Guidelines for a selection framework and process for phase 2 redd by Green Growth Program

Guidelines for a Selection Framework and Process for Phase 2 of REDD+ in Indonesia

December 2013 Produced by GGGI in collaboration with the REDD+ Special Team as part of the GoI-GGGI Green Growth Program

Table of Contents Executive summary ................................................................................................................................................................. 3 1.

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1

Background to REDD+ Phase 2 finance...................................................................................................................... 4

1.2

Objectives and structure of the guidelines............................................................................................................ 5

1.3

Approach to developing the Selection Framework and Process ........................................................................... 5

Selection Framework ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1

Principles ............................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2

Criteria ................................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.3

Indicators............................................................................................................................................................. 11

Applying the Selection Framework to Selection Process .............................................................................................. 13 3.1

Assessing projects at different stages of the Selection Process .......................................................................... 14

3.2

Prioritizing projects using a scoring and ranking system..................................................................................... 17

3.3.

Assessing different types of projects by adapting the Selection Framework...................................................... 19

Next steps ..................................................................................................................................................................... 21

Annex .................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Annex 1: Full Selection Framework with principles, criteria and indicators ..................................................................... 22 Annex 2: Amended Selection Framework for PCN stage with principles, criteria and indicators .................................... 37 Annex 3: Funds criteria used in research .......................................................................................................................... 43

Executive summary An important element in the development of REDD+ in Indonesia is the selection of programs and projects to be funded during Phase 2. The criteria and process used to select projects will determine the type of projects the REDD+ Agency supports, along with their effectiveness in reducing emissions and in achieving the wider goals of the REDD+ National Strategy. This document presents a methodology to select programs and projects to be funded in Phase 2 of REDD+ in Indonesia. This Selection Framework includes principles, criteria and indicators, along with a project Selection Process that could allow the REDD+ Agency to assess and prioritize the national and sub-national programs and/or projects to be funded during Phase 2 of REDD+ in Indonesia. Six principles have been determined within the Selection Framework to ensure that projects chosen for funding in Phase 2 deliver the necessary outputs and, ultimately, outcomes of REDD+ in Indonesia:      

Principle 1: Project priority: The project is of critical importance to achieving the effective implementation of REDD+ at the local, provincial or national level. Principle 2: Capacity of the project proponent: The project proponent has the capacity to effectively implement and deliver the stated activities for the duration of the project. Principle 3: Project design: The project has been designed to ensure the effective and cost-efficient implementation of project activities for the duration of the project. Principle 4: Project impact: The project should effectively address key sources of GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, whilst at the same time generating wider green growth benefits. Principle 5: Political alignment and support: The project should be aligned with and support the goals of the national and sub-national REDD+ policies, while ensuring alignment with other related government policies and programs. Principle 6: Project sustainability: The project should be designed to ensure that the project and its outcomes can be sustained once REDD+ funding is no longer available.

Application of the principles, and their underlying criteria and indicators, will allow the REDD+ Agency to ensure that the activities selected for support during Phase 2 are well-designed and politically-aligned, to maximize their impact. This document also presents a simple Selection Process, which should be applied with the Selection Framework to identify, assess and select projects that will effectively deliver REDD+ goals and wider green growth benefits. These guidelines also provide advice on how the broad Selection Framework presented in this document can be modified for use at the different stages of the Selection Process. Further guidance is provided on how the Selection Framework can be used to prioritize projects using a scoring and ranking system, and to assess the different types of REDD+ projects. These guidelines, including the Selection Framework and Selection Process, have been developed by GGGI in collaboration with the REDD+ Special Team, as part of the Government of Indonesia (GoI) - GGGI Green Growth Program. This document, along with the REDD+ Database (and Synthesis Report), which compiles information on all REDD+ projects in Indonesia, is an output of Component 2 of the GoI-GGGI Green Growth Program, which aims to ensure that REDD+ policies, programs and finance catalyze green growth in Indonesia.

1. Introduction 1.1 Background to REDD+ Phase 2 finance There are a wide range of activities that need to be implemented at multiple levels across Indonesia in order to meet the goals of the REDD+ National Strategy. However, whilst the Government of Indonesia (GoI) aims to channel multiple billions of US dollars to REDD+ activities before 2020, the primary focus is on prioritizing the activities that will be supported during Phase 2 of REDD+ in Indonesia1. These activities will be funded by the next tranche of the US$ 1 billion commitment by the Government of Norway under the Letter of Intent (LoI), which is expected to be US$ 160 million. It is expected that these funds will support a balanced portfolio of REDD+ programs and projects, and will include activities that (1) establish the national and sub-national legal and institutional conditions for REDD+ implementation in Indonesia, (2) build the capacity of and engage with key stakeholders to implement REDD+ activities, and (3) directly contribute to reducing emissions in Indonesia along with the other three goals of the REDD+ National Strategy (increase forest carbon stocks, conserve biodiversity and promote economic growth). The GoI, through the REDD+ Task Force Working Group on Financing Instruments (WGFI), has been carrying out work to establish a funding instrument, the Fund for REDD+ in Indonesia (FREDDI), which will disburse REDD+ finance during Phase 2 and beyond2. The WGFI, which is now part of the REDD+ Special Team, has defined four funding windows within FREDDI that will disburse grant finance during this initial 2-year period. The funding windows are; (1) National programs, (2) Sub-national programs, (3) Competitive calls and (4) Small grants facility. These funding windows provide a structure for supporting the wide range of REDD+ activities that are required, while also providing opportunities to engage all the key actors; namely, government agencies, non-governmental organizations and the private sector, both at the national and subnational level. The projects funded in Phase 2 must be based on or move towards the ‘payment for performance’ (P4P) approach, where performance can be measured on either a ‘milestone’ or GHG emission reduction basis. This is relevant for both the Phase 2 activities themselves, which are to adopt a results-based payment structure, where possible, and in order to achieve the national P4P system envisioned to be established by early 2016 in Phase 3 of REDD+ in Indonesia. In addition, it is important that Phase 2 funding is used to support the development of both the national and sub-national jurisdictional approach in Indonesia. Given the limited amount of funding available during Phase 2, it is important that the selected projects can create the necessary enabling conditions for REDD+ nationally and in the provinces, and begin to directly address significant sources of GHG emissions. It is also crucial that these projects are feasible and can be successfully implemented within the 2-year period. These considerations need to be central to the Selection Framework used to identify projects during Phase 2 of REDD+.

