustainable land management and adaptation to climate change for a group of subsaharan African countries (24 in total). Numerous multilateral and bilateral donors participate. More information: www.terrafrica.org The Global Island Partnership aims at intensifying the fund mobilization and at increasing the level of engagement for the conservation of islands at the international level. This financing platform gathers island states, partner states from the South and the North and several multilateral and bilateral organizations, as well as NGOs. More information: www.glispa.org In the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development donor states and agencies (34 members) join their efforts to improve their actions and their impact regarding rural development and poverty alleviation in rural areas worldwide. More information: www.donorplatform.org The Congo Basin Forest Fund is hosted by AfDB and supports the 10 member states of the COMIFAC, the Central African Forestry Commission in implementing a convergence plan. Several actors of the international and regional cooperation participate. More information: www.cbf-fund.org The Amazon Fund “is aimed at raising donations for non-reimbursable investments in efforts to prevent, monitor and combat deforestation, as well as to promote the preservation and sustainable use of forests in the Amazon Biome. The Amazon Fund is managed by the BNDES, the Brazilian Development Bank, which will also undertake to raise funds, facilitate contracts and monitor support projects and efforts”. More information: www.amazonfund.gov.br The Great Green Wall for the Sahara and the Sahel Initiative (GGWSSI) is a pan-African programme launched in 2007 by the African Union (AU). Its goal is to reverse land degradation and desertification in the Sahel and Sahara, boost food security and support local communities to adapt to climate change. The Great Green Wall brings together 14 African countries and international partners (among them: FAO, GM-UNCCD, IUCN, WB, OSS, CILSS) in a joint endeavor to find long-term solutions to the urgent problems of land degradation and desertification. More information: www.theggw.net
19
Common points emerge out of these examples, especially on the following aspects:
Beneficiaries are clearly identified, the financing platforms focus on specific target groups. Donors and technical partners are diversified, from bilateral and multilateral organizations, development banks, NGOs, Rio-conventions, Regional Economic Commissions and Communities, Research centers, National banks, Private companies including consulting firms, etc. The governance structure and modalities are clear. Steering committees, executive boards, scientific committees, secretariats, focal points are some of the key governance bodies and concepts in place. Strategic plans, Convergence and operational plans are established and regular meeting of the governance bodies ensure monitoring and evaluation of the implementation. Communication is a key in each one of these platforms. Internal communication is based on regular meetings (steering committee meetings, executive board meetings) and the development of communities of practices. A website enables the sharing of information and key documentation. External communication is materialized through a visual identity (logo, visual charta) and the dissemination of success stories in newsletters, a dedicated website and blog. Goodwill ambassadors are also key to widespread the key messages of the financing platform.
20
6. RFP: a tentative definition While there is no official definition of a Regional Financing Platform (RFP), we propose the following tentative definition: A RFP is a regional forum facilitating the systematic meeting between project implementing bodies (f.ex. administrations, research centers, NGOs, associations, etc) and financing bodies (multilateral organizations, bilateral organizations, development banks, private companies, foundations, etc.). It aims at catalyzing and increasing the volume of funds available for implementing common objectives defined at the regional level. Among other benefits a RFP can provide, we can mention the following: Catalyzing financial resources mobilization by facilitating the systematic meeting between project implementing bodies and financing bodies ; Attracting (new) donors on thematics of common interest at the regional level ; Increasing the visibility of a group of countries/a sub-region regarding thematics with regional and international outreach ; Facilitating the definition of common positions and the creation of lobbying groups towards mechanisms subject to international negotiations (f.ex: REDD+, ABS36, GCF37, etc.) ; Improving knowledge exchanges and common learning processes regarding financing mechanisms.
36 37
http://www.cbd.int/abs/ http://www.gcfund.org/home.html
21
7. Which potential (new) donors and partners? Official Development Aid (ODA) provides a large quantity of funds to developing countries to support their forest sector. While there are discrepancies between regions and countries (Simula, 2008) these sources must be screened and their potential for the CPMF partner countries analyzed carefully. Several multilateral and bilateral donors could support the CPMF activities. Others already involved could reinforce their ongoing contributions. The following section draws attention on a series of donors which might consider to be more active in the CPMF partner countries. Multilateral opportunities GEF and its implementing agencies38
(SFM)
The Global Environmental Facility (GEF) allocates resources to partner countries following the STAR – System for Transparent Allocation of Resources – framework. Each country disposes of funding windows corresponding to 3 focal areas: Biodiversity, Land Degradation, Climate Change Mitigation. Projects design requires the combination of two focal areas. The integration of a fourth focal area on Sustainable Forest Management offers the possibility to increase by 50% the fund allocation 39 .
In order to implement the GEF funds, implementing agencies must be selected, among them: United Nations agencies, e.g. the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD); development banks, e.g World Bank and the African Development Bank (AfDB) and international NGOs, such as WWF, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and Conservation International (CI). When applicable, the GEF Small Grants Programme40 (operating in Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey) might bring possibilities to support small scale community forestry projects.
38
Only the GEF implementing agencies relevant for the CPMF partner countries will be mentioned here. Refer to presentation by J.Griffin, FFEM workshop, 21-24 October, Rome “ Orientation for the Formulation of a GEF Forestry Program in the Mediterranean” 40 https://sgp.undp.org/ 39
22
Development Banks Beyond their GEF implementing agency role, development banks like the World Bank and the African Development Bank have their own forest programmes, e.g. WB forestry programmes include: the Program on Forests (PROFOR)41 , the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)42 and the Forest Investment Program (FIP)43 of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) - a joint program with other development banks including AfDB. All these funding opportunities are potentially accessible to CPMF partner countries, but adequate lobbying is necessary. The Islamic Develoment Bank (IsDB) should also be consulted to assess possible partnerships.
