Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Advanced Draft Benefit Sharing Plan Ghana Cocoa Forest REDD+ Programme Climate Change Department & National REDD+ Secretariat, Forestry Commission September 4, 2018 1 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Table of Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1. Overview of the Ghana Cocoa-Forest REDD+ Programme (GCFRP) ............................................. 3 1.2. Design and structure of the BSP ................................................................................................... 5 1.3. Legal Context of the GCFRP and the BSP ...................................................................................... 6 1.4. Principles and criteria of the BSP .................................................................................................. 8 2. Beneficiaries .......................................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 ER Program stakeholders and beneficiaries ....................................................................................... 9 2.2 Carbon and non-carbon beneficiaries............................................................................................... 15 3. Types of Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 17 3.1 Carbon Benefits................................................................................................................................. 17 3.2 Non-Carbon Benefits......................................................................................................................... 19 4. Distribution of ERPA Proceeds and Fixed Costs .................................................................................. 23 4.1 Fixed Costs ........................................................................................................................................ 24 4.2 MRV time-frames and target ERs...................................................................................................... 25 5. ER Payments and Performance Scenarios .......................................................................................... 27 5.1 ER Payments...................................................................................................................................... 27 5.2 Emission Performance Scenarios ...................................................................................................... 27 6. Flow of Funds & Governance .............................................................................................................. 34 6.1 Governance of REDD+ Dedicated Account ....................................................................................... 34 6.2 Governance of HIA Benefit Sharing Funds ........................................................................................ 35 7. Safeguards........................................................................................................................................... 38 7.1 Feedback and grievance redress mechanism ................................................................................... 41 8. Monitoring of the BSP ......................................................................................................................... 42 Annex .......................................................................................................................................................... 45 Annex 1: Approach to designing benefit sharing plan for GCFRP........................................................... 45 Annex 2: HIA social performance/emission reduction indicators and their respective weights ........... 56 Annex 3: Determining Beneficiaries........................................................................................................ 57 Annex 4: Secured Funding ...................................................................................................................... 58 2 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft 1. Introduction Ghana’s National REDD+ Strategy aims to reduce deforestation and forest degradation and produce emission reductions by focusing on the implementation of large scale, jurisdictional programs that follow ecological boundaries, are defined by major commodities, and address the main drivers of deforestation and degradation within each program area. As part of a nested1 approach, these programmatic activities are supported by a set of over-arching actions and policies that are encompassed within the national REDD+ framework. The Ghana Cocoa Forest REDD+ Programme (GCFRP) is the first program to be developed under REDD+ in Ghana. It is jointly coordinated by the National REDD+ Secretariat (NRS) of the Forestry Commission (FC), and Ghana’s Cocoa Board (Cocobod). The FC is responsible for the regulation of the utilization of forest and wildlife resources, the conservation and management of those resources, and the coordination of policies related to them, while the Cocobod’s mission is to regulate the production, processing and marketing of good quality cocoa. The GCFRP was accepted into the Carbon Fund (CF) pipeline in April, 2014, with the successful submission of an Emission Reduction Program Idea Note (ER-PIN). In September, 2016, Ghana received endorsement from the FCPF Participants Committee for its R-Package, signaling the end of REDD+ Readiness, and then in June, 2017, Ghana presented its Emission Reduction Program Document (ERPD) to the Carbon Fund (CF) and the GCFRP was formally invited into the Carbon Fund portfolio. Ghana’s letter of intent (LOI) with the CF was most recently updated and signed by the FC in May (2018), and Ghana started the process towards negotiations with the CF and signing of an Emission Reductions Program Agreement (ERPA) by January, 2019. 