Phase 2 of REDD+ in Indonesia will start in late 2013/early 2014 and is expected to conclude in early 2016. FREDDI is expected to become fully operational at some point in 2014. Ahead of this, Phase 2 REDD+ finance will be disbursed through an interim financing mechanism, which is expected to be similar to the existing arrangements established in Phase 1. When this document refers to Phase 2 REDD+ finance, it covers funds disbursed through both the interim funding mechanism and FREDDI. 2

1.2 Objectives and structure of the guidelines The objective of these guidelines is to outline a methodology that can be used by the REDD+ Agency to assess and prioritize projects to be supported during Phase 2 of REDD+ in Indonesia. The following sections of this report include the following: Chapter 2: A general Selection Framework, consisting of principles, criteria and indicators, that can be used to assess the feasibility and impact of potential REDD+ projects. Chapter 3: A simple Selection Process for identifying and assessing projects along with recommendations for how the Selection Framework is applied to: a. b. c.

Assess projects at the different stages of the Selection Process; Prioritize projects using a scoring and ranking system, and; Assess the different types of REDD+ projects by adapting the Selection Framework.

These guidelines provide initial recommendations for a Selection Framework and Selection Process that could be used by the REDD+ Agency. This is the first step in the process of developing a Selection Mechanism and further work and broader engagement is needed once the objectives and goals of Phase 2 funding have been finalized. Based on further guidance and feedback, the recommendations in this document will need to be adapted to produce a more specific set of guidelines that can be utilized by the REDD+ Agency in Phase 2.

1.3 Approach to developing the Selection Framework and Process The first step to develop these guidelines was to carry out an assessment of global best practice in selection criteria used in similar funds, such as the Amazon Fund in Brazil and the Forest Investment Program (FIP)3. Once the investment and selection criteria from these funds had been compared, the results were modified to fit with the Indonesian context and the REDD+ National Strategy. This has produced a comprehensive Selection Framework, as described in Section 2, which could be used to assess projects for Phase 2 of REDD+ in Indonesia. The Selection Process outlined in this document builds on the REDD+ Special Team’s draft ‘project cycle’ developed in preparation for the interim financing mechanism. Section 3 starts with an overview of the key steps of this Selection Process and then advice is provided on how the Selection Framework needs to be modified for each phase of the Selection Process, when prioritizing projects using a ranking system and to assess different types of REDD+ projects. The development of this Selection Framework have been closely coordinated with the production of a REDD+ Database4. This database includes existing projects and planned activities in the 11 REDD+ provinces in Indonesia and the information has been presented using a similar structure to the Selection Framework to ease its application.

A list of the funds reviewed is provided in Annex 5. GGGI, in collaboration with the REDD+ Special Team, has produced a REDD+ Database and related Synthesis Report. This database includes information on all of the existing REDD+ projects and activities planned in the SRAPs and RAD-GRK of the 11 REDD+ provinces. Data is provided on the capacity of project proponents, the project’s level of political support etc. and can be used to identify projects for funding during Phase 2 of REDD+ in Indonesia. 3

2. Selection Framework The Selection Framework proposed in this section has been designed to assess and prioritize projects to be funded during Phase 2 of REDD+ in Indonesia. As stated in the introduction, there are a wide range of activities that need to be implemented in order to achieve the multiple goals of REDD+ in Indonesia. However, as there are limited funds available, it is critical that the projects selected for funding can effectively and efficiently deliver the desired outcomes. This requires a Selection Framework that assesses the fundamental characteristics of the projects being proposed and ensures that they have all of the necessary elements to be successful. The proposed Selection Framework includes a 3-tier structure of principles, criteria and indicators, which can be used to assess REDD+ projects. It has been designed with sufficient flexibility to be applied to all of the project types defined within the five strategic pillars of the REDD+ National Strategy. However, as is described in Section 3 of this document, the Selection Framework may need to be modified when assessing different project types. For example, the indicators for on-the-ground activities that directly reduce emissions will need to be different to those used to assess readiness activities that build the capacity of key stakeholders. As is outlined in Figure 1, six principles have been determined within the Selection Framework to ensure that projects chosen for funding in Phase 2 deliver the necessary outputs and, ultimately, outcomes of REDD+ in Indonesia. Application of the principles, and their underlying criteria and indicators, will allow the REDD+ Agency to ensure that Phase 2 projects are well-designed and politically-aligned, to maximize their impact. In addition, the Selection Framework considers the capacity of the project proponents and explores the longterm sustainability of the activities. Finally, the intended impacts of the project are considered through a green growth lens to ensure that each intervention contributes to multiple goals of the REDD+ National Strategy and sustainable development more broadly in Indonesia. Figure 1 also highlights how a range of projects from the five strategic pillars of the REDD+ National Strategy will need to be funded during Phase 2 of REDD+ in Indonesia. The REDD+ Database in Indonesia, which was prepared by GGGI in collaboration with the REDD+ Special Team, presents a range of activities from each of the five strategic pillars and is a useful starting point to understand which projects have the potential to be scaled up in Phase 2.

OBJECTIVE OUTCOME (REDD+ goals) OUTPUT (Indicators)

REDD+ supports Green Growth in Indonesia 1. Emission reduction

2. Increased carbon stocks

3. Conservation & biodiversity

4. Economic growth

(only G shown here) Pipeline projects

Refer to the REDD+ Database

REDD+ pillars

Selected I

L ...

Selection Framework principles (with underlying criteria and indicators)

Selection Framework

Potential projects

1. Priority

2. Capacity

3. Design

4. Impact

5. Alignment

6. Sustainability

B 1

E 2

H 3

Selected projects must deliver outputs across the 4 goals of the REDD+ National Strategy

L ... 5

Not selected

Potential projects assessed according to the Selection Framework

Projects identified from all 5 pillars in the REDD+ National Strategy

Figure 1: The Selection Frameworkâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s role in developing the Phase 2 pipeline 7

2.1 Principles The principles of the Selection Framework describe the essential elements that projects need to exhibit in order to deliver REDD+ goals in an effective, efficient and equitable manner. The suggested principles for Phase 2 funding and their justification are provided in Table 1. Table 1: Principles and their justification Principles

Justification

Selection principle 1: Project priority

The project should be aligned with the strategic priorities of Phase 2 funding and REDD+ in Indonesia, as decided by the REDD+ Agency.

The project is of critical importance to achieving the effective implementation of REDD+ at the local, provincial or national level. Selection principle 2: Capacity of the project proponent The project proponent has the capacity to effectively implement and deliver the stated activities for the duration of the project. Selection principle 3: Project design The project has been designed to ensure the effective and cost-efficient implementation of project activities for the duration of the project. Selection principle 4: Project impact The project should effectively address key sources of GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, whilst at the same time generating wider green growth benefits. Selection principle 5: Political alignment and support The project should be aligned with and support the goals of the national and sub-national REDD+ policies, while ensuring alignment with other related government policies and programs. Selection principle 6: Project sustainability The project should be designed to ensure that the project and its outcomes can be sustained once REDD+ funding is no longer available.

