The European Forest Institute. Evaluation of the EU REDD Facility Final Report. Helsinki, Finland 7600 January 22, 2016 ID 81233

Transcription

1 The European Forest Institute Evaluation of the EU REDD Facility Final Report Helsinki, Finland 7600 January 22, 2016 ID 81233

2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION Main Features of the EU REDD Facility Legal Basis Mandate Roles and Functions Beneficiaries Funding Objectives of the Evaluation Scope and Conduct of the Evaluation Scope Evaluation Team Country Selection Brief Evaluation Work Plan and Timeline Summary DATA AND METHODS Data Collection Methods Desk Review Stakeholder Consultations Analysis Methods Portfolio Analysis and Timeline Creation Methodological Guidance Triangulation of Evidence STATUS OF THE EU REDD FACILITY Evolution of the Facility Portfolio Analysis of Pilot Projects and Partner Countries EVALUATION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Relevance Effectiveness Efficiency Impact Sustainability Complementarity and Coherence EU Value Added FUTURE OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overall Conclusion Consideration of Future Options and Recommendations Recommendations for the EU REDD Facility Future Options for the EU REDD Facility Onwards 58 INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22, 2016 i

4 LIST OF ANNEXES ANNEX 1 Terms of Reference ANNEX 2 List of Documents Reviewed ANNEX 3 List of Institutions and Stakeholders Visited ANNEX 4 Notes from the Kick-off Meeting ANNEX 5 Evaluation Tools: Surveys, Templates, Interview guides ANNEX 6 Case Country Studies ANNEX 7 Presentation of Main Findings ANNEX 8 Online Survey Results ANNEX 9 Evaluation Matrix LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Organisational Structure of the FLEGT and REDD Unit 11 Figure 3.1 Timeline of the EU REDD Facility Recruitments and Strategic Development 19 Figure 3.2 Timeline of the REDD Facility s Decision Points 20 Figure 3.3 Summary and Ranking of the EU REDD Facility Investments in Partner countries and Thematic Studies ( ) 23 Figure 5.1 Time-bound approach for Applying Recommendations and Options for the REDD Facility Resulting from the Evaluation 56 Figure 5.2 Time-bound approach for Applying Recommendations and Options for the EU REDD Facility Resulting from the Evaluation 58 LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Calendar and Outputs (A new schedule for reporting was agreed with the evaluation focal point and is presented below) 14 Table 3.1 Summary of the EU REDD Facility Activity Portfolio Table 3.2 Number of Annual Contracts in the EU REDD Facility Portfolio 2011-September Table 4.1 Potential Roles Defined by the Steering Committee and Current Situation of the EU REDD Facility 26 Table 4.2 EU REDD Facility Partner Country REDD+ FLEGT VPA Dashboard 29 Table 4.3 EU REDD Facility Country Portfolio Relevance Heat Chart 30 Table 4.4 Institutional Arrangements for FLEGT and REDD in Selected Partner Countries 32 Table 4.5 Percentage of total spending on human resources and overheads Table 4.6 Comparison of European Finance to REDD+ Readiness Facilities and Programmes 54 LIST OF BOXES Box 4.1 Building on Foundations from other Programmes and Reforms 35 Box 4.2 Learning from EU REDD Facility pilot project work in Indonesia 44 Box 4.3 Adding Value to a Mature FLEGT Process: The Case of Indonesia 54 Box 4.4 Adding Value to a FLEGT VPA process which still requires considerable negotiation: The case of DRC 55 INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22, 2016 ii

5 ABBREVIATIONS and ACRYNOMS AFD Agence Française de Développement AFOLU Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use BTC Belgian Technical Cooperation CAR Central African Republic CIF Climate Investment Funds CIFOR Centre for International Forestry Research CPI Consumer Price Index CSO Civil Society Organisation CN REDD National Coordination REDD+ in DRC DFID Department for International Development, UK DG DEVCO Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development DNPI Indonesian National Council on Climate Change DRC Democratic Republic of Congo EFI European Forest Institute ER PIN Emissions Reduction Project Idea Note EU European Union EUR Euro FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FCPF Forest Carbon Partnership Facility FIP Forest Investment Program FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade FPIC Free, prior and informed consent GCCA Global Climate Change Alliance GCF Green Climate Fund CN REDD+ The National REDD+ Commission IM Independent Monitoring INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution LAS Legal Assurance Systems MECNT Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Tourism, DRC MS Member State MTR Mid-Term Review NICFI The Norwegian International Climate and Forest Initiative NGO Non-Governmental Organisation REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation REL Reference Emission Levels R-PP REDD+ Readiness Preparation Proposal SC Steering Committee SEP REDD+ Secrétaire Exécutif Permanent REDD+ SIS Safeguards Information System SVLK Sistem Verifikas Legalitas Kayu (legality assurance system in Indonesia) TOR Terms of Reference UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNDP United Nations Development Program VPA Voluntary Partnership Agreement VRD Voluntary REDD+ Database INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22, 2016 iii

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The evaluation team would like to express their sincere appreciation and gratitude to the EU REDD Facility for their cooperation and responsive input into the evaluation. In particular, the evaluation team would like to recognise the REDD team: Ms Valerie Merckx, Team Leader; Christophe Van Orshoven, REDD Expert; Alessandro Trevisan, REDD Expert; Thomas Sembres, REDD Expert; Andrew Haywood, REDD Expert; Adeline Dontenville, REDD Expert and Leif John-Fosse, previously employed as a REDD Expert, for their efficient validation of the evaluation findings. The team is also grateful to Ms Michela Tagliaferri, Evaluation Focal Point, for facilitating an efficient feedback process. The team would like to thank Mr Bernadinus Steni from Earth Innovations Institute (Indonesia), Michel Mbangilwa (DRC) and Mr Letondal Kouassi (Ivory Coast), who facilitated logistical arrangements for stakeholder s consultations in Indonesia, Democratic Republic of Congo and Ivory Coast for the field visit phase of the evaluation. Finally, the evaluation team would like to thank all stakeholders who provided information for the evaluation. Tapani Oksanen Majella Clarke Joseph Lumumba Team Leader Deputy Team Leader International REDD+ Expert Indufor Oy For further information about the evaluation, please contact Indufor at: Indufor Oy Töölönkatu 11 A, 3rd Floor FI Helsinki FINLAND indufor@indufor.fi INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22, 2016 iv

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The objective of this Evaluation of the EU REDD Facility is formative. That is, the EU REDD Facility s Steering Committee has commissioned the evaluation to take stock on progress, and assess the value for money. The evaluation takes note of, and looks for, lessons learned from the EU REDD Facility s past and on-going experience, with the intention to improve their planned interventions. In addition, the evaluation provides strategic advice with respect to future options for the EU REDD Facility for the consideration of the Steering Committee. The evaluated period is from December 2010 to September The key messages of the evaluation, based on the conclusions and recommendations of the Evaluation Team, are as follows: Regarding its relevance, the EU REDD Facility has demonstrated an exceptional degree of flexibility to adapt to the expectations and direction from its Steering Committee. However, despite of what the Evaluation Team considers laudable efforts by the Facility staff, the multiplicity of roles of the Facility each with broad strategic orientation, combined with the limited number of staff and financial resources, and an undefined M&E framework, has greatly reduced the relevance, effectiveness and potential for impact of the EU REDD Facility, especially regarding its work at the country-level. It can be argued that to date the EU REDD Facility has had most relevance through its role as a technical adviser to the European Commission staff on REDD+. Despite of the above limitations, the EU REDD Facility s objective of supporting partner countries for improving land use governance is, in principle, highly relevant to current international processes seeking to halt deforestation and illegal logging. Conversely, the partner countries in the Facility pilot project portfolio are highly relevant to the overall objective and niche of the EU REDD Facility. They are all engaged with REDD+ related processes, supported by several international REDD+ related instruments, and either implementing or negotiating FLEGT VPA s with the EU. They represent a broad range of forest conditions, and largely are experiencing severe governance related constraints and challenges. Based on the evaluation findings, there is robust evidence that the REDD+ FLEGT intersect and thus the niche of the EU REDD Facility is relevant and complementary in the view of all stakeholders, and that this niche is encapsulated in the Strategy of the EU REDD Unit. However, it is also clear, that the perceived niche is quite broad and takes a different meaning in different countries. Many stakeholders agree that the REDD-FLEGT intersect is consistent with improving land use governance, but to ensure relevance in the specific context of each partner country, country engagement strategies would need to be in place keeping in mind the financial realities (scale of operations), and these should be developed alongside a realistic theory of change in each case. This has so far not been the approach taken by the Facility. The effectiveness of the EU REDD Facility is assessed separately for the three Strategic Pillars of the Facility, namely (i) building relevant institutions, decision making processes and incentive structures to foster good land use governance, based on early lessons from negotiating and implementing VPAs; (ii) working at the interface of REDD+ and FLEGT to clarify land use rights and strengthen land use planning; and (iii) building the connection between emerging demandside signals on timber and agriculture commodity markets and jurisdiction-wide approaches in producing countries to foster deforestation free production standards across entire territories. The actual work programme of the Facility is organized under these three pillars, also responding to the annual EU expectations given to the Facility by the Steering Committee, and consists of (i) country level pilot projects and (ii) thematic work to inform EU and international REDD+ related processes. Under Strategic Pillar 1, the EU REDD Facility has improved stakeholder engagement and supported the sub-national implementation of REDD+ processes in DRC by linking REDD+ and FLEGT processes at the provincial level. The EU REDD Facility s work financing the linking of licensing and revenues in Indonesia is potentially transformational if taken up by the Government, though this uptake is not likely without further engagement into the future. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

8 Addressing governance challenges related to the informal sector has so far been the least effective work area under this strategic pillar this is a challenging work area, which requires very patient and committed level of engagement to be effective. Work on REDD+ benefits and incentives is still mostly under implementation. Regardless of where these projects and studies are with respect to the implementation of their work plan, they have all been designed to build institutions at different levels and support informed decision-making processes. The work builds on the FLEGT VPAs outcomes and processes, even when VPA negotiations have temporarily stalled (e.g. DRC). Under Strategic Pillar 2 all pilot projects either are scheduled to commence within the next year, or are still under implementation making robust, evidence based conclusions difficult to draw. This being said, activities on legality of land allocation, tenure and land use rights, and land use planning, are all very important for clarifying land use rights and strengthen land use planning. These work areas, if successfully implemented, will directly contribute to the overall objective of the EU REDD Facility of improving land governance. To be effective on land use planning and legality, the length of engagement would need to ensure that such actions yield the results on the ground. Under Strategic Pillar 3 the EU REDD Facility s work has been quite successful in influencing Cote d Ivoire s approach and policy processes with respect to REDD+, as there is a growing demand for forest friendly agricultural commodities by consumers and the private sector. However, so far the evidence on effectiveness of work on the third strategic pillar is limited to one country only. It is still very early to determine whether the EU REDD Facility s work will foster zero deforestation production standards at the national level but given the interest, demand and popularity, in addition to the evidence collected during the field visit, it is clear that the EU REDD Facility is playing an influential role already in the REDD+ process. The work areas on information, legal standards and incentives are logical and important to achieving results on the third strategic pillar. Overall, in its country work, the EU REDD Facility has mixed success in achieving results effectively, and in many cases, it is still too early to evaluate effectiveness. The outputs have mostly been attained according to contract and terms of reference, but effectiveness has been limited by the lack of visibility, micro/small scale of engagement and by not designing scale up into the pilot projects from the outset. It is also the result of the absence of a country engagement strategy, which was one of the first requests of the Steering Committee. Regarding the thematic work, the EU REDD Facility has achieved some very good examples of effectively influencing EU and International processes. The Facility has found demand and appreciation for its technical services particularly from the European Commission, the FCPF and UNREDD, all of which mention that they have benefited from the Facility s effective technical support. Facility inputs have been used in defining EC positions in the international REDD+ related discussions, and the Facility has provided effective support in defining the REDD+ FLEGT intersect. Regarding communications and visibility, there are some gaps in the approach to country pilot projects, which, if addressed, could improve the EU REDD Facility s effectiveness. The Facility will increase its visibility and effectiveness if it can finalise and implement the already initiated communication strategy towards national and international partners, including the EU Member States, and get this integrated into country-level operations, and endorsed by the Steering Committee. The EU REDD Facility has continuously improved efficiency in its use of the rather limited resources allocated for its work on technical advice and support to international and EU-level processes. It has also improved its ability to efficiently manage the portfolio of pilot projects and country-level interventions. The Facility is able to show good value for money, and its association with EFI, particularly regarding procurement and for administrative support, has contributed to efficient procurement processes. There are, however, elements of the EU REDD Facility work which could be improved in terms of efficiency, especially regarding INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

9 communication. The EU REDD Facility staff are already making steps to address this in the latter part of their 2015 work plan. There is still limited evidence on the impact of the work of the EU REDD Facility. Furthermore, the evaluation team finds the formulation of the current overall objective presented in the EU REDD Facility strategy improving land use governance - against which impact should eventually be assessed - unrealistic for most of the type of work that the EU REDD Facility engages on. Although the evaluation can build a case that the work of the EU REDD Facility is in line with the EU annual expectations and work plans, the impact of these outputs and outcomes against the overall objective cannot at this point in time be assessed. In the opinion of the evaluation team, the EU REDD Facility is not presently set up, or qualified to engage at the country level in a way that would allow it to have a meaningful impact on improving land-use governance. On the other hand, the Facility has contributed to awareness raising, institutional strengthening, capacity building and improved knowledge on improving land use governance. These are important contributions and building blocks for improving land use governance. Perhaps a more realistic overall objective for the EU REDD Facility could be defined with this type of impact in mind. Furthermore, the EU REDD Facility has only recently commenced implementing its project portfolio (in 2013), and therefore, results are either limited and/or have an effect on a very small group of stakeholders, or are premature to assess regarding their impact. This is the case especially where national policy processes are expected to be influenced. Much of the impact of lessons learned for project country-level stakeholders and stakeholders in the EU working on REDD+, have been reduced by the EU REDD Facility s lack of visibility and its informal communication policy. Despite of these limitations, there are some very important examples of technical reports, studies and documents commissioned by the EU REDD Facility, which have had an impact on influencing international and EU processes. In addition, there is a specific partner country, Cote d Ivoire, example where the EU REDD Facility engagement has already been able to influence national processes. Sustainability of pilots requires leveraging, scale up and visibility, and a strong degree of coordination with future adopters. To sustain results on this modest level of engagement, a strategy on leveraging and uptake needs to be in place from the outset of the project, and should not be assumed. This requires also continuous engagement with partners at the country level. The EU REDD Facility, for its country pilot projects, has taken an opportunistic approach and this has implications for the sustainability of results, especially given that there is no sustained presence. Largely, the sustainability (and impact) depends on the capacity of the partners to make use of the pilots, leverage, and scale up the results. Regarding complementarity and value added, the EU REDD Facility complements all four strategic orientations of the EU Forest Strategy, and has been able to demonstrate EU Value Added on a number of fronts, including building on EU FLEGT VPA outcomes, and sustaining discussion on FLEGT, even when the VPA negotiations stall. However, value to the EU Member States efforts in REDD has so far not extended significantly beyond increasing awareness and understanding of the REDD-FLEGT linkages. Based on the evaluation results, the Evaluation presents a time-bound approach for the consideration of the Steering Committee. For the period , the Evaluation Team recommends that the EU REDD Facility: 1. Focus on fewer and more clearly defined thematic issues, capitalizing on what has been learned with respect to the work on the REDD - FLEGT interface 2. Integrate Communication Plans into all relevant future contracted studies and pilot projects 3. Design its objectives, strategies, approaches and theory of change more tightly around the scale of finance available INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

10 4. Review and refine the current partner country portfolio and prune out those countries where no or very limited activities have taken place 5. Harmonise the mode of engagement with partner countries e.g. by establishing a formal MoU with clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved 6. Develop a reporting process that can complement a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework 7. Address the need to have a country engagement strategy with focus on uptake, scale up and leveraging of the results of the pilot projects 8. Become active as an observer to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and engage actively with the GCF as a channel for communication, leveraging and scaling up. For the period and onwards the Evaluation Team suggests that to be more effective and to increase its potential impact the EU REDD Facility needs to have tighter focus that allows the development of a realistic and doable Results Framework to guide implementation and systematically monitor and report on the achievement of outputs, outcomes, and impact. The following options for the future focus of the Facility are presented for the consideration of the Steering Committee: 1. Technical Assistance for Mainstreaming REDD+ into European Commission and Member State bilateral programmes on forests, agriculture and land 2. Support to Forest Friendly Supply Chains 3. Integrated Forest and Land Use Governance Facility, Merging the Current FLEGT and REDD Facilities 4. Center of expertise, providing independent advice and analysis to guide REDD+ countries 5. Catalyst providing flexible finance and technical assistance where required to maintain momentum on REDD+ 6. Pilot new ideas on finance linked to governance reforms. These longer-term recommendations and options are based on the findings to date and the judgement of the evaluation team. These may need to be adjusted following the publication of results from the evaluation of the EU FLEGT Action Plan, and the outcome from the Paris COP21. They are presented to inform the Steering Committee in defining the most appropriate future option, to be further elaborated in the Add-on Report of this Evaluation. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