Climate finance funds The Adaptation Fund and related implementing entities either national implementing entities (NIE) such as the Agricultural Development Agency (ADA)44 in Morocco, or Regional Implementing Entities (RIE) such as the Observatory of the Sahara and Sahel (OSS) 45 offer interesting opportunities for forestry projects. CPMF partner countries should work with their NIE and RIE to design projects on the nexus forests-climate change adaptation. The recently created Green Climate Fund will also offer opportunities for forest finance, especially on both nexus ‘forest-climate change mitigation’ and forestclimate change adaptation’. Section 10 will detail further climate finance opportunities. EU foreign policy and development aid - related opportunities The EU disposes of a number of funding opportunities for forestry projects in CPMF partner countries. National dialogue with the EU delegations can facilitate the design of forestry projects and/or the integration of the forestry sector in other sectors projects. Numerous EU foreign policy instruments can be targeted. The Natural Capital Financing Facility46 that the EIB has recently launched could be a potential source of funding for regional approaches including also northern Mediterranean EU countries. The EuropeAid47 website offers extensive information on possibilities to access EU funds. Specific training on accessing funds and designing projects requests can be offered by WelcomeEurope48.
41
http://www.profor.info/ https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/ 43 https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/node/5 42
44 45
http://www.ada.gov.ma/ http://www.oss-online.org/
46
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/assets/pdf/ncff.pdf
47
https://ec.europa.eu/europeaid http://www.welcomeurope.com/
48
23
Other international initiatives
Among other potential international initiatives, we can point out the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) 49 which supports projects for the conservation and sustainable management of vulnerable ecosystems in biodiversity hotspots. The Mediterranean basin has clearly been identified as one of the CEPF area of action and Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia are stated as eligible countries 50 ; the Global Conservation Fund 51 operated by Conservation International should also be consulted for assessing the possibility of partnerships; the UN-REDD programme52 which supports the design of REDD strategies and the implementation of REDD initiatives in selected partner countries; the Forest and Farm Facility 53 (FFF), which offers opportunities for SFM in partnership with small land owners in agroforestry systems. The FFF has been created in 2012 and emerged as a follow-up to the NFP facility.
Bilateral opportunities Several countries of the European Union dispose of a cooperation agency and could develop forestry projects with CPMF partner countries. Among these agencies, we can point out : the German Development Cooperation Agency (GIZ) operating on behalf of the German Federal for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and possibly other german ministries such as the German Federal Environment Ministry (BMU); the French Development Agency (AFD) and the related French Global Environment Facility (FFEM); the Spanish cooperation agency (AECID), the italian cooperation agency (Cooperazione Italiana); the Portuguese Institute for Development Support (IPAD), the Belgian Technical Cooperation (BTC). Non-EU countries could also be mobilized in a larger extent, such as the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA), The Korean International
49
http://www.cepf.net http://www.cepf.net/fr/Ou_travaillons_nous/regions/europe/Pages/bassin_mediterranneen.aspx 51 http://www.conservation.org/projects/Pages/global-conservation-fund.aspx 52 http://www.un-redd.org/ 53 http://www.fao.org/partnerships/forest-farm-facility/en/ 50
24
Cooperation Agency (KOICA), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). South-south cooperation forestry projects could also be designed under the impulse of southern and eastern rims’ cooperation agencies, such as the Morocccan cooperation agency (AMCI), the tunisian technical cooperation agency (ATCT) and the Turkish cooperation agency (TIKA).
Foundations Foundations should also be associated in a larger extent to the CPMF work. Among foundations which might be interested in establishing formal partnerships, e.g: MAVA54, Gordon & Betty Moore55 Foundation, the Turkish TEMA56 foundation, among others.
54
http://fr.mava-foundation.org/ http://www.moore.org/ 56 http://www.tema.org.tr “The Turkish Foundation for Combating Soil Erosion, for Reforestation and the Protection of Natural Habitats” 55
25
8. Which form this RFP should have? N.B. The following elements are meant to aliment the ongoing dialogue and discussions on the design of a RFP in support of CPMF partner countries. These should not be considered as final considerations. In order to precise the possible form of a RFP in support to CPMF partner countries, a questionnaire (see annex 5) was established in order to conduct a concertation meeting hold in FAO, Roma on June 26th, 2014. Conclusions, recommendations and orientations of the concertation meeting are synthetized in annex 1. Among the issues discussed were the following points: - Key principles of the platform - The relationship between the platform and the CPMF - The concept of National Forest Finance Focal Points - Precising the possible platform model Figure 5 present some of the key principles which the RFP should have and were validated during the meeting.
FIGURE 5: KEY PRINCIPLES OF THE REGIONAL FINANCING PLATFORM
As the CPMF is mostly composed of technical members (versus financial partners), the CPMF member organizations should operate as a “technical support” group, while new (and a few already existing) members would compose the financing platform as donor organizations. The figure 6 proposes a schematic representation of the relation between the RFP and the CPMF.
26
FIGURE 6: POSSIBLE RELATION BETWEEN THE RFP AND THE CPMF
The National Forest Finance Focal Point (N-FF-FP) was acknowledged as an important function to ensure an active governance and implementation of the RFP work agenda. Considering that the RFP should be driven by the countries, the N-FF-FP could be positioned within the forest administrations. Their tasks would include: Operating as national focal points for the RFP; Facilitating communication on Forest Finance opportunities within their administration and partners institutions at national level; Developing projects ideas in collaboration with other N-FF-FP and their national counterparts (e.g. GEF-Focal Point, Rio conventions-Focal Points, REDD+ Focal Point, etc.) and submitting them to selected donors Given the work load to be planned in this function, these positions should be full-time. All 5 National Forest Finance Focal Points would constitute the « reduced » Steering Committee of the RFP (fig. 7).