It is important that the project proponent and stakeholders involved in the project are technically capable, suitably experienced and have the necessary human resources to effectively implement the activities so that the project achieves the desired impacts. Projects should be designed and managed to a level which ensures they have the desired impacts, but also to ensure impacts are delivered in a timely and cost effective manner.

The long-term success of REDD+ in Indonesia should lead to the reduction of GHG emissions and the delivery of social, economic and broader environmental benefits. In addition, projects need to be transformative and build resilience to future shocks. Projects should be aligned with current policies and laws, as without government support, they risk failure or diminished impacts.

There is a limited amount of Phase 2 funding and it will only be available until 2020, at which time projects will either need to be self-sufficient, or the outcomes will need to be sustained.

2.2 Criteria Each of the six principles defined in the Selection Framework are supported by several criteria. The criteria define the essential factors of each principle that a successful project should exhibit. Project proposals must be assessed against the criteria and provide a way of identifying if the principle has been met. The criteria are a critical part of the Selection Framework and provide not only a basis on which to assess projects for Phase 2 funding, but also a means for project proponents to understand the key building blocks of a successful project. These criteria have been purposefully kept broad so that they can be adapted and used to develop specific criteria for different project types from across the five strategic pillars of the REDD+ National Strategy. Each criteria relates to a key factor which may be described by one or more qualitative, quantitative or descriptive indicators. The full list of principles and criteria is provided in Table 2. Table 2: Principles and the related criteria of the Selection Framework Principle

Criteria

Selection principle 1: Project priority

Priority location: The project location is a priority for achieving REDD+ goals in Indonesia.

Political priority: The project is a political priority for the Government of Indonesia and the REDD+ Agency.

Selection principle 2: Capacity of the project proponent

The project proponent has the capacity to effectively implement and deliver the stated activities for the duration of the project.

Technical capacity: Project team of the project proponent has adequate technical capabilities to carry out the proposed project activities.

Financial capacity: The project proponent has the capacity and necessary financial structures to absorb the funds for the project, as well as meet fiduciary standards.

Management capacity: The project proponent has the management capacity to effectively implement the proposed project activities.

Project experience: The project proponent has experience of implementing similar projects.

Location experience: The project proponent has experience of working in the designated project location.

Government capacity: Government counterparts who are not part of the project proponent team have the technical and administrative capacity to effectively support and implement project activities, as is necessary.

Accreditation: The partner/executing agency is accredited.5

The project is of critical importance to achieving the effective implementation of REDD+ at the local, sub-national or national level.

Selection principle 3: Project design

10. Deforestation issues: The project should have identified the deforestation issue to be addressed.

Partner/executing agencies are expected to be those organizations which implement projects and each will have to go through an accreditation process before being eligible to apply for phase 2 funding. 5

Principle

Criteria

The project has been designed to ensure the effective and cost efficient implementation of project activities for the duration of the project.

11. Project outcomes: The project has clearly defined outcomes and outputs, which respond to the issues addressed. 12. Project activities: The project has specified appropriate and necessary activities to achieve the stated outcomes and outputs of the project. 13. Stakeholders: Project stakeholders have been identified and engaged, and given consent to the design and implementation of the project. 14. Safeguards: The project will meet the necessary PRISAI safeguards and any additional safeguards, as required by the project proponents. 15. Budgeting: The budget for the project is adequate to allow for all project activities to be effectively implemented within the specified time limit, and demonstrates value for money. 16. Governance structure: The project team has a governance structure that allows for adequate management oversight of project activities. 17. Risk assessment: Project risks have been identified and measures have been put in place to mitigate those risks. 18. Timelines: The project has a realistic timeline that allows for the completion of the specified project activities and intended outcomes. 19. M&E framework: The project has in place monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework that allows for accurate assessment of the project outputs and outcomes. 20. Carbon methodology: The project should be designed to meet the requirements of a recognized carbon methodology. 21. Benefit sharing: Benefits, monetary and non-monetary, which accrue as a result of the project, are shared equally between all affected and relevant stakeholders. 22. Jurisdictional approach: The project can become part of or contribute to the development of a jurisdictional approach, either nationally or sub-nationally. 23. Coordination: The project is coordinated and aligned with other ongoing activities in the region.

Selection principle 4: Project impact The project should effectively address key sources of GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, whilst at the same time generating wider green growth benefits.

24. GHG emissions: The project directly or indirectly contributes to achieving the strategic goal of the REDD+ National Strategy of reducing GHG emissions from deforestation and degradation. 25. Carbon stocks: The project directly or indirectly contributes to achieving the strategic goal of the REDD+ National Strategy of enhancing carbon stocks. 26. Biodiversity conservation: The project directly or indirectly contributes to achieving the strategic goal of the REDD+ National Strategy of conserving biodiversity.

Principle

Criteria 27. Economic growth: The project directly or indirectly contributes to achieving the strategic goal of the REDD+ National Strategy of creating economic growth. 28. Inclusiveness and equity: The project directly or indirectly results in improvements in inclusiveness and equity either, locally, sub-nationally or nationally. 29. Resilience: The project directly or indirectly contributes to building local or regional resilience to economic, environmental or political shocks. 30. Transformational: The project impact result in systemic change and is transformational.

Selection principle 5: Political alignment and support

31. REDD+ National Strategy pillars: The project is aligned with the pillars outlined in the REDD+ National Strategy.

The project should be aligned with and support the goals of the national and sub-national REDD+ policies, while ensuring alignment with other related government policies and programs.

32. RAN-GRK: The project is aligned with and contributes to achieving the goals of the RAN-GRK. 33. SRAP/RAD-GRK: The project is aligned with and contributes to achieving the goals of the SRAP and/or the RAD-GRK, if taking place at the sub-national level. 34. Legal compliance: The project is in compliance with other relevant national and sub-national policies and laws. 35. Government support: The project has the support of the local/sub-national/national government. 36. Supports other initiatives: The project supports other local/subnational/national government initiatives and priorities taking place in the region.

Selection principle 6: Project sustainability The project should be designed to ensure that the project, and its outcomes, can be sustained once REDD+ funding is no longer available.

37. Long-term financing: The project is able to access co-financing from other sources or has a long-term source of funds beyond Phase 2 finance. 38. Long-term capacity: The capacity of a local, long term team is developed. 39. Knowledge sharing: Processes in place to ensure that knowledge generated as a result of the project will be distributed.

2.3 Indicators A set of generic indicators have been developed for each criteria. These indicators provide guidance on the attributes that the project proposals should be evaluated against in order to determine whether the defined criteria are met. The Selection Framework includes both quantitative and qualitative indicators, depending on the underlying criteria that is being considered. In some cases, the indicators are simple yes/no questions, which may be fundamental to the success of the project. Whereas for other indicators, a relative scale will need to be developed to consider the extent to which the project meets the criteria.