11 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Main Features of the EU REDD Facility Legal Basis The EU REDD Facility is hosted by the European Forest Institute (EFI), which conducts research, provides policy advice on issues related to forests, and is an international organization established by European States and headquartered in Joensuu, Finland. The EU FLEGT Facility was established in 2007, and is hosted by EFI. The Facility supports the EU, countries in the EU and partner countries in implementing the EU FLEGT Action Plan. In 2010, EFI was appointed to host the new EU REDD Facility (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation). The EU REDD Facility aims to support developing countries efforts to build up their capacity and improve forest governance to help them meet their REDD objectives. The Facility will also assist the European Commission and EU Member States by providing effective support for emerging REDD national frameworks Mandate Since its establishment in 2010, the EU REDD Facility s role has been taking shape. The Facility s mission statements have been revised various times since 2010, but the key substance has been the same: to provide expertise on institutional development, reform and approaches for partner countries to prepare themselves for REDD+ readiness. The first document to give mandate to the Facility is the EU REDD Facility Operational Guidelines from December 2010, which defined the Facility s overall objective as enhancing forests contribution to poverty reduction, sustainable economic development, maintaining and enhancing environmental services, including mitigation of the impacts of climate change in developing countries. To further refine the mandate of the Facility, the Steering Committee requested that the Facility develop and present the strategy for the EU REDD Facility This resulted in the document EU REDD Facility Strategy The EU REDD Facility Strategy lists the overall objective of the REDD+ Facility and defines the three strategic axis, explaining these with respect to the niche of the Facility, which is the REDD-FLEGT intersect. The overall objective of the EU REDD Facility is: To support partner countries in improving land use governance, as part of their effort to slow, halt and reverse deforestation and the overall EU effort to reduce its impact on deforestation in developing countries. The actions of the Facility focus on three strategic pillars and ten areas of work at the interface of the REDD+ and FLEGT processes: Strategic Pillar 1 focuses on building relevant institutions, decision-making processes and incentive structures to foster good land use governance, based on early lessons from negotiating and implementing VPAs. Areas of Work: Improved stakeholder engagement and sub-national implementation of REDD+ processes Enhanced access to information, transparency and independent monitoring Governance challenges related to informal sectors REDD+ benefits and incentives for improved land use governance. Strategic Pillar 2 encompasses work at the interface of REDD+ and FLEGT to clarify land use rights and strengthen land use planning. While tenure and land use planning form integral parts INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

12 of land use governance, they are singled out as a priority pillar of this strategy on account of their importance to securing forest emission reductions in the long run. Legality of land allocation Tenure and land use rights Low deforestation land use planning at landscape or jurisdictional level. Strategic Pillar 3 builds the connection between emerging demand-side signals on timber and agriculture commodity markets and jurisdiction-wide approaches in producing countries to foster deforestation free production standards across entire territories. Information basis to connect low deforestation landscapes and deforestation-free commodity markets Legal standards for agricultural commodities Incentives for deforestation-free commodities and investments. The EU REDD Facility holds the mandate to take action and make necessary decisions to successfully implement activities according to the work plans approved by the facility s Steering Committee. According to the EU REDD Facility s Operational Guidelines, the operational functions of the Facility include: The niche of the EU REDD Facility, since its foundation, has also been in identifying linkages and overlaps between the EU Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) and REDD+ activities, as well as ensuring information distribution of these overlaps to efficiently utilize the potential synergies. The European Union and governments of France, Germany, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom fund the EU REDD Facility Roles and Functions As mentioned, the EU REDD Facility is hosted and managed by the European Forest Institute (EFI). The Facility responds to annual expectations from the European Commission to guide their annual work plan. EFI holds the mandate to take action and make necessary decisions to successfully implement activities according to the work plans approved by the EU REDD Facility s Steering Committee. According to the EU REDD Facility s Operational Guidelines, the operational functions of the facility include: i. Information, analysis and guidance ii. Communications and outreach iii. Capacity building (for e.g. international guidance and requirements related to REDD, developing multi-stakeholders processes, linkages between REDD and FLEGT) iv. Facilitation and logistical support v. Financial assistance for implementation of REDD readiness activities (purchase of equipment and services). INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

13 The EU REDD Facility is under the management of the FLEGT and REDD unit, and has its office and management parallel to the FLEGT Facility, see diagram below. Figure 1.1 Organisational Structure of the FLEGT and REDD Unit Source: FLEGT and REDD Unit. To date, the EU REDD Facility s core team of experts include six specialists working in the Facility under the Head of Unit. Five of the experts are based in Barcelona, and one recently recruited expert is based at the FLEGT Asia office in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The experts work in close cooperation with the FLEGT Facility staff. Staff in the EU REDD Facility are assigned several portfolio countries for which they are responsible for overseeing the development of the pilot activities. In addition, staff are also assigned a strategic pillar of focus from the EU REDD Facility s strategy Beneficiaries There are various beneficiaries of the EU REDD Facility. Direct beneficiaries include in-country partners/partner countries who receive funding and technical support through the Facility to implement pilot projects and studies, and individuals who utilise information produced by the Facility. It is important to note that EU REDD Facility is not a donor; rather it facilitates the implementation of work through procuring contracts through tendering. The European Commission and some Member States (MS) are also beneficiaries from the EU REDD Facility s work from sharing lessons from actions in pilot countries informing the EU s policies and work as well as other units at EFI, complementary programmes, specifically FAO EU FLEGT Programme, and stakeholders under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Indirect beneficiaries include all EU member states and EC Delegations who can potentially access the results and technical expertise of the EU REDD Facility. In addition, other global and regional partnership programmes such as the interim REDD+ partnership (ended), UNREDD Programme and the FCPF have all benefited from the technical expertise that the EU REDD facility has provided on, for example, commenting on documents and participation in meetings. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

14 1.1.5 Funding The EU REDD Facility s Financing has been allocated to support its establishment, recruitments, project portfolio development and strategy development marks a critical point for financing in the Facility, as it is the last full year for which it implements its Strategy The Facility commenced with an initial annual disbursement of almost EUR 300,000 and currently its annual activities have an approved budget of EUR 3.2 million of which spending will be approximately EUR 2.9 million in The EU REDD Facility has secured EUR 11 million for its budget allocation between The Facility donors include the EC providing the majority of financing (72.22%), and then DFID from the UK (22%), GIZ from Germany (2.26%), France (1.62%) and Ireland (1.90%). (For reference, the EC (56.43%) and the United Kingdom (20.43%), as well as France (0.31%) and Germany (0.55%) finance the FLEGT Facility.) In addition, the Governments of Sweden (8.03%), Finland (2.78%) and Netherlands (11.48%) also provide finance to the FLEGT Facility. The arrangements for financing GIZ and DFID, between the FLEGT and REDD Unit, are somewhat different to that of the other EU REDD Facility donors, as they provide a lump sum finance to be allocated between the FLEGT Facility and the EU REDD Facility. 1.2 Objectives of the Evaluation The overall objective of the Evaluation of the EU REDD Facility is formative. That is, the Facility s Steering Committee has commissioned this evaluation to take stock on progress, and assess the value for money. The evaluation, in this sense will take note of, and look for lessons learned from the EU REDD Facility s past and on-going experience, with the intention to improve their planned interventions during the implementation of their activities. In addition, the evaluation is also expected to provide strategic advice with respect to future options for the Facility for the Steering Committee to consider. 1.3 Scope and Conduct of the Evaluation Scope The assignment is a mid-term review, which means that both the Facility s program and strategy is evaluated against the OECD DAC criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. In addition, because the Facility receives its financing from the EU and several Member States (MS), the evaluation applies the EU additional criteria of coherence/complementarity, and EU Value Added. The temporal scope of the assignment is to evaluate the Facility s results achieved from its start up in December 2010 up until September The geographical scope of the assignment covers the nine partner countries of the Facility: Cameroon, Cote d Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Guyana and Honduras. In addition, beneficiaries of the EU REDD Facility, the Governments of France, Germany, Ireland, Spain and the United Kingdom, and the European Forest Institute, as well as the European Commission and other Member States, are also included in the scope of the assignment. This report is a product from the 4 th Phase of the evaluation, which is implemented through a 5- phase process: Phase 1 inception; Phase 2 desk review and initial consultations; Phase 3 Field visits; and Phase 4 Analysis and Synthesis. According to the Terms of Reference (ToR), the report should present, in full, the results of the analyses, findings, conclusions and recommendations arising from the evaluation. It is the product of an independent evaluation conducted with oversight from the EU REDD Steering Committee. The fifth phase of the evaluation will produce an Add-on report in January 2016 based on results from the EU FLEGT Action Plan Evaluation and outcomes from the COP21 in Paris in INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

15 December. The add-on report will update the recommendations in light of the results and outcomes from these two events Evaluation Team The evaluation team comprised of: Mr Tapani Oksanen, Team Leader and Expert on FLEG/FLEGT and VPA processes Ms Majella Clarke, Deputy Team Leader and Expert on Climate Change and Land, and responsible for the field visit mission to Indonesia Mr Joseph Lumumba, International REDD+ Evaluation Expert, responsible for the field visit missions to Ivory Coast and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Country Selection According to the Terms of Reference, country visits were made to a representative sample of three partner countries, including meetings with key stakeholders as well as field site visits to pilot project sites. The criteria for the case country selection was agreed with the Evaluation Focal Point and Head of the FLEGT and REDD unit, as follows: 1. Two countries from Africa, one from Asia 2. Active EU REDD Facility projects in the country 3. Collectively cover all three strategic pillars of the Facility 4. Represent diverse REDD+ and FLEGT processes 5. The country s importance and relevance to REDD+ within the Global Climate Change Framework 6. Maturity of the country portfolio. Based on these, the countries selected for in-depth study and fieldwork were: Africa: Ivory Coast and Democratic Republic of Congo Asia: Indonesia. The case country study report is presented as an Annex 6 to this report Brief Evaluation Work Plan and Timeline Summary The evaluation was implemented over a three-and-a-half month period commencing in June and concluding in October This report is the second and final output associated with Phase 4 Analysis and Synthesis, highlighted in yellow in the following table. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

16 Table 1.1 Calendar and Outputs (A new schedule for reporting was agreed with the evaluation focal point and is presented below) Phase Deliverable Due date Content Phase 1 Inception Phase 2 Desk Review and Initial Consultations Phase 3 Field Visits Phase 4 Analysis and Synthesis Phase 4 Analysis and Synthesis Phase 4 Analysis and Synthesis Inception report Desk Review report Country case studies Main findings and conclusions Draft Final Report Final Report 17 July 2015 Updated work plan, refined methods (including evaluation questions) based on kick off meeting discussion, Country visit protocol, list of key stakeholders, case country selection, table of contents for final report, draft on-line survey 7 August 2015 Review of reports and discussions with selected stakeholders from DG CLIMA, ENV and DEVCO, EU REDD Facility, FLEGT Facility, EFI, donors etc. 18 September September 2015 Country case studies from 3 country visits Draft theory of change; main findings, recommendations and conclusions from the evaluation to be presented at the Steering Committee meeting after the 5 th Oct policy level report in power point format. 23 October 2015 Draft report of the evaluation detailing data, methods, portfolio analysis, country case studies, desk review, comments received on main findings and conclusions, details of evaluation processes, as described in the final report outline in the Annex 6 of the inception report. 2 weeks after receiving collective comments from evaluation focal point Final report incorporating comments received on the draft final report. Phase 5 Addendum 22 January 2016 Updated conclusions and recommendations based on COP21 outcome and of the FLEGT AP evaluation outcomes INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

17 2. DATA AND METHODS 2.1 Data Collection Methods Desk Review A desk review was conducted on EU REDD Facility documents, and supplementary documents for partner countries, such as the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility s (FCPF) online document system, REDD+ Readiness Preparation Plans (R-PP s) progress reports, Emission Reduction Project idea Notes (ER-PINs) etc. The evaluation team was given access to the Extranet of the European Forest Institute (EFI). The documents analysed included: EU REDD Facility Management: Includes materials on EU expectations, and EU REDD Facility work plans between , annual progress reports, annual financial reports between , EU REDD Facility strategy documents, results from previous ad hoc evaluations (ROM Reports) carried out in 2012 and 2013, steering committee meeting minutes, agreements with donors, budgets for both the FLEGT and REDD Facilities, terms of reference for several staff, and EFI organisational documents (rules, EFI convention etc.). Partner Countries (countries were further classified into geographical regions Asia, Africa and Latin America): back to office reports, missions, background materials, communication materials, documents on other REDD+ processes and presentations, and outputs (studies, reports etc.) from pilot projects funded. EU and Multilateral: materials and presentations from meetings and events within the EU to which the Facility contributed to in the form of concept notes, presentations etc. (FLEGT week, REDD week, FLEGT REDD ad hoc meeting etc.), and materials from Multilateral processes including Chatham House, FCPF, UNREDD, Oslo REDD+ Exchange and UNFCCC. Thematic Issues: Background documents and outputs on land use governance, land tenure and land use planning, decoupling commodity production from deforestation, and REDD+ FLEGT linkage. Reports on the REDD FLEGT Intersect and the third strategic pillar. Communication: material and briefs introducing REDD+, REDD-FLEGT Linkages and material about the EU REDD Facility. The EU REDD Facility also followed many more country developments beyond their current portfolio in its first years, to assess e.g. the REDD+ FLEGT linkages. Country analyses have been done in this respect, by the EU REDD Facility for Gabon, Mexico, Malaysia, Nicaragua, Cambodia. Bolivia, Ghana and Liberia, in addition to their current partner countries. The main source for these documents was the EFI document depository system/extranet, which can be accessed only by registered users and is password protected. Additional documentation was also shared with the evaluation team through correspondence. Some reports were difficult to validate because they did not have an author or a date, and the status of a number of reviewed documents was not indicated. It was not always clear whether some documents are an output of the EU REDD Facility or partner organisations through a subcontract, or external reference material, which created problems for attribution Stakeholder Consultations The stakeholder consultation process included a number of specific methodologies to collect relevant data for the evaluation through: 1) interviews with key experts and stakeholders, 2) focal group discussions, 3) community consultations during field visits, and 4) surveys. Discussions and Correspondence with the FLEGT and REDD Unit Members from the evaluation team visited the FLEGT and REDD Unit in Barcelona, to meet the staff and gain an insight into the workings of the EU REDD Facility early on in the evaluation. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

18 Continuous correspondence has taken place between the evaluation team and the EU REDD Facility throughout the evaluation process for deeper insight and clarification. In-depth, Semi-Structured Interviews and Focal Group Discussions In-depth, semi-structured interviews and group discussions were conducted with a number of stakeholder groups. Annex 3 and 6 provides a list of persons contacted during this evaluation. Representatives from different stakeholder groups were interviewed to gather information at the Facility and pilot project level. When possible, interviews and group discussions were conducted in person. However, in the event that this was not possible, interviews were held by phone, or through Skype. Focal group discussions were a mode of consultation implemented during the country missions, and included for example indigenous peoples advocacy groups involved in supporting, benefiting or following the EU REDD Facility projects. Surveys In addition to in-depth interviews and group discussions, an on-line survey instrument was used to obtain stakeholder inputs on the overall effectiveness, value added and sustainability of the Facility. The survey was administered using a readily available, low cost application - Google Survey. Refer to Annex 5 for the Online Survey Protocol and the results. Feedback Feedback from various sources was an important part of the evaluation, and the evaluation team did their best to integrate feedback and comments to improve the accuracy and quality of this report. Members of the evaluation team presented their main findings in a summary report and a power point presentation to the Steering Committee of the EU REDD Facility on October 7 th. This provided an important opportunity to validate information, clarify and correct anomalies and refine results. In addition, the Steering Committee and EFI provided feedback to the Draft Final Report submitted on 30 October. 2.2 Analysis Methods Portfolio Analysis and Timeline Creation Portfolio analysis was carried out to get a full overview of the current and historical status of the EU REDD Facility. It looked at the different REDD+ Readiness programmes relevant to the Facility country portfolio. The portfolio analysis further explored the relevance of the Facility and reviewed the status of forest cover and deforestation in the EU REDD Facility partner countries in combination with governance indicators. It looked at the distribution of finance across countries, themes and work plan years, and demonstrated the relevance of the EU REDD Facility s work in light of their objective, as well as the areas where there are likely to be outcomes, which can be used to assess effectiveness. Timeline creation involved the development of a coherent, time-ordered sequence of EU REDD Facility s actions to gain an understanding of the evolution of the Facility and its work programme. The information was gathered from the desk review and interviews with Facility. Timeline creation also provided a visual tool to evaluate the efficiency of the Facility and demonstrate visually the evolution of actions and milestones, and how they have changed over the last five years Methodological Guidance The overall approach was to apply international best practices and guidance throughout the process to ensure an objective, independent, transparent and evidence-based evaluation process, as well as participation and inclusiveness. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