FIGURE 7: PROPOSED “REDUCED” STEERING COMMITTEE OF THE RFP
27
The N-FF-PP at national level has a very important role. He would operate as a networker and a negotiator designing project ideas with national counterparts, especially Rio conventions focal points, Adaptation Fund and Green Climate Fund Focal Points and related NIE and RIE, REDD focal point, GEF focal point. This task requires an effort in intersectoral coordination since most of these focal points are outside the Forest Administrations, often separated from the Ministry of Environment.
FIGURE 8: THE NATIONAL FOREST FINANCE FOCAL POINT ANT ITS KEY NATIONAL COUNTERPARTS
Other national counterparts will be critical for project design and important stakeholders to be consulted by the N-FF-FP, such as NGOs, research organizations, partner institutional sectors, e.g. tourism, economy and trade, agriculture, land-use planning, water, energy, etc. The RFP could be built according to different models: 1) Country-driven, 2) Organization-driven, 3) a mixed model. Table 1 precises the different models and highlights that a mixed model combining responsibilities of countries with the support of partner organizations would be relevant for an efficient management and governance of the platform.
28
TABLE 1: POSSIBLE RFP MODELS: COUNTRY-DRIVEN, ORGANIZATION-DRIVEN, A MIXED MODEL Model 1 : Country-driven RFP
Model 2 : Organization-driven RFP
Model 3 : A mixed model
Governance
On a yearly basis, one country is responsible for the secretariat and leads the RFP work
On a yearly basis, one country is responsible for the secretariat and leads the RFP work with the support of a partner organization
Specific tasks
-Inviting on a regular basis (every 6 months f.ex. the panel of NFF-FP) -Generating projects concepts -Finding donors to finance project ideas -Promoting the RFP -Coordination of the RFP : ensured by the N-FF-FP of the lead country
In this case, one organization takes full responsibility for the RFP management, f.ex : -one CPMF partner organization, e.g. Silva Mediterranea or GMUNCCD or GIZ or…) -External to the CPMF = a new player (ex: WB, UfM, UNEP, or…) -Mobilizing the N-FF-FP at a regular frequency (every 6 months f.ex.) -Generating projects concepts -Finding donors to finance project ideas -Promoting the RFP -Coordination of the RFP : ensured by the organization
Budget (Running costs)
Financial contributions of the countries
The organization is in charge of looking for the funds to implement the RFP work
-Inviting on a regular basis (every 6 months f.ex. the panel of N-FFFP) -Generating projects concepts -Finding donors to finance project ideas -Promoting the RFP -Coordination of the RFP : ensured by a « duo » - the N-FF-FP of the lead country + a FP in the partner organization Each country / institution / organization covers its own running costs + financial contributions of the countries + mobilization of additional funds by the partner organizations and countries
Finally a possible model could be synthetized in both table 2 and figure 9.
29
TABLE 2: A POSSIBLE MODEL FOR A RFP IN SUPPORT TO THE CPMF: A SYNTHETIC PROPOSAL
FIGURE 9: RFP CONCEPT: ELEMENTS OF VIZUALIZATION 30
9. Which objectives and thematic priorities for the RFP? The SFMF (2013) offers a list of recommendations to be implemented in CPMF partner countries. A gap analysis in each country would facilitate the precise identification of financing needs. Waiting for such an exercise, we can already identify key objectives and possible measures which the RFP could support. The planned RFP should have several inter-linked objectives, among them: 1. Producing tangible data on the benefits of increasing national investments in the forest sector Example of possible measures:
Assessment of financing needs in the forest sector, taking into account the all range of actions and operations under the responsibility of the national forest administrations; Ex-ante CBA analyses of Environmental Fiscal Reforms for the forest sector; Study on the costs and benefits of the re-activation/reform of NFF;
2. Supporting policy, legal and operational reforms for an efficient implementation of forest investment plans, disbursement of available funds and a better operationalization of available financial resources Example of possible measures:
Supporting the elaboration of forest investment strategies and plans; Developing national investment frameworks for SFM; Producing recommendations and orientations for improving project cycles from design to implementation; Proposing mechanisms enabling a more efficient use of available funds towards a quicker and more efficient use and implementation of financial resources; Designing and implementing systematic monitoring & evaluation systems.
3. Supporting policy, legal and operational reforms for the decentralization of forest finance streams Example of possible measures:
Proposing financing schemes for channeling more funds to local state actors; Developing mechanisms for enabling Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) to access funds and implement forestry operations57; Improving access for funds to small and medium enterprises (SMEs); Designing pilot PES mechanisms at the national and local levels involving a variety of state and non-state stakeholders.
57
Interesting models are available in already existing national Payments for Forest Ecosystem Services schemes, e.g. in Vietnam and in Costa Rica among others. The compensation mechanism in place in Morocco is a relevant source of inspiration since it channels funds towards farmer’s associations operating for SFM under the forest administration supervision.
31
4. Accessing international funding mechanisms, especially on international climate finance related mechanisms and biodiversity-related streams Example of possible measures:
Lobbying for and facilitating the accreditation of National Implementing Entities (NIE) to the AF and the GCF; Improving the understanding of the importance and the benefits of international carbon finance schemes for the forest sector, e.g. REDD+, NAMAs, LULUCF accounting rules; Developing and implementing local pilot projects on REDD+, Ecosystem-based Adaptation, etc. Advising the integration of REDD+, EbA, ABS, PFES, etc. into national forest policies and key partner sectors’ policies; Designing relevant project proposals for submissions to GEF, UN-REDD, FIP, FCPF, CEPF, etc according to emerging opportunities; Networking and lobbying with international donor organizations e.g. AfDB, EU, IsDB, World Bank, all GEF implementing entities, etc. to be able to seize emerging opportunities.
5. Supporting the creation of enabling conditions for private sector investments Example of possible measures:
Engaging a more intensive dialogue with the banking sector in order to think of mechanisms supporting rural SMEs and local land-owners; Developing micro-finance and micro-grants mechanisms, possibly with a PES approach; Accelerating the creation of the enabling environment for managing sustainably, exploiting and valorizing Non Timber Forest Products; Promoting the development of ABS schemes (under the Nagoya Protocol) in partnership with private companies involved in value chains based on endemic biodiversity; Designing and implementing CSR national platforms for involving responsible companies in forestry projects.