The indicators have been kept broad and non-specific at this stage. However, once the goals and objectives of Phase 2 funding have been finalized, further work is needed to develop a specific set of indicators for each of the different funding windows when they are established. The full Selection Framework, including principles, criteria and corresponding indicators, is provided in Annex 1.

3. Applying the Selection Framework to Selection Process A Selection Process is necessary to allow the REDD+ Agency6 to identify suitable projects for funding in Phase 2 in an objective manner. The Selection Process should be applied with the Selection Framework to identify, assess and select projects that have the best chance of effectively delivering REDD+ goals and wider green growth benefits.

1. Project identification and scoping

2. Project concept note development and submission

3. Project concept note assessment

4. Project proposal development and submission

5. Project proposal assessment

Figure 2: Overview of the Selection Process7 The Selection Process described in Figure 2 builds on the REDD+ Special Team’s draft ‘project cycle’ developed in preparation for the interim financing mechanism. It has been simplified to clearly outline each step in this process and, specifically, the different stages where the Selection Framework can be used to make an assessment (Steps 3 and 5, highlighted above and described in further detail below). In addition, this process is easily adaptable for each of FREDDI’s funding windows or as required by the REDD+ Agency. Further details of the suggested process are given below. 1. Project identification and scoping The first step in the project cycle is the identification and scoping of potential projects. The method by which this is done will depend on the project type, the FREDDI funding window and the stakeholders involved in the project development. 2. Project concept note development and submission Once a project has been identified, the project proponent and stakeholders should develop the project into a Project Concept Note (PCN). The PCN should outline at a high-level the REDD+ issues being addressed, the project activities, the capacity and track record of the project proponents, and the stakeholders involved in the development of the project. 3. Project concept note assessment Once the PCN is completed, it should be submitted to the REDD+ Agency for assessment. See section 3.2 for advice on modifying the Selection Framework for a high-level assessment of the PCN. Once reviewed by the REDD+ Agency, the assessment and recommendation should be submitted to the FREDDI Board of Trustees (BoT), who will decide on whether or not the project should be (i) approved and developed into a full Project Proposal, (ii) sent back to the project proponent for revisions or clarifications, or (iii) rejected.8 4. Project proposal development and submission If the PCN is approved, then the project should be developed into a full Project Proposal (PP). The PP will be a much more detailed and comprehensive document than the PCN and it will cover all aspects of Selection Framework defined in Section 2. It is expected that the PP will be developed by the project proponent, potentially with support from a partner agency or other external organizations. 5. Project proposal assessment Once the PP has been completed, it should be submitted to REDD+ Agency for assessment using the full Selection Framework, or a modified version based on the circumstances. The assessment and funding recommendations should then be presented to the FREDDI BoT for their review. The BoT will then carry out an in-depth review and make a final decision to approve, revise or reject the project. Should the final decision be to approve the funding for the projects then the funds will be disbursed using processes defined by the REDD+ Agency.

It is assumed that the selection process will be implemented by the REDD+ Agency. However, when the FREDDI Secretariat is established, it may take over this role. This document refers to the REDD+ Agency for simplicity. 7 The Selection Framework could be applied at steps 3 and 5. 8 The draft ‘project cycle’ prepared by the REDD+ Special Team states that at this stage of review the PCN is also reviewed by the Disbursement and Investment Panel and the Safeguards Panel.

This section provides some suggestions for the application of the Selection Framework to the Selection Process in relation to three key aspects: a. Assessing projects at different stages of the Selection Process; b. Prioritizing projects using a scoring and ranking system, and; c. Assessing the different types of projects by adapting the Selection Framework.

3.1 Assessing projects at different stages of the Selection Process The Selection Framework can be used to assess projects at both the PCN and PP stage, steps 3 and 5, respectively. This process is illustrated in Figure 2 below.

1. Project identification and scoping

2. Project concept note development and submission

4. Project proposal development and submission

3. Project concept note assessment

5. Project proposal assessment

* 2

19 PCN criteria used to assess project

* 3

1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

39 PP criteria used to assess project

Project does not meet the PCN requirements and is not selected. Project does not meet requirements, but is considered critical and asked to revise PCN. Project meets criteria and is put forward to the PP stage. Project does not meet the PP requirements and is not selected. Project does not meet requirements, but is considered critical and asked to revise PP. Project meets all requirements and is put forward for funding.

Slide 2 * In annex 2 there are 19 criteria at the PCN assessment stage and in annex 1 there are 39 criteria at the PP assessment stage

Figure 2: Assess projects at the concept note stage and at the full project proposal stage

The aim of the PCN assessment stage (Step 3 in the Selection Process) is to understand if the project will meet the minimum requirements for Phase 2 funding, as well as achieve the desired impacts and outcomes of the particular funding window. Therefore, a reduced version of the Selection Framework should be applied, which is less burdensome on the project proponents but still provides sufficient depth of assessment to identify the high-potential projects. A suggested Selection Framework for the PCN stage which contain 19 criteria has been provided in Annex 2, which is a lighter version of the full Selection Framework with 39 selection criteria introduced in Chapter 2 and provided in Annex 1. If a project fails to meet any of the criteria at the PCN assessment stage, or it is identified that the project will lead to negative impacts, then the project should not advance to the next stage of developing a PP. However, if a project design is flawed but there are elements that are considered worth taking forward, then the project proponents should be asked to revise the PCN and resubmit it. In this way the Selection Framework can be used to guide project design.

At the PP assessment stage of the Selection Process (Step 5), a more thorough assessment of each projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s potential is needed and the full Selection Framework should be used (see Annex 1)9. In order to ensure that each project will be successful, the PP must demonstrate that the project meets each of the criteria and indicators in the chosen list. At both assessment stages, the indicators should be used as guidance for the assessors to find the critical information in the relevant project documentation. It is suggested that a summary of the projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance against each of the principles is provided, as well as an overall assessment of the project and funding recommendations. In addition, the Selection Framework can only act as guidance to those carrying out the assessment. It is expected that those involved will have technical knowledge of similar projects and will therefore be able to evaluate the quality and likely performance of projects. Some targeted capacity building may be necessary to ensure that the assessors have the necessary skills to apply the Selection Framework. To illustrate the application of the Selection Framework at both stages of the selection process, we have provided a case study in Example 1, which considers a hypothetical peat rehabilitation project from a key REDD+ province in Indonesia.