1.1. Overview of the Ghana Cocoa-Forest REDD+ Programme (GCFRP) The GCFRP is the one of the first Emission Reductions (ER) Program to be centered upon the development of a sustainable commodity supply chain that hinges upon the non-carbon benefits that will be channeled to farmers as a result of significant private sector investments into the landscape and the supply chain. In practical terms, this means that climate-smart cocoa farmers that agree to shaded cocoa production and forest protection measures can expect significant yield increases from improved access to farming inputs and resources, that will result in increased incomes. The projected ER benefits from a potential carbon payments of $50 million (against performance over time), coupled with the cocoa industry’s annual $2 billion dollar investment into the sector, can together drive this transition to a more sustainable cocoa production landscape, while providing added incentives to farmers, traditional leaders, and communities that support landscape governance and management activities that reduce deforestation and support the adoption of climate-smart practices. 1 The concept in Ghana’s National REDD+ Strategy is that national level policy work supports programmatic REDD+ landscapes (jur isdictions defined by ecological-commodity boundaries) which in turn have target areas for interventions; Hotspot Intervention Areas (HIAs in the case of the GCFRP. Thus, HIAs are nested within the commodity program’s Landscape, which is nested within national-level efforts. Therefore, in Ghana’s case, the term nesting does not imply the development of sub-baselines for HIAs or other target areas. The baseline is for the entire program area and carbon will only be transacted on at the program level. 3 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft The program also represents the first time that the FC and COCOBOD have come together to jointly develop and coordinate a program of such scale and importance—a clear demonstration of how the program is already changing institutional business-as-usual practices. The program area covers 5.92 million ha, is located in the southern third of the country, and forms part of the West Africa Guinean Forest biodiversity hotspot2, encompassing 5 tropical forest sub-types (Fig. 1). The program area overlaps with 92 administrative districts and 5 administrative regions, including the Eastern Region, Central Region, Ashanti Region, Western Region and the Brong- Ahafo Region. The bulk of Figure 1: GCFRP programme area with regional boundaries, forest types and Ghana’s cocoa is produced within protected forests this landscape. Given the size of the program landscape, target areas have been designated based upon the predominance of cocoa production, the area of forests under threat, and the presence of major stakeholders. Using administrative district boundaries, these target areas have been grouped into “Hotspot Intervention Areas� (HIA) within which there are numerous farmers and communities, presided over by Traditional Authorities. Each of the HIAs will be governed by a duly constituted, multi-tiered governance structure that also includes Sub-HIA bodies. Carbon accounting will happen at the program scale, but GCFRP implementation will target at least six Hotspot Intervention Areas (HIAs) (Fig. 2) spread across the entire landscape. 2 GoG, 2002. National Biodiversity Strategy for Ghana, Ministry of Environment and Science (MES), The Republic of Ghana. https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/gh/gh-nbsap-01-en.pdf 4 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Figure 2: Map of the GCFRP with HIA target intervention areas The goal of the GCFRP is to significantly reduce deforestation and forest degradation by promoting climate-smart cocoa production, landscape level land-use planning, strategic policy reforms, integrated coordination and monitoring, law enforcement as well as risk reduction efforts within priority Hotspot Intervention Area (HIA) landscapes. As a 20-year programme, the GCFRP estimates that it could produce a total of 294,395,567 million tCO2e emission reductions (following the removal of 102,535 million tCO2e placed in risk and uncertainty buffers), representing a 44% overall reduction against the reference level. Under a prospective contract with the Carbon Fund to cover the first 7 years of implementation (2019- 2024, with final disbursement in 2025), Ghana estimates that it could generate significant reductions in deforestation and forest degradation against its reference level and produce approximately 10 million tCO2e emission reductions to be transacted under the ERPA. However, a requirement for Ghana to be able to sign an ERPA contract with the CF, towards full execution of the programme and eventual payment against demonstrated emission reductions, a benefit sharing plan (BSP) needs to be developed in anticipation of the carbon and non-carbon benefits that the GCFRP will generate. 