6. Developing the capacities of forest administrations to fully seize the forest finance opportunities Example of possible measures:
Proposing trainings on forest finance issues to FA representatives, especially the NFF-FP, as well as to representatives from selected partner sectors and CSOs; Developing capacity development concepts on innovative issues, such as REDD+, ABS, CSR platforms, National Forest Funds (NFF), PFES, etc; Organizing south-south exchanges between CPMF partner countries on lessons learned and good forest finance practices;
32
Supporting the exchanges of forest finance good practices between CPMF PC and other regions (e.g. Latin America, South East Asia, Central Africa)58.
10. Climate Finance and Biodiversity Finance opportunities Given the emergence of climate finance and biodiversity finance related funding opportunities, CPMF partner countries should be prepared to submit adequate project proposals and develop adapted financing strategies.
Climate finance We must recognize that more and more international financing mechanisms are linked to climate finance streams. It is thus highly important to raise the profile of CPMF partner countries for both climate change adaptation and mitigation issues. Which is all the more justified that MENA countries are among the most threatened by the adverse effects of climate change59(IPCC, 2014). The MENA forests play a key role on the 3 dimensions of the nexus “Forests & Climate Change”: 1. Forest-based Mitigation Costs-benefit analyses of REDD+ in CPMF partner countries highlight the potential of the REDD+ mechanism for CPMF partner countries. In some cases the costs can be covered by REDD funds (result-based payments) even at very low carbon prices (cases for SFM and combating overgrazing). In most cases nonetheless REDD would represent a significant co-financing opportunity. Figure 10 present abatement costs for selected REDD+ options in CPMF partner countries. In all cases, the current carbon price (variable, between 5 and 15 US$/tCO2e) could not cover most of the abatement costs of activities while the tutelary price of carbon in 2030 (around 140US$/tCO2e) would cover most of them. It is important to notice that the inclusion of the values of ecosystem goods and services provided by forests justifies, from an economic point of view, most of the REDD+ options. The value of these goods and services are estimated between 110 (Tunisia) and 762 (Lebanon) US$/ha/year. Thus it seems relevant to advocate for an integration of REDD+ co-benefits (such as water storage, biodiversity conservation, landscape restoration, soil protection, etc) in a REDD+ mechanism adapted to the MENA region. In this sense Tunisia sent a submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat on REDD+ co-benefits60.
58
Following for instance the example of the the triangular cooperation project Morocco-Costa RicaGermany including on exchange of good practices of PES. “Moroccan delegates visit Costa Rica to learn on good practices of Payments for Ecosystem Services” http://www.giz-cpmf.org/news/newsarticle/items/43/ ; “Costa Rican Delegation Visits Morocco to Identify Forest-Related PES Options” http://www.giz-cpmf.org/news/news-article/items/51/ 59 IPCC (2014), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, IPCC Working Group II Contribution to AR5 http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/
See the submission “Tunisia’s submission on REDD+ non-carbon benefits” http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/Lists/OSPSubmissionUpload/39_16_130453073420736852Tunesia_Meth.pdf 60
33
Two regional projects currently support the development of REDD approaches in CPMF partner countries: -
The regional AFD/FFEM project aiming at testing REDD approaches in selected pilot sites The regional project GIZ-CPMF with the support of the Forest Governance Programme of the BMZ
Both regional projects collaborated with Silva Mediterranea, UN-REDD and FAO in order to organize two capacity development regional workshops on: -
REDD+ negotiations - Support in the definition of a common position on the co-benefits of REDD+, in Rabat, Morocco, March 12-14, 201461; National R-PINs for REDD+ in Morocco and Tunisia - A first needs assessment towards national REDD+ strategies in Morocco and Tunisia, in Rabat, Morocco, May 14-15, 201462.
Based on first results of the workshops and REDD related studies in CPMF partner countries, the REDD potential already appears. It is thus critical to liaise as early as possible with national counterparts in charge of UNFCCC negotiations, especially the UNFCCC focal point in order to integrate forest priorities into NAMAs and national REDD+ strategies, as well as to think of collaborations with the Adaptation Fund and the Green Climate Fund.
61
CPMF partner countries get together to discuss common position regarding REDD+ negotiations http://www.giz-cpmf.org/news/news-article/items/38/ 62 Morocco and Tunisia assess their needs for national REDD+ strategies http://www.gizcpmf.org/news/news-article/items/44/
34
FIGURE 10: ABATMENTS COSTS OF REDD+ OPTIONS IN CPMF PARTNER COUNTRIES63
Nonetheless much more support to CPMF partner countries is necessary to design REDD+ strategies ready for implementation. For this, partners such as UN-REDD, FIP and FCPF are called for support. CPMF partner countries should get prepared to climate finance opportunities and be aware of several climate finance readiness programmes.
Climate finance readiness A number of programmes offer readiness support to climate finance. All are of potential interest to forest administrations of the CPMF, e.g. (Table 3 present examples of CF readiness programmes).
63
Full methodology is present in the studies series on CBA of REDD+/LULUCF in CPMF partner countries (SalvaTerra, GIZ, 2014) – available upon request.