Example 1: Assessing a peat rehabilitation project at different stages of the Selection Process using the Selection Framework A peat rehabilitation project has been identified as a high-potential project by the sub-national Government and is submitted to the REDD+ Agency for Phase 2 funding. The project is located in an area of high biodiversity and the surrounding communities are dependent on the area for their livelihoods. The project proponent, a combined team of a local CSO and an international NGO, has already been operating in the region for a number of years and has a team of conservation and hydrology experts. The project proponent puts forward a Project Concept Note (PCN) which gives a brief background to the project, lists the intended project activities, potential impact, and skills and experience of their team. The PCN is assessed using the reduced version of the Selected Framework (see Annex 2). An example of the assessment is provided below.

Section 3.3 explores how the full Selection Framework may need to be adapted to assess different types of projects.

As the PCN meets all of the criteria, the project is approved to be developed into a full project proposal (PP). After the PP is submitted, it is assessed using the full version of the Selection Framework. The below assessment only considers the additional criteria that were not assessed in the PCN stage. However, it would be expected that the full assessment was carried out again at this stage.

As the project has failed to meet all of the criteria, it is not selected for Phase 2 funding. However, the problems identified above are deemed to be fixable, so the project proponent is asked to revise and resubmit the PP.

3.2 Prioritizing projects using a scoring and ranking system The Selection Framework outlined in this document defines a structure that can be used to critically assess the projects applying for Phase 2 REDD+ finance. In certain circumstances it may be necessary to score and rank the projects in order to prioritize which should be selected for funding. It is assumed that this process will happen at the PP assessment stage (Step 5 of the Selection Process), when the assessor has to choose between a number of similar projects. This will require a methodology for a ranking system that scores projectsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; relative performance against the Selection Framework in order to ease comparison and justify selection. This process for scoring and ranking projects is illustrated in Figure 3 below.

1. Project identification and scoping

2. Project concept note development and submission

3. Project concept note assessment

4. Project proposal development and submission

5. Project proposal assessment

Project 1 Project 2

1 Project 3 Project 4 1. Projects are scored and then ranked using the PP criteria 2. Projects that do not score well and are ranked low are not selected for funding 3. Projects that score well and rank highly are selected for funding

2 Slide 5

Figure 3: Prioritizing projects using a ranking system

This ranking system requires numerical scores to be assigned to each projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s performance against each criteria based on the evidence provided in the full PP. This system will require a clear description of the levels of performance needed for each criteria to achieve different scores. For example, the project performance could be scored between 1 and 3 for each criteria, with 1 denoting low performance and 3 stating high performance. After each project has been scored at the criteria level, the scores will need to be averaged at the principle level. Each of the principles will have a different level of importance and so a weighting should be applied to each of the principle scores. The weightings of each principle need to be defined using a system that captures the relative importance of each principle and is based on stakeholder consultation. Once projects have been scored, then they should be ranked. This will allow those involved in the assessment to understand the relative performance of each of the projects against the Selection Framework. A decision will then need to be made about what score or relative ranking a project needs to achieve in order to reach the next stage of the funding process or be considered for project funding. Further work is needed to develop a robust methodology for this ranking system; however, a case study of how this could be applied is described in Example 2. 17

Example 2: Scoring and ranking peat rehabilitation projects using the Selection Framework A number of similar peat rehabilitation projects have been identified as high potential projects for Phase 2 funding. The PCNs of four of the projects were selected from the initial assessment stage (Step 3) and the proponents of these projects have now developed and submitted a full PP. At the PP assessment stage, the assessor will use the criteria and accompanying scoring guidance to assess each project. An example scoring system for two criteria is provided below. Principle

Criteria

Scoring guidance

Selection principle 3: Project design

• Technical capacity: Project team of the project proponent has adequate technical capabilities to carry out the proposed project activities.

• 1 = project team has limited to no technical capacity • 2 = team are technically able, but with limited experience • 3 = team are fully qualified and have strong experience in their field

Selection principle 4: Project impact

• Carbon stocks: The project directly or indirectly contributes to achieving the strategic goal of the REDD+ National Strategy of enhancing carbon stocks.

• 1 = the project will lead to a lose of carbon stocks • 2= the project will not lose or gain any carbon stocks • 3 = the project will lead to an increase in carbon stocks

Principle 1 Project priority

Principle 2 Capacity

Principle 3 Project design

Principle 4 Project impact

Principle 5 Political alignment

Principle 6 Project Sustainability

Using scoring guidelines, such as those given in the example above, assessors use the proposals to score each of the projects and then rank them in descending order. In this case the assessors select the two projects with the highest total score.

Total

Peat conservation project 1

15/18

Peat conservation project 3

14/18

Peat conservation project 4

10/18

Peat conservation project 2

7/18

In this example, peat conservation projects 1 and 3 are chosen for funding.

3.3. Assessing different types of projects by adapting the Selection Framework The Selection Framework has intentionally been developed to be broad enough to allow the REDD+ Agency to apply it to a range of different project types across the five strategic pillars of the REDD+ National Strategy. Considering that there a large number of very different interventions within the strategic pillars, the Selection Framework needs to be adapted to consider the key elements of various REDD+ activities. A first consideration is that not all of the criteria in the Selection Framework will apply to all project types. For example, the ‘project impact’ principle covers a lot of different potential project outcomes, including emissions reductions, biodiversity conservation and economic growth. Individual projects, certainly at a local level, cannot be expected to meet all of these requirements, so certain criteria will need to be removed from the Selection Framework if they are deemed not appropriate to the project type. Another consideration is that while a specific criteria could be relevant to two different project types, the assessment that is required to consider their performance against the criteria is different. For example, within the ‘project impact’ principle, projects may contribute to certain criteria either directly or indirectly. This is particularly relevant for projects that deal with national policy or legal issues, as their impacts on GHG emissions are indirect. In order to deal with this it is proposed that the indicators for such criteria are amended to consider the likely impact pathway of each project type. Considering the above, there are two main ways that the Selection Framework could be adapted: 1. The criteria that are not relevant to a specific project type are removed from the Selection Framework; 2. The indicators for a certain criteria are amended to consider a key element of the specific project type. The case study in Example 3 highlights these two ways that the Selection Framework can be adapted.

Example 3: Assessing different types of projects using the selection framework The assessor wishes to assess two different types of project, a peat rehabilitation project and a spatial planning project. Taking into account the characteristics of the different projects, the assessor adapts the framework to suit their needs. The table below provides an example output of this using the indicator sets for the 2 different project types: 1. Use the same criteria: In this instance the projects will both require the same characteristic and so the assessor use the same criteria to assess both project types 2. Omit some criteria: In this instance the peat rehabilitation project will need to apply a carbon methodology to demonstrate emissions reductions; however a spatial planning project will not need to have this feature as the impacts on carbon are indirect. 3. Adapt indicators: Similarly, the peat rehabilitation project will need to demonstrate the direct impact on carbon emission and provide a quantitative measure of this impact. Whilst the spatial planning project is unlikely to be able to do so, and so need only provide a rationale for how spatial planning will lead to emissions reductions.