1.2. Design and structure of the BSP This BSP elaborates an equitable benefit sharing mechanism that is intended to effectively distribute carbon and non-carbon benefits as originally articulated by the ERPD. It describes the various beneficiaries, their eligibility, roles and responsibilities while specifying the scale and modalities for distribution. Additionally, the BSP describes the type of benefits to be transferred to the beneficiaries, the timing of the distribution, and the conditions (roles and responsibilities) to be satisfied for the payment 5 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft of the benefits, and the appropriate indicators for monitoring, measuring and verifying compliance with modalities for distributing benefits to beneficiaries. It was designed based on extensive field study (focus group discussions and key informant interviews), broad stakeholder consultations at the local and national levels and multiple expert reviews. Precisely, thirty focus group discussions were conducted comprising about 413 individuals. This includes 304 men and 109 women. In addition to the focus group discussions, twenty-seven (27) key informant interviews were conducted at the local level for informed individualized perspectives. Also, several consultative meetings with local communities, private sector players, civil society organizations, government, and expert groups were conducted to ascertain views on the draft benefit sharing plan. In all seven different consultative and expert review meetings were conducted (See Annex 1 for information on the consultation and expert reviews). The structure of the BSP report is organized into eight main sections. Section 1 introduces the GCFRP, gives an overview of the legal context that underpins the benefit sharing plan, provides a brief description of the design process, and then outlines the basic principles and criteria that guide the plan. Section 2 describes the program’s stakeholders and beneficiaries, outlining their rights, relative impact in reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation, as well as their roles and responsibilities under the program. Section 2.2 then describes the beneficiaries of carbon and non-carbon benefits. Section 3 discusses the types of benefits, including carbon and non-carbon benefits. Section 4 provides an overview of how ERPA payments will be channeled, the anticipated fixed costs of the program, and the distribution of benefits against reporting and verification time-frames. Section 5 describes how ER payments will be allocated to beneficiaries and scenarios of how benefits will be allocated in the case of under- performance. Section 6 provides an overview of the financial flows and governance structures that will support benefit sharing. Section 7 summarizes the existing safeguards instruments and mechanisms that are in place, and to which partners will adhere. Section 8 describes the roles and responsibilities for monitoring the BSP. 1.3. Legal Context of the GCFRP and the BSP Ghana has a legally pluralistic governance regime with respect to land and tree tenure that recognizes both customary and statutory laws. About 78% of lands are customarily owned, while 20% and 2% are publicly and privatively owned respectively. Customary land is owned by traditional authorities (commonly referred to as “Stools or Skins�), for families and clans, and is held in trust by the Chief or family head for the benefit of the people and communities, or family concerned (Agidee, 2011). The rules governing customary land and its resources are predominantly characterized by oral codes and systems based on local norms and practices that are negotiable and location-specific (Agbosu L. et al: 2007), and the majority of such lands have not benefit from formal registration processes. Customary title to land includes ownership of the forests and the Chief or family head has the power to grant user rights to the land and forest resources. However, under Ghana’s statutory laws, the State has the economic management rights to all of the forest and wildlife resources, which are to be held in trust for the landowners (Boakye and Baffoe, 2006). Partially due to this pluralistic divide, the system of land and tree ownership exists within a spectrum that has created some perverse incentives to sustainable tree and forest management. This is because the system creates scenarios where it is possible to “own� the resource, as with the case of Chiefs and 6 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft landowners, and yet not have recognized, formal management rights to the trees or forests, and only partial economic rights to the revenue generated by the State. The nature of the tenure system has also excluded, to date, highly relevant land-users from having legal rights to trees or associated benefits, despite the fact that they exercise de facto management rights through day-to-day land-use decision making and farming activities, which can either have positive outcomes (farmers decisions to nurture and maintain trees on farms and in fallow areas that ensure the stock of timber trees in off-reserve lands) or negative outcomes (continual encroachment into forested areas and forest reserves to access fertile land for farming)3. In an effort to bridge the gap between de facto and de jure rights, the revised Ghana Forest and Wildlife Policy (FWP) 2012 has sought to encourage active community and landowner participation in the management of forest resources. And more critically, work supported