35
TABLE 3: EXAMPLES OF CLIMATE FINANCE READINESS PROGRAMMES Institution UN-REDD
FCPF-Readiness Fund
GIZ
Green Climate Fund UNDP UNDP / UNEP / WRI Adaptation Fund & Climate and Development Knowledge Network
Readiness programme/material The UN-REDD Programme offers grants for preparing R-PP and national REDD strategies. UN-REDD is a relevant partner in the readiness and preparation phasis of REDD. “The Readiness Fund supports participating countries as they prepare for REDD+ by developing the necessary policies and systems, including adopting national REDD+ strategies; developing reference emission levels (RELs); designing measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems; and setting up REDD+ national management arrangements, including proper environmental and social safeguards”64 -Climate Finance Readiness Programme65 -CF Ready Toolbox -GIZ’s Global GCF Readiness Programme (GCFit) -Publishes the list of National Designated Authorities (NDA)/Focal Points66 + Readiness updates67 -CF Ready Programme -Readiness for Climate Finance68 UNDP / UNEP / WRI Green Climate Fund Readiness Programme69 Climate Finance Ready – Knowledge Exchange for Climate Finance Readiness70
2. Forest-based Adaptation Forests also play a key role in adapting landscapes and people to the adverse effects of climate change. This ‘Ecosystem-based Adaptation’ function of the forests is particularly meaningful in the CPMF partner countries71. As seen above many forest-based options also play a crucial role for mitigation. So forests represent an opportunity for developing Adaptation-based Mitigation7273 approaches in CPMF partner countries. This function of MENA forests should be put forward to advocate for related funding opportunities.
64
https://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/readiness-fund https://www.giz.de/expertise/html/11492.html 66 http://www.gcfund.org/readiness/designations.html 67 http://www.gcfund.org/readiness/updates.html 68 http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/environmentenergy/low_emission_climateresilientdevelopment/-readiness-for-climate-finance/ 69 http://climatefinanceoptions.org/cfo/node/3611 70 http://climatefinanceready.org/ 71 Cacapacity development work conducted by the regional GIZ-CPMF project in Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey points out the F-EbA potential in CPMF partner countries. Practical orientations have been designed to implement practical F-EbA projects in CPMF partner countries. 72 http://blog.cifor.org/5835/adaptation-based-mitigation-the-no-regrets-option#.VIhuW10U_IU 73 http://profor.info/node/2150 65
36
3. Adaptation of Forests Several initiatives are already under implementation for increasing the resilience of forest ecosystems per se in face of climate change threats e.g. Forclimadapt74 project, Vulnerability analyses of forest ecosystems (GIZ Tunisia)75, COST MAP-FGR project76, Regional project AFD/FFEM – component 177 etc. Nonetheless, more support is needed for understanding fully the potential impacts of climate change on forest ecosystems and plan for adapted responses through adaptation strategies and programmes.
Biodiversity finance Several initiatives are promising on the topic biodiversity finance and economics and could support efforts in the CPMF partner countries. GEF presents a focal area on biodiversity as well as specific funds e.g. the NPIF to support the implementation of the Nagoya Protocol and the Access and Benefit Sharing mechanism. Payments for Forest Ecosystem Services (PFES) are promising and more collaboration with successful countries should be established, as it is the case between Morocco and Costa Rica. Relevant recommendations on the development and the importance of PFES can be found in the report of the International Forum on Payments for Environmental Services of Tropical Forests (Costa Rica, 7-10 Apr. 2014)78. Besides a number of international initiatives, such as TEEB, BIOFIN, WAVES, etc should be followed by FAs. More inputs on these initiatives can be found in annex 4.
74
http://www.forclimadapt.eu/ Ecosystem vulnerability analysis (EVA) and its economic impact. The case of the cork oak ecosystem, Tunisia (Daly-Hassen, H; Gader, G.; Potthast, M.) Hamed Daly Hamed Daly1 1, Ghazi Gader , Ghazi Gader2 2, Maike , Maike-Christine Pottast Christine Pottast3 3 1 1INRGREF, INRGREF, 2 2GIZ, Tunis 76 http://www.cost.eu/COST_Actions/fps/Actions/FP1202 77 http://www.fao.org/forestry/82925/en/ 78 Forum key messages, summary and recommendations : http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3754e/i3754e.pdf 75
37
11. Preparation phasis of the RFP: opportunity of a GEF project? Many pending issues remain in the design of a possible RFP at the benefit of CPMF partner countries. Among them: - Governance structure - Strategy to approach donors and new partners - Monitoring & Evaluation system - Specific mechanisms for the private sector (CSR, Impact investment, Value chains, etc.) - Mobilization of forest administrations and nomination of N-FF-FP - Mobilization of partner sectors (GEF and RIO FP) at national and regional level - Capacity development of forest administrations and N-FF-FP In order to address these gaps, a specific project targeting the design and implementation of a regional financing platform could be developed. A window of opportunity is the current design of a GEF programmatic regional project under the drive of the Silva Mediterranea and CPMF secretariats. A first workshop for the design of this potential new GEF project took place in Roma, FAO, between 21-24 October 201479. During this workshop it has been decided that the GEF project would have a programmatic approach (i.e. a regional umbrella) composed of several independent national GEF projects requests. An option to include the RFP design and preparation into this new GEF project is to include a RFP component in all country-specific GEF projects. This idea will be further discussed in upcoming events, such as the IVth Mediterranean Forest Week (MFW) in Barcelona, 17-20 March 2015. In the case of a GEF project, it could be meaningful to rely on the forest finance expertise of current member organizations of the CPMF, e.g. FAO Forest Finance unit80 and the Global Mechanism81 of the UNCCD disposing of extensive experience in animating financing platforms and supporting the design of country-level integrated financing strategies for sustainable land management.
http://www.fao.org/forestry/82782/en/ http://www.fao.org/forestry/finance/en/ 81 http://global-mechanism.org/ 79 80
38
Conclusion In face of significant financing gaps for SFM in CPMF partner countries, the need for a specific regional mechanism enabling the long-term and sustainable mobilization of resources is critical. The dialogue for the design of a Regional Financing Platform (RFP) is still opened and further meetings with key stakeholders will pave the way in the next months. The present document highlights that no single instruments is meaningful but rather a tailor-made mix of private, public, national, international, market-based and non-market-based sources. Emphasis should be put on national options which tend to be more sustainable. Besides international opportunities related to climate and biodiversity finance should be assessed carefully and forest administrations should get prepared through adapted readiness programs. Further concertation and coordination between donors and technical partners is also crucial in order to respect the absorptive capacities of forest administrations and enable them to harness synergies. Coordination at national level with key partner sectors as well as CSOs is also a prerequisite to an efficient mobilization and use of funds. For this reason a relevant RFP should have formalized roots in the CPMF partner countries.
