Instructions 1) This tool presents two distinct steps to assist in the contstruction of a nesting system: A) The first step helps the user understand what broad nesting model is desired for a giv B) The second step provides a checklist with all the important elements to conside As elements are addressed, progress in the establishment of the selected system is auto 2) Disclosures: A) This tool provides the framework for the selection of broad model archetypes for the B) Although in practice each model design will be country-specific (it is posible archetypes and the different elements to be considered provides the user with the oppo C) It is highly recommended to read the Nesting Manual in parallel with this tool of a nesting system: del is desired for a given country: whether a centralized, decentralized, or a nested model. elements to consider for the selected system. elected system is automatically updated in a dashboard. Start the tool del archetypes for the implementation of REDD+ including and excluding nesting. specific (it is posible to select elements from different models), the establishment of he user with the opportunity to explore the complex relation existing across different elements parallel with this tool Step 1: Select your model Back to Please respond to the following questions by marking only one bo Start Questions Manual #1: Who should benefit from REDD+ Section 1.2 finance? #2: Which describes best the role your government should play with regard to Section 1.2 REDD+? #3: What carbon finance opportunities Section 1.2 are most relevant for your country? #4: Which reflects the country's land Section 1.2 and forest ownership? #5: What describes your view towards REDD+ voluntary carbon market Section 1.2 projects? #6: Which situation most closely reflects the NDC of the country and Article 6 Section 3.2 approach? Decission tree (If cell XYZ is checked, then..) 0 Centralized 0 Centralizd nested 0 Decentralized nested 0 Decentralized 0 Centralized 0 Centralized 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Centralized 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Centralized 0 Centralized 0 Centralized 0 Centralized 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Centralized 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Centralized 0 Centralizd nested 0 Centralizd nested 0 Centralizd nested 0 Centralizd nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Centralized 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Centralizd nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Decentralized nested 0 Decentralized nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Decentralized nested 0 Decentralized nested 0 Decentralized nested 0 Decentralized 0 Decentralized 0 Decentralized ep 1: Select your model ase respond to the following questions by marking only one box, reflecting what is closest to your situation: Answer I Select The government who will implement the key actions to slow, halt and reverse deforestation As manager of a national program, responsible for implementing REDD+ actions and with full control over funds and ERs REDD+ results-based finance (e.g. GCF or bilateral) or market-based finance at the national (or subnational) level All forest land is owned and/or controlled by the State No intention to allow or recognize voluntary market crediting within the country REDD+ is essential to achieving the NDC. National REDD+ credits may be exchanged if the country overperforms D Recommendation*: Jurisdictional ER program (only) with b Click on the button below to proceed to Step 2: Process overview Jurisdictional ER program Centralized (only) with benefit sharing *Please ensure only one response is selected for each question ntralizd nested centralized nested centralized 0 Centralized nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Centralized nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Centralized nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Centralized nested 0 Centralized nested 0 Centralized nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Centralized nested 0 Centralized nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Centralized nested 0 Centralized nested 0 Centralized nested 0 Centralized nested 0 Centralized nested 0 Centralized nested 0 Decentralized nested 0 Decentralized nested 0 Decentralized nested 0 Decentralized nested 0 Decentralized nested 0 Centralized nested 0 Centralized nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Decentralized nested 0 Decentralized nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Decentralized 0 Decentralized 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Decentralized nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected box, reflecting what is closest to your situation: Answer II Select Both the government and local actors, but the government is best fit to distribute payments and other benefits to local actors As manager of a national program, with full control over funds and ERs, some (or all) of which will be dispensed to incentivize local actors REDD+ results-based finance (e.g. GCF or bilateral) or market-based finance at the national (or subnational) level Forest land is owned by the State, but communities and private actors are licensed to manage forest land Desire to integrate such projects into a jurisdictional ER program (e.g. as part of a benefit- sharing plan) REDD+ is essential to achieving the teh country's NDC. National REDD+ credits may be exchanged if the country overperforms D Recommendation*: onal ER program (only) with benefit sharing w to proceed to Step 2: Process overview & timeline for the selected model Project crediting (only) within Centralized-nested Decentralized - nested no jurisdictional ER program *Please ensure only one response is selected for each question 0 Decentralized nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Decentralized nested 0 Decentralized nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Decentralized nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Decentralized nested 0 Decentralized nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Decentralized nested 0 Decentralized nested 0 Decentralized nested 0 Decentralized nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Decentralized 0 Decentralized 0 Decentralized 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Decentralized nested 0 Decentralized nested 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Please revise the options selected 0 Centralized Please revise the options selected Please revise the options selected Please revise the options