by the World Bank under NREG-TA has proposed solutions for resolving issues related to tree tenure and benefit-sharing in a manner that is consistent with the provisions of multilateral treaties that Ghana is a party to, and international best practices. In addition to the past and ongoing effort on tenure and benefit sharing, several forward-looking legislative reforms on tree tenure and benefit sharing critical for successfully implementation of REDD+ have been tabled and are now being piloted by the Ghana FIP for broader implementation under the programme as lessons are learned. These include the proposed legal reforms on the framework for tree tenure and benefit sharing scheme4, and he proposed off-reserve timber tree management and exploitation guidelines5 by the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources (MLNR), which would ensure that farmers receive greater economic benefits from exploited timber trees. Another major legislative advancement for REDD+ will be the passage of the Wildlife Resources Management Bill (2014), which will consolidate and revise the laws relating to wildlife and protected areas and serve as the final step in the formalization of CREMA—a community resource management and governance structure that devolves rights to communities. HIAs were designed based on the CREMA structure, and passage of the bill will buttress the establishment of the Hotspot Intervention Areas (HIAs), enabling them to serve as legal entities. To date, CREMAs and HIAs are supported (directly and indirectly) by the Forest and Wildlife Policy (2012) and receive certificates of devolution from the sector minister that authorize community-based management of the natural resources. Already, these certificates have been used to underpin legal agreements between CREMAs and private sector companies. In relation to transfer and management of funds related to ER activities, Ghana’s Financial Administration Act, 2003 (Act 654) stipulates that, the Government of Ghana, as represented by the Ministry of Finance (MoF), is the sole entity that can enter into a contract with the World Bank Carbon Fund on behalf of the program. Thus, the MoF will be responsible to formally transfer ERs from the program area to the Carbon Fund (CF), and in return receive performance-based payments on behalf of the identified beneficiaries. 3 Several studies have shown that, farmers’ enthusiasm to retain and maintain timber trees on farm and fallow lands has waned considerably (Acheampong, 2003; Amanor, 2005; TBI, 2009; Dumenu, 2010). Furthermore, during the ERPD development process, analysis of drivers clearly showed that farmers do not benefit from timber extraction or forest management inside forest reserves, and given that cocoa yields tend to be low and fertile land is limited, many farmers also opt to encroach into protected forests to expand their farmlands. 4 Akapme, K. (2016). Development of a framework on tree tenure and benefit sharing scheme: Legal reforms proposals. Final Report. Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources. 5 MLNR, (2017). Off-reserve timber trees management and exploitation guidelines. Draft Report. Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources. 7 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Subsequently, all benefits due the carbon beneficiaries will be distributed to them as laid out in the benefit sharing plan. The main legal basis for the GCFRP and the BSP are summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Relevant legal basis for GCFRP and BSP Legal documents Relevant implications Ghana Forest and Wildlife - Encourages active participation of communities and landowners in the Policy (FWP) 2012 management of forest resources Wildlife Resources - Devolves management rights to local communities for wildlife and Management Bill (2014) natural resource protection. - Provides legal basis for the formation and formalization of CREMA (community resource management area) and its governance structure. HIAs were designed based on the CREMA structure, and the bill buttresses the establishment of the Hotspot Intervention Areas (HIAs), enabling them to serve as legal entities for the REDD+ programme. Off-reserve timber trees - Ensures that farmers and landowners receive economic benefits from management and naturally occurring timber trees in off-reserve areas. exploitation guidelines (Draft). Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources National REDD+ Strategy - Guides and provides framework for achieving REDD+ in a well- 2015 coordinated manner by pursuing a broad set of actions to tackle deforestation and forest degradation at the landscape level for a twenty- year period. Financial Administration Act - Funds from the Carbon Fund to be transferred to the Ministry of 2003 Finance for onward releases to beneficiaries as laid out in the BSP. 1.4. Principles and criteria of the BSP The benefit sharing plan for the GCFRP is premised on the following principles and criteria: • The design and implementation of the BSP for the ER Program should comply with relevant applicable laws in Ghana, including agreements and customary rights. • The design and implementation of the BSP for the ER Program are carried out in transparent and inclusive manner. • Benefits are allocated to: o actors who take verified actions to achieve emission reductions (performance); o actors with legal rights (statutory or customary) to trees and forests; o actors who have proved effective facilitators and essential in facilitating emission reduction activities 8 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft • Local farmers, traditional leaders and communities are expected to benefit the most: the proportion of benefits allocated to local people should represent the most significant share of benefits, as they are the key actors whose behavior (in terms of land use) need to change for ERs to be achieved. • The BSP is periodically revised and updated based on lessons learnt following to monitoring and evaluation of its implementation. This will ensure the BSP functions in an effective and efficient manner incentivizing positive behaviour toward emission reduction. 