Profor Request For Proposals

PROFOR Request for Proposals Program on Forests (PROFOR). PROFOR is a multidonor partnership formed to provide grants to Bank regions and/or NGOs, research organizations, etc. to conduct analytical work on PROFOR's four themes: • Sustainable livelihoods: the institutional, legal, and country/sectoral policy structured needed to build more people centered and poverty focused approaches; • Governance issues: realignment of government, private sector and other civil society roles and responsibilities; creation of incentives to encourage partnerships; and enhancement of accountability by major actors in the sector; • Enhanced financing options: development of innovative financing strategies and marketing systems to support sustainable forest management, and protection; and • Cross-sectoral and macro-economic measures: analyzing the effects on forests of crosssectoral and economy-wide policy interventions and investments and exploring means of utilizing forests more effectively to achieve large cross-sectoral objectives. PROFOR activities build experience and generate knowledge in the four thematic areas through a combination of research and analytical work, project support, and knowledge and learning events. The type of product that result from PROFOR activities include toolkits, instruments for analysis, case studies and synthesis reports, policy recommendations and policy briefs. PROFOR has two “windows” for submitting applications: (i) request for proposals on priority topics (RFP) window and (ii) rapid-response window. The RFP will be focused on priority topics associated with the four thematic areas of PROFOR. Proposals submitted to the rapid response window are accepted on a flexible basis for very special instances where there is a unique opportunity to contribute to an urgent forest sector policy matter(s), typically through targeted analytical work From September 2007 to March 2008 PROFOR invites eligible applicants to submit proposals on priority topics listed under the following four thematic pillars: I. SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODS Access to markets often remains a weak link in efforts to enhance community benefits from forest resources. Efforts in other sectors (e.g., agriculture, dairy, fisheries, etc) provide evidence of effective arrangements to increase access for formerly marginalized groups (e.g., women), improve market information, and facilitate value-addition and investment. (i) Improving market access for forest dependent households. Proposals should focus on how associations, federations, networks can enhance economic activities of small and medium-scale forest based enterprises through provision of services and technical support. (ii) “Democratizing” forest markets In the agriculture sector there has been growing success in initiatives to use current technology and innovative institutional arrangements to improve access to market information, ensure quality, link raw material producers, processors and purchasers, and reduce exploitation of primary producers.

Proposals should examine policy measures necessary to replicate successes in the agriculture sector to the forest sector, and how to motivate such policy changes. II. GOVERNANCE Discussions on and activities associated with forest sector governance and law enforcement are increasingly focusing on how to ensure governance reforms and improved law enforcement recognize traditional uses of forest resources and support sustainable community engagement in forest activities (be it through management, use or access). Recent work in this area revealed that although there have been numerous studies and presentations highlighting the importance of ensuring pro-poor governance reforms and improved law enforcement, few have developed concrete instruments for designing and/or assessing pro-poor governance (i) Instruments for developing and/or determining pro-poor governance reforms Proposals should: • Identify and/or develop on instruments for enabling and/or evaluating pro-poor governance reforms1. These instruments could include tools for quantifying poverty-governance linkages (e.g., petty corruption versus good governance, what is the economic impact on rural poor), developing minimum standard requirements for participatory forest management, instruments for reviewing laws, forest tenure diagnostic tools, etc. The instruments could be developed based on approaches tested in other resource extraction sectors (mining, fisheries, etc.). (ii) Benefit sharing regimes in forest sector – the move towards contractual arrangements Over the past two decades there have been numerous reforms aimed at increasing local (forest dependent households) participation in and/or local benefits from forest management. As part of these reforms various benefit sharing regimes have emerged. These range from social contracts and joint management to increased access and use rights through participatory management. In the context of environmental services benefit sharing regimes are charted out in contractual arrangements. Proposals should: • Characterize effective and efficient benefit sharing regimes, specifically on the nature and structure of contractual arrangements between governments and other stakeholders • Examine type and duration of benefit sharing contracts, how liabilities are handled, how flexibility is maintained, and how contracts are structured to reflect actual institutional support • Involve collection of primary data regarding existing contract-based benefit sharing regimes. III. ENHANCED FINANCING OPTIONS Recent developments in global discussions on climate change and sustainable forest management indicate that avoided deforestation can offer a market-based mechanism for compensating national, regional and local governments for measures to conserve forests. Similarly existing CDM mechanism and the voluntary carbon market offer a market-based mechanism for compensating afforestation/reforestation activities. 1