selected Please revise the options selected Please revise the options selected Answer III Select Both the government and local actors, but local actors will respond best to an ability to access carbon finance independently from the government As a regulator, setting a framework and/or rules for REDD+ activities, but allowing local actors to directly access carbon finance opportunities REDD+ results-based finance at national level and carbon market finance at project scale (funded by the private sector) Diverse forest land ownership and contested land titles make special regulation of carbon rights necessary REDD+ projects are encouraged, but also desire to regulate them to allow the co-existence of jurisdictional programs REDD+ is included in the country's NDC target. The country may share ERs with other market participants; or REDD+ is not in the country's NDC benefit sharing w & timeline for the selected model Project crediting (only) within no jurisdictional ER program Decentralized nested Please revise the options selected Decentralized nested Decentralized nested Please revise the options selected Please revise the options selected Please revise the options selected Please revise the options selected Please revise the options selected Decentralized nested Please revise the options selected Decentralized nested Decentralized nested Please revise the options selected Please revise the options selected Decentralized nested Decentralized nested Answer IV Select True/False Local actors that implement REDD+ projects and FALSE FALSE programs As a regulator, setting a framework and/or rules for REDD+ activities, but allowing local actors to TRUE FALSE directly access carbon finance opportunities Carbon market finance at project scale (funded by FALSE TRUE the private sector) Diverse forest land ownership and strong TRUE FALSE property law regime REDD+ projects are encouraged FALSE TRUE REDD+ is included in the country's NDC target. The country may share ERs with other market FALSE FALSE participants; or REDD+ is not in the country's NDC 33.33333333 33.33333333 Centralized-nested Jurisdictional ER program (only) with benefit sharing Jurisdictional ER program (only) with benefit sharing Please revise the options True/False Convert to 1 and 0 FALSE FALSE 0 0 0 0 FALSE FALSE 1 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE 1 0 1 0 FALSE FALSE 1 1 0 0 FALSE FALSE 1 0 1 0 FALSE FALSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 Decentralized-nested Project crediting (only) within no jurisdictional ER program m (only) with benefit sharing 1 and 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Back to Step 2: Process overview & timeline Start Instructions:1) Please revise implications of choice below. 2) Please revise each element on the checklist below. A guiding chronogram is provided and the link to the appropriate Ma Tick the box when completed to update figure progress. MRV 0.0 100.0 Carbon rights 0.0 100.0 Benefit sharing 5.0 95.0 Consultations 30.0 70.0 Safeguards 45.0 55.0 Institutional 35.0 65.0 Regulatory 75.0 25.0 Completed Remaining 1 MRV 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 5.1.1 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 5.1.1 0.0 FALSE a Section 5.2.2 0.0 FALSE b Section 5.2.3 0.0 FALSE c Section 5.2.1 0.0 FALSE d Section 5.2.2 0.0 FALSE e Section 5.2.3 PROGRESS 2 FORESTRY REGIMES AND CARBON RIGHTS ELEMENTS NEEDED 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 1.2, Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE 3 Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE a Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE b Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE c Section 1.2, Section 12.2 0.0 FALSE d Section 1.2, Section 12.2 0.0 FALSE e Section 1.2, Section 12.2 PROGRESS 3 BENEFIT SHARING 5.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0 FALSE 1 Section 1.2, Section 7.1 0 FALSE 2 Section 7 0 FALSE 3 Section 7 0 FALSE a Section 7 5 TRUE b Section 7.2 0 FALSE c Section 7.2 0 FALSE d Section 13 0 FALSE e Section 7.2 PROGRESS 4 CONSULTATIONS 30.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0 FALSE 1 Section 10.1 10 TRUE 2 Section 10.1 FALSE 10 TRUE a Section 10.1 10 TRUE b Section 10.1 0 FALSE c Section 10.2 PROGRESS 5 SAFEGUARDS 45.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0 FALSE 1 Section 8.1 45 TRUE a Section 8.2 PROGRESS 6 INSTITUTIONAL ELEMENTS - REGISTRY 35.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 9.1 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 9.1 10.0 TRUE 3 Section 9.1 0.0 FALSE 4 Section 9.1 5.0 TRUE a Section 9.2 0.0 FALSE b Section 9.2 0.0 FALSE c Section 9.2 5.0 TRUE d Section 9.2 15.0 TRUE e Section 9.3 PROGRESS 7 REGULATORY ISSUES 75.0 Checklist Number Chapter 60.0 TRUE 1 Section 12.1 15.0 TRUE a Section 12.1 0.0 FALSE b Section 12.1 0.0 FALSE c Section 12.1 PROGRESS rview & timeline implications of choice below. each element on the checklist below. ogram is provided and the link to the appropriate Manual chapter. en completed to update figure progress. ELEMENTS NEEDED Forest Reference Emission Level (FREL) Monitoring Performance CONSIDERATIONS: Forest definition Reference period REDD+ Activities, Pools, Gases Stratification GHG estimation methods 0.0 IGHTS ELEMENTS NEEDED ELEMENTS NEEDED Property regime of forests and forest resources Carbon rights related to land Carbon rights related to activity CONSIDERATIONS: Forest management/ownerhisp Carbon rights property Monetization of carbon rights Rights of non-state actors Variations 0.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED Regulate how governments rewards ERRs Institutional frameworks Risk management CONSIDERATIONS: Benefit-sharing plan Engage private sector Financing projects and programs Manage risks Variations 5.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED Consultations scope and procedures Consultations scale CONSIDERATIONS: Participation of actors Elements of discussion Consultation procedures 30.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED National REDD+ safeguards policy CONSIDERATIONS: National REDD+ Safeguard policy 45.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED Type of required registry system Institutional requirements Technical and financial requirements Risk management CONSIDERATIONS: Registry type Accounts and units International transfers Institutional requirements Variations 35.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED REDD+ implementation regulation CONSIDERATIONS: Distribution of competences Procedures Distribution of carbon finance 75.0 COMPLETION PROGRESS (%) Manual chapter. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% MRV 0.0 100.0 Carbon rights 0.0 100.0 Benefit sharing 5.0 95.0 Consultations 30.0 70.0 Safeguards 45.0 55.0 Institutional 35.0 65.0 Regulatory 75.0 25.0 Completed Remaining Tasks · Has a FREL been developed at the national/jurisdictional scale? · Has a system to monitor performance been established at the national/jurisdictional scale? · Is the definition of forest consistent between the FREL and jurisdictional monitoring system? · Has a reference period established for the FREL (only)? · Are REDD+ activities, pools, and gases consistent between the FREL and jurisdictional monitoring system? · Is the stratification consistent between the FREL and jurisdictional monitoring system? · Are the data, calculation methods and baseline approach (historical average, trend, etc.) consistent between the 0.0 Tasks · Have the property regime of forests and forest resources been clarified? · Have (forest) carbon rights been clarified in your country? · Have the carbon rights related to activities been clarified? (i.e. Communities may claim carbon rights in the conte · Is the public management/ownerhip of forest ressources established by law? · Does the State own carbon rights as extension of her ownership of the forest? I.e. No cession to private REDD+ ac · Does the State have the right to monetize carbon credits rests? · Has the State established a compensation in the context of the benefit-sharing system? I.e. recognizing the contr · Does the State recognize community and IPLC rights to forests in the context of benefit sharing? 0.0 Tasks · Has it been regulated how the State rewards Emission Reductions (Ers)? No direct reward for programs and proje · Has the State implemented a PES system as part of the benefit-sharing plan? · Have all necessary institutional frameworks been established? No nesting institutions needed under this nesting · Has a risk management strategy been considered? No nesting risk management is needed under this nesting mod · Has a benefit-shaing plan been established? The benefit-sharing plan summarizes where and how RBF or carbon · No specific consideration of projects and programs · Has the private sector been engaged? In this nesting model, the private sector/local sector is engaged via state p · Have financing project and programs been established? State finances programs via RBF/carbon finance and bud · No nesting specific risks · The benefit-sharing plan can contemplate PES payment 5.0 Tasks · Has a consultations scope and procedure been identified? Consultations under this nesting model depend on the · Not specific to nesting · Has the scale of consultation been identified? Government consultations under this nesting model should takepla · Not specific to nesting · Have all REDD+ participants been identified? All REDD+ stakeholders · Participation of stakeholders in REDD+ activities areas · Have all relevant discussion elements been identified? Recommendation to focus on use of REDD+ financial resou · Have the consultation procedures been implemented? Under this nesting model procedures can be created ad-h 30.0 Tasks · Has a National REDD+ safeguards policy been formulated at the national scale? · Does the National REDD+ safeguard policy comply with Cancún Safeguards? · Is the national REDD+ safeguard policy applicable uniformely in the country/Country? The State is responsible for 45.0 Tasks · Has an appropriate type of registry system been identified? Under this nesting model it is recommended a simple · Have all Institutional requirements been met? Under this nesting model institutional capacity is needed · Have all technical and financial requirements been fulfilled? · Have risk management proceures been identified? Under this nesting model risks could be managed by the State · Has an appropriate registry type been established? Under this nesting model a Data Management System is suffi · No transaction registry is needed · Have appropriate accounts and transaction units been identified? Under this model a single account is needed sin · Under this nesting model Government-owned sub accounts are possible · Have the procedures to enable inernational transfers been established? If carbon credits are transferred to intern · Have all institutional requirements needed to establish a Data Management System (DMS) been identified? DMS can be hosted by institutions in charge of the REDD+ program · Coordination with those in charge of MRV and forest monitoring · DMS can be managed externally (e.g. by the WB) · Sub-national jurisdictions might be authorized to hold sub-accounts 35.0 Tasks · Have all internal adminstrative procedures regulating REDD+ implementation been established? · Have clear allocation of responsibilities among ministries and agencies established on the basis of a law? · Has internal guidance (not specific to nesting) to authorized entities been established? · Has the distribution of carbon finance been established? Forms part of the benefit-sharing plan 75.0 e transferred to international sovereign buyers/RBP funds under this nesting model, it is needed to establish a link to the regis ed to establish a link to the registries of buyer countries Step 2: Process overview & timeline Instructions:1) Please revise implications of choice below. Back to Start 2) Please revise each element on the checklist below. A guiding chronogram is provided and the link to the appropriate Man Tick the box when completed to update figure progress. MRV 60.0 40.0 Carbon rights 0.0 100.0 Benefit sharing 0.0 100.0 Consultations 0.0 100.0 Safeguards 0.0 100.0 Institutional 0.0 100.0 Regulatory 0.0 100.0 Completed Remaining 1 MRV 60.0 Checklist Number Chapter 20.0 TRUE 1 Section 5.1.2 20.0 TRUE 2 Section 5.1.2 20.0 TRUE 3 Section 5.1.2 0.0 FALSE a Section 5.2.2 0.0 FALSE b Section 5.2.3 0.0 FALSE c Section 5.2.1 0.0 FALSE d Section 5.2.2 0.0 FALSE e Section 5.2.3 PROGRESS 2 FORESTRY REGIMES AND CARBON RIGHTS ELEMENTS NEEDED 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 1.2, Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE 3 Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE a Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE b Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE c Section 1.2, Section 12.2 0.0 FALSE d Section 1.2, Section 12.2 0.0 FALSE e Section 1.2, Section 12.2 PROGRESS 3 BENEFIT SHARING 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 1.2, Section 7.1 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 7 0.0 FALSE 3 Section 7 0.0 FALSE a Section 7 0.0 FALSE b Section 7.2 0.0 FALSE c Section 7.2 0.0 FALSE d