2. Beneficiaries 2.1 ER Program stakeholders and beneficiaries At its core, Ghana’s ER Program is based upon the concept of community-based natural resource management6. The aim to use such a structure to enable locally-based governance and management of the landscape and its resources with partnership and support from key stakeholders, including relevant government bodies, private sector cocoa companies, and NGOs. In the past, in Ghana, this type of natural resource management has been authorized and practiced through the CREMA7 mechanism. Broadly speaking, CREMA is the government authorized CBNRM approach that has been developed, piloted, nationally approved, implemented and adapted over the past twenty-plus years8. Through this adaptation, it is now being transformed to the HIA and Sub-HIAs structures so as to accommodate a new scale and scope. Box 1 gives an example of an existing CREMA, which will be incorporated into a Sub-HIA within the Juabeso-Bia HIA. In line with this approach, the process of identifying beneficiaries focused on engaging with and seeking input from local participants and leaders of the proposed HIAs, including cocoa farmers, community opinion leaders, and traditional authorities, as well as with the main stakeholders that will partner and support the HIAs. This served to align the process of determining beneficiaries with the logic and conceptual framework of the GCFRP’s Implementation Plan. This process is described in Annex 1. 6 CBNRM refers to, “The collective management of ecosystems to improve human well -being. It aims to devolve authority for ecosystem management to the local (community) level, thereby empowering communities to manage their own resources without permanently damaging, depleting or degrading them�. Fabricius, C. and Collins, S. 2007. Community based natural resource management: governing the commons. Water Policy 9 Supplement 2, p. 83-97. 7 Community Resource Management Area (CREMA). 8 CREMA is defined as a geographically defined area that includes one or more communities that have agreed to manage natural resource in a sustainable manner. Institutionally, CREMA serves as a community-based organization that is built upon existing community decision-making structures, with an executive body and a constitution that guides the activities and regulations of the CREMA, and with District Assembly by-law which legitimize the constitution and provide a basis for enforcement (Wildlife Division, 2004. “A brief guide to the establishment of Community Resource Management Areas (CREMAs): A user manual�. Collaborative Resource Management Unit. Accra). 9 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft BOX 1: KWAMEBIKROM STOOL LAND CREMA The CREMA concept was introduced in this area in 2006 to promote wildlife conservation. The Wildlife Division, on behalf of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources, granted the communities with the Certificate of Devolution of Authority on 27 November 2009. The CREMA involves nine communities. Location: Bia District, Western Region of Ghana
Area of coverage: 7,227 ha
Income generation activities: Membership dues, hunting permit fees, penalties from offenders, sales of confiscated animals/NTFPs.
 Livelihood activities: Group-based activities (beekeeping, soap-making and palm-oil extraction), Individual- based activities (tree planting and vegetable farming)
 Benefit sharing arrangement: For every product harvested (NTFP, wild animal) for sale, 2% is paid to the traditional authority (land owners) and another 2% to the CREMA. The cost bearer of the products takes the remainder. The CREMA also pays 5 % of its annual income to the Bia District Assembly and the Wildlife Division. With the GCFRP being the first program to focus on a global commodity supply chain, the range of stakeholders and beneficiaries of the program is diverse and cross-sectoral, as are the types of benefits that will accrue. The suite of key stakeholders who will benefit under the GCFRP are described below (Table 2), and their rights, roles and responsibilities in reducing deforestation and degradation are summarized in Table 3. They include three broad categories of beneficiaries who that will benefit from the carbon and/or non-carbon benefits of the program. Table 2: GCFRP Beneficiaries HIA landscape stakeholders include farmers, communities and TA. They are all present in the landscape but roles and responsibilities towards producing ERS are distinct, as will be the types and scales of benefits to be received. Groups of farmers registered under the program: The types of farmers include (but are not limited to) cocoa farmers, Non-Timber Forest Product (NTFP)9 harvesters, and food crop farmers. The program will not operate via individual farmers but rather through farmer groups registered under an active HIA, Sub- HIA or similar CBNRM structure, who are willing participants who know their responsibilities and rights in the program. 