For PROFOR pro-poor governance reforms that promote the roles and rights of traditional and indigenous communities in forest management are pro-poor governance reforms

(i) Avoided deforestation and SFM: Proposals should focus on preparing countries for participating in reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) schemes. The proposal should chart out key elements of the “REDDiness” process such as: • stakeholder consultations, • detailed study on avoided deforestation scenarios, • required fiscal, institutional, and policy reforms, • identification of upfront technical and investment needs, • in-depth financial, economic and risk assessment for each alternative REDD-strategies, and • identification of principal avoided deforestation strategy for the country through meaningful consultation process. The proposal should specify the specific elements that PROFOR will support. It is expected that proposals will have cofinancing. The proposals should be submitted in collaboration with Bank regional colleagues and endorsement from the FCPF. (ii) Making carbon payments for avoided deforestation, afforestation/reforestation more pro-poor A repeated challenge in emerging carbon markets has been how to make carbon payments propoor. There have been numerous innovative approaches working with communities and the voluntary carbon market to develop mechanisms for compensating communities for afforestation/reforestation efforts. Examples exist in India, are emerging in Indonesia, and are being piloted in Madagascar. Proposals should focus on: • Frameworks for making carbon payments to community managed forests and/or small land holders. The framework should help design a system that has low transaction costs, does not heavily rely on subsidies, is equitable, and effective at targeting incentives to ensure benefits reach the rural poor. • Reviewing existing forest dependent community-oriented arrangements for carbon payments and existing compensation arrangements both in the forest and non-forest sectors that have effectively targeted rural poor households • Examining and comparing different models, processes, and/or arrangements from a financial, environmental, distributional, institutional, and overall sustainability standpoint. IV. CROSS-SECTORAL AND MACRO-ECONOMIC MEASURES Increases in price of fossil fuels and growing concerns regarding climate change have raised the profile of bioenergy (more specifically biofuel and biodiesel). The use of biofuels (e.g., ethanol) and biodiesel as fuel substitutes has gained widespread publicity. Along with publicity on the potential of these transportation fuels has come growing concern regarding the impact of corn-, soy-, and cropseed based fuels on the price of staple crops and animal feed, and land use. The net energy balance of these first generation bioenergy sources has also raised questions regarding environmental benefits. In contrast, the “next generation of bioenergy”, specifically cellulosic biomass based bioenergy is seen has having significant potential to: provide large energy supply from plants, displace fossil energy, diversify and amplify the biomass feedstocks, be suitable for multiple conversion processes

and products, have a higher performance for energy balance and GHG reductions, and increase opportunities for production in diverse landscapes. (i) Forest and bioenergy nexus: Proposals should focus on cross-sector issues linking bioenergy and forests in the context of climate change such as: • Assessment of factors affecting demand for land for production of bioenergy feedstock (e.g., impact of fluctuations in the price of fossil fuels on demand for bioenergy feedstock) • Modeling of forest scenarios with changing ‘clean-energy’ scenarios • Developing new and adapted economic models to assess the multi-market implications of expanding biomass-based energy uses. (ii) Forest and energy: moving towards sustainable fuelwood and charcoal production While bioenergy is gaining popularity, the questions of sustainable fuelwood and charcoal production remains a challenge. Fuelwood and charcoal are often the primary forest-based energy sources for the rural poor and, in many contexts, a source of forest degradation. Proposals should examine: • Assist in developing a regulatory framework for sustainable production of fuelwood and charcoal, including production standards • Model trade-offs between bioenergy, fuelwood and charcoal production. • Whether incentives for production of cellulose-based bioenergy feedstock production (could) affect access to fuelwood and charcoal? Proposals should be submitted on or before December15, 2007. Proposals should follow PROFOR application guidelines available at: http://www.profor.info/pdf/Guidelines_for_application_for_PROFOR_funding_2006.pdf The completed concept note should be submitted to: Eliane Kanyunyi PROFOR Secretariat Mailstop: MC5-514 The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington DC, 20433 USA E-mail: [email protected]