Section 13 0.0 FALSE e Section 7.2 PROGRESS 4 CONSULTATIONS 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 10.1 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 10.1 0.0 FALSE a Section 10.1 0.0 FALSE b Section 10.1 0.0 FALSE c Section 10.2 PROGRESS 5 SAFEGUARDS 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 8.1 Section 8.1 0.0 2 FALSE 0.0 FALSE a Section 8.1 Section 8.1 0.0 b FALSE 0.0 FALSE c Section 8.2 PROGRESS 6 INSTITUTIONAL ELEMENTS - REGISTRY 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 9.1 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 9.1 0.0 FALSE 3 Section 9.1 0.0 FALSE 4 Section 9.1 0.0 FALSE a Section 9.2 0.0 FALSE b Section 9.2 0.0 FALSE c Section 9.2 0.0 FALSE d Section 9.2 0.0 FALSE e Section 9.3 PROGRESS 7 REGULATORY ISSUES 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 12.1 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 12.1 0.0 FALSE 3 Section 12.1 0.0 FALSE a Section 12.2 0.0 FALSE b Section 12.2 0.0 FALSE c Section 12.2 0.0 FALSE d Section 12.2 0.0 FALSE e Section 12.2 PROGRESS rview & timeline mplications of choice below. each element on the checklist below. ogram is provided and the link to the appropriate Manual chapter. en completed to update figure progress. ELEMENTS NEEDED Forest Reference Emission Level (FREL) Monitoring Performance ER Allocation System CONSIDERATIONS: Forest definition Reference period REDD+ Activities, Pools, Gases Stratification GHG estimation methods 60.0 RIGHTS ELEMENTS NEEDED ELEMENTS NEEDED Property regime of forests and forest resources Carbon rights related to land Carbon rights related to activity CONSIDERATIONS: Forest management/ownerhisp Carbon rights property Monetization of carbon rights Rights of non-state actors Variations 0.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED Regulate how governments rewards ERs Institutional frameworks Risk management CONSIDERATIONS: Benefit-sharing plan Engage private sector Financing projects and programs Manage risks Variations 0.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED Consultations scope and procedures Consultations scale CONSIDERATIONS: Participation of actors Elements of discussion Consultation procedure 0.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED National REDD+ safeguards policy Safeguards rules applicable to nested projects and programs CONSIDERATIONS: National REDD+ Safeguard policy Safeguards rules applicable to nested projects and programs Variations 0.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED Type of required registry system Institutional requirements Technical and financial requirements Risk management CONSIDERATIONS: Registry type Accounts and units International transfers Institutional requirements Variations 0.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED REDD+ implementation regulation REDD+ nesting strategy Nesting procedures CONSIDERATIONS: Nesting strategy Distribution of competences Approval procedures for projects /programs Distribution of carbon finance Registry regulation 0.0 anual chapter. COMPLETION PROGRESS (%) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% MRV 60.0 40.0 Carbon rights 0.0 100.0 Benefit sharing 0.0 100.0 Consultations 0.0 100.0 Safeguards 0.0 100.0 Institutional 0.0 100.0 Regulatory 0.0 100.0 Completed Remaining Tasks · Has a FREL been developed at the national/jurisdictional scale? · Has a system to monitor performance been established at the national/jurisdictional scale? · Has an ER allocation system from the national/jurisdictional results scale to the project level been established? · Is the definition of forest consistent between the FREL and jurisdictional monitoring system? · Recommended to maintain consistency with the ER allocation method · Has a reference period established for the FREL? · Recommended that projects use same reference period for ER allocation method · Are REDD+ activities, pools, and gases consistent between the FREL and jurisdictional monitoring system? · Recommended for ER allocation method to consider same scope as FREL · Is the stratification consistent between the FREL and jurisdictional monitoring system? · Recommended to be consistent with ER Allocation Method · Are the data, calculation methods and baseline approach (historical average, trend, etc.) consistent between the · Recommended to be consistent with ER allocation method 60.0 Tasks · Have the property regime of forests and forest resources been clarified? · Have (forest) carbon rights been clarified in your country? State property, can be delegated to communities and p · Have the carbon rights related to activities been clarified? Recognition of activities of communities and private en · Is the public management/ownerhip of forest ressources established by law? . Management of forestry resources is generally through delegation acts in favor of individuals and communities · Does the State own carbon rights as extension of her ownership of the forest? · Cession of rights to private entities and communities · Does the State have the right to monetize carbon credits rests? · Non-state actors to receive a share of RBF/carbon payments in relation to the ERs generated as part of the benef · Could eventually receive ER payment in accordance with existing forestry management laws · Does the State recognize private entities and communities to monetize carbon credits as part of the benefit-shar · Government should approve legislation to clarify carbon rights, in particular where land disputes exist 0.0 Tasks · Has it been regulated how the State rewards Emission Reductions (ERs)? Under this nesting model the State auth · Have all necessary institutional frameworks been established? Under this nestng models the State needs to adop · Has a risk management strategy been considered? Under this nesting model the State needs to decide on how to · Has a benefit-shaing plan been established? The benefit-sharing plan sets out how ERs from authorized projects w · The benefit-sharing plan establishes which projects or what sort of projects will be eligible for rewards · Has the private sector been engaged? Under this nesting model the private sector is encouraged to develop proje · Have financing project and programs been established? Under this nesting model projects and programs are fina · Government finances government REDD+ programs (on state land, with respect to governance, etc) · Have risk management strategies been implemented? Under his nesting model the State needs to consider the im · Rewards for generated ER (performance) can come either in the form of finance or in the form of carbon credits 0.0 Tasks · Has a consultations scope and procedure been identified? Under this nesting model the consultations are linked · Has the scale of consultation been identified? · Have all REDD+ participants been identified? Must include private projects, early REDD+ projects and potential · Have allbeneficiaries; decentralized relevant discussion elementsentities (provinces,MRV been identified? municipalities, regions), and accounting national at various stakeholders levels (national, subnational) · Nesting conditons · Risks and underperfornance · Safeguards · Have the consultation procedures been implemented? Government has to conduct consultations · Projects and programs have to conduct consultations 0.0 Tasks · Has a National REDD+ safeguards policy been formulated at the national scale? · Have safeguard rules applicable to nested projects and programs been identified in the national policy? · Does the National REDD+ safeguard policy comply with Cancún Safeguards? · Is the safeguard policy applicable to nested projects and programs? · Governments can recognize existing voluntary standards´s safeguard requirements as being in · Subnational jurisdictions may (depending on the political economy of a country) develop their own safeguards po · Nested projects/programs have to comply with national + sub-national requirements 0.0 Tasks · Has an appropriate type of registry system been identified? Under this nesting model a Data Management System · Have all Institutional requirements been met? · Have all technical and financial requirements been fulfilled? · Have risk management proceures been identified? Under this nesting model risks can be managed with simple bu · Has an appropriate registry type been established? Under this nesting model a Data Management · Transactions of ER nested projects selling to voluntary markets need Transaction Registry (possibility · Have appropriate accounts and transaction units been identified? Under this model a Government- managed · system DSM records ERwith sub-accounts generated for accounting by projects purposes and allocated benefits(performance) may be needed · Have the procedures to enable inernational transfers been established? If carbon credits are transferred · to international Have all institutional sovereign requirements buyers/RBP needed funds, a Data to establish link to the registries Management of buyer System countries (DMS) been is identified? DMS can be hosted by institutions in charge of the REDD+ program · Coordination with those in charge of MRV and forest monitoring is needed · Benefits are issued as tradable carbon units, in which case a transaction registry would be necessary · If private entities hold carbon credits private accounts are necessary 0.0 Tasks · Have all internal adminstrative procedures regulating REDD+ implementation been established? · Has the State approved an overarching strategy on nesting? · Is regulation and guidance specific to nesting available? · Have been selected the nesting models considered by the State? The broad features of nesting must be described · Are responsibilities clearly allocated among ministries and agencies, on the basis of a law? · The Law identifies agencies that authorize and supervise projects and programs type of · Have the procedures of approval for projects include the actors projects/programs that accepted? can submit nesting projects/programs? procedures Have the risk · Contains of approval management for projects provisions considers approval&rights for the government (in the case ofand obligations? over or underperformance ofDoes · projects and programs) the procedures (decentralized of approval nesting) for projects links projects and projects to benefit sharing (centralized nesting) and establishes benefits channelling procedures? · Do the procedures of approval for projects regulate who is authorized to open accounts? · Do the procedures of approval for projects determine security protocols? · Do the procedures of approval for projects determine operational procedures for registry operations (transfers, c 0.0 s to decide on how to manage the riks of over- and underperformance of projects; and the risks of underperformance by jurisd eds to consider the impact of over- or underperformance of private programs or projects on (i) state resources; (ii) overall RED ks of underperformance by jurisdiction ) state resources; (ii) overall REDD+ performance Step 2: Process overview & timeline 1) Please revise implications of choice below. Instructions: Back to Start 2) Please revise each element on the checklist below. A guiding chronogram is provided and the link to the appropriate Man Tick the box when completed to update figure progress. MRV 60.0 40.0 Carbon rights 30.0 70.0 Benefit sharing 25.0 75.0 Consultations 0.0 100.0 Safeguards 20.0 80.0 Institutional 0.0 100.0 Regulatory 0.0 100.0 Completed Remaining 1 MRV 60.0 Checklist Number Chapter 20.0 TRUE 1 Section 5.1.3 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 5.1.3 0.0 FALSE 3 Section 5.1.3 5.0 TRUE a Section 5.2.2 5.0 TRUE b Section 5.2.3 5.0 TRUE c Section 5.2.1 5.0 TRUE d Section 5.2.2 20.0 TRUE e Section 5.2.3 PROGRESS 2 FORESTRY REGIMES AND CARBON RIGHTS ELEMENTS NEEDED 30.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 1.2, Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE 3 Section 6.2 5.0 TRUE a Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE b 5.0 TRUE c Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE d Section 1.2, Section 12.2 20.0 TRUE e Section 1.2, Section 12.2 PROGRESS 3 BENEFIT SHARING 25.0 Checklist Number Chapter 10.0 TRUE 1 Section 1.2, Section 7.1 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 7 0.0 FALSE 3 Section 7 15.0 TRUE a Section 7 0.0 FALSE b Section 7.2 0.0 FALSE c Section 7.2 0.0 FALSE d Section 13 0.0 FALSE e Section 7.2 PROGRESS 4 CONSULTATIONS 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 10.1 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 10.1 0.0 FALSE a Section 10.1 0.0 FALSE b Section 10.1 0.0 FALSE c Section 10.2 PROGRESS 5 SAFEGUARDS 20.