9 NTFPs can include non-wood forest products, which consist of goods of biological origin other than wood, derived from the forest (FAO, 2017) or non-wood products grown or harvested from agroforestry systems. 10 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Communities: Communities located within active HIAs/ Sub-HIAs who are willingly and actively participating in the governance of the landscape. Traditional Authorities: TA refers to the structure of traditional leaders (chiefs and queen mothers), as represented and organized under a Traditional Council (or similar body), with jurisdiction over all or part of an HIA/Sub-HIA landscape. Government agencies with the responsibility to coordinate the program and/or implement key activities and actions at HIA or program level that affect outcomes within HIAs or across the entire GCFRP landscape. They include: Forestry Commission: The main divisions of the FC to be involved include the Climate Change Department (CCD) which hosts the National REDD+ Secretariat (NRS), Forest Services Division (FSD), the Legal Department (LD), and the Wildlife Division (WD). Cocoa Board: The main divisions at Cocobod include Cocoa Health & Extension Division (CHED), and the Research & Monitoring Division (RMD). Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies: As the local branch of administrative government under the Ministry of Local Government, MMDAs operating within HIAs/Sub-HIAs will be involved. Private Sector Cocoa Companies: Cocoa companies include licensed cocoa buying companies (LBCs), cocoa traders, cocoa processors, and end-user chocolate companies. Other private sector companies: It is possible that other companies from the forestry sector, agriculture sector, or financial and climate risk management sectors will play a role in and benefit from the program. The assumption is that these three groups will be the main stakeholder beneficiaries of the program10 through their active involvement and change of behavior on the ground in HIAs, through the implementation of activities that reduce deforestation and degradation in HIAs, through investments into activities and actions that do the same or incentivize stakeholders, and through support and collaboration to the programs structures and processes. It is worth noting that while the HIA stakeholders (farmers, communities, TA) are all present in the HIA landscapes, their respective roles in generating ERs and the types of benefits expected are distinct and there is no issue with potential overlap. In addition, while the HIA is the key structure through which the program is being 10 The program also recognized the significant role that NGOs and other civil society groups will play in implementing activities within HIAs and Sub-HIAs and serving as key members of the HIA consortiums. However, NGOs are not regarded as “beneficiaries� of the program and therefore are not directly address ed in the BSP. 11 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft implemented, if entities want to propose and form HIAs (beyond those that have been recommended or developed) this is entirely possible. 12 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Table 3: Beneficiaries and rationale for their respective benefits Beneficiary Resource Rights & REDD+ Impact Rationale HIA Landscape Stakeholders • Holds customary rights to farmlands based on various • Adoption of climate-smart cocoa farming practices including planting and Registered customary agreements. management of shade trees on farms and farm lands; Farmer • Avoid encroachment into forested areas for farming activities or illegal Groups • Direct impact on ERs by agreeing to change behavior logging or illegal mining; with respect to forest conversion and on-farm shade- • Compliance with HIA landscape by-laws and management plan. tree management, resulting in reduced deforestation from cocoa farm expansion and reduced degradation from no-shade cocoa system or illegal logging. Traditional • Hold statutory and customary ownership rights to land • Custodians of forest lands (including the REDD+ programme area) and hold Councils and natural resources and receives portion of timber ownership right to the lands; revenue from the state. • Support forest conservation activities and forest law enforcement against illegal logging and illegal mining. • Direct impact on ERs by agreeing to change terms of how land is leased and resources are managed, directly resulting in reduced deforestation from agricultural expansion into forests and illegal mining, and reductions in degradation from illegal logging. • Direct impact on ERs by participating in the • Support forest law enforcement and monitoring against illegal logging and Communities development and operation of HIA landscape illegal mining; governance mechanisms, including forest monitoring • Support forest management and forest conservation activities via exercises and local enforcement of HIA bye-laws, collaborative natural resources management programmes such as CREMA. resulting in reduced encroachment into forests and reductions in illegal-logging. Government Agencies Forestry • Legal right to manage Ghana’s forest resources; • Responsible for forest