4. Next steps This document has been developed as guidance for the development of a Selection Framework and an accompanying Selection Process for the assessment of projects to be funded in Phase 2 of REDD+ in Indonesia. As already outlined, this guidance has purposefully been kept broad, as there is still uncertainty related to various aspects of the structure and intended outcomes of Phase 2 funding and eventually FREDDI. In particular, the Selection Process outlined may need to be adjusted to respond to the desired goals of each of the funding windows. However, once these have been determined, this Selection Framework and Selection Process should be updated to be made specific to the needs of the REDD+ Phase 2 funding. Importantly there has been limited stakeholder consultation during the development of the Selection Framework and Selection Process. Therefore, if these suggestions are to be taken forward, the current Selection Framework can be consolidated through a more comprehensive stakeholder consultation from national and sub-national government, as well as from potential partner and executing agencies to ensure that their views and opinions are integrated into the final project selection mechanism that eventually will be used.

Annex Annex 1: Full Selection Framework with principles, criteria and indicators Selection principle 1: Project priority The project is of critical importance to achieving the effective implementation of REDD+ at the local, sub-national or national level. Criteria

Indicators

1. Priority location: The project location is a priority for achieving REDD+ in Indonesia

 The project is located in a region/landscape in which there is a relatively large amount of deforestation or degradation.  The project is located within a landscape or ecosystem that has been determined by the REDD+ Agency to be of critical importance to achieving REDD+.  The project activities are aimed at significantly reducing the amount of deforestation or degradation taking place in that location.

2. Political priority: The project is a political priority for the Government of Indonesia/ the REDD+ Agency

 The project is located in a REDD+ priority province, as determined by the REDD+ Agency.  The project is a pre-requisite for other REDD+ activities to take place and therefore crucial for implementing REDD+.  The project will assist in achieving the strategic goals of the REDD+ National Strategy, Phase 2 funding and the relevant FREDDI funding window.

Selection principle 2: Capacity of the project proponent The project proponent has the capacity to effectively implement and deliver the stated activities for the duration of the project. Criteria

Indicators

3. Technical capacity: Project team of the project proponent has adequate technical capabilities to carry out the proposed project activities.



The project proponent has identified the technical skills needed to implement the project.



The project team members have the necessary level of training and technical skills to undertake the tasks.



The project team members have undertaken similar projects.

4. Financial capacity: The project proponent has the capacity and necessary financial structures to absorb the additional funds for the project, as well as meet fiduciary standards.



The project proponent demonstrates that they have the capacity to take on board funds of the scale requested.



The project proponent demonstrates that they can comply with the PRISAI fiduciary standards.

5. Management capacity: The project proponent has the management capacity to effectively implement the proposed project activities.



The project proponent has identified the management capacity needed to effectively implement the project.



The project proponent has the relevant experience in effectively managing projects of the scale outlined in the project documents.

6. Project experience: The project proponent has experience of implementing similar projects.



The project proponent demonstrates that they have experience of implementing similar projects.

7. Location experience: The project proponent has experience of working in that location specific



The project proponent demonstrates that they have experience of working within the region and has a network in the region.

Criteria

Indicators

8. Government capacity: Government counterparts (local, sub national or national) not involved as part of the executing Agency have the technical and administrative capacity to effectively support and implement project activities, as is necessary.



The project proponent has identified the technical and administrative capacity needed from the government counterparts in order to effectively implement project activities.



The government counterparts have the relevant technical and administrative skills.

9. Accreditation: The partner/executing Agency is accredited.10



The partner Agency has been accredited by the REDD+ Agency.

Partner/executing agencies are expected to be those organisations which implement projects and each will have to go through an accreditation process before being eligible to apply for phase 2 funding. 10

Selection principle 3: Project design The project has been designed to ensure the effective and cost efficient implementation of project activities for the duration of the project. Criteria

Indicators

10. Deforestation issues: The project should have identified the deforestation issue to be addressed

 The project proposal clearly defines the deforestation issues that will be addressed.

11. Project outcomes: The project has a clear outcome

 The project has a clear, defined and measureable outcome that can realistically be achieved with the defined project activities.

12. Project activities: The project has specified appropriate and necessary activities to address said issues.

 The project proposal lists a set of activities which will appropriately address each of the particular drivers of deforestation.

13. Stakeholders: Project stakeholders have been identified and engaged, and consent to the design and implementation of the project.

 Stakeholders that will be involved in the delivery of the project have been identified and consulted in line with PRISAI requirements. .

 The project proposal identifies the drivers of deforestation and carried out a deforestation driver analysis or equivalent.

 Appropriate government stakeholders (local/sub-national/national) have been identified.  The roles of each of the stakeholder, including those from government, have been identified.  Approval from any local stakeholders that are affected by the project has been provided.  The approval has been granted in line with the PRISAI safeguards and other relevant project proponent safeguards.  Evidence of approval is provided.

Criteria

Indicators

14. Safeguards: The project will meet the necessary PRISAI safeguards and any additional safeguards, as required by the project proponents.

 Project demonstrates that they have the procedures in place to meet each of the PRISAI safeguards.

15. Budgeting: The budget for the project is adequate to allow for all project activities to be fully completed and implemented effectively within the specified time limit, and demonstrates value for money.

 The budget is activity based and details the costs for each of those activities.

16. Governance structure: The project team has a governance structure which allows for adequate management oversight of project activities.

 An organizational chart or description for the organization is provided.

 A system is in place to monitor the compliance with the PRISAI safeguards.

 The budget is adequate for each of the activities.  The budget offers value for money.

 Managerial oversight is provided across each of the major work streams.  Roles of the team members have been identified and are appropriate.

17. Risk assessment: Project risks have been identified and measures have been put in place to mitigate those risks.

 A table listing the risks of the project and the risk mitigation activities is provided.  The risks are comprehensive and include political, institutional, delivery and financial risks that could affect the project.  Mitigation actions provided are appropriate for each of the risks and they have been justified.  A conflict resolution mechanism has been defined in line with PRISAI requirements.  A method for continually monitoring, evaluating and reporting on risks is in place.

Criteria

Indicators

18. Timelines: The project has a realistic timeline which will allow for the completion of the specified project activities and intended outcomes.

 A project timeline is provided.

19. M and E framework: The project has in place monitoring and evaluation frameworks which will allow for accurate assessment of the project outputs and outcomes.

 The project has a logical framework listing the full expected outputs and outcomes of the project and indicators.

20. Carbon methodology: The project should be designed to meet the requirements of a recognized carbon methodology.



21. Benefit sharing: Benefits, monetary and non-monetary, which accrue as a result of the project, are shared equally between all affected and relevant stakeholders.