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 8.1 20.0 2 Section 8.2 TRUE 0.0 FALSE a Section 8.1 0.0 b Section 8.2 FALSE 0.0 FALSE c Section 8.2 PROGRESS 6 INSTITUTIONAL ELEMENTS - REGISTRY 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 9.1 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 9.1 0.0 FALSE 3 Section 9.1 0.0 FALSE 4 Section 9.1 0.0 FALSE a Section 9.2 0.0 FALSE b Section 9.2 0.0 FALSE c Section 9.2 0.0 FALSE d Section 9.2 0.0 FALSE e Section 9.3 PROGRESS 7 REGULATORY ISSUES 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 12.1 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 12.1 0.0 FALSE 3 Section 12.1 0.0 FALSE a Section 12.2 0.0 FALSE b Section 12.2 0.0 FALSE c Section 12.2 0.0 FALSE d Section 12.2 0.0 FALSE e Section 12.2 PROGRESS rview & timeline mplications of choice below. each element on the checklist below. ogram is provided and the link to the appropriate Manual chapter. en completed to update figure progress. ELEMENTS NEEDED Forest Reference Emission Level FREL Allocation System Monitoring Performance CONSIDERATIONS: Forest definition Reference period REDD+ Activities, Pools, Gases Stratification GHG estimation methods 60.0 RIGHTS ELEMENTS NEEDED ELEMENTS NEEDED Property regime of forests and forest resources Carbon rights related to land Carbon rights related to activity CONSIDERATIONS: Forest management/ownerhisp Carbon rights property Monetization of carbon rights Rights of non-state actors Variations 30.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED Regulate how governments rewards ERs Institutional frameworks Risk management CONSIDERATIONS: Benefit-sharing plan Engage private sector Financing projects and programs Manage risks Variations 25.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED Consultations scope and procedures Consultations scale CONSIDERATIONS: Participation of actors Elements of discussion Consultation procedure 0.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED National REDD+ safeguards policy Safeguards rules applicable to nested projects and programs CONSIDERATIONS: National REDD+ Safeguard policy Safeguards rules applicable to nested projects and programs Variations 20.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED Type of required registry system Institutional requirements Technical and financial requirements Risk management CONSIDERATIONS: Registry type Accounts and units International transfers Institutional requirements Variations 0.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED REDD+ implementation regulation REDD+ nesting strategy Nesting procedures CONSIDERATIONS: Nesting strategy Distribution of competences Approval procedures for projects /programs Distribution of carbon finance Registry regulation 0.0 anual chapter. COMPLETION PROGRESS (%) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% MRV 60.0 40.0 Carbon rights 30.0 70.0 Benefit sharing 25.0 75.0 Consultations 0.0 100.0 Safeguards 20.0 80.0 Institutional 0.0 100.0 Regulatory 0.0 100.0 Completed Remaining Tasks · Is the FREL developed at the national/jurisdictional scale robust enough to allocate a different scales? · Has an ER allocation system from the national/jurisdictional results scale to the project level been established? · Has a system to monitor performance been established at the national/jurisdictional scale? · Is the definition of forest consistent between the FREL, the allocation method and monitoring at projects and juri · Has a reference period established for the FREL? · Projects must use same reference period as part of FREL allocation · Are REDD+ activities, pools, and gases consistent between the FREL and jurisdictional monitoring · Recommended for FREL allocation method, particularly for RED/AD · Recommended to allow projects to engage in additional activities (and report data to national forest monitoring · Is the stratification consistent between the FREL, the FREL allocation method, and monitoring reports at different · Projects could use more granular stratification but should follow guidance to consistently aggregate land use/ for · Are the data, calculation methods and baseline approach (historical average, trend, etc.) consistent Projectsthe between · mayFREL, allocation generate theirmethod, and thesite-specific own AD and/or monitoring EFs reports at different (which scales? into the allocation method may be integrated 60.0 Tasks · Have the property regime of forests and forest resources been clarified? In this nesting model both state and non · Have (forest) carbon rights been clarified? In this nesting model the ownership by the respective land owner mus · Have the carbon rights related to activities been clarified? Relevant where the government authorized managem · Is the public management/ownerhip of forest ressources established by law and considers mixed forest ownersh · Has the property of carbon rights for each of the possibleforest owners been clarified? The State is entitled to car · Government can recognize/assign carbon rights to entites that provide ecosystem services in public land areas · Has it been clarified which forest owners have the right to monetize carbon credits rests? Private entities · and communities Government can commercialize commercializes ERs generateddirectly Emission on public lands Reductions (Ers) and generate carbon · Private entities are entitled to develop carbon projects. · Government should approve legislation to clarify carbon rights, in particular where land disputes exist 30.0 Tasks · Has it been regulated how the State rewards Emission Reductions (ERs)? Under this nesting model the governme · Have all necessary institutional frameworks been established? Under this nestng models the State needs to adop · Has a risk management strategy been considered? Under this nesting model the State needs to plan and negotiat · Has a benefit-shaing plan been established? Private programs and projects are not considered in the benefit-shar · Has the private sector been engaged? Private entitites are authorized to develop projects and programs and mar · Have financing project and programs been established? Under this nesting model projects and programs are finan · The government finances government REDD+ programs (on state land, with respect to governance, etc) · Government commercializes ERRs generated on public lands · The government needs to consider the impact of over- or underperformance of private programs or projects on ( · The government can cap carbon credits that can be sold by private projects and/or can require a certain percenta 25.0 Tasks · Has a consultations scope and procedure been identified? Under this nesting model consultations depend on the · Has the scale of consultation been identified? Government consultations (national and subnational) · Have all REDD+ participants been identified? Must include private projects and potential beneficiaries; · decentralized Have all relevant entities discussion (provinces, elements municipalities, been identified? MRV and regions), national accounting stakeholders at various levels (national, subnational) · Nesting conditons · Risks and underperfornance · Safeguards · Have the consultation