19 The evaluation was based on the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) (2010) Quality Standards for Development Evaluation, which provides a guide to elements of development evaluation. The Standards outline the key quality dimensions for each phase of a typical evaluation process: defining purpose, planning, designing, implementing, reporting, and learning from and using evaluation results. To supplement the OECD DAC Guidance, the evaluation applied the EC (2006) Evaluation Methods for the European Union s External Assistance. Guidelines for Project and Programme Evaluation. Vol. 3. The guidance concerns large projects, pilot projects, multi-country programmes and any other project or programme for which an evaluation is required for an entity under the EU. This was necessary as the EU applies additional criteria to their evaluation practice, notably complementarity/coherence and EU value added. The evaluation ToR required particular attention to be paid to stakeholder consultation and gender issues. In this respect, the UNEG (2011) Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluation: towards UNEG Guidance was applied to include identification of unintended impacts and outcomes where appropriate and relevant. In addition, the UNREDD-FCPF Guidelines on stakeholder engagement in REDD+ Readiness with a Focus on the Participation of Indigenous Peoples and other Forest Dependent Communities was applied to the in-country mission stakeholder consultation processes, reflecting best practice. The evaluation process was guided by an evaluation matrix presented in the Annex 9, which consists of questions indicated in the Tender Specifications, further developed in the inception report, and examined in the analysis Triangulation of Evidence Triangulation is essential to ensure invalidity of the findings. It involves a deliberate attempt to confirm, elaborate and disconfirm facts and interpretations through reference to the following: Multiple data sources: primary and secondary documentary evidence, data collected from observations and key informants and stakeholders; Multiple methods of data collection: document review, field observations, and interviews across an evaluation question. Multiple evaluators: A special effort was made to form a team, which possesses a mix of evaluative skills and thematic knowledge. A Triangulation matrix was used to arrive at evidence-based conclusions. Conclusions for each evaluation question were based on at least two data sources, with two methods of data collection, agreed by more than one evaluator on the team to be valid. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

20 3. STATUS OF THE EU REDD FACILITY 3.1 Evolution of the Facility The EU REDD Facility was established on 23 December 2010, shortly after the recruitment of the EU REDD Facility Manager, which occurred in October To support the Facility manager, a second recruitment occurred in May 2011, initially both staff were working from their home office, both based in Brussels. In October 2011, the Facility located to Barcelona alongside the FLEGT Facility, which still to this day, enjoys a good degree of delocalisation among its staff. (Three FLEGT experts work from home offices in Europe. Five experts are located in Kuala Lumpur and Beijing offices, and one has office in Guatemala covering the Latin American region.) Between June 2012 and February 2013, the Facility recruited four additional experts, who have been working in Barcelona since their recruitment. Shortly after in the recruitments, the strategy formulation process for the Facility commenced in March 2013, and went on for a period of more than one year up to when the Steering Committee approved the EU REDD Facility strategy in July 2014 (see Figure 3.1). During this period, REDD+ innovation pilots commenced and the EU REDD Facility s project portfolio started to develop. A separate timeline for the decision processes within the SC meetings, and in-country missions is also presented, to demonstrate the evolution of the EU REDD Facility s project portfolio (see Figure 3.2). During this time of decisions, strategic processes and pilot project innovations, there have been important external processes and events, which have consolidated the REDD+ landscape. These include, for example, the EU conference on deforestation in 2014, and the Warsaw REDD+ Framework under the UNFCCC in There is no evidence to point that these events influenced the development of the strategy of the EU REDD Facility, for example these events are not included in the EU REDD Facility s strategy implementation road map, however the Facility did participate in, and contribute to, these processes. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

21 Figure 3.1 Timeline of the EU REDD Facility Recruitments and Strategic Development INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

22 Figure 3.2 Timeline of the REDD Facility s Decision Points INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

23 The original intention behind setting up the Facility is not always clear as noted in the 1 st Steering Committee meeting minutes, however a common response from a number of stakeholders cited that the REDD+ process emerged at a critical point in the FLEGT VPA process ( ) and threatened to derail the VPA processes in some critical countries e.g. Indonesia. The EU had invested a lot in the FLEGT processes to this point, and therefore hoped to use the international visibility and increasingly important profile REDD+ could provide. The original intention of setting up the EU REDD Facility could perhaps be best seen as to stabilise and keep the focus on FLEGT by exploring the REDD+ FLEGT intersect. Based on interviews, different parties had different ideas and ambitions for the establishment and direction of the EU REDD Facility (i) EC DG CLIMA wanted to create and anchor to REDD discussions at the European level and give the EU more capacity to participate in the REDD discussions internationally, they were trying to create something similar to the FLEGT Facility to support the EU i.e. a policy advisory group, but due to the financing instrument used it could never be called that and it was never an explicit part of the description; (ii) DG DEVCO wanted to ensure that REDD would not undermine FLEGT processes and supported the idea of dedicated work at the intersect, initially they were also worried (as many others) that the initial simplistic approach to REDD would not take into account basic governance issues; (iii) many EU member states wanted to work directly with the international REDD architecture at different levels and some were suspicious of the idea to work with REDD from an European perspective in this way they saw REDD different from FLEGT, the latter being an European initiative and needing an European anchor and leadership. The intentions of the EU REDD Facility have clearly shifted during its evolution for several reasons and is most evident in the EU REDD Facility s Strategy strategic pillars. Firstly, the REDD+ policy landscape has evolved with much more clarity on what an international framework on REDD+ should look like compared with Secondly, several critical VPAs have been signed in the meantime, such as Indonesia (September 2013), which has taken the pressure off ensuring that this critically important country signed its VPA. Thirdly, the Facility s strategy was able to evolve between , and has identified two additional pillars in addition to the first pillar of strengthening institutions through exploring REDD FLEGT linkages. These two pillars are highly relevant to forest governance that can learn from the FLEGT and REDD synergy, and they have had an important role in influencing the recent direction of the Facility. These external factors shaped the different views, outlined above and coinciding with the evolution of the REDD+ meant that the EU REDD Facility had to adapt and respond quickly to Steering Committee directions, and design responses to ensure that the direction from the Steering Committee could be integrated into work and plans. This modality of working allowed an active contribution of the Steering Committee on the EU REDD Facility s evolution, and the Steering Committee specifically had a role in: 1. Refocusing the REDD-FLEGT niche, thereby updating the six strategic areas of the operational guidelines which were felt too broad by the Steering Committee 2. Ensuring the operationalization of the FLEGT-REDD niche work, within both the EU and international contexts, but also within the pilot country context 3. Identifying four possible roles of the EU REDD Facility for the Facility to explore, its modus operandi, as well as initiating the definition of priorities between the four roles 4. Overseeing the EU REDD Facility s Strategy formulation process 5. Steering the EU REDD Facility in a direction that was able to address demand for services that the EU REDD Facility could provide, including the third strategic pillar and the work in the pilot countries. The Steering Committee has the most important influence on the Facility s evolution, strategic direction, and operationalization. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

24 3.2 Portfolio Analysis of Pilot Projects and Partner Countries The portfolio analysis looks at all projects under the management and oversight of the EU REDD Facility. The thematic focus of the Facility is specifically on the REDD FLEGT linkage, which is quite relevant in the countries the Facility pilots projects (see table below), but has also evolved to reflect three strategic pillars linked to the REDD FLEGT intersect in the EU REDD Facility s Strategy , outlined under the Section and summarised in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Summary of the EU REDD Facility Activity Portfolio Country Amount EUR Contribution to Strategic Pillars/Axes Pillar 1 Pillar 2 Pillar 3 Cote d Ivoire X Republic of Congo X X Democratic Republic of Congo X X Cameroon X CAR n.a. X Indonesia X X Vietnam X X Lao PDR n.a. Honduras Guyana n.a. n.a. Thematic X The EU REDD Facility engages at several levels, and has built its portfolio predominantly on its work in its partner countries. At the country level, the Facility targets: Facilitating the exchange of ideas and lessons-learning between national decision makers and practitioners in sub-national jurisdictions Facilitating cross-sectoral interactions Testing new approaches, which can help advance national REDD+ processes and eventually be scaled up in the same country or applied in other countries Supporting learning between countries and facilitating South-South co-operation. The EU REDD Facility Portfolio has pilot projects in Africa and Asia. Honduras and Guyana are also considered partner countries but do not have active pilot projects, rather their role in the Facility portfolio is that their FLEGT and REDD processes inform the Facility on the developments of the REDD FLEGT intersect. In addition, the EU REDD Facility also supports the work of the EU FLEGT Facility with backstopping on the REDD+ national processes and identifying operational ideas for REDD-FLEGT synergies to materialise. DRC and the Republic of Congo received the highest levels of financing in the portfolio , and have attracted pilot project investments of EUR and EUR respectively. The Central African Republic (CAR) saw an initial scoping exercise back in 2012/2013, but the fragile political situation has since caused that country removed from the Facility portfolio. That aside, Indonesia has, so far, received the lowest investment in pilot projects and studies of INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

25 EUR Lao PDR is yet to sign a VPA and the Facility follows the REDD and FLEGT processes in Lao PDR, but will not commence pilot actions in the country before There have been a number of actions conducted on two specific thematic areas: 1. FLEGT REDD linkages a. ETFRN News on REDD+ FLEGT Linkages (2013) b. Support to Facilitation for the FLEGT and REDD working group (2011) c. Proforest REDD FLEGT Briefings 2. Strategic Pillar 3 a. Supporting the Standing Committee on Finance s Forum (2015) b. Bringing Information and Transparency on Forest Risk Commodity. Feasibility study for an international forest-risk framework (2014). The allocation of financing for the pilot projects and subcontracted studies of the Facility is presented in Figure 3.3. Figure 3.3 Summary and Ranking of the EU REDD Facility Investments in Partner countries and Thematic Studies ( ) Guyana Honduras Lao PDR CAR Indonesia Cameroon Vietnam Ivory Coast Democratic Republic of Congo Republic of Congo Thematic EURO The activities and investments of the EU REDD Facility are predominantly focused in Africa. The investments in thematic focal studies shifted from the REDD FLEGT linkages in 2013, and 2011, to the third strategic pillar of the EU REDD Facility in 2014 and 2015, reflecting maturity in the formulation of the EU REDD Facility s strategic development process, which came into effect in The recent work programme in Ivory Coast (2014/2015) has also focused on the third strategic pillar of the EU REDD Facility, indicating a growing demand and interest in zero deforestation/forest friendly supply chains. The EU REDD Facility portfolio can also be disaggregated by work plan year. Table 3.2 shows that the number of contracts procured by the EU REDD Facility has increased as the EU REDD Facility evolved saw the largest amount of finance disbursed for contracted work, consisting of around 63% of the activity portfolio finance to date. The disbursement for 2015 was still ongoing at the time of the evaluation, so the numbers are expected to change for INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

26 The EU REDD Facility has grown a portfolio from its initial three procured contracts in 2011, reaching 20 annual contracted activities in an annual work plan by 2014, see Table 3.2. Table 3.2 Number of Annual Contracts in the EU REDD Facility Portfolio September 2015 Work Plan Year Number of Amount EUR Contracts Total *Does not include CAR. The portfolio analysis shows that the EU REDD Facility has grown its pilot project and activity portfolio across several geographies and different thematic areas as it has evolved. The annual work plan of the EU REDD Facility is directly linked directly to the annual expectations of the European Union which, since 2014, have guided the implementation of the Strategy. The EU REDD Facility provides technical advice and project oversight to the EU REDD Facility s portfolio, which cannot be valued through a portfolio analysis. Therefore the associated human resource costs and their utilization have been included in the section on efficiency. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

27 4. EVALUATION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The following presentation is based on evidence which has been triangulated using the evaluation matrix questions as the starting point. The chapter has been structured in a way to avoid repetition and will therefore in some cases not directly follow the sequence of the evaluation matrix questions. 4.1 Relevance The EU REDD Facility commenced its work in 2010, in the midst of an evolving REDD+ landscape, which, at the time, lacked clarity on what REDD+ was and the guidance, and modalities it would be based upon, and with many questions on how to finance and tackle deforestation in many different developing and emerging tropical countries. The establishment of the Facility was, at least in part, motivated by the concern that governance issues were not at the time sufficiently taken into account by the REDD community, and that the FLEGT/VPA processes would offer important lessons and approaches in this regard. The EU REDD Facility s first overall objective is presented in its Operational Guidelines (December 2010) states: The EU REDD Facility is a multi-donor partnership formed to pursue the goal or overall objective of enhancing forests contribution to poverty reduction, sustainable economic development, maintaining and enhancing environmental services, including mitigation of the impacts of climate change in developing countries. The purpose of the Facility is to assist targeted developing countries by providing effective support to the emergence of REDD national frameworks, to assist the European Commission, the EU Member States in providing such an effective support and to help developing countries in building their capacity and improving forest governance so as to help them meet their REDD objectives. A key feature of the Facility is to respond to the needs for support channelled through the EC in its annual expectations to EFI. The expectations for the first years of the Facility were on the development of its strategic orientation. Within this process, the Steering Committee requested the EU REDD Facility to explore four different roles, discussed below, in the document Discussion paper - Elements for the preparation of a Strategy for the EU REDD Facility, EFI (2012). The role(s) and current roadmap of the EU REDD Facility are based upon the Steering Committees request in its decisions from the 3 rd Steering Committee meeting 2012, which requested: the EU REDD Facility to explore four possible roles for the facility, namely: (1) Building an EU approach for REDD+ at country level; (2) Centre of expertise, providing independent advice and analysis to guide REDD+ countries; (3) Catalyst: providing flexible finance and technical assistance where required to maintain momentum of REDD+, in close collaboration with multilateral initiatives (FCPF, UN REDD) and the EU; (4) Pilot new ideas on REDD+ finance linked to governance reforms. The EU REDD Facility, with its limited staff and financial resources, is arguably implementing elements of all four options, which have evolved on an ad-hoc basis to take account of the evolving REDD+ policy landscape and the EC annual expectations. Table 4.1 summarises 1 the four roles considered for the EU REDD Facility, the necessary arrangements that need to be in place to fulfil these roles, and the evaluation team s opinion of the current situation based on 1 Please note that this is a summary assessment to illustrate the roles and scope(s) of work of the Facility. A more detailed assessment is found in the section 4.2 dealing with efficiency where the Facility work programme is discussed in detail. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

28 the evidence obtained. Table 4.1 Roles Potential Roles Defined by the Steering Committee and Current Situation of the EU REDD Facility Potential Roles and Evaluation Assessment Role 1 Building an EU approach for REDD+ at the country level: Role 2: Centre of expertise, providing independent advice and analysis to guide REDD+ countries: Role 3: Catalyst: providing flexible finance and technical assistance where required to maintain momentum of REDD+, in close collaboration with It would require involvement of all relevant EU in country representatives and political support by all EU capitals involved in the corresponding focal REDD+ countries processes to promote the emergence of a coordinated EU REDD+ approach at country level. For that to happen, the EU REDD Facility would need to invest not only into following the REDD+ country processes but also into supporting the in country internal EU coordination process, especially in initial stages in order to support EU delegations efforts in that direction. This option notes that and that the approach could benefit from close cooperation and assessment of the FLEGT VPA processes. A UNFCCC REDD+ framework needs to be in place (in 2012 it was not). Evaluation assessment: EU delegations do receive ad-hoc technical support at varying degrees from the EU REDD Facility for the planning, preparation and implementation of country level projects and for following the REDD process. There was no common UNFCCC REDD+ framework in place in 2012, though the Warsaw REDD+ Framework exists now (December 2013). There is no common EU policy on REDD+, supported by all Member States to this day. All REDD+ countries the Facility is engaged with have at least an active REDD+ readiness process and often an ER-PIN/ER-PD process started under the FCPF. The Facility would focus on collecting, compiling and maintaining up-todate information on REDD+ developments at international and national levels, draw from it pertinent synthetic and in depth analyses and ensure that these analyses and the resulting lessons learnt are widely distributed and influential to the international and national REDD+ debate. Through this role, the Facility could assist the Commission and MS in developing a coherent and coordinated REDD+ policy and strategy. Under this option, the analyses and communication functions of the EU REDD Facility become the driving force for its activities. Evaluation assessment: the Facility collects, compiles and reports the most up-to-date information on country level REDD+ from its country missions through its back-to-office reports. However, the findings from these missions have remained mostly internal. There is an example in Côte d Ivoire s R-PP for which the Facility was influential at the international level. Under Option 3, the Facility s driving objective would be to contribute and facilitate the implementation of REDD+ and maintain momentum on REDD+ at the global level by complementing and gap filling efforts made by other donors and organisations. The Facility would act as sort of REDD+ fireman anticipating and acting on obstacles and limiting factors undermining or risking undermining the overall progress of REDD+. Evaluation assessment: the Facility has close collaboration at the international level with multilateral initiatives (FCPF and UNREDD), and national level, which is an important level at this stage, where REDD+ countries are still mostly engaged in building their REDD+ strategies and encountering a lot of operational challenges in implementing them. The EU REDD Facility provides approximately 20% of its time responding to INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

