Central Africa has borrowed less from the World Bank for forestry projects than expected. It has made little use of concessional finance for sustainable forest management. Only the DRC has accessed multiple sources of forest finance, including development policy loans, investment loans, GEF grants, carbon funds, and CIF/FIP funds. The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility needs to clarify its mission and roles as carbon markets evolve. The World Bank should discuss its overall REDD+ approach and how countries' REDD+ strategies will be supported after current facilities close.

1. World Bank Financing for Forests in Africa: Lessons
from IEG’s Forest Evaluation
(2002‐2012
World Bank Financing for Forests
in Central Africa:
Lessons from IEG’s Forest
Evaluation
(2002‐2012)

2. Issues for Discussion
 Central Africa has borrowed much less from the WB than
was expected with relation to forests and growth.
It has not received any IFC or MIGA assistance.
 It has also made very little use of concessional finance for
sustainable forest management.
 Only one Central African country has made use of the
Bio‐Carbon Fund (DRC).
 DRC has accessed multiple forms of finance –
development policy and investment lending, GEF, the Carbon
Fund, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility and CIF/FIP.
 Central Africa is highly active in the FCPF‐ but questions
about Financing and the future of the pilot Carbon Fund
are Impending.

3. Africa Dominates World Bank Forest Portfolio in Project
Numbers…

4. …….But Forest Lending in Africa is only 13 % of Global Lending
(Total = US$2.6b; AFR =US$240.5m )

5. …….And Forest Lending to Central Africa was only
3% of total lending globally between 2002‐2012.

6. Use of Concessional Finance has been
Limited in Central Africa

7. Very Few African Countries are making
use of the multiple forms of forest finance
offered by the World Bank
• The DRC has accessed IDA finance
(development policy lending and investment
lending); GEF concessional finance; the
Biocarbon Fund; REDD finance through the
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility and CIF/FIP
finance.

8. Congo Basin Countries are participating in the FCPF. The FCPF’s
target capitalization is US$650 million: US$300 million for the
Readiness Fund and US$350 million for the Carbon Fund.
Largest donors are Germany (24%), Norway (20%), Canada (10%),
and Australia (9%). The World Bank Group underwrote the cost of
establishing the Facility, is trustee, hosts the management team, etc.
Whereas FCPF’s approach to REDD+ presupposed private sector
participation, the Facility has only been able to attract two private
sector participants to the Carbon Fund.

9. IEG’s Review of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility
found that REDD+ is more expensive, complex, and
protracted than was anticipated.
REDD Preparation is Expensive: Preparation costs – including comprehensive
consultations are in some cases requiring up to 4x this amount anticipated.
Administration is Expensive: Disbursements
increased from US$1m in 2011 to US$2.8m in 2012.
The World Bank administered program has spent
roughly US$22 to deliver a total of US$4.9 million
in grants since its inception, 70 percent of which
have been utilized by five countries (including
DRC and the Republic of Congo).
Supervision is Expensive: Fund management unit
provides US$1m to Africa region annually
for implementation supervision support.

10. IEG’s Recommendation from the
Review of the Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility
The FCPF needs to update and clarify its mission to the World
Bank’s Board and to its participating members with relation to
the changes that are taking place in the carbon market and with
respect to the evolving nature of the Carbon Fund
…there is a is need for greater clarity on how and under what
conditions the Facility will support non‐market, versus market‐
based approaches to REDD+ and how benefits will be aligned.
The FCPF should also clarify the role of its participants vis‐à‐vis the
two funds: How will countries that are not eligible for the Carbon Fund
view their role in the Readiness Fund after the Carbon Fund comes fully
on‐ stream?

11. IEG’s Recommendation from the
Review of the Forest Carbon
Partnership Facility
The World Bank needs a high‐level, strategic discussion on its
overall approach to REDD and needs to articulate how it
plans to support implementation of countries’ REDD
strategies going forward.
A strategic reflection on the Bank’s overall approach to REDD+ is
necessary, including a discussion between all relevant
networks and sectors about how country‐generated REDD+
strategies will be aligned with, and included in, Country
Assistance Strategies (CASs), Poverty Reduction Strategy
Papers
(PRSPs) and the corresponding operational portfolios and how
REDD+ will be supported after the planned closing date of the
Facility.

12. The CIF/FIP are Providing additional
finance for the REDD+ Agenda to DRC
The DRC is receiving US$58.4 million in grants
from the Forest Investment Program – a targeted
program under the Strategic Climate Fund (SCF),
one of two multi‐donor Climate Investment Funds
housed at the World Bank. The projects are
implemented by the African Development Bank,
Asian Development Bank, European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, Inter‐American
Development Bank, and World Bank Group.
Estimated co‐financing $37.7 million