 The project has a realistic timeline which will allow for the completion of the specified project activities and intended outcomes.

 A methodology is provided for monitoring and evaluating the outputs and determining the projects progress in achieving the outcomes.



In the case where a project results in the direct reduction of emissions, then the project should follow the requirements of a recognized carbon methodology. This includes: o

GHG emissions assessment and monitoring

Evaluation of leakage

Additionality analysis

Risk and buffer assessment.

A system to distribute the monetary and non-monetary benefits has been described and included within the project design.

Criteria

Indicators

22. Jurisdictional approach: The project can become part of or contribute to the development of a jurisdictional approach, either nationally or sub-nationally.

ď&#x201A;ˇ If the project will contribute to the establishment of the jurisdictional approach then the project proponent should include:

23. Coordination: The project is coordinated and aligned with other ongoing activities in the region

Specific activities that will assist in the implementation of policies, legal or methodology framework to support the development of a jurisdictional approach have been identified

An explanation of how the specific activities will assist in the implementation of the jurisdictional approach

An explanation of how the project is in line with national/sub-national/local guidelines for the jurisdictional approach, including any methodological guidelines for emissions monitoring

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Demonstrates that the project is in line with other activities already taking place in the area, and contributes towards a wider landscape level approach.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Demonstrates that there are no other similar activities funded in the area and that the project will be additional to other ongoing activities in the area.

Indicators

24. GHG Emissions: The project directly or indirectly contributes to achieving the strategic goal of the REDD+ National Strategy of reducing GHG emissions from deforestation and degradation.

ď&#x201A;ˇ The project will lead to a large reduction in carbon emissions as a result of lowering or preventing deforestation and the project proposal provides an explanation and clear linkage to how the project activities will result in a reduction in emissions. ď&#x201A;ˇ Where the project directly results in the reduction of emissions, project proponent should have utilized a recognized carbon methodology and should include details of the following: o GHG emissions (tonnes of CO2) saved in relation to a baseline, and/or o Reduction in the rate of deforestation in an area (% change) in relation to a baseline, and/or o Area of forest protected as a result of project activities (ha) in relation to a baseline

Criteria

Indicators

25. Carbon stocks: The project directly or indirectly contributes to achieving the strategic goal of the REDD+ National Strategy of enhancing carbon stocks.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Project activities lead to increases in above and below ground carbon stocks and the project proposal provides an explanation and clear linkage of how the project activities will result in a carbon stocks saved.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

Where the project directly results in the enhancement of carbon stocks, project proponent should provide details of the following: o Carbon stock (tonnes/ha) in relation to a baseline and/or o Area of forest enhanced (ha) in relation to a baseline and/or o Change in forest cover (% change) in relation to a baseline

Criteria

Indicators

26. Biodiversity conservation: The project directly or indirectly contributes to achieving the strategic goal of the REDD+ National Strategy of conserving biodiversity.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

The project activities lead to protection and enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystems and the project proposal provides an explanation and clear linkage for how the project activities are expected to contribute.

ď&#x201A;ˇ

The project activities could detail how the project will ensure:

ď&#x201A;ˇ

That species of flora and fauna are protected or managed sustainably to ensure levels of species richness are maintained

The project demonstrates that the project activities will ensure that all critical and highly threatened species and ecosystems contained within project areas are protected

The project activities will provide little or no protection or management of flora and fauna species and there will be losses as a result of project activities

Where the project directly results in the protection or enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystems, the project proposal could provide details of the a number of biodiversity and ecosystem indicators including the following: o

Number of protected species in the project area

Protected/productive land displaced

Protected species of fauna or flora

Forest cover protected in relation to the baseline

Criteria

Indicators

27. Economic growth: The project directly or indirectly contributes to achieving the strategic goal of the REDD+ National Strategy of creating economic growth.



Project activities lead to economic growth and an explanation and clear linkage for the how the project activities are expected to contribute.



The project proposal could provide details of the a number of economic indicators including the following:

28. Inclusiveness and equity: The project directly or indirectly results in improvements in inclusiveness and equity either, locally, sub-nationally or nationally..

Contribution to national economic growth, and/or

Contribution to sub-national economic growth, and/or

Contribution to equitable growth improving the welfare of communities including access to education, social services etc., and/or

Number of jobs created for local people



The project activities lead to improvements in inclusiveness and equity and an explanation and clear linkage for the how the project activities are expected to contribute is provided.



The project proposal could provide details of a number of inclusive and equitable growth indicators including the following: o

Access to social services, and/or

Wage changes, and/or

% revenue remaining in local economy / total revenue, and/or

% migrant workers / total workforce.

Criteria

Indicators

29. Resilience: The project directly or indirectly contributes to local or regional resilience.



The project activities improve the local economic and environmental resilience and an explanation and clear linkage for the how the project activities are expected to contribute is provided.

30. Transformational: The project impact result in systemic change and is transformational.



An explanation is provided for how the project addresses a key political/legal/governance issue or barrier to enabling the effective implementation of REDD+.



The project or elements of the project can be replicated and scaled.

Selection principle 5: Political alignment and support The project should be aligned with and support the aims of the sub-national and national government for REDD+ as outlined in national and sub-national REDD+ strategies, and other related REDD+ policy and legislation. Criteria

Indicators

31. REDD+ National Strategy pillars: The project is in line with the pillars outlined in the REDD+ National Strategy.

 Demonstrate that the project activities address or are related to one of the pillars of the REDD+ National Strategy i.

Institutions and processes

ii.

Legal and regulatory frameworks

iii.

Strategic programs a. Conservation and rehabilitation b. Sustainable agriculture and forestry c. Sustainable management of landscapes

32. RAN GRK: The project is aligned with and contributes to achieving the goals of the RAN GRK.

iv.

Changes to work paradigm and culture

Inclusion/involvement of stakeholders

 The specific RAN GRK activities which the project will support have been identified.  An explanation of how the project will support the delivery of the RAN/RAD GRK activities is provided.

Criteria

Indicators

33. SRAP/RAD GRK: The project is aligned with and contributes to achieving the goals of the SRAP and/or the RAD GRK, if taking place at a sub-national level.

 The specific SRAP and/or RAD GRK activities for the province that the project will support have been identified.

34. Legal compliance: The project is in compliance with other relevant national and sub-national policies and laws.



The project does not support activities that are contrary to national or sub-national policies or infringe laws.

35. Government support: The project has the support of the local/sub-national/national government.



Approval by the relevant government body at the local/sub-national/national government has been provided.



Where necessary the project has been granted the appropriate license to operate. For example in the case of the REDD+ emissions reduction project they have an ecosystem restoration license.



Identifies other initiatives taking place in the region supported by the government and provides a clear explanation of how the project will be able to support ongoing activities of these initiatives.