29 Roles multilateral initiatives (FCPF, UN REDD) and the EU Option (4) Pilot new ideas on REDD+ finance linked to governance reforms. Potential Roles and Evaluation Assessment ad-hoc requests for technical assistance to inform EU processes. Under Option 4, the EU REDD Facility would focus on the core of the REDD+ mechanism i.e. delivery of finance as an incentive to actions against deforestation and the way this can be implemented on the ground, exploring governance related challenges (functionality, equity, benefitsharing, regulatory frameworks, decision making, etc...) embedded in the design of such mechanisms and testing ways to overcome them. As in option 1, the piloting function of the Facility would be the driving force for its activities but instead of directed to building an EU approach at country level, it would be thematically oriented and could take the form of very small and discrete actions in some REDD+ countries or involvement into /design of big national programmes in others according to the type of issues that would need to be piloted. The decision for involvement in one country would be driven by the thematic agenda: we would look for conducive national contexts to develop one particular idea rather than act on demand or driven by EU political priority to support one particular country or group of countries. Evaluation assessment: the EU REDD Facility has small, short pilot projects in five countries but the focus is much broader than testing ideas on REDD+ finance linked to governance reforms. Source: Discussion paper - Elements for the preparation of a Strategy for the EU REDD Facility, EFI (2012). To be relevant in these four very different roles requires organisational and human resourcing as well as levels of financial resources on a different level. This is because each of these four options requires distinct theories of change and different timespans. This issue also has implications, and could be one of the reasons why the EU REDD Facility and contracted experts (Tripleline in early 2015) have not been able to define a functional and realistic Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework for the Facility. As several separate M&E frameworks would be required based on different result chains. The Steering Committee cited preference for roles 2 and 3 and requested that the niche, and how the EU REDD Facility goes about implementing its niche, should be presented in the final strategy (Minutes of the 3 rd Steering Committee Meeting 24 January 2012). The four different roles also depend on external circumstances outside the EU REDD Facility s control, such as the involvement of all EU in-country representatives and political support by all EU capitals involved in the corresponding focal REDD+ countries (role 1), a UNFCCC REDD+ Framework in place (roles 1 and 4), which did not get realized until December 2013; the European Union s commitment to a common REDD+ policy (role 2), which is still pending; and maintaining momentum on REDD+ at the global level for complementing and gap-filling efforts made by other donors and organisations in the national context (role 3). Conclusion #1: The EU REDD Facility has demonstrated an exceptional degree of flexibility to adapt to the expectations and direction from its Steering Committee. However, despite of what the Evaluation Team considers laudable efforts by the EU REDD Facility staff this multiplicity of roles each with broad strategic orientation, combined with the limited number of staff and financial resources, and undefined M&E framework, has greatly reduced the relevance, effectiveness and potential for impact of the EU REDD Facility. It can be argued that the Facility has had most relevance in Role 2, especially through its role as a technical adviser to the Commission staff on REDD+. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

30 The discussion paper, EFI (2012), which performed an intermediary purpose prior to the Strategy, noted the international and EU developments for REDD+, and proposed the following niche: The EU REDD Facility of the EFI provides expertise on result based approaches and governance reforms that contribute to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The niche, particularly with its reference to governance, reflects a common theme to all annual expectations of the EC - that is, the expectation that the EU REDD Facility should focus on the REDD FLEGT intersect and linkages, and deepen knowledge and general understanding of the interface. Consequently, the overall objective from the Operational Guidance (2010) required revision, to be consistent with the expectations of the EC. Over the course of 2013 and 2014, the EU REDD Facility further refined its strategic orientation and presented the EU REDD Facility Strategy , endorsed in July 2014, and currently under implementation. The overall objective of the EU REDD Facility as stated in its strategy is to: support partner countries in improving land-use governance, as part of their effort to slow, halt and reverse deforestation and the overall EU effort to reduce its impact on deforestation in developing countries. Land use governance is important and even essential to REDD+, but there are certain elements, features and national capacities that need to be in place for land use governance to strengthen. Drawing on lessons from Official Development Assistance (ODA) forestry programmes and the failure of Afforestation/Reforestation under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), negotiators at the UNFCCC specifically designed REDD+ with three phases, noting that it is important to be REDD+ ready (phase 1) before you demonstrate (phase 2), and that it is important to be able to demonstrate readiness and sub-national implementation before receiving results-based payments on a national level (phase 3). This is one of the outcomes associated with the Cancun Agreements, 1/CP.16. In addition, 1/CP.16 is the only COP decision to date, which mentions land tenure issues and forest governance (at the request of the EU), referring to paragraph 72: requests developing country Parties, when developing and implementing their national strategies or action plans, to address, inter alia, the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, land tenure issues, forest governance issues, gender considerations and the safeguards identified in paragraph 2 of appendix I to this decision, ensuring the full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, inter alia indigenous peoples and local communities; Therefore, based on decisions under the UNFCCC, land and forest governance issues are relevant to REDD+ Readiness (phase 1), and should be addressed under the development and implementation of the national REDD+ strategies and action plans. In addition, there has been increasing interest to link governance indicators with performance such as in the case of the Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI), launched at the end of September More recently, the New York Declaration on Forests also makes multiple references to the importance for action on forest governance to at least halve the rate of loss of natural forests globally by 2020 and strive to end natural forest loss by The Declaration specifically mentions a commitment by the endorser that sign it to: Strengthen forest governance, transparency and the rule of law, while also empowering communities and recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples, especially those pertaining to their lands and resources. It is argued that by focusing on land use and forest governance in the context of REDD+ creates a link with the outcomes from FLEGT VPAs, which contributes to addressing illegal logging as a driver of deforestation and degradation. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

31 Conclusion #2: In all, it can be argued that the EU REDD Facility s objective of supporting partner countries for improving land use governance is in principle highly relevant to current international processes seeking to halt deforestation and illegal logging. The Facility coordinates with multilateral REDD+ Readiness activities, such as UNREDD, FIP, FCPF R-PP, FCPF Carbon Fund, and bilateral programs, such as Norway s International Climate and Forests Initiative (NICFI), Germany s International Climate Initiative and Bilateral Programmes, and the United Kingdom s International Climate Fund and Bilateral Programmes, which are very influential due to their financial commitments. Table 4.2 summarises the different REDD+ processes, which are designed to support REDD+ readiness across a number of countries. All EU REDD Facility partner countries are involved in FCPF R-PP and UN REDD. In addition, recent developments within the Forest Investment Program (FIP) have led to additional countries joining the FIP portfolio (announced July 2015). A number of these countries are also in the EU REDD Facility portfolio. These large multilateral and bilateral REDD+ Funds and programmes can potentially provide opportunities to leverage resources for the uptake of the EU REDD Facility s work in the future, and indicate potential demand for the EU REDD Facility s work. As one can see from Error! Reference source not found., many opportunities exist for coordination, cooperation, potential leverage and demand for the EU REDD Facility s work. In addition, these multiple REDD+ processes on going in the partner countries would suggest a country action plan would be highly appropriate, as noted in the 1 st Steering Committee meeting minutes in Table 4.2 EU REDD Facility Partner Country REDD+ FLEGT VPA Dashboard EU REDD Facility Partner Country FCPF Carbon Fund UNREDD FIP REDD+ Partnership UK ICF Germany Int. Climate Initiative NICFI FLEGT VPA Cameroon Yes Yes Yes Yes Implementing Cote d Ivoire Yes Yes Yes Yes Negotiating Congo DR Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Negotiating Republic of Congo Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Implementing Indonesia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Implementing Vietnam Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Negotiating Laos Yes Yes Yes Yes Negotiating Guyana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Negotiating Honduras Yes Yes Yes Yes Negotiating Central African Republic Yes Yes Yes Implementing Sources: climatefundsupdate.org; FCPF, UNREDD, FIP. One of the main requirements of the EU REDD Facility is that its country portfolio consists of FLEGT VPA countries, thereby, on one hand defining the countries in which it can operate, but also further enabling synergy between the FLEGT Facility and EU REDD Facility work, see Table 4.2. Initially the portfolio was expected to be built with countries where member states have bilateral activities on-going (see the 1 st Steering Committee meeting Minutes). Given the strategic objective of the EU REDD Facility and its three pillars, the EU REDD Facility s country portfolio was also analysed from the point of view of the quality of governance in the partner countries and the role of the forest sector in these countries. Relevance was assessed by applying the following indicators: The role of the forest sector within the country, presented by its % of forest cover with its deforestation rate INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

32 Governance rankings using the 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International and Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) for 2013 produced by the World Bank, for Regulatory Quality only. A developing country with more than 50% forest cover is a high forest cover country. If less than 50% it is a low forest cover country. A developing country with a deforestation rate below 0.22% per year 2 is considered to fall into the low deforestation category, and if above 0.22%, it falls into the high deforestation category. The Corruption Perceptions Index ranks countries and territories based on how corrupt their public sector is perceived to be. A country or territory s score indicates the perceived level of public sector corruption on a scale of zero (highly corrupt) to 100 (Not corrupt). A country or territory's rank indicates its position relative to the other countries and territories in the index. The index includes 175 countries and territories for For the WGI, Regulatory Quality reflects perceptions of the ability of the government to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector development. The estimate of governance ranges from approximately -2.5 (weak), to 2.5 (strong) governance performance. Table 4.3 EU REDD Facility Partner Country EU REDD Facility Country Portfolio Relevance Heat Chart Forest Cover Deforestation rate Corruption Perceptions Index 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index Ranking Worldwide Governance Indicators: Regulatory quality (2013) Cameroon High High / Cote d Ivoire Low Low / Congo DR High Low / Republic of Congo High Low / Indonesia High High / Vietnam High Low / Laos High Low / Guyana High Low / Honduras High High / Central African Republic Low Low / Sources: REDD Desk, Transparency International, World Bank Colour Code for Heat Chart Forests High Forest Cover Corruption Index and Ranking Governance <30 Very High Highly corrupt Very weak -1.0 to -2.5 Low Forest Cover Weak -0.5 to -1.0 High Deforestation Rate High Corrupt Low Deforestation rate Moderate 0-0 to -0.5 From the heat chart above, applied to the Facility s country portfolio, it can be seen that the REDD portfolio consists of a highly relevant set of countries from the governance perspective. Most countries have high forest cover, that is more than 50% of their land area is covered by forest. All countries have chronic corruption with scores of less than 34 on the CPI for 2014, and 2 Based on FAO FRA deforestation trend INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

33 all countries score negative points on the Regulatory Quality indicating weak governance performance. Conclusion #3: The partner countries in the EU REDD Facility pilot project portfolio are highly relevant to the overall objective and niche of the EU REDD Facility. Despite the limitations on the Facility s scale of engagement, the work that the Facility has done over the last five years is highly relevant to understanding the role of forests and land governance within the REDD+ framework, and the demand for REDD technical advisory services is quite high, especially from the European Commission. The REDD FLEGT linkage, though relevant, is only relevant to a point before it becomes ambiguous, especially when it is retrofitted to the country circumstances. This is illustrated in the time it took the Facility to develop its strategy, which was requested and expected to focus on the REDD FLEGT intersect. It was a challenge for even the seasoned experts to define the linkages between REDD and FLEGT, mainly because the EU had a common policy framework on FLEGT and illegal logging, but lacked a common policy framework on REDD+. The absence of a common EU framework on REDD did not stop the EU REDD Facility from exploring the intersect, but it certainly made the process challenging, and required broad conceptualisation of both REDD and FLEGT processes so that it could be applied in pilot projects, and inform the Strategy process. The original linkages between the FLEGT and REDD intersect, as stated in the EU REDD Facility Strategy , were on forest degradation from illegal logging. In this regard the evaluation team notes that the Strategy has considerably advanced the understanding of the FLEGT REDD linkages and conceptualized these in the three pillars in a way that addresses the key linkages in a robust, albeit fairly general, way. The experiences that countries have with applying and identifying the REDD FLEGT linkage are different. Vietnam sees the linkage as important for ensuring cross-border permanence. Several countries, specifically Indonesia and Guyana, are already using the REDD FLEGT linkage with FLEGT legality assurance systems as part of their REDD+ safeguard information systems. However, even though the Facility has explored working on the intersect in these countries, in some cases it also avoided doing so due to potential duplication with other MS bilateral programmes (e.g. GIZ FORCLIME project in Indonesia) and the FLEGT Facility (Guyana). Côte d Ivoire established the REDD/FLEGT platform to enhance its stakeholder consultation process, and there are other countries that have similar synergies in their consultation processes. Exploring REDD FLEGT linkages will not, as such, lead to improvements in land use governance on the ground, and it is important to understand this limitation. Understanding and being aware of REDD FLEGT linkages may lead to more efficient approaches, e.g. in establishing safeguard information systems for REDD+, or conducting stakeholder consultation processes for national REDD+ strategies and action plans. As discussed previously, the Facility has three strategic pillars, which are also reviewed with respect to relevance. The Relevance of Strategic Pillar 1 Many of the Facility pilots do focus on strengthening institutions and improve decision-making processes that foster good governance. The argument is that stronger institutions are needed to foster good land use governance. However building on the early lessons from negotiating and implementing VPAs can sometimes be a challenge in connection with strengthening institutions for REDD. This is because in a number of the Facility pilot countries, the institutions being strengthened for fostering good land use governance with respect to REDD are different institutions to those implementing the VPAs, between The following table summarises the national lead institutions for both REDD and FLEGT processes. DRC, Republic of Congo and Vietnam have consistently allocated the same institutions for FLEGT and REDD. In countries such as Lao and Indonesia, there continues to be a restructuring effort for with respect to lead institutions. In Indonesia, the newly formed Ministry of Environment and Forestry will see for the FLEGT and REDD processes administered INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

34 and coordinated under the same institution. Lao is yet to progress significantly on its FLEGT negotiations, but recent decisions saw REDD allocated between two ministries both with mandates to lead on REDD+. The EU REDD Facility has recognised this issue early on, and it commenced its earliest cooperation on strategic pillar 1 with institutions in DRC and Republic of Congo, to which both REDD and FLEGT processes were being implemented and led under the same institution. Work with previous governmental institutions (Ministry of Forestry, UKP4, REDD Agency) in Indonesia was indirect and light, and quite appropriate given the recent institutional restructuring. Table 4.4 Institutional Arrangements for FLEGT and REDD in Selected Partner Countries Partner Country FLEGT institution REDD institution Cameroon Cote d Ivoire Congo DR Ministry of Forestry (MINFOF) Ministry of Water and Forests Ministry of Environment, Conservation, Nature and Tourism Republic of Congo Multiple institutions, Lead - Ministry of Forest Economy and Sustainable Development (MEFDD) Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection and Sustainable Development (MINEPDED) Ministry of Environment, Urban Health and Sustainable Development Ministry of Environment, Conservation, Nature and Tourism Multiple institutions, Lead - Ministry of Forest Economy and Sustainable Development (MEFDD) Indonesia* Ministry of Forestry National REDD Agency (under Presidents office) Vietnam Laos Guyana Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Guyana Forestry Commission Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry of Natural resources and Environment/Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Climate Change Unit under the President s Office with cooperation from Guyana Forestry Commission Sources: redddesk.org, Vietnam-redd.org, forestcarbonpartnershipfacility.org, eureddfacility,int, euflegtfacility.int. *Recent elections saw institutional restructuring; these institutions are relevant Relevance of Strategic Pillar 2 The work programme on strategic pillar 2, encompasses work at the interface of REDD+ and FLEGT to clarify land use rights and strengthen land use planning. The New York Declaration on Forests (2014) identifies a number of actions that Governments can take to halt deforestation by The action to Clarify rights in land tenure systems to improve land security, strengthen community is an important aspect of this declaration. Multiple independent (research external to EFI) research shows that clarity in rights in land tenure systems is at the heart of the debate for REDD+. Without secure tenure, it is unlikely that communities involved using land will invest in improving and managing their land and forests. The legal ambiguities and contradictions, coupled with INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