procedures been implemented? Government has to conduct consultations · Projects and programs have to conduct consultations 0.0 Tasks · Has a National REDD+ safeguards policy been formulated at the national scale? · Have safeguard rules applicable to nested projects and programs been identified in the national policy? · Does the National REDD+ safeguard policy comply with Cancún Safeguards? · Is the safeguard policy applicable to nested projects and programs? Under this nesting model a minimum set of s · Governments can recognize existing voluntary standards´s safeguard requirements as being in compliance with national requirement · Subnational jurisdictions may (depending on the political economy of a country) develop their own safeguards po · Nested projects/programs have to comply with national + sub-national requirements 20.0 Tasks · Has an appropriate type of registry system been identified? Under this nesting model a Transaction Registry is ne · Have all Institutional requirements been met? · Have all technical and financial requirements been fulfilled? · Have risk management procedures been identified? Under this nesting model risk management may require poo · Has an appropriate registry type been established? Under this nesting model a Full Transaction Registry (FTR) is n · Have appropriate accounts and transaction units been identified? Under this model a private project accounts (h · National accounts, sub-national accounts · Have the procedures to enable inernational transfers been established? Private account holders can make direct · Have all institutional requirements needed to establish a Full Transaction Registry (FTR) been identified? Transaction Registry managed either by national institution or third party · High level of management capacity and security protocols needed · Recommendation: Creation of single buffer accounts or pooled buffer accounts · Recommendation: recognize accredited voluntary standards registries till disposing a proper Transaction Regitry 0.0 Tasks · Have all internal adminstrative procedures regulating REDD+ implementation been established? · Has the State approved an overarching strategy on nesting? · Is regulation and guidance specific to nesting available? · Have been selected the nesting models considered by the State? The broad features of nesting must be described · Are responsibilities clearly allocated among ministries and agencies, on the basis of a law? · The Law identifies agencies that authorize and supervise projects and programs projects/programs type ofthat · Have the procedures of approval for projects include the actors accepted? can submit nesting projects/programs? procedures Have the risk · Contains of approval management for projects provisions considers approval&rights for the government (in the case ofand obligations? over or underperformance ofDoes · projects and programs) the procedures (decentralized of approval nesting) for projects links projects and projects to benefit sharing (centralized nesting) and establishes benefits channelling procedures? · Do the procedures of approval for projects regulate who is authorized to open accounts? · Do the procedures of approval for projects determine security protocols? · Do the procedures of approval for projects determine operational procedures for registry operations (transfers, c 0.0 Step 2: Process overview & timeline 1) Please revise implications of choice below. Instructions: Back to Start 2) Please revise each element on the checklist below. A guiding chronogram is provided and the link to the appropriate Ma Tick the box when completed to update figure progress. MRV 100.0 0.0 Carbon rights 0.0 100.0 Benefit sharing 0.0 100.0 Consultations 0.0 100.0 Safeguards 0.0 100.0 Institutional 0.0 100.0 Regulatory 0.0 100.0 Completed Remaining 1 MRV 100.0 Checklist Number Chapter 15.0 TRUE 1 Section 5.1.4 15.0 TRUE 2 Section 5.1.4 10.0 TRUE a Section 5.2.2 10.0 TRUE b Section 5.2.3 10.0 TRUE c Section 5.2.1 10.0 TRUE d Section 5.2.2 30.0 TRUE e Section 5.2.3 PROGRESS 2 FORESTRY REGIMES AND CARBON RIGHTS ELEMENTS NEEDED 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 1.2, Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 6.2 FALSE 3 Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE a Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE b Section 6.2 0.0 FALSE c Section 1.2, Section 12.2 0.0 FALSE d Section 1.2, Section 12.2 0.0 FALSE e Section 1.2, Section 12.2 PROGRESS 3 BENEFIT SHARING 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 1.2, Section 7.1 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 7 0.0 FALSE b Section 7 0.0 FALSE c Section 7.2 0.0 FALSE d Section 13 0.0 FALSE e Section 7.2 PROGRESS 4 CONSULTATIONS 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 10.1 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 10.1 0.0 FALSE a Section 10.1 0.0 FALSE b Section 10.1 0.0 FALSE c Section 10.2 PROGRESS 5 SAFEGUARDS 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 8.1 0.0 2 Section 8.2 FALSE 0.0 FALSE a Section 8.1 0.0 b Section 8.2 FALSE 0.0 FALSE c Section 8.2 PROGRESS 6 INSTITUTIONAL ELEMENTS - REGISTRY 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 9.1 0.0 FALSE 2 Section 9.1 0.0 FALSE 3 Section 9.1 0.0 FALSE 4 Section 9.1 0.0 FALSE a Section 9.2 0.0 FALSE b Section 9.2 0.0 FALSE c Section 9.2 0.0 FALSE d Section 9.2 0.0 FALSE e Section 9.3 PROGRESS 7 REGULATORY ISSUES 0.0 Checklist Number Chapter 0.0 FALSE 1 Section 12.1 0.0 FALSE b Section 12.2 0.0 FALSE c Section 12.2 0.0 FALSE e Section 12.2 PROGRESS erview & timeline implications of choice below. each element on the checklist below. ogram is provided and the link to the appropriate Manual chapter. en completed to update figure progress. ELEMENTS NEEDED Project Baselines Monitoring Performance CONSIDERATIONS: Forest definition Reference period REDD+ Activities, Pools, Gases Stratification GHG estimation methods 100.0 RIGHTS ELEMENTS NEEDED ELEMENTS NEEDED Property regime of forests and forest resources Carbon rights related to land Carbon rights related to activity CONSIDERATIONS: Forest management/ownerhisp Carbon rights property Monetization of carbon rights Rights of non-state actors Variations 0.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED Regulate how governments rewards ERRs Institutional frameworks CONSIDERATIONS: Engage private sector Financing projects and programs Manage risks Variations 0.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED Consultations scope and procedures Consultations scale CONSIDERATIONS: Participation of actors Elements of discussions Consultation procedure 0.