36. Supports other initiatives: The project supports other local/subnational/national government initiatives and priorities taking place in the region

 An explanation of how the project will support the delivery of the SRAP/RAD GRK activities are provided.

Selection principle 6: Project sustainability The project should be designed to ensure that the project, and its outcomes, can be sustained once REDD+ funding is no longer available. Criteria

Indicators

37. Long term financing: The project is able to access co financing from other sources or has a long term source of funds beyond Phase 2 finance.

ď&#x201A;ˇ Other sources of financing are available to support the project activities or the project activities can be maintained without long term financing in the long term.

38. Long term capacity: The capacity of a local, long term team is developed.

ď&#x201A;ˇ The project should outline how local staff will be integrated into the project and their capacity built to ensure that they can deliver the project in the local term.

39. Knowledge sharing: Processes in place to ensure that knowledge generated as a result of the project will be distributed.

ď&#x201A;ˇ Outputs from the project will be made publically available and shared with stakeholders as appropriate.

Annex 2: Amended Selection Framework for PCN stage with principles, criteria and indicators PCN selection principle 1: Project priority The project is of critical importance to achieving the effective implementation of REDD+ at the local, sub-national or national level. Criteria

Indicators

1. Priority location: The project location is a priority for achieving REDD+ in Indonesia

2. Political priority: The project is a political priority for the Government of Indonesia/ the REDD+ Agency

PCN selection principle 2: Capacity of the project proponent The project proponent has the capacity and capability to effectively implement and deliver the stated activities for the duration of the project. Criteria

Indicators

3. Technical capacity: Project team of the project proponent has adequate technical capabilities to carry out the proposed project activities.



The project proponent has identified the technical skills needed to implement the project.



The project team members have the necessary level of training and technical skills to undertake the tasks.



The project team members have undertaken similar projects.

4. Management capacity: The project proponent has the management capacity to effectively implement the proposed project activities.



The project proponent has identified the management capacity needed to effectively implement the project.



The project proponent has the relevant experience in effectively managing projects of the scale outlined in the project documents.

5. Project experience: The project proponent has experience of implementing similar projects.



The project proponent demonstrates that they have experience of implementing similar projects.

6. Location experience: The project proponent has experience of working in that location specific



The project proponent demonstrates that they have experience of working within the region and has a network in the region.

7. Accreditation: The partner/executing Agency is accredited.11



The partner Agency has been accredited by the REDD+ Agency.

Selection principle 3: Project design The project has been designed to ensure the effective and cost efficient implementation of project activities for the duration of the project. Criteria

Indicators

8. Deforestation issues: The project should have identified the deforestation issue to be addressed

 The project proposal clearly defines the deforestation issues that will be addressed.

9. Project activities: The project has specified appropriate and necessary activities to address said issues.

 The project proposal lists a set of activities which will appropriately address each of the particular drivers of deforestation.

10. Project outcomes: The project has a clear outcome

 The project has a clear, defined and measureable outcome that can realistically be achieved with the defined project activities.

11. Stakeholders: Project stakeholders have been identified and engaged, and consent to the design and implementation of the project.

 Stakeholders that will be involved in the delivery of the project have been identified and consulted in line with PRISAI requirements.

 The project proposal identifies the drivers of deforestation and carried out a deforestation driver analysis or equivalent.

Criteria

Indicators

12. Safeguards: The project will meet the necessary PRISAI safeguards and any additional safeguards, as required by the project proponents.

 Project demonstrates that they have the procedures in place to meet each of the PRISAI safeguards.

13. Budgeting: The budget for the project is adequate to allow for all project activities to be fully completed and implemented effectively within the specified time limit, and demonstrates value for money.

 The budget is activity based and details the costs for each of those activities.

14. Timelines: The project has a realistic timeline which will allow for the completion of the specified project activities and intended outcomes.

 A project timeline is provided.

 A system is in place to monitor the compliance with the PRISAI safeguards.

 The budget is adequate for each of the activities.  The budget offers value for money.

 The project has a realistic timeline which will allow for the completion of the specified project activities and intended outcomes.

PCN selection principle 4: Project impact Projects should effectively address key sources of emissions, either directly or indirectly, whilst at the same time generating wider green growth benefits. Criteria

Indicators

15. GHG Emissions: The project directly or indirectly contributes to achieving the strategic goal of the REDD+ National Strategy of reducing GHG emissions from deforestation and degradation.

 The project will lead to a large reduction in carbon emissions as a result of lowering or preventing deforestation and the project proposal provides an explanation and clear linkage to how the project activities will result in a reduction in emissions.  Where the project directly results in the reduction of emissions, project proponent should have utilized a recognized carbon methodology and should include details of the following: o GHG emissions (tonnes of CO2) saved in relation to a baseline, and/or o Reduction in the rate of deforestation in an area (% change) in relation to a baseline, and/or o Area of forest protected as a result of project activities (ha) in relation to a baseline

16. Co-benefits: The project will directly or indirectly result in additional co benefits to biodiversity, society and the wider economy.



The project will generate additional economic, social and other environmental cobenefits.



An explanation of how these additional co-benefits will be achieved is provided.

PCN selection principle 5: Political alignment and support The project should be aligned with and support the goals of the national and sub-national REDD+ policies, while ensuring alignment with other corresponding government policies and programs. Criteria

Indicators

17. REDD+ National Strategy pillars: The project is in line with the pillars outlined in the REDD+ National Strategy.

 Demonstrate that the project activities address or are related to one of the pillars of the REDD+ National Strategy; vi.

Institutions and processes

vii.

Legal and regulatory frameworks

viii.

Strategic programs a. Conservation and rehabilitation b. Sustainable agriculture and forestry c. Sustainable management of landscapes

ix.

Changes to work paradigm and culture

Inclusion/involvement of stakeholders

18. SRAP/RAD GRK: The project is aligned with and contributes to achieving the goals of the SRAP and/or the RAD GRK, if taking place at a provincial level.

 The specific SRAP and/or RAD GRK activities for the province that the project will support have been identified.

19. Legal compliance: The project is in compliance with other relevant national and sub-national policies and laws.



 An explanation of how the project will support the delivery of the SRAP/RAD GRK activities are provided. The project does not support activities that are contrary to national or sub-national policies or infringe laws.

Annex 3: Funds criteria used in research        

Adaptation Fund Project/Programme Review Criteria Amazon Fund criteria Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF) Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Carbon Fund methodology Forest Investment Programme (FIP) Investment criteria Global Environment Facility (GEF) Special Climate Change Fund Pre-screening selection criteria Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) - Carbon Fund - Criteria for Selection of Emission Reductions Program Idea Notes (ER-PINs) Indonesia Climate Change Trust Fund (ICCTF)