39
List of references GIZ, FAO (2013), «National Forest Funds (NFFs) : Towards a solid architecture and good financial governance » Workshop report «Strengthening Finance for Sustainable Forest Management through National Forest Funds», Costa-Rica, 28-30 Jan 2013 (CATIE, FAO, GIZ) Tomaselli, I. (2006) Brief study on funding and finance for forestry and forest-based sector; United Nations Forum on Forests Liagre, L. (2013) Moroccan National Forest Fund: Objectives, Financial resources, Current uses Compensation mechanism, Perspectives. Minutes of the NFF capacity building workshop, CATIE, FAO, GIZ, Turrialba, 28-30 Jan. 2013. Croitoru, L, Liagre, L. (2013) Contribution of Forests to a Green Economy in Middle East North Africa, GIZ, Silva Mediterranea. Chaalala, I. (2013) Presentation - Lessons Learned from Regional Financing Platforms ; Workshop “Sustainable financing mechanisms for the forest sector in the Middle East-North Africa region”; 3-5 April, 2013, Rabat, Morocco CPF (2010), Sourcebook for funding sustainable forest management http://www.cpfweb.org/73034/en/ IPCC (2014), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, IPCC Working Group II Contribution to AR5 http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/ Unasylva, n°233, FAO - Green Jobs http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1025e/i1025e00.htm FAO (2009) “Forests and the global economy: 10 million new jobs. Sustainable forest management could become a means of creating millions of new green jobs”, FAO, 2009 http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/10442/icode/ Liagre, L, Essahli, W (2013), Silva Mediterranea Working Group 6 : Innovative Financing Mechanisms. Outputs and Roadmap; Session of the Silva Mediterranea Committee; Hammamet, GIZ - Global Mechanism of the UNCCD, 4/12/2013. Merlo & Croitoru (2005) “Valuing Mediterranean Forests : Towards total economic value”, CAB International. OECD (2013), Scaling-up Finance Mechanisms for Biodiversity. SalvaTerra, GIZ (2013) Costs and benefits of REDD+ in Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia. SalvaTerra, GIZ (2013) Costs and benefits of implementing the LULUCF accounting rules in Turkey. Plan d’opération du PCFM. http://www.fao.org/forestry/silvamed/66624/fr/ 1 Notamment ceux du Cadre Stratégique pour les Forêts Méditerranéennes (CSFM). http://www.fao.org/forestry/36305-09b49e250133aca90ec63959d92ad1617.pdf 1 Rapport du 4ème comité de pilotage du PCFM http://www.fao.org/forestry/399950eae60142059518612783799526d7fcac.pdf Regato (2009) Adapting to Global Change. Mediterranean Forests. IUCN, FAO, WWF, AECID.
40
Sattout, E.2014. Economic values of forest ecosystem services in Lebanon: Indicators guiding national forest policy and management practices. Submitted to Ecosystem Services Journal 2014. Simula (2008), Financing flows and needs to implement the Non-Legally Binding Instrument on all types of forests; Prepared for the advisory group on finance of the Collaborative Partnership on Forests; supported by PROFOR Silva Mediterranea Newsletter 17 dedicated to key results of the workshop held in Rabat in March 2014 on REDD+ non carbon benefits (April 2014) National Strategy for the Development and Sustainable Management of Forests and Rangelands & Action plan, 2015-2024, Ministry of Agriculture of Tunisia, General Directorate for Forestry, Oct. 2014 World Bank (2011), Forest Sector Public Expenditure Reviews: Review and Guidance Note; PROFOR
41
Annexes Annex 1: Minutes of the meeting on the design of a Regional Financing Platform
(RFP) in support of the partner countries of the Collaborative Partnership on Mediterranean Forests (CPMF). Meeting held on June 26th, 2014 in FAO, Roma, Canada room, from 17h to 18h30.
Participants (see attached list) were representatives the CPMF partner countries (Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Tunisia and Turkey), as well as partner organizations of the CPMF (in particular: CTFC, Blue Plan, GIZ, FAO, Global Mechanism of the UNCCD, MMFN). In the introduction of the meeting a presentation proposed elements of possible models for a Regional Financing Platform (RFP) in support of CPMF partner countries (see presentation attached). This report aims at presenting in a structured manner the conclusions, orientations and recommendations which were proposed, discussed and approved at the meeting.
Conclusions, orientations and recommendations 1. Given the forestry issues identified in the MENA region, all the participants, in particular representatives of the CPMF partner countries, confirmed the importance of intensifying and increasing resources mobilization. 2. It has been pointed out the need to capitalize on the experience of the CPMF and to avoid building a parallel structure. CPMF members, more or less active, already represent an opportunity for resources mobilization. But new players, whose added value clearly focus on the financing issue, must be invited to join.