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED National REDD+ safeguards policy Safeguards rules applicable to nested projects and programs CONSIDERATIONS: National REDD+ Safeguard policy Safeguards rules applicble to nested projects and programs Variations 0.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED Type of required registry system Institutional requirements Technical and financial requirements Risk management CONSIDERATIONS: Registry type Accounts and units International transfers Institutional requirements Variations 0.0 ELEMENTS NEEDED REDD+ implementation regulation CONSIDERATIONS: Distribution of competences Approval procedures for projects /programs Registry regulation 0.0 Manual chapter. COMPLETION PROGRESS (%) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% MRV 100.0 0.0 Carbon rights 0.0 100.0 Benefit sharing 0.0 100.0 Consultations 0.0 100.0 Safeguards 0.0 100.0 Institutional 0.0 100.0 Regulatory 0.0 100.0 Completed Remaining Tasks · Developed at the project level · Implemented at the project level · Has a definition of forest been agreed at the State level? It must be consistent among project baselines and proje · Has a reference period been identified? Recommended for projects to use same reference period to establish pro · Are REDD+ activities, pools, and gases consistent between projects baselines and project monitoring reports? · Recommended to allow projects to engage in additional activities · Is the stratification consistent between project baselines and projects monitoring reports? · Projects could use more granular stratification, but should follow guidance to consistently aggregate land use/ fo · Are the data, calculation methods and baseline approach (historical average, trend, etc.) consistent between pro · Projects must generate specific activity data in their Monitoring Report · Projects should use local EFs in their monitoring report; jurisdictional EFs may be allowed in some circumstances 100.0 Tasks · Have the property regime of forests and forest resources been clarified? In this nesting model both state and non · Have (forest) carbon rights been clarified? In this nesting model the ownership by the respective land owner mus · Have the carbon rights related to activities been clarified? Relevant where the government authorized managem · Is the public management/ownerhip of forest ressources established by law and considers mixed forest ownersh · Few land disputes · Has the property of carbon rights for private entities been clarified? · Private entities can commercialize directly Emission Reductions (ERs) and generate carbon credits independently · Has it been clarified that private forest owners have the right to manage and monetize carbon credits rests? · State creates incentives for generation of carbon credits but does not commercialize ERs itself · State could adopt regulation that establishes criteria for carbon project 0.0 Tasks · The government does not reward ERRs · Only needed to oversee projects · Private entitites are authorized to develop projects and programs and market ERRs directly · Projects and programs are financed by private entities · The government does not need to manage performance risks · State could consider embedding projects in a national trading program 0.0 Tasks · Government consultations (if projects are regulated) Project-level Private consultations entities and communities to discuss issues such as internal benefit sharing or assignment of participants’ responsibilities · Have all relevant discussion elements been identified? Within projects/programs through the design and implementation of projects/programs · Dialogue government-projects: safeguards, MRV requirements · Within projects/programs: internal benefit sharing/assignment of participants’ responsibilities · Recommended permanent dialogue government-projects 0.0 Tasks · Has a National REDD+ safeguards policy been formulated at the national scale? · Have safeguard rules applicable to nested projects and programs been identified in the national policy? · Does the National REDD+ safeguard policy comply with Cancún Safeguards? · Is the safeguard policy applicable to nested projects? Under this nesting model a minimum set of safeguards crite · Governments can recognize existing voluntary standards´s safeguard requirements as being in · Subnational jurisdictions may (depending on the political economy of a country) develop their own safeguards po · Nested projects/programs have to comply with national + sub-national requirements 0.0 Tasks · No government registry is needed, government can offer private accounts in government-managed Transaction R · Varied, depending on how involved the government wishes to be in orchestrating private activity · Varied, depending on how involved the government wishes to be in orchestrating private activity · Have risk management procedures been identified? · If projects form part of a national market, the State may need a Transaction Registry · If government encourages carbon projects to register under voluntary standards, there is no need for establishin · Have appropriate accounts and transaction units been identified? Accounts are needed for private entities · Have the procedures to enable inernational transfers been established? Under this nesting model the State allow · Have been established all institutional requirements needed? Only relevant if the government decides to set up a · If Transacion Registry exists in the country or is establied, it needs to be established by a competent authority or · Variations depend on the set up of a national carbon market 0.0 Tasks · Have all internal adminstrative procedures regulating REDD+ implementation been established? · Are responsibilities clearly allocated among ministries and agencies, on the basis of a law? · The Law identifies agencies that authorize and supervise projects and programs · Have the procedures of approval for projects include the type of projects accepted? The State may adopt rules re · Do the procedures of approval for projects regulate who is authorized to open accounts? · Do the procedures of approval for projects determine security protocols? · Do the procedures of approval for projects determine operational procedures for registry operations (transfers, c 0.0 mixed forest ownership systems (state, communities, private)? In this nesting model the Law must reflect a strong recognition te may adopt rules requiring to align projects with national MRV system. Recommendation to specify national reporting requi ust reflect a strong recognition of forest ressources and management rights to private entities