management and coordinates forest conservation Commission activities and programmes; • Direct impact on ERs by coordinating implementation, • Responsible for forest law enforcement against illegal logging and illegal monitoring and reporting, while supporting expansion of mining; law enforcement activities in HIA and pursuance of legal • Responsible for and possess technical capacity for forest monitoring, action, resulting in the reductions of illegal activities that verification and reporting; cause deforestation or degradation, including illegal 13 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft logging, mining, and agricultural encroachment into forest • Provides technical knowledge and capacity building for non-technical actors reserves. such communities in collaborative forest management. COCOBOD • Legally responsible for the regulation and marketing of • Responsible for climate-smart cocoa farming practices and coordinates Ghana cocoa along the entire value chain. climate-smart cocoa programmes and initiatives; • Provides technical knowledge and extension services for climate-smart cocoa • Indirect impact on ERs through co-coordination of the practices; program and implementation of climate-smart cocoa in • Responsible for and possess technical capacity for monitoring, verification HIAs. and reporting compliance to climate-smart cocoa practices. MMDAs • Direct impact on ERs by supporting by-laws, monitoring, • Main and lead government agent in local governance system; and enforcement of HIAs, coupled with participation in • Coordinate all government programmes and business at the sub-national HIA consortiums and support to HIA land use planning. level; • Support forest law enforcement and monitoring against illegal logging and illegal mining; • Enact and enforce by-laws to support forest management and forest conservation activities and programmes. Private Sector Cocoa • Indirect impact on ERs through investments into and/or • Provide financial support and other incentives to farmers for adoption of companies implementation of CSC in HIAs, driven by a global climate-smart cocoa practices; commitment to a no-deforestation supply chain in Ghana. • Provides training and support capacity build programmes on climate-smart cocoa practices. Other private • Impact to be determined. Though not anticipated during • Yet to be determined sector the ERPA period, private sector timber companies, oil companies palm companies, or other agricultural commodity company with legally recognized concessionary rights to specific landholdings could seek to become a stakeholder and beneficiary to the program. At such time, the nature of the companies legal rights and impact on reducing deforestation and degradation will have to be reviewed and assessed. 14 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft 2.2 Carbon and non-carbon beneficiaries Though HIA stakeholders, government agencies, and private sector companies are essential to the successful roll-out of the GCFRP, the type of benefits that will accrue to each stakeholder varies according to their differential roles, rights, and interests in generating ERs under the GCFRP. As clearly outlined in Ghana’s ERPD, the program aims to generate two types of benefits: • Carbon benefits: monetary or non-monetary goods, services, or other benefits related to performance-based payments received under the ERPA (contractual agreement with the Carbon Fund) by the ER Program Entity Government of Ghana (GoG) or funded with such received payments. • Non-carbon benefits: in-kind or financial benefits produced by or in relation to the implementation or operation of the ER Program, other than those that directly derive from performance-based payments for ERs. One unique aspect of the GCFRP is that it hinges upon the importance and predominance of the non- carbon benefits that will derive from the project, including increased yields for cocoa farmers and verification of “sustainably� produced cocoa beans from HIAs that the private sector can use to validate its no-deforestation supply chain commitments. This represents a significant strength of the program, as it means that the expected carbon benefits will not be the only source of incentives or benefits to stakeholders, and that the underlying interest and motivation of the program to realize sustainable cocoa forest landscapes and livelihood production systems under the GCFRP. Table 4 provides a breakdown of the GCFRP’s carbon and non-carbon beneficiaries, and Annex 1 and Annex 3 provides a more comprehensive description of the consultation process and methods used to identify the beneficiaries and determine alignment with the types of benefits. The determination of carbon beneficiaries was based up the stakeholder playing a direct role in reducing deforestation and degradation on the ground, performing essential monitoring functions, and having a regulatory or legal right to the land, forests, trees, or cocoa resources. The HIA stakeholders (farmers, TA, and communities) and the government agencies (FC, Cocobod and MMDAs) meet these criteria (as shown in Table 3) as they are ultimately responsible for halting the expansion of cocoa and food crop farms into forest reserves, reducing the widespread occurrence of illegal logging activities, planting and maintaining trees to bring about shaded cocoa systems, and reducing incidences of illegal mining (galamsey) and wildfires. Though the other