42
3. It was therefore suggested to consider a mild form for the implementation of a RFP, which could rather be a "working group" within the CPMF. 4. Tools ensuring the visibility of the concerted cooperation between CPMF partner countries are a force regarding the marketing and communication work of a future RFP. They could be used to boost and catalyze the mobilization of resources. 5. A thorough study of the governance possibilities for such a RFP should be conducted. In the context of the evaluation of the committee on Mediterranean forestry issues Silva Mediterranea and the CPMF, the question of the governance leadership still remains opened. 6. The issue of the CPMF signatory organizations’ role in the framework of a RFP was raised. An important point will be to find a suitable mode of communication between the technical and financial partners of the CPMF. The CPMF partner countries being the beneficiaries of a RFP and not the partner organizations. 7. Among the actions to favor, projects with a regional scope, including cross-border cooperation measures, are priorities. 8. Strategic axes of the Strategic Framework on Mediterranean Forests (SFMF)82 are all work packages which need additional resources for their implementation. Similarly, the operational plan of the CPMF will have to be updated, as an action framework of reference for a potential future RFP. 9. Thus, it is essential to define a projects’ portfolio composed of "regional" and "cross-border" measures, in accordance with the SFMF and the CPMF operation plan. Such a portfolio will represent the technical offer of the RFP vis-à-vis potential donors. 10. In the definition of this portfolio a crucial issue will be the identification and the promotion of “flagship” thematics of the CPMF partner countries in order to quickly attract the attention of relevant stakeholders (e.g. Forests for Mitigation and Adaptation in the context of Climate Change). 11. The partner countries of the CPMF highlighted a need for more information about financing opportunities as well as targeted capacity development. A RFP could be a good catalyzer for improving the information flows and providing opportunities for a suitable capacity development, including the support to develop funding requests. 12. The idea of deriving the RFP at the national level and finding a link with resources mobilization at national level was considered relevant. For this, the concept of "national focal point for forest financing" within partner forest administrations of the CPMF is important. These national focal points together can constitute the operational working group in charge of mobilizing resources at the regional (and national) levels. 13. To facilitate the interaction between the regional and national levels, it is suggested to think of a light and flexible work form based on existing structures, such as donors committees and intersectoral working groups at the national and regional levels. 14. It has been proposed to focus not only on public and international financing sources, but also to be prepared for the opportunities offered by the private sector, particularly in the framework of
82
http://www.fao.org/forestry/36307-074996ea9512c5ec524af72a22c0b0775.pdf
43
Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) strategies. 15. To this end, the RFP should establish a relevant system for monitoring and evaluation, especially regarding reporting on social and environmental impacts (Impact investors). 16. It is recommended to foresee several use forms of the resources mobilized by the RFP, depending on beneficiaries of projects and programs (government, NGOs, research centers, SMEs, etc.). 17. It has been suggested to consider the possibility to invest through the RFP in the development of the private sector (e.g. in NWFPs value chains for SMEs, cooperatives, etc.). 18. It is important to think about the "benefit sharing" in the context of the design of a RFP. The nature of the projects developed (regional vs. national) will be a factor of distribution of benefits among the partner countries of the platform. The governance mechanism of the RPF shall ensure, as far as possible, a fair and equitable sharing, consistent with the level of participation and efforts of the involved beneficiaries. 19. Opportunities for interactions and synergies with other partnerships and projects must be taken into account (e.g. the Great Green Wall programme, TerrAfrica, etc.). Cooperation measures with these initiatives can strengthen the work of the RFP. 20. The idea of developing a project for supporting the RFP design and implementation phases has been validated at the meeting. It is required to analyze the funding opportunities offered by potential donors, including the Global Environment Facility (GEF).
Next steps In order to continue with the development of a RFP in support of the CPMF partner countries, the following steps are suggested:
Precising needs and expectations of CPMF partner countries regarding the mobilization of financial resources through a RFP.
Establishing contacts with potential donors in order to assess their willingness to collaborate and under which conditions.
Formulating a realistic and practical scenario for the implementation of a RPF in support of the CPMF partner countries, ensuring an appropriate governance structure.
Designing a project concept for a targeted support from a donor willing to contribute to the design and implementation of the RFP.
44
Annex 2: List of interviewed partners in the framework of the study
M. M. M. Mrs. Mrs. M. M. M. M. M. Mrs. M. M. M. Mrs. Mrs. Mrs. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. M. Mrs.
Reinhard Alexander Kastl Abdelmalek Abdelfettah Christophe Besacier Susann Braatz Ines Chaalala Ulrich Apel Thomas Legrand Nicolas Chenet Thomas Dufour Alexander Froede Susann Mende David Solano Sven Walter Mohamed Noual Valentina Garavaglia Caterina Marchetta Anne Martinet Alexander Kastl Nabil Assaf Rao Matta Youssef Saadani Ameur Mokhtar Ismail Belen Serdar Yegül Jan Bock Miguel Segur Chadi Mohanna Khalid Cherki Nicolas Robert Marion Duclercq
GIZ DGF - Algeria FAO-Silva Mediterranea FAO Global Mechanism of the UNCCD GEF Secretariat AfDB ONF International ONF International GIZ- CF Readiness Programme GIZ- CF Readiness Programme CTFC Global Mechanism of the UNCCD DGF - Algeria FAO FAO ONF International / FAO GIZ-CPMF FAO FAO DGF - Tunisia DGF - Tunisia CEM - Turkey CEM - Turkey GIZ- Germany / International Forest Policy MMFN MoA - Lebanon HCEFLCD - Morocco EFIMED Blue Plan
45
Annex 3: Ongoing Forest Finance related initiatives in CPMF partner countries
CountryDriver
Algeria
Lebanon
Morocco
Tunisia
Turkey
Economic valuation of forest goods and services (FGS) Plans for updating economic valuations of FGS Update of the economic evaluation of FGS in the framework of the NFP elaboration Economic valuation of FGS to raise attention of partner sectors and the civil society Identification of forest finance gaps in the framework of the decennal national forest strategy 20152024 OGM disposes of an ‘ecosystem services’ department to raise profile of FGS at the national level
Financing platform, PPP
National Forest Fund
International funds
N.N.
N.N
Several donors involved including UNDP/GEF, World Bank, BMZ, etc
Programme 40 Million trees, an intersectoral and public private initiative
A NFF exists in the legislation but is not operational
Several donors involved including UNDP/GEF, EU, BMZ, AFD, etc.
« Partnership for Moroccan Forests », a national CSR Platform for forest finance
NFF operational
Several donors involved including UNDP/GEF, EU, BMZ, AFD, etc.
« Pact for a Green Tunisia », a national CSR Platform for forest finance
NFF existed, but has been canceled by decree. DGF has thoughts to reactivate it.
Several donors involved including UNDP/GEF, EU, BMZ, AFD, etc.
TEMA foundation develops partnerships with the private sector for A/R activities
2 operational NFF : -Afforestation and reforestation Fund -Forest Villagers Development Fund
Several donors involved including UNDP/GEF, BMZ, AFD, etc.
46
Annex 4: List of complementary initiatives on Biodiversity Finance Initiative The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity www.teebweb.org
Short desription The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) is a global initiative focused on drawing attention to the economic benefits of biodiversity including the growing cost of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. TEEB presents an approach that can help decision-makers recognize, demonstrate and capture the values of ecosystem services & biodiversity.
The Biodiversity Finance Initiative UNDP-BIOFIN www.biodiversityfinance.net
The Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN) aims to develop and pilot a new approach and methodology for leveraging increased biodiversity investment at the national level. The $15 million initiative, managed by UNDP, is currently working in 19 countries supporting governments to: review policies and institutions relevant for biodiversity finance; determine baseline investment and assess the costs of implementing National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans, thereby quantifying the biodiversity finance gap; develop comprehensive national resource mobilization strategies, and to initiate the implementation of those resource mobilization strategies.
IPBES www.ipbes.net
The 'Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services' (IPBES) was established in April 2012, as an independent intergovernmental body open to all member countries of the United Nations. The members are committed to building IPBES as the leading intergovernmental body for assessing the state of the planet's biodiversity, its ecosystems and the essential services they provide to society. IPBES provides a mechanism recognized by both the scientific and policy communities to synthesize, review, assess and critically evaluate relevant information and knowledge generated worldwide by governments, academia, scientific organizations, non-governmental organizations and indigenous communities. This involves a credible group of experts in conducting assessments of such information and knowledge in a transparent way. IPBES is unique in that it will aim to strengthen capacity for the effective use of science in decision-making at all levels. IPBES will also aim to address the needs of Multilateral Environmental Agreements that are related to biodiversity and ecosystem services, and build on existing processes ensuring synergy and complementarities in each other's work.
WAVES www.wavespartnership.org
WAVES is a global partnership that aims to promote sustainable development and brings together a broad coalition of UN agencies, governments, international institutes and NGOs. TEEB encourages engagement in WAVES, which was in part catalysed by TEEB. WAVES recognizes and reflects the importance of natural capital in national accounts.For further details. “The OECD provides governments with analysis to support the development of biodiversity policies that are economically efficient, environmentally effective and distributionally equitable. Policy analysis by the OECD focuses on the economic valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and the use of economic instruments, incentives, and other policy measures to promote the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. This work also supports the Convention on Biological Diversity.” The UN Global Compact is a strategic policy initiative for businesses that are committed to aligning their operations and strategies with ten
OECD - Biodiversity finance http://www.oecd.org/env/resou rces/biodiversity.htm
Global Compact www.unglobalcompact.org
47
universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption. By doing so, business, as a primary driver of globalization, can help ensure that markets, commerce, technology and finance advance in ways that benefit economies and societies everywhere. As social, political and economic challenges (and opportunities) — whether occurring at home or in other regions — affect business more than ever before, many companies recognize the need to collaborate and partner with governments, civil society, labour and the United Nations. This ever-increasing understanding is reflected in the Global Compact's rapid growth. With over 12,000 corporate participants and other stakeholders from over 145 countries, it is the largest voluntary corporate responsibility initiative in the world. Endorsed by chief executives, the Global Compact is a practical framework for the development, implementation, and disclosure of sustainability policies and practices, offering participants a wide spectrum of workstreams, management tools and resources — all designed to help advance sustainable business models and markets.
48
Annex 5: Survey to potential beneficiaries
Which Regional Financing Platform (RFP) for the CPMF partner countries ? Survey to potential beneficiaries (Forest administrations from Algeria, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey)
N.B. Thank you for filling out this questionnaire, before sending it back to M. Ludwig Liagre
[email protected] in copy to M. Alexander Kastl
[email protected] ; before June, 24th.
1. According to you, is it obvious that a regional financing platform (RFP) can attract more funds for CPMF partner countries ? a. If yes, what is according to you the most important added-value of a regional approach for financial resources mobilization ? b. If not, why ?
2. Are you more interested in national or regional financing opportunities ? both ? in which proportion ?
3. Which objectives the RFP should have ?
4. How such a RFP could fit with your national priorities ?
5. Which thematics and project types should a RFP finance in priority ? (in particular in view of regional projects)
49
6. If a RFP would be set up, would your administration be ready to play an active role in its coordination ? If yes, through which kind of contributions ?
7. In the framework of an RFP, which are the organizations and institutions (technical and financial) you would like to reinforce the cooperation with ? a. At the international level ? b. At the regional level ? c. At the national level ?
8. Are you in favor of the participation of the private sector in this RFP ? For which objectives ? With what kind of companies ?
9. Would you agree that non-governmental organizations (NGOs, associations, etc) benefit from the RFP ? Under which modalities ?
10. Which recommendations would you like to address regarding the governance of such a RFP targetting the CPMF partner countries ?
11. Which recommendations would you like to address regarding the communication (internal and external) of such a RFP targetting the CPMF partner countries ?
12. Do you have other suggestions, comments, ideas regarding the design of an RFP targetting the CPMF partner countries ?
50
Annex 6: Overview of Forest Financing Sources (Simula, 2008)
51
Annex 7: Forest investment potential in developing countries (Simula, 2008)
52
Photo credits (cover): Ludwig Liagre, Caterina Marchetta, Pilar Valbuena
53
The Regional Project GIZ-CPMF Contact:
[email protected] www.giz-cpmf.org
60 rue de Meaux 75019 Paris, FRANCE Mobile : +33 612 274 321 E-mail:
[email protected] Follow GEicO: www.geico-consult.fr
54