35 inconsistent implementation and governance structures pose unique threats to the success of REDD+ in many countries. Therefore, the EU REDD Facility s second strategic pillar is of central importance to improving land use and forest governance. The Relevance of Strategic Pillar 3 The EU REDD Facility s third strategic pillar builds the connection between emerging demandside signals on timber and agriculture commodity markets and jurisdiction-wide approaches in producing countries to foster deforestation free production standards across entire territories. The New York Declaration on Forests elevated the issue of deforestation free commodities with many references to the issue. Starting in section 1 of the Declaration, it is recognized that much deforestation historically and projected into the future, has been, and will continue to be driven by land based commodities such as palm oil and soy. The Declaration collectively commits: to support and help meet the private-sector goal of eliminating deforestation from the production of agricultural commodities such as palm oil, soy, paper and beef products by no later than 2020, recognizing that many companies have even more ambitious targets. This issue has created a flurry of activity within the private sector, such as announcements from Unilever and Marks and Spencer stating that they will source their produce from deforestation free jurisdictions. The engagement of the private sector on this issue is quite critical for meeting the targets; however, there is an underlying concern on how to approach the issue learning from lessons and proof of concept. The private sector do not have guidance on what is best practice, or how to ensure their produce is forest friendly. The Facility s work on standards and incentives for forest friendly commodities, is expected to be very relevant over the next decade. Conclusion #4: There is robust evidence that the REDD+ FLEGT Intersect and niche of the Facility is relevant and complementary in the view of all stakeholders, and that this is encapsulated in the Strategy of the EU REDD Unit. The perceived niche is quite broad and takes a different meaning in different countries. Many stakeholders agree that the REDD FLEGT intersect is consistent with improving land use governance, but country engagement strategies need to be crafted keeping in mind the financial realities and developed alongside a realistic theory of change. 4.2 Effectiveness Development of the EU REDD Facility Strategy The Facility had limited effectiveness in developing its five year strategy reflected in the EU s expectations for 2012, 2013 and 2014 to guide Facility work planning. In particular, the EC Expectations for 2013 state: The European Union s ambition at the end of 2013 is that: the Facility has developed and agreed a five year strategy to guide its operations and future development that clearly articulates its vision and describes its niche within a complex and shifting landscape. The expectations for 2013 states that the Facility s strategy should clearly articulate the purpose and value added on an EU approach. The expectations of the EC are noted in the Foreword of the EU REDD Facility Strategy , but the strategy does not articulate the purpose and value added in the document itself. The evaluation team expected to see, for example, a heading section in the EU REDD Facility Strategy specifically for purpose and for value added on an EU approach to REDD. On the other hand, the evaluation team considers the purpose definition presented in the Operational Guidance for the EU REDD Facility from 2010 appropriate for the scale and type of INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

36 operations that the Facility carries out through its work programme, and to the annual EU expectations given to the Facility. The Operational Guidance states that: The purpose of the Facility is to assist targeted developing countries by providing effective support to the emergence of REDD national frameworks, to assist the European Commission, the EU Member States in providing such an effective support and to help developing countries in building their capacity and improving forest governance so as to help them meet their REDD objectives. A key feature of the Facility is to respond to the needs for support channeled through the EC in its annual expectations to EFI. The evaluation team considers that the above purpose statement is well reflected in the EU REDD Facility Strategy and its three strategic pillars. Taking this point into consideration, the results, and outcomes (i.e. the effectiveness) of the EU REDD Facility are evaluated against the three strategic pillars presented in the EU REDD Facility Strategy It s clear that the EU REDD Facility s work outputs are actually designed to contribute to the three strategic pillars, which, in a way, each provide a refinement or further operationalisation of the purpose statement. Below the Strategic Pillars are presented with the relevant activities of work. Results are analysed and are presented to illustrate where the EU REDD Facility has been effective in attaining its results on respective work areas for each Strategic Pillar. In assessing the evidence it is noted that about half of the portfolio is currently under implementation or schedule to be implemented. This means that results and the effectiveness of the EU REDD Facility are difficult to determine based on evidence at this point in times. In some cases, speculation based on the Terms of Reference for the project is made to assess the potential effectiveness, but in general, the evidence is still immature to draw solid conclusions regarding this potential. Strategic Pillar 1 focuses on building relevant institutions, decision-making processes and incentive structures to foster good land use governance, based on early lessons from negotiating and implementing VPAs. Work Area 1A: Improved stakeholder engagement and sub-national implementation of REDD+ processes Democratic Republic of Congo - Linking REDD+ and FLEGT design and implementation at provincial level (REDD+ provincial focal points) Result: In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, provincial stakeholders were involved in a series of workshops and training that linked the design and implementation of REDD+ and FLEGT at the provincial level. It should be noted that the Annual report in 2014 stated that the provincial stakeholders became involved in improving land use governance this is perhaps a misconception. Improving land use governance at the provincial level in DRC requires much deeper engagement over a longer time to attribute such an impact or contribution to the overall objective. It can be argued that this pilot project did contribute to building institutions and decision-making processes to foster good land use governance, but on a very small scale. This work area is actually very important for DRC, because the field visit found that there is a schism across stakeholders on the perception and relevance of the FLEGT and REDD linkage. Some CSOs in DRC feel that FLEGT and REDD in the national context are contradictions, no doubt this is because of the local circumstances as all logging is perceived to be driven by weak governance. In this context, some CSOs question how FLEGT can be relevant to REDD in a country where logging is associated with a perverse interpretation of governance. On the other hand, there are also CSOs that advocate that without FLEGT in DRC, REDD+ will be impossible. This schism, along with the stalled FLEGT VPA negotiations, make improving stakeholder engagement, especially at the sub-national levels, very important to both the REDD and FLEGT processes. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

37 Republic of Congo - Building the capacity of civil society platforms to strategically contribute to the national REDD+ process, using the experience from the participation in the FLEGT VPA process This result was attempted but with limited effectiveness, the impeding factor was external. This Republic of the Congo pilot project explored new ways specific to its country context of engaging civil society and indigenous peoples (IPs) organisations to build on practices introduced in the context of the VPA process and contributed to the national REDD+ process. However involving CSOs and IP groups in national consultation processes is still a new idea in the Republic of Congo, and the pilot project was compromised due to the internal politics of the processes in RoC. Therefore the EU REDD Facility, seeing that the results were compromised, made the decision to withdraw the contracted work for this pilot project. The evaluation team feels that the EU REDD Facility made a well-informed and timely decision on this matter. DRC- Independent Monitoring for REDD+ Based on the latest progress update, presented at the Steering Committee Meeting 8 th October 2015, in the DRC, a methodology for joint independent monitoring of FLEGT and REDD was successfully designed and tested in the field in two concessions, one REDD+ project and several artisanal logging activities. As a result, the CNREDD took ownership of the combined REDD-FLEGT methodology, which will be included and implemented in the Mai Ndombe Emission Reduction Programme presented to the FCPF Carbon Fund. In addition, the FAO FLEGT Programme are also involved in the future uptake of the results of this pilot project, and think that this pilot is an excellent example of benefiting from applying and linking FLEGT and REDD. This point of involving FAO FLEGT Programme is potentially important for sustaining the future work programme, however it is still too early to deem whether the Independent Monitoring of REDD+ in DRC will indeed have uptake, and to what extent the FAO FLEGT Programme can sustain and further yield results. It does however, illustrate that the EU REDD Facility can demonstrate its ability to leverage from different actors that they engage with. Work Area 1B: Enhanced access to information, transparency and independent monitoring Indonesia - Linking licensing with revenue transparency at district level The project linking timber licenses with revenues was studied in detail in the field phase and it was found that, largely, the project is very effective because it has been designed to build on the foundations and early lessons of several recent programs and initiatives driven by Norway, the EU and national (Indonesian) interests, including the VPA negotiations and outcomes (see box below). Box 4.1 Building on Foundations from other Programmes and Reforms Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) Indonesia became a candidate to EITI in 2010 and has released its first report covering the payment and receipt of tax and non-tax revenues from extractive industries, such as mining and gas, at the national level. The main strength of EITI is that it reconciles reports from companies and government for the same revenue streams thus helping to identify irregularities and corruption cases SVKL Indonesia s SVKL includes the reporting and publication of forest related data to the central database of the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (SVKL) and mandated independent monitoring performed by the independent forest monitoring network (Jaringan Permantu Independent Kehutanan JPIK) One Map Initiative was coordinated by the former Presidential Working Unit (UKP4) driven by the Indonesia-Norway bilateral REDD+ partnership, after discovery of discrepancies between different government agencies and levels of government INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

38 pertaining to control over forestlands and management of natural resources. The one map is a single reference map, which has corrected discrepancies, and which will most certainly enhance the effectiveness of any effort addressing transparency with respect to licensing data One Data Initiative also coordinated by UKP4 aims at compiling and integrating all statistical data related to licensing, among other things The Sistem Informasi Perijinan (SIP) is the Indonesian licensing information system for mining and forestry concessions developed by UKP4 to integrate all data to the licensing chain Ministry of Finance s Revenue Reconciliation initiative is a national initiative with respect to licensing for forestry and mining. These programmes and initiatives are positive influences that can potentially support the effectiveness and impact of the pilot project linking licensing and revenues. The pilot project s concept is quite relevant to the area of work and the strategic pillar, and it could be potentially transformational to Indonesia, if the results can be disseminated, and uptake ensured. However ensuring the uptake of results from the study is difficult to determine at this point in time, as the project was not designed to leverage and does not obligate the Indonesian Government to take responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the esults. Work Area 1C: Governance challenges related to informal sectors There are three pilot projects that contribute to this work area. These pilot projects are: DRC - Mai N'Dombe - Engaging artisanal loggers Artisanal logging - Replicating Mai N'Dombe experience to other provinces of DRC / other Congo Basin countries (RoC, CAR,...) Indonesia - Mapping of forestry sector and analysis of timber supply chains and accessibility of SVLK to community forestry enterprises in West Papua (Earth Innovation Institute) (initial phase of West Papua pilot action) The Mai N Dombe project and its replication was delayed until satisfactory conditions existed for its implementation (2016), the Indonesia project was delayed because of sensitivities related to the VPA negotiation process. It is worth noting that this work area of addressing governance challenges related to informal sectors is challenging and requires very patient and committed level of engagement to be effective. This is reflected in the fact that all the above projects in Indonesia and DRC, Republic of Congo and CAR, have encountered delays and setbacks. Some of these setbacks can be attributed to the sensitivities associated with the FLEGT VPA negotiations, and some of the setbacks are due to challenging country circumstances and political situations, i.e. in CAR. As a consequence, the EU REDD Facility s work programme for this area of work, has had very limited effectiveness to date, due to external factors, such as political circumstances and sensitivities, which are beyond the control of the Facility. It should be noted that this area of work is one that directly contributes to the overall objective of improving land use governance, it is really at the heart of the objective, however the three pilot projects also demonstrate the incredible challenge of attaining the overall objective, and further reinforces the argument that the EU REDD Facility is not set up or designed to engage on a level that is effective on contributing to improving land use governance. Work Area 1D: REDD+ benefits and incentives for improved land use governance Republic of Congo - Contribute to the bottom-up development of REDD+ benefit-sharing while strengthening the legal basis, functioning and effectiveness of existing Local Development Funds (LDF) According to the annual report of the EU REDD Facility for 2014: INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

39 the EU REDD Facility backstopped an analysis of benefit sharing in the forest and other natural resource sectors, drawing mainly on experiences in the Republic of the Congo. The analysis showed that the experience of benefit sharing in the forest sector, whereby forest concessionaires are required to contribute to local development funds, could be a basis for developing benefit-sharing for REDD+. The arrangements for REDD+ could build on this experience, which links the distribution of benefits at community level with governance structures at department and national levels. Benefit-sharing experiences such as this, which are bottom-up and adapted to local needs and contexts, are a significant input to the development of a national plan for REDD+ benefit-sharing for the Congolese Emission Reductions Program Idea Note (ER-PIN). The Facility, together with forest concessionaires and other relevant stakeholders, identified bottlenecks in implementing local development funds. Solutions and approaches were explored and discussed with stakeholders that could help improve how funds work, their governance, and how to support communities in developing and carrying out micro-projects. The project by itself could contribute to the support in building of relevant local level institutions (village development fund), decision-making processes and incentive structures, but whether it leads to fostering good land use governance is another matter which is dependent on having appropriate national legislation in place and in addition, being able to effectively implement the legislation another challenge in itself. The pilot project progress report states that Benefit-sharing experiences such as this, which are bottom-up and adapted to local needs and contexts, are a significant input to the development of a national plan for REDD+ benefit-sharing for the Congolese Emission Reductions Program Idea Note (ER-PIN). Here the evaluation team has found no evidence of the effectiveness of the pilot project intervention. ODA projects in natural resources designing and implementing benefit sharing systems show that benefit sharing in reality is top down, see Bruce et al (2012), PWC (2012), Chandrasekharan Behr, (2012) and World Bank (2009). It requires well-designed national legislation, with good consultation processes at all levels of government. In addition, it requires full transparency and disclosure of e.g. logging revenues, something that most, in fact all, partner countries with pilot projects actually object to and have problems securing. Logging royalties and revenues are usually required to be managed, or at least reported, by the treasury and then distributed through the appropriate distribution mechanism. There are cases where agreements get negotiated with governments to share revenues from natural resources, but these agreements usually are not sustainable, and when the intervention concludes, so does the agreement. This is not the case for all countries, but it is a challenge in countries which suffer from chronic governance challenges, lack of clarity in land rights, poor transparency in natural resource licensing and revenues, and certainly affects the Facility country portfolio. In the context of REDD, further to building on benefit sharing systems, the issue of carbon rights becomes an additional challenge, as RoC, DRC, Indonesia, Ivory Coast and Cameroon, do not have adequate legislation that clearly defines carbon rights that can be linked with land tenure.. There needs to be good level of independent monitoring of revenues received from concessionaires and money distributed into local funds, and the relevant legislation to support that monitoring needs to be in place as well. Bottom up approaches to benefit sharing seem important to engage on, but they elevate local community expectations, often in contradiction to the realities and challenges in a country. Therefore, lessons from decades of ODA work on benefit sharing systems would indicate that this pilot project, even if it attains its results, would have limited effectiveness. DRC - South-South cooperation between DRC and Brazil in the land-use governance sector with a view to replicate relevant Brazilian approaches in DRC This activity achieved part of its planned outputs, which consisted of a series of workshops, exchanges and study tours to learn from Brazilian approaches. There were issues with the Government of DRC, which did not follow through with continuing the activity. There is limited INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

40 evidence to show that such exchanges have led to changes in approaches for land use planning and management in DRC, and rather the activity is has contributed to awareness raising and lesson learning. Innovative result-based payment initiatives for REDD+ (such as FCPF Carbon Fund, Dryad, REDD Early Movers, Landscape Fund, EIB,...) and identify collaboration opportunities at country level when relevant This activity is scheduled for implementation in , according to the EU REDD Facility pilot project pipeline presented in the Strategy Implementation Road Map. Conclusion on the Effectiveness of Strategic Pillar #1: The EU REDD Facility has improved stakeholder engagement and supported the sub-national implementation of REDD+ processes in DRC by linking REDD and FLEGT processes at the provincial level. The EU REDD Facility s work financing the linking of licensing and revenues in Indonesia is potentially transformational if taken up by the Government, though this uptake is not likely without further engagement into the future. Work area 1 C Governance challenges related to the informal sector was the least effective under this strategic pillar of the EU REDD Facility. Addressing governance challenges related to informal sectors is challenging and requires very patient and committed level of engagement to be effective. Work area 1D on REDD benefits and incentives is still mostly under implementation. Regardless of where these projects and studies are with respect to the implementation of their work plan, they have all been designed to build institutions at different levels and support informed decision-making processes. There are obvious linkages to building on the FLEGT VPAs outcomes and processes, even when VPA negotiations have temporarily stalled (DRC). The pilot projects contracted are generally very relevant their respective work area, and even though the contracted work is generally implemented in the form of piloting/proof of concept level, the projects under work areas A, B and D are strongly aligned with the first strategic pillar. Strategic Pillar 2 encompasses work at the interface of REDD+ and FLEGT to clarify land use rights and strengthen land use planning. While tenure and land use planning form integral parts of land use governance, they are singled out as a priority pillar of this strategy on account of their importance to securing forest emission reductions in the long run. Work Area 2A: Legality of land allocation Indonesia - Online system to monitor legality of allocation and operations of permits issued for land use change in select districts in West Papua and Papua (phase 3/closing of West Papua pilot action) Cameroon - Responding to JIC request on legality of conversion process, using the Common Mapping Platform (Cameroon pilot action - phase 2) Laos/Mekong - Coordinated REDD/FLEGT policy approach to address forest conversion The pilot projects on the Work Area Legality of Land Allocation are either just commencing, which makes it difficult to assess their results and effectiveness, or have been cancelled, such as the case for Laos. The reason the Lao project is not going forward is because there have been many delays on ithe negotiation of the FLEGT VPA. It might be interesting to note that despite of this there is a Member State large bilateral programme working on the FLEGT and REDD in Laos, i.e. the Finnish Government s Sustainable Forestry and Rural Development Project, co-financed with the Forest Investment Programme under the World Bank. Work Area 2B: Tenure and land use rights Vietnam - establish legal conditions and capacity for community REDD+ in Thai Nguyen province (partnership with CERDA, ICRAF and the Vietnamese Academy of Forest Sciences - VAFS) INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