stakeholders’ roles are also critically important in the implementation of the GCFRP, their roles and impacts are predominantly indirect. Though private sector stakeholders are very important to the funding and implementation of the GCFRP, their commitments to be part of this program are linked to broader commitments under the industry’s Cocoa & Forest Initiative (CFI), which aims to roll-out climate-smart cocoa interventions and facilitate a no-deforestation supply chain. The CFI complements the GCFRP in three (3) areas critical for the effective implementation of the REDD+ programme namely, forest protection and restoration, sustainable cocoa production and farmers’ livelihood, and community engagement and social inclusion. As indicated in the CFI’s implementation plan, the CFI will implement its field level activities in the HIAs (particularly focusing on the six (6) HIAs of the GCFRP) as its implementation area. At this stage, the private sector’s primary interest is to show-case sustainable, climate-smart cocoa production that helps to protect and restore 15 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Ghana’s forests. In the future, however, in the post-ERPA period when the quantum of ERs is likely to increase significantly, companies could explore possible carbon agreements with the GoG. Table 4: GCFRP carbon and non-carbon beneficiaries Stakeholders Recipients of Carbon Benefits Recipients of Non-Carbon Benefits HIA Landscape Stakeholders Registered farmer groups X X Traditional Authorities X X Communities X X Government Agencies Forestry Commission X Cocobod X MMDAs X Private Sector Cocoa companies X 16 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft 3. Types of Benefits 3.1 Carbon Benefits As defined in Section 2, the GCFRP program will generate both Carbon and Non-Carbon Benefits. The carbon benefits are primarily focused on incentivizing and appreciating key stakeholders contributing to changing behaviour of how cocoa is farmed and how the landscape is managed, while also providing upfront and incremental support to the implementation of some key activities led by the government. The GCFRP’s main carbon benefits are laid out in Table 5, which provides an overview of all of the expected Carbon Benefits for the various beneficiaries, with clarity on the monetary or non-monetary type, and performance indicators to trigger “disbursement�. Additional details on some of the main carbon benefits are provided in the highlighted the Boxes 1-3 shown below. BOX 2: CSC INPUT PACKAGE CSC input packages to registered farmers in HIA groups, valued at approximately USD 142 per farmer, based on the assumption of approximately 23,457 farmers per HIA landscape, across 6 HIAs. The input packages are likely to include a combination of fertilizer, hybrid cocoa seedlings, shade tree seedlings, farming tools (machete, scythe, wellington boots), and other inputs to support CSC. Farmers within each group, together with the HIA Management Board and Consortium will decide upon the most “beneficial� package of items depending on local HIA farming conditions, needs, and market prices. Depending on availability and price, farmer groups may also choose to receive mechanised farming equipment, including motorcycle tricycles with trailers, motorized spray machines, mechanized pruning or weeding devises, etc., which would be shared by multiple members of the group. BOX 3: TA ROYALTY PAYMENTS Royalty payments to Traditional Authorities via Traditional Councils as performance-based payment for presiding over the lands and resources of the HIA and providing leadership that led to the generation of ERs at the local HIA level and commitment to adhere to agreed land use plans. 17 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft BOX 4: HIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS HIA Community’s will have access to support for Community Development Projects. Communities will apply through the HIA Management Board & Consortium and will be selected based upon 1) environmental projects that align with the HIA management plan; or 2) development and social welfare projects for which there is a significant need. Projects that bring leverage funding from the private sector or from the MMDAs will be prioritized. Eligible types of environmental projects: conservation of community lands under Management Plan, incentives (and rules) to support adoption of high-shade (climate-smart) cocoa, HIA forest monitoring teams and activities, diversification of sustainable agricultural livelihoods, etc. Eligible types of community development projects: boreholes, school or health facility infrastructure, solar lighting, etc. Ineligible projects: purchase of chainsaws, mining equipment, hunting tools/equipment, monoculture cash crop projects, road projects, projects that disproportionately benefit any individual or family. Based upon an estimated average project cost of USD 50,000, a total of 269 community projects could be funded as Carbon Benefits, equally approximately 38 projects per HIA. Table 5: Carbon benefits and performance indicators Carbon Benefit Description of benefit Performance Indicator Beneficiary Type (Priority Level) HIA Landscape Beneficiaries Farmers Non- Farm input packages to -No. of farmers registered to groups Registered in monetary support climate-smart under HIA (increasing number) Groups in HIA cocoa production -No. farmers demonstrate adoption of CSC practices (Primary -No