41 The project is currently under implementation and therefore it is premature to draw conclusions on effectiveness. The general objective of the project is to explore the case for promoting strengthened forest tenure and devolution of forest management authority to local communities, particularly upland ethnic minorities, as viable options to reduce illegal logging and conversion of natural forest under REDD+, building on national experiences with forestland allocation and piloting of community forest management. The project aims to test if strengthening local tenure is a viable option to reduce illegal logging and conversion of natural forests. If the project succeeds in attaining its results, it will have contributed to the overall objective and the second strategic pillar of the EU REDD Facility, however the results are still premature for thorough assessment and conclusions. There have been some challenges for this project based on a recent progress report, the project s progress has been much slower than expected for two reasons: recent elections caused delays and official maps and data provided by District Department for forest allocation did not match the real forestland use situation. Therefore, additional work has to be done, to locate the unallocated forest area boundaries and measure the unallocated forest area in the field. DRC - Test a model of securing community access to land and sustainable livelihoods options through supporting the operationalisation of a local cooperative in the Mai Ndombe area (Groupe d'intérêt Coopératif et Economique du territoire Teke - GICET Nsia Mala Mala) The work has been contracted in early 2015 and concluded in October of the same year. A briefing note was produced and presented at the DRC side event at COP21. Indonesia - Address risk of conversion through identification of alternative livelihood opportunities and involvement of indigenous communities in land use planning and tenure reform (phase 2/consolidation) There are some very important results from the component Sustainable Livelihood Options for Indigenous Communities in West Papua and pathways for implementing Constitution Court Decision 35/2012, which are completely attributable to the EU EU REDD Facility. The key findings put a transformational piece of national legislation Constitutional Court Ruling 35, in the context of West Papua, and what this means for indigenous land rights. The key findings from this component as summarized in the final report are: 1. National or provincial program and policies do not consider the special situation in West Papua, i.e. semi-autonomous province 2. The ruling of the Constitutional Court 35, provide avenues for formalising the land tenure and rights to resources of indigenous people. The court decision emphasizes the aspect of acknowledging of customary rights, instead of granting the rights. Second, the Decision has also clearly mentioned that the acknowledgement of the customary rights is as long as the traditional practices exist. That is, indigenous peoples need to prove that they use the land for customary purposes 3. To implement the Court Decision 35 in the context of special autonomy status in West Papua, several stages should be carried out. They are: a. Identifying and verifying indigenous land rights b. Assessing the existing schemes that have been accessed by community collectively to expedite the process of identification and verification c. Issuing local regulations to recognize the rights. In the context of West Papua, a special autonomy law can be used as the basis for acknowledging rights at the same time preserving forests d. Relinquishment from the state forest and registration of rights e. Developing rules on how to utilise the rights in a sustainable way. The traditional practice of harvesting timber in West Papua highlights the need to revisit the timber legality verification system imposed by the national government. What is considered legal INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

42 in the context of West Papua would be different to the other parts of Indonesia, and a clarification of customary rights in this respect, would diminish the risk of criminalising indigenous peoples who engage in traditional practices for timber harvesting. Hence, the timber legality assurance system - Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu (SVLK) has an important role in clarifying land tenure, specifically for timber harvested in the customary forests is necessary, where the customary institution is central in determining the legality of forest products instead of the formal government institution. Finally, it is important to strengthen the concept of sustainable forest management in the utilization of forest resources by indigenous peoples. With the shift of the social structure in West Papua, the traditional practice in sustainable use of forest management may not be as strong as before, hence, the concept of sustainability may need to be reintroduced or strengthened. The pilot project results show that for the pilot project to be effective, downstream work is needed to further elaborate and test results from the study. This has been already contracted by the EU REDD Facility, and is under implementation. The project is quite important for its clarification on the law, as according to indigenous peoples advocacy groups, there have been problems in Indonesia with the criminalisation of indigenous peoples on illegal logging when the recognition of customary rights are not upheld in courts. If the project partners can achieve clarity on the issue, this pilot project will effectively contribute to the overall objective of supporting partner countries improving land use governance, however it is still premature to draw such a conclusion. It will certainly be effective, with respect to the second strategic pillar. Work Area 2C: Low deforestation land use planning at landscape or jurisdictional level. Cameroon - Common Mapping Platform (Cameroon pilot action - phase 1) The EU REDD Facility has been supporting a project involving five ministries, national REDD+ coordination, and the national environmental and social assessment unit to test an interactive mapping tool, a common mapping platform that gives stakeholders access to spatial information on land use at sub-national level. The common mapping tool was tested and is still under-going refinements. It would be premature to make conclusions. However, if the tool can do what it says, and support transparent and participatory land use planning, then it can be argued to contribute to achieving the overall objective of the Facility, The evaluation team recommends that the Facility monitors the use, uptake and impact of using the tool in Cameroon. Conclusion on the Effectiveness of Strategic Pillar #2: Practically all pilot projects under the second strategic pillar either are scheduled to commence within the next year, or are under implementation making robust, evidence based conclusions difficult to draw. This being said, work area 2A Legality of land allocation, 2B Tenure and land use rights, and 2C land use planning are all very important work areas for achieving the second strategic pillar working towards clarifying land use rights and strengthen land use planning. In addition, these work areas, if successfully implemented would directly contribute to the overall objective of the EU REDD Facility of improving land governance. This being said, to be effective on land use planning and legality, the length of engagement would need to ensure that such actions yield the results on the ground. Clarifying land use rights, tenure and strengthening land use planning are not commonly implemented through an annual programme approach, as they require rigorous in-country technical support, often associated with multiyear projects. The sensitive nature of land use legality often means that such programmes require long-term flexibility in planning, and it is not unusual for delays and setbacks to be experienced given the sensitivity of the topic of legality and land tenure. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

43 Strategic Pillar 3 builds the connection between emerging demand-side signals on timber and agriculture commodity markets and jurisdiction-wide approaches in producing countries to foster deforestation free production standards across entire territories. Work Area 3A: Information basis to connect low deforestation landscapes and deforestation-free commodity markets Côte d'ivoire - Cost Benefit of REDD+ & forest-friendly agricultural supply chains (Côte d'ivoire pilot action - phase 1) The output was a cost benefit analysis modelling the costs and benefits of different production scenarios for cocoa, yam, rice, palm oil and rubber. A policy brief summarising the results helped launch private sector and multistakeholder dialogues on strategies and partnerships to decouple cocoa, palm oil and rubber from deforestation. The results from the pilot project have been disseminated quite effectively. The cost benefit analysis brought some important issues to discussion for Ivory Coast, such as the fact that it is expected to take six years to transition to green commodities, and Ivory Coast would bear significant opportunity and investment costs during that time. The report identified policy measures to promote deforestation free supply chains. The work of the Facility in this area has been particularly influential and there are specific accounts for which the National REDD+ Commission used the cost benefit analysis to develop its REDD+ Readiness Preparation Proposal to the FCPF, which had a focus on decoupling agricultural production and deforestation. The work on the business case for deforestation-free commodities led to a further request to develop an interactive tool that would help national REDD+ coordination and producer associations develop plans to decouple commodity production and deforestation. The tool will analyse the costs and benefits, for example to the economy and employment, of a range of land uses with the aim of encouraging forest-friendly production of agricultural commodities in Côte d Ivoire. Many lessons of success of the Facility can be found in the Ivory Coast pilot programme, which are also further reinforced by a thematic area of high relevance, yet little expertise internationally exists to date. It is expected that given the growing relevance of zero deforestation commodity/forest friendly supply chains, the EU REDD Facility is currently well positioned to take a leading role within the EU, and at an international level on this theme of its third strategic pillar. Global Level Study: Test a procurement risk assessment tool aimed at improving transparency and knowledge of 'forest risk commodity' supply chains driving tropical deforestation. The objective of this study is to carry out a feasibility study for an international forest-risk model, which will improve the transparency, comparability and readability of the commodity supply chains driving tropical deforestation. Forest-risk commodities include commodities like soy, palm oil, beef, pulp and paper, cocoa, rubber, rice, etc. This study should meet concrete business needs for private and public sector actors to assess the risks and opportunities linked to their procurement activities and catalyze their ability to meet sustainability targets, with a view to ultimately foster transformative changes in commodity markets. The feasibility study will include a comprehensive gap analysis of existing initiatives; a stakeholder mapping exercise detailing potential user needs and demand; as well as development of a conceptual risk model framework, and an illustration with real data of its concrete application. The study is quite timely and potentially catalytic, because there are many corporations that signed on to the NY Declaration on Forests in 2014, but few have a strategy, methods or a way forward, at this point, to develop forest friendly supply chains. If the report is disseminated to a targeted audience, i.e. the corporations and entities that endorsed the NY Declaration on INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

44 Forests, and if it manages to stimulate discussion and actions, it will certainly be another example of the EU REDD Facility s ability to effectively influence international and EU level processes for improving land use governance. Work Area 3B: Legal standards for agricultural commodities Responding to JICs needs on legality of conversion process in key country(ies), using methodology tested in the legality study Implementation is scheduled for Work Area 3C: Incentives for deforestation-free commodities and investments. Côte d'ivoire - Larger scale demonstration activities on decoupling agricultural production from deforestation (in coordination with EU funded programmes) (Côte d'ivoire pilot action - phase 2) Implementation is scheduled for Conclusion on the Effectiveness of Strategic Pillar #3: The EU REDD Facility s work on this pillar has been quite successful in influencing Cote d Ivoire s approach and policy processes with respect to REDD+. This is because there is a growing demand for forest friendly agricultural commodities by consumers and the private sector. The Facility s timing for engagement was also a key feature in effectively building on demand side signals in Cote d Ivoire, which coincided with the New York Declaration of Forests (2014). It is still very early to determine whether the Facility s work will foster zero deforestation production standards at a national level but given the interest, demand and popularity, in addition to the evidence collected during the field visit, it is clear that the Facility is playing an influential role already in the REDD process in Cote D Ivoire. The work areas on information, legal standards and incentives are logical and highly relevant to achieving results on the third strategic pillar. Summary of effectiveness of country-level work: The EU REDD Facility has ambitious work plans and targets spread across a number of partner countries. There are divergences of opinion within and beyond the Facility on whether it receives adequate financial support from the EU and MS to work in this diversified and short-term manner. The Evaluation Team believes that the financial support is clearly inadequate for the ambitious work areas that are undertaken, and there are results that fall short of their transformational potential due to lack of adequate financial support or secured up take, resulting from a thin spread of finance across the Facility portfolio. This is especially relevant to the first and second strategic pillars. In general, the finding of the evaluation team is that the effectiveness of this work will be limited due to the scale of currently committed finance and the lack of leveraging/predictable scale up, which does not support an all-out dissemination policy across different institutions at different levels. There are several examples of results falling short of their potential due to the inadequate financial support with highly ambitious work plans from the Facility. In addition, the ability of the Evaluation team to draw robust evidence based conclusions on the effectiveness of the work areas with respect to their strategic pillars is limited due to the maturity of the portfolio. Most of the pilots and studies have been under implementation since 2013, which is a very short time period to assess and evaluate whether a small short-term project could effectively contribute to its respective strategic pillar. There are some work areas that are probably so challenging, that a very different form of engagement would need to be considered to be effective (specifically this applies to work area 1C). Conclusion #5: The EU REDD Facility has mixed success in achieving results effectively at the country level, and in many cases, it is too early to evaluate. The results have been mostly attained according to contract and terms of reference, but effectiveness has been limited by the lack of visibility, micro/small scale of engagement and lack of potential scale up, which was not designed into the pilot projects. It is also the result of the absence of a country engagement strategy, which was one of the first requests of the Steering Committee. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

45 Thematic Work Policy Advice and Communication There are areas where the EU REDD Facility has been particularly effective in performing its role in influencing EU and international processes. The Facility has found demand for its technical services, particularly from the European Commission, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and UNREDD, all of which mentioned that they benefit from the EU REDD Facility s effective technical support. This work can be considered effective as the Facility inputs have been used in defining EC positions in the international REDD+ discussions, such as REDD+ FLEGT Linkages presentations at Chatham House (28 January 2011), EU (3-4 July 2012), FLEGT week (October 2013), Guyana (2014) etc. There are several REDD+ Readiness Preparation proposals under the FCPF which mentioned the linkages of REDD and FLEGT, and further follow up found that some, though not all, of these linkages are attributable to the EU REDD Facility. In 2013, the EU REDD Facility contracted FIELD to develop the Guide for REDD+ Negotiators in response to an ad-hoc request from DG CLIMA. The document was not the first to be developed by FIELD, who had produced annual guides for the REDD+ negotiators to the UNFCCC in the lead up to the Conference of Parties in previous years, financed by different donors. This guide, however, explains terms and summarises historical developments of REDD+. This contracted work was done for less than EUR 15,000, and is a good example an effective and low cost output. The EU REDD Facility has been mostly effective in exploring the REDD FLEGT intersect. It has produced a very informative, well-presented brief on the REDD FLEGT intersect, available online. The back-to-office reports generally include recent developments on REDD and FLEGT, picked up during in-country missions, although this knowledge has remained mostly internal. The EU REDD Facility routinely makes presentations on the REDD FLEGT intersect, often referring to lessons it has learnt from its pilot projects in partner countries. However, the effectiveness of this type of communications and presentations in terms of the Facility objectives is questionable. More specifically, the issue is that communication plans, which would see the targeted and timely dissemination of results, were not integrated into most contracts for the pilot project work. Subsequently, online and distributed material in the form of briefs present a very general level of information on results achieved by the EU REDD Facility and on the REDD FLEGT intersect. It does not fully show the technical strengths and capacities of the EU REDD Facility. At the same time, the evaluation team had access to technical reports, which remain internal, of which some contain very good information that, if applied, could potentially contribute to improving land use governance. The issue here is that the approach to communicating, reporting and disseminating results from the pilot projects, and from the Facility s internal work, is not built around its overall objective of contributing to improving land use governance. In addition, there is no monitoring of the uptake od results based on distributed materials, and this too, would be very important for assessing the effectiveness of the Facility s work. At the country-level the Facility has been somewhat ineffective in disseminating the results of its pilot projects, and this is, in part, related to the absence of a country-level strategy and targeted communication policy tailored for each partner country s circumstances. In part, it also relates to the time it has taken to set the pilots up and implement them to a level that produces communicable results. The communication strategy of the EU REDD Facility was still in a draft format during the mission of the Evaluation Team to the Facility headquarters, and was referred to as an evolving document, unapproved by the Steering Committee. This suggests, in view of the discussion above, that the EU REDD Facility has not received the technical or administrative support on communications that it needs to communicate effectively. The Facility s approach to delivering results with a good degree of national ownership, has depended on the mode of engagement that they have in each pilot project country. For example, INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

46 Indonesia is an excellent example of strong national ownership of results, attributed to the Facility s approach to engaging Indonesian nationals to lead and produce the work from the pilot projects, hampered by lack of plan for dissemination and leveraging (Box 4.2). In DRC, local partners are also implementing the pilot projects, and there is a feeling of national ownership over those results. In contrast, Côte d Ivoire is seen as an example where national ownership of results has been traded off for technical proficiency from experts abroad. Despite the high technical quality of the results produced for Côte d Ivoire, this may reduce the uptake and effectiveness at the national level, according to some stakeholders. Conclusion #6: The EU REDD Facility has achieved some very good examples of effectively influencing EU and International processes. The Facility has found demand and appreciation for its technical services particularly form the European Commission, the FCPF and UNREDD all of which mention that they have benefited from the Facility s effective technical support. Facility inputs have been used in defining EC positions in the international REDD+ related discussions, and the Facility has provided effective support in defining the REDD+ FLEGT intersect. Conclusion #7: There are some gaps in the approach to country pilot projects, which, if addressed, could improve the EU REDD Facility s effectiveness. The Facility will increase its visibility and effectiveness if it can finalise and implement the already initiated communication strategy towards national and international partners, including the EU Member States, and get this integrated into country-level operations, and endorsed by the Steering Committee. Box 4.2 Learning from EU REDD Facility pilot project work in Indonesia Lesson: Leveraging and visibility are important and should be integrated into pilot projects design early on with a strong emphasis on communication Indonesia has a crowded REDD donor landscape, and therefore, the scale of finance associated with a REDD venture is very often associated with the level of ambition to tackle deforestation, which also affects visibility and credibility in the country. On the other hand, it creates a good environment that can create leveraging opportunities for small pilot projects, such as the interventions supported by the Facility. However, the pilot projects so far have not been consciously designed for leveraging from other projects, donors and initiatives, leveraging in this sense would improve visibility for the small projects. Without a robust leveraging approach, designed at the outset of the pilot project, the effectiveness and impact of the pilot project is going to be limited to the current level of engagement (micro/local level). The sustainability of results will also be compromised because of the unpredictability of future actions beyond an annual time horizon. A good example of this is the Facility s project pilot on Linking licenses with revenues. Licensing and revenues from the extractive industries in Indonesia are on a magnitude of billions of USD per year, and illegal activities associated with lack of transparency further account for hundreds of millions in lost revenues. The lack of transparency to date has driven a good degree of the forest to land conversion. Until recently, the policy framework for taking action on this issue was not mature, or simply too sensitive, to be studied. Norway s bilateral REDD+ partnership with Indonesia found earlier on that tackling concession allocation was almost impossible in 2010, after loopholes were discovered in the Moratorium on concessions, which applied only to new concession allocations, and not old concession allocations. There were many attempts to try to assess maps on concessions, which saw some 10+ maps between different national and provincial agencies, all different, attempting to show concession allocations. Briefly, this discovery led to the one map policy. In this sense, the Facility pilot project builds on some very recent developments which improve information and transparency in natural resources. The findings of the pilot study are potentially transformational, because they recommend a system for linking licensing data with revenue data. If they do not link up, then it would indicate potential issues in information INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

47 collection, or a potential issue in governance. The pilot was only designed to produce a publication, to be available in libraries and universities around Indonesia. There is no dissemination plan or engagement plan on getting the Government of Indonesia to use the process described in the pilot project. This, in itself, would be a delicate issue, and would require a long-term commitment of the Facility in Indonesia to encourage the government, and get feedback from different agencies, on how they can use the information, and respond to their concerns and ideas. These examples provide lessons that engaging on a small/micro scale in Indonesia on REDD+ should be accompanied by a country engagement strategy with considerations to leveraging, visibility and a commitment to ensure uptake of results. 4.3 Efficiency The EU REDD Facility has benefited from its association with EFI and the internal administrative support for which it relies on to conduct its procurement processes for the pilot projects and facilitate its daily work programme. The EU REDD Facility and its project partners all feel that they receive adequate and efficient technical and administrative support from EFI to do their work. There are examples, for which project timelines are amended due to circumstances and the EU REDD Facility responds flexibly to partner s needs. This is actually a very important strength and comparative advantage of the EU REDD Facility, and a contributing factor to efficiency. The proximity of the EU REDD Facility to the FLEGT Facility has led, on one hand to a good exchange of knowledge for those located in Barcelona, and an environment where there is a good degree of technical backstopping on reports and materials, and exchange of ideas for exploring the REDD FLEGT intersect. On the other hand, it has caused some confusion at the country level with respect to attribution of results and building an identity for the EU REDD Facility. In addition, there are cases where being in such close proximity to the FLEGT Facility meant that some work planned had to be rescheduled when the FLEGT VPA negotiations for a country went into its critical stage (e.g. Indonesia), these issues are addressed under effectiveness. In general, funding is pledged over several years and over several intervals and planned to reflect the work plan of the relevant year, as well as the human resources currently available to oversee procurement and project management. The first interval of financing was , and the second interval of financing is for There are several different methods that will be used to assess the value for money of the EU REDD Facility: Cost Effectiveness Assessment: looks at the structure of costs and overheads, taking human resourcing into account. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

48 Value for Money Assessment: which develops indicators based on the stated guidance. The EU REDD Facility cost structure shows that 40-60% of costs are for human resources between 2011 and 2014, with the main recruitment phase of the Facility between 2011 and After 2014, the ratio of human resource costs decline relative to total funding, below 30%. The value of subcontracts increases over the 5 years as the Facility grows its project portfolio. What is perhaps most interesting is that overhead costs remain quite low at 6.54%, even though the number of subcontracts are increasing and the human resources increased particularly between 2012 and This further indicates a good degree of efficiency within the Facility. Table 4.5 Percentage of total spending on human resources and overheads HR Costs 54% 48% 57% 40% 28%* 27%* 35%* Subcontracts 5.3% 19% 13.4% 38% 53%* 56%* 43%* Overheads 6.54% 6.54% *Forecast. The EU REDD Facility has documented time resources used on an annual basis for 2013 and 2014 and presents these allocations in their Annual Report. Time allocations shift quite considerably. In 2013, 10% of the Facility s time was spent on Communication and Outreach, 25% on Strategy development and 65% on support REDD+ Partner countries. In 2014, the Facility shifted its time allocation up to 81% for support work in REDD+ partner countries, 18% was spent on supporting EU and International REDD+/FLEGT processes and 1% was spent on strategy. The communication and outreach activities were integrated within those statistics. The time allocations reflect the priorities of the Facility, which has been to develop their REDD country portfolio of activities. The allocation of 25% on strategy development in 2013, is consistent with the European Commission expectations for 2013 to guide Facility work planning. The expectations of the EC for 2013 state that The European Union's ambition at the end of the year 2013 is that The Facility has developed and agreed a five year strategy to guide its operations and future development that clearly articulates its vision and describes its niche within the complex and shifting global REDD+ landscape. In 2014, the EC expectations note the development of the Warsaw REDD+ Framework and include expectations on Large scale demo activities for REDD+ that address the drivers of deforestation and limit key risks, which consequently sees a sharp increase for finance spent on supporting REDD+ partner countries. In general, there seems to be good consistency between annual time allocations with the expectations of the EC. The EU REDD Facility does not currently have a Theory of Change or a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. This makes the Value for Money (VfM) challenging to assess, but not impossible if the stated assumptions are in place. The references Value for Money: Current Approaches and Evolving Debates, see Antinoja et al (2011), which is consistent with the UK s Treasury s Green Book Five Case Model on Value for Money, can be used to guide a preliminary assessment. For this evaluation we have set up several indicators to understand and assess the value for money in consultation with the Facility. Under climate change mitigation projects and Facilities, value for money could be measured by the expected cost of reducing emissions (EUR/ha or EUR/tCO2e), however the Facility is not working on pilot projects which measure emission reductions and therefore, value for money is assessed in terms the cost of achieving the best quality and results (which lead to outcomes, show effectiveness and lead to impact) at the lowest INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

49 price. A considerable portion of the annual budget and work plan for the Facility revolves around subcontracted work done through EFI s procurement processes. Therefore, three indicators are used to assess the value for money: 1. Efficient Procurement 2. Efficient Delivery of Outputs, according to contracts 3. Effectiveness in achieving the intended outcomes. Using these indicators, the evaluation team finds good value for money in the Facility s implementation of the pilot projects, which 80% of their resources and time is attributed to. Most procurement for the project pilots went according to plan, or if it did not, there were factors outside the control of the Facility, such as sensitivities within the VPA negotiation process, (Indonesia) a stalled VPA process (DRC), or long Government negotiation processes for project development (Vietnam). Project partners have delivered outputs according to their contract, or when necessary, in adjusted agreement with the Facility desk officer for the pilot project. It is important to note that flexibility is important to the Facility and to project partners, and this is considered when looking at the efficient delivery of outputs. In general, most of the time, the intended outputs were achieved according to the specifications in the contract. One of the reasons for the good value for money of the Facility is due to the EFI procurement process in place, and administrative staff who have been trained in the process, which provides the Facility with sufficient support to efficiently conduct the procurement. Efficient Procurement Process Indicator: No. of contracts procured according to plan Between September 2011 to date, the Facility has overseen the procurement of 67 contracts. Of this, 66 (98.5%) contracts were procured according to plan. The only contract that was not procured according to plan was an open contract for which the budget was exceeded and a new tender issued. In some cases, the plan was adjusted to be flexible with external factors, and therefore the procurement is assessed against its final procurement schedule. Efficient Delivery of Outputs Indicator: No. of Outputs delivered according to schedule. The procurement has resulted in a growing number of outputs, mostly delivered according to schedule. The findings show that: So far, 40 contracts (60%) delivered outputs according to schedule One contract was cancelled in (CAR) and one partially implemented, then cancelled in Republic of Congo both cancelled due to external factors and political reasons Six contracted outputs (9%) were delayed or extended for external reasons, such as delays in national REDD+ processes Nine contracted outputs (12%) were delayed and extended due to internal reasons, such as ensuring quality or taking a decision to increase the profile of an output, such as presenting findings at a COP side event Twelve contracted outputs are currently under implementation or concluding with outputs under final review. These findings demonstrate the EU REDD Facility s flexibility and adaptive qualities. Effectiveness of achieving intended outcomes: Did Outputs meet the ToRs? Going through the pipeline with the Facility, and reviewing available outputs, noting that many are still under implementation or scheduled, so far, all outputs and deliverables procured, have met their ToRs. The Facility explain that their processes ensure this important quality. For example, the respective desk officer/project manager provides technical backstopping on the deliverables. When the outputs do not meet the ToRs, the contracts are extended, though not increased in value, and the contractor works to improve the quality of the outputs to be consistent with the contracted work. In addition, to ensure technical quality can be achieved, the Facility do not use a set technical-financial award ratio when they procure their contracts. Instead, they assess the technical competencies required to complete the task and design the award criteria to match the technical competencies required. Highly technical work would carry INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

50 a high technical weighting, whereas low technical work would be awarded, for example, using a 50:50 technical financial award ratio. In addition to the above, the Facility s country-level project partners also assert that their work could not be done for less money or in less time. The Evaluation Team agrees, and found that the value for money was high, when compared with other projects and studies implemented with similar objectives or methods. This finding can be attributed to the Facility s commitment to finding the right partner to implement the piloting work and the high quality of technical support provided. Conclusion # 8: The EU REDD Facility has continuously improved its efficiency over the past five years with what it has been able to achieve given the resources allocated for its work on technical advice and support to international and EU-level processes, and its ability to manage its portfolio of pilot projects and country-level key interventions. The Facility is able to show good value for money. Conclusion #9: The EU REDD Facility s association with EFI, particularly for procurement, and for administrative support has also supported efficient procurement processes. The Facility has, to date, shared the technical and administrative support from its host, the European Forest Institute, which has a number of staff based in Barcelona working on financial backstopping, and a communications team with four staff. Since the results from the field studies have been limited due to their lack of maturity on the ground, the Facility has not had to use the administrative and technical support of the EFI on the same level as the FLEGT Facility. However, in the near future, the Facility will need to start producing and disseminating its results from pilot activities, consistent with the draft internal communications strategy for the Facility. This will need more resources and support from the communications team, and the FLEGT and REDD Unit may need to consider hiring additional support. Therefore it now falls upon the Facility to make sure the results are disseminated. Communication plans and associated actions and products were not fully considered in the design of projects and were therefore not included in an optimal way in the contracts established for pilots. This is a lost opportunity for communicating impact and raising the visibility of the Facility. As a result, the Facility was not always able to capture and share what it was learning from its pilots with stakeholders, partners that could upscale results to inform the international community. Currently, the Facility shares the same communications support as the FLEGT Facility. A potential bottleneck could arise if there is a need to scale up communications under the Facility, as mentioned above. There is a great deal of work in the EU REDD Facility s 2015 work plan on communication and much of that work will be implemented towards the end of the year. It is expected that the focus on communication in 2015 will enable the Facility to package and share their lessons and work more efficiently and effectively. The Facility are recognizant of their limitations and approaches in communication, for example, the Facility is not set up to be a big communicator, however it can still ensure that it is communicating its knowledge assets efficiently through relatively easy methods. Conclusion #10: The EU REDD Facility receives adequate support for efficient procurement of its contracts and the administration at EFI. There are elements of the Facility, which could be improved in terms of efficiency for communication. The Facility is already making such steps to address this in the later part of their 2015 work plan. 4.4 Impact The evaluation team finds the formulation of the current overall objective presented in the Facility strategy improving land use governance unrealistic for most of the type of work that the Facility engages on. To be more in line with the purpose statement and the actual work programme of the Facility, INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

51 the Facility s overall objective should be rephrased to read something like The overall objective of the EU REDD Facility is to support partner countries in raising awareness/strengthening institutions etc., for improving land use governance, then it could be argued that the Facility has been effective in achieving results that contribute towards this overall objective. The findings of the evaluation team regarding the concrete achievements of the Facility would support this conclusion, which would be also corroborated by the consultations with The Facility s s Steering Committee and the EC, both of which confirm that they found that the Facility has met the expectations on most accounts. Conclusion #11: The evaluation can build a case that the work of the EU REDD Facility is in line with the EU annual expectations and work plans, but the impact of these outputs and outcomes is evaluated against an unrealistic objective improving land use governance The pilot projects implemented by the Facility are limited through their size and short period of implementation, for which they are designed to test approaches that could be used to inform processes working to support institutions, build capacity and raise awareness on improving land use governance. Such pilot projects can be relevant and contribute to an overall objective of improving land use governance, but only if there is a realistic, well-articulated theory of change at the country level i.e. how and by whom the mainstreaming, scale up, or up take of pilot results will take place. There are several ways how the Facility agrees to engage in a partner country. The demand driven approach would see formal letters of request for assistance delivered from, usually a lead ministry or Task Force, to the Facility. This would of course require a good deal of knowledge about the Facility s approaches in the partner country, and because the engagement is still quite young, it s probably unrealistic to expect a large degree of this type of request for assistance, though there are some examples from Ivory Coast and Cameroon. The second way the Facility engages in a partner country is through a process of consensus and annual program planning under a MoU between the Facility and a partner country government. This mode has seen the largest disbursements made in DRC and RoC. For example, in DRC an annual work plan is drafted in consultation with the National Coordination Unit on REDD+ (CN REDD). Finally, the third mode of engagement is where the Facility conducts a scoping exercise to understand the partner and its REDD+ institutional landscape, and then formulates a process of engagement based on the scoping mission findings. An example of this approach is seen in Indonesia, in which the pilot program work has evolved from a strategic selection of implementing partners from in-country missions, rather than responding to national coordination mechanisms (United Nations Office for REDD Coordination, UNORCID or the REDD Agency BP REDD). According to the project partners, even with this third mode the Facility has responded to the needs from stakeholders, and through its in-country missions it further refines the identification of the needs of stakeholders. However, the extent of response to pilot country stakeholders has been limited by the scale of finance that the Facility channels. The Facility applies all three approaches for engagement in different countries, and therefore understanding the extent of the demand for assistance should consider these different approaches, from the consensual approach to planning and top-down scope-and-select approach, noting though, that these approaches are not demand driven approaches from the partner countries. In addition to the three modalities, the Facility spends approximately 18% of their time responding to supporting EU and International REDD and FLEGT processes. There are divergent views on the clarity of roles and responsibilities of the EU REDD Facility for the pilot project engagements in partner countries. In general, the staff of the Facility are clear about their responsibilities, even though their ToRs are quite open to interpretation. Contracts INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

52 define the roles and responsibilities of project partners, and these too are quite clear according to consultations with the project partners. The role and responsibility of the Facility is not always clear in the partner countries, even though attempts have been made to clarify by the Facility. Across all field visit examples, there were examples of confusion among a number of stakeholders on the role of the Facility. Some confusion existed over whether the Facility was a donor, research institute, programme or a technical advisory service. At the operational level, within the Facility, while there is no confusion over responsibilities, however there are multiple roles for which the Facility performs, and these are not elaborated in the Facility strategy Conclusion #12: As discussed already in the context of relevance, the EU REDD Facility is not set up, or qualified to engage at the country level in a way that would allow it to have a meaningful impact on improving land-use governance, though they do contribute to awareness raising, institutional strengthening, capacity building and knowledge on improving land use governance. These are important contributions, as they focus on some of the building blocks for improving land use governance. As mentioned under relevance, and referred to under effectiveness, the Facility, comprising of 6-7 staff, currently provides ad hoc technical support to the European Commission as well as EU Delegations; they have an advisory and advocacy role under international initiatives such as the FCPF and UNREDD; and they have pilot projects and planned interventions to manage, spread over a portfolio of eight countries, which are expected to provide lessons learned and feedback into the advisory and technical support roles. This type of set-up reduces the Facility s impact because of its broad focus, spread thinly between many beneficiaries, and a confusion of identity for many stakeholders. Undertaking a role and identity of a technical support unit, or a Facility, or a pilot project manager, all require very different skill sets, especially when working with an objective to improve land-use governance. For example, the Facility does not currently have a legal expert in the team, which should be a requirement for any technical or policy support designed on improving land-use governance, whether it be at international or country level. The project partner in Indonesia does have a lawyer in the team, and the results of the pilot project work are very well understood, but the lessons and impact from the project pilot utilising one of the best environmental lawyers in Indonesia, is reduced because the communication and dissemination of results is not implemented effectively by the Facility. There are externalities which affect and even work against the impact of the Facility. The absence of a common EU policy framework for REDD+ and/or deforestation action plan has led to the nearest policy framework, the EU FLEGT Action Plan, providing and steering the focus for the Facility. There is anecdotal evidence that the absence of a common EU deforestation action plan has also had an impact on the EU Facility s ability to attract the finance from donors on a scale that could make a meaningful impact. By substituting this absence and leaning on the nearest, next best policy, the REDD FLEGT linkage, has created questions by some MS on what is the value added? How is the Facility contributing to the formulation of an EU level deforestation policy? The Facility s impact from the pilot projects will be hard to define and it will be limited given the scale of finance allocated for very short-term pilot project interventions. These types of microlevel interventions are usually not designed to have any on-the-ground impacts, but to rather inform national level policy processes. In addition, this type of engagement requires a distinct type of project management, which suffers from an approach using in-country missions and back-to-office reports, rather than having a permanent base in the partner country to follow latest policy developments and raise awareness of results from piloting work with policy formulators. In addition, the annual planning approach of the Facility is not conducive for partner countries to take up actions in the long run, because national planning agencies usually need to be engaged (which they are not in this case) on a level that makes future actions of the Facility predictable, and scale up ensured. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

53 The case of the Facility s engagement in Ivory Coast has seen some national influence on bringing zero deforestation supply chains, highly relevant to the cocoa industry, into national debates, and provided support through well informed national decision making processes, at the highest political level, which encouraged Ivory Coast to sign the NY Declaration on Forests in The Facility s advisory work and high visibility technical reports geared towards the EU and international processes is where the Facility is having an important impact and influence on raising awareness of the FLEGT REDD Linkages and influencing knowledge and opinions on REDD, such as the FIELD Guide for REDD+ negotiators in These efforts are difficult to link to the overall objective of the Facility, however they are consistent with the annual expectations of the EC. Conclusion #13: The EU REDD Facility has only recently commenced implementing its project portfolio (in 2013), and therefore, results are either limited and have an effect (not impact) on a very small group of stakeholders, or are premature to assess properly, especially if national policy processes are expected to be influenced. As mentioned previously, much of the impact of lessons learned for project country stakeholders and stakeholders in the EU working on REDD+, have been reduced by the Facility s lack of visibility and its informal communication policy. Conclusion # 14: There are some very important examples of technical reports, studies and documents commissioned by the EU REDD Facility, which have had an impact on influencing international and EU processes. In addition, there is a specific partner country example where the Facility engagement has been able to influence national processes. 4.5 Sustainability Sustainability of results, even small ones, requires a realistic strategy from the outset. The EU REDD Facility, for its country pilot projects, has taken an opportunistic approach and this has implications for the sustainability of results, especially given that there is no country-level engagement strategy as discussed before. Pilot projects are designed on a scale, which tests proof of concept, and becomes successful when the results are scaled up or taken up by national stakeholders. The approach relies on successful leveraging, scale up and uptake of results to sustain the effectiveness and impact of interventions. The sustainability of the thematic work, such as studies, is difficult to assess because it depends on a range of external factors, and it is not always clear who takes up actions based on a study, or further pursues work in reaction to a study. The type of pilot projects being implemented under the Facility, for the most part; require the supervision and long-term commitment of donors and national stakeholders, especially when working towards improving land-use governance in a time when many countries face a high degree of pressure on land allocation for agricultural commodities. The private sector is usually keen to take up results based on proof of concept, if they can benefit. This idea is being tested in Côte d Ivoire, but it is still too early to assess to what extent, and if, the results of that pilot project intervention will be sustained. Results from the pilot projects could be sustained if the resources and strategy were put in place to scale up and/or encourage the uptake of the results, especially in Indonesia with its multiple REDD+ donors and its on-going political and institutional reform. The case study found that large donors, while aware of the EU REDD Facility, were not aware of the results from the Facility s projects. The REDD+ coordination body mentioned that it could assist in finding leverage for the pilot projects in West Papua, but because the Facility had not engaged with them for active coordination, this opportunity is still yet to be realised. Although Indonesia seems to offer a conducive and receptive environment for leveraging and scale up of results, the Facility has not engaged with this in mind, rather putting the potential scale up in the hands of its project partners and government. The partners have their contractual INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

54 engagement with the Facility, and once the contract expires, their work for the Facility also expires; this is not a set up that will yield sustained results. There is no formal agreement with the Indonesian Government, such as the Ministry of Environment and Forestry, on the EU Facility s engagement and it is not clear if the Indonesian Government is willing to take up the results without further financial support and engagement. Putting the onus on the Government to uptake results could be a positive step, but the pilot projects have not been designed with this in mind, for example, the Facility does not have a Government programme dedicated to learning and understanding the results of its studies in Indonesia, and there is no plan, with the Government to ensure uptake of results. Therefore the results from pilots and studies in Indonesia, even if very positive, will not be sustained without further deliberation with project partners and the Government. DRC is a challenging place for sustaining results and the landscape is not necessarily conducive for scale up. A strategy to sustain results from the pilot projects in DRC is therefore needed. With respect to future financing of the Facility, different Member State have different interests in the Facility. For example, one donor is attracted to the Facility because of its geographical focus in Africa, another donor is attracted as the priorities and focus of the Facility are aligned with national interests. There are diverse interests on REDD+ between Member States, and there are diverse opinions on how the Facility adds value in light of the FLEGT Facility, and its focus on the REDD FLEGT Intersect. One potential donor interviewed was not convinced of the purpose of examining the REDD FLEGT intersect. The findings show that the EU does not have much in common on its view of how REDD+ should be addressed at the EU level. A number of member states are reducing financial contributions for climate change and official development assistance. EU s key climate change donors (Germany, France and the United Kingdom) are already participating and providing finance to the Facility, but their contributions are much less than, for example FCPF or UNREDD. At the policy level, there are many divergent views between member states on what the EU should do for REDD/ forests/ NAMAs for forestry / ODA for forests / etc. The fact that not all member states signed onto the New York Declaration on Forests (which is a declaration, not a Treaty), further supports the view that member states have different viewpoints on how to tackle deforestation, particularly for climate change mitigation. Any conclusion on how the Facility could increase financing, while maintaining its focus on the REDD FLEGT intersect would be speculative. Conclusion # 15: Sustainability of pilots requires leveraging, scale up and visibility and a strong degree of coordination with future adopters. It is recommended that this aspect of engagement should be revisited, and the need to permanent in-country personnel should be reconsidered. To sustain results on the level of engagement, a strategy on leveraging and uptake needs to be in place from the outset of the project, and should not be assumed. 4.6 Complementarity and Coherence The overall objective of the EU REDD Facility, as defined in its strategy is to support partner countries in improving land use governance, as part of their effort to slow, halt and reverse deforestation and the overall EU effort to reduce its impact on deforestation in developing countries. The Facility objectives are coherent with the EU s climate change policy, and its commitment to slow, halt and reverse deforestation by The objective is also consistent with the New York Declaration on Forests (2014), to which the EU (but not all member states) is a signatory. The Facility s strategic pillars are certainly complementary to the EU s FLEGT Action Plan, and will benefit from the effective implementation of the EU Timber Regulation, which requires stronger governance of forests from the exporting countries to the EU (in addition to importers within the EU). INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

55 The Facility, and its overall objective, is particularly coherent with the EU Forest Strategy 2013, which does make multiple references to deforestation. Its strategic orientations oblige the Commission and Member States to: ensure consistency between EU and Member State policies and commitments on forest- related issues at international level promote sustainable forest management across Europe and globally ensure continued support for global efforts to fight illegal logging through the FLEGT Action Plan support developing countries in their efforts to improve forest policies and regulations, strengthen forest governance, value and monitor forest ecosystems, and address the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation through REDD. Conclusion #16: The EU REDD Facility compliments all four strategic orientations of the EU Forest Strategy, for reasons explained in the report. 4.7 EU Value Added The EU REDD Facility is flexible, adaptive and responsive and these features are what gives the Facility a comparative advantage over other REDD+ Readiness programmes such as UNREDD and FCPF. The Facility is not as confined as the FCPF, for example, to the safeguard processes of the World Bank. The World Bank is a Bretton Woods institution, and that limits its flexibility and affects how projects and programmes, such as the FCPF are planned, managed and implemented. The UNREDD has a very different mandate and its limitations usually require it to foremost, respect sovereignty, and steer clear of very sensitive issues, such as VPA negotiations and land governance. The UN agencies (UNEP, UNDP and FAO) are neutral in character, while having long experience in strengthening capacities in developing countries. FAO has a long history of experience with national forest sector programmes and their technicalities; UNEP, being the leading UN organization on environment, uses its role to place REDD+ efforts in the broader economic and social context of sustainable development; and UNDP has its comparative advantage in building capacities, and stakeholder relations, while touching on governance issues. The Facility, on the other hand, is able to attempt to work and create dialogue on these sensitive issues, which are ingrained into its overall objective in supporting partner countries in improving land use governance. This comparative advantage of the Facility is quite special and unique. The Facility states that it does approach some sensitive issues, and this actually affects its ability to publish freely. The Facility is one of the few organisations that can work on sensitive topics often associated with land governance and legality issues, and this gives it a very interesting and important comparative advantage. What is perhaps somewhat contradictory in a sense, is that Steering Committee members all state and recognize the advantages of having the Facility, but when looking at the financial commitments to the Facility, compared with those of the FCPF and UNREDD, a very different picture evolves. The Facility has not attracted anywhere near the financial pledges that most of the same donors place before FCPF and UNREDD. This may, at least partly, be due to the fact that while several EU Member State representatives have indicated that the Facility has contributed to increase their awareness and understanding of the FLEGT-REDD linkages, very little contributions have so far materialized that would have had any impact on their REDD related programs and projects with partner countries. This, in turn, may be explained by the lack of maturity of many of the Facility projects, but may also indicate a problems with effective communications and lack of presence, especially at the country level. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

56 Table 4.6 Donors Comparison of European Finance to REDD+ Readiness Facilities and Programmes EU REDD Facility (EUR) FCPF ( Million USD) UNREDD (USD) European Commission United Kingdom n.a. France n.a. Germany n.a. Ireland n.a. n.a. Spain In-kind Denmark n.a Finland n.a. 20 n.a. Italy n.a. 5 n.a. Netherlands n.a n.a. FCPF Source: Climatefundsupdate.org Revised in October UNREDD source: Multi-partner trust fund office of the United Nations. The value of the comparative advantage of the Facility, compared with UNREDD and FCPF, is not reflected in the financial allocations of donors towards the Facility, see Table 4.5. In addition to the above, there is the obvious comparative advantage that the Facility provides, it is a common European Union instrument, which is designed and expected to inform EU level processes and interests. This later point of a common EU instrument carries more value in practice than what can be made publically known and available. During the field visits for the evaluation, the evaluation team found two very distinct and separate examples of how the Facility adds value to the work of the FLEGT Facility, discussed in the boxes below. Box 4.3 Adding Value to a Mature FLEGT Process: The Case of Indonesia The EU REDD Facility s work in Indonesia has significantly contributed to adding value to the work of the EU FLEGT Facility. The pilot project in West Papua is specifically building local government institutional capacity and awareness on the timber legality assurance system (SVLK) set up under FLEGT VPA in Indonesia. Their work adds value to the work of the FLEGT Facility by strengthening and investigating new opportunities for participatory land use planning and community forestry. These new opportunities consist of new supply chain controls such as the SVLK, as well as the recent constitutional court rulings on the gazettement of the forest estate and the return of customary forest in the forest estate to adapt communities (ruled by traditional customs, as is the norm in both Papua and West Papua). The principles, criteria, indicators and verification system of SVLK are expected to be implemented nationwide and recognized internationally as part of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement between EU and Indonesia. Currently implementing SVLK in West Papua will face many challenges such as customary land ownership, the small scale of timber production, INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

57 remoteness and low population densities. The implementation of SVLK requires support from locally targeted regulations otherwise SVLK may risk marginalizing local indigenous communities. At the same time, the new ruling by the Constitutional Court, which implies that indigenous lands are considered as non-state forests, has significant implications for the timber industry in West Papua. Understanding how the constitutional court ruling affects the legality of timber in West Papua is crucial and adds an important layer of understanding, which has not been addressed under the FLEGT Facility. Box 4.4 Adding Value to a FLEGT VPA process which still requires considerable negotiation: The case of DRC The EU REDD Facility s work does add value to the EU s work on deforestation, including debates on the future of FLEGT in DRC, even though the FLEGT VPA negotiations have stalled since October It can be argued that the Facility is the only organisation, through its work on exploring the FLEGT REDD intersect in DRC, which is keeping the hope of a FLEGT VPA agreement alive and on the thoughts of donors, CSOs, project partners and potentially logging operators, when in most cases the opportunity to recommence negotiations on a VPA might have been lost at this point, given the lack of Government interest. The value that the Facility adds is in its ability to address FLEGT issues from the REDD perspective in DRC, and this is its niche and work programme. The EU REDD Facility has a demonstrated comparative advantage and EU value added in view of other REDD+ initiatives, and with particular reference to UNREDD and FCPF. The comparative advantage of the Facility is in its flexible approach, adaptive management and responsiveness to stakeholders in partner countries and at EU and international levels. In addition, the Facility has examples on how it unexpectedly adds value to the work of the EU FLEGT Facility, whether it be to support and maintain momentum on a stalled FLEGT VPA process, or to build on an outcome from the FLEGT VPA, as in the case of Indonesia. Conclusion #17: The EU REDD Facility has been able to demonstrate EU Value Added on a number of fronts, including building on EU FLEGT VPA outcomes, and sustaining discussion on FLEGT, even when the VPA negotiations stall. This is, however, not reflected in the financing provided by the EU Member States. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,

58 5. FUTURE OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Overall Conclusion The main findings and conclusions presented in this report inform the options presented below. It has been demonstrated that the EU REDD Facility has multiple roles, and has very broad work program areas, spread over four continents, working at local levels, national levels, the European Level and the International level. Such modes of operation would require several theories of change and considerably higher level of financial resources, and therefore a more focused work program is needed to be able to achieve impact and sustain results. The current status quo of operation of the Facility is not possible to maintain due to its multiple foci, thin resources spread over many countries and themes. The evaluation team believes that the Facility will benefit from implementing a work programme along a more focused approach, and to maintain capacity to support expansion after Consideration of Future Options and Recommendations This section presents options for the Facility to consider as it concludes the first phase of its strategy , and presents future thematic and operational options and recommendations for the work of the current Facility. These options and recommendations are based on the findings to date, and may need to be adjusted following the publication of results from the evaluation of the EU FLEGT Action Plan, and the outcome from COP21. This section divides options and recommendations for further consideration into two time bound sections, as illustrated in the figure below: 1. Recommendations relevant to the current EU REDD Facility strategy and work plan during Options are relevant to the future EU REDD Facility institutional and thematic focus onwards. Figure 5.1 Time-bound approach for Applying Recommendations and Options for the REDD Facility Resulting from the Evaluation EU REDD Facility tests different approaches and learns lessons Recommendations for follow up in the short term onwards Options for the future of the EU REDD Facility 5.3 Recommendations for the EU REDD Facility Recommendation #1: Focus on fewer and more clearly defined thematic issues, capitalizing on what has been learned with respect to the work on the REDD FLEGT interface. Currently the Facility is spread thin across many themes from benefit sharing, to land tenure, to zero deforestation commodity chains. All themes, partners and associated activities are linked with the Facility s strategy, but they do not take into account the limited resourcing of the Facility. Focusing on fewer thematic issues will strengthen the perceived niche and support the evolution of a common theory of change. It will also allow the Facility to serve and influence a larger number of institutions and/or partners at international, national and local levels. INDUFOR: 7600 EVALUATION OF THE EU REDD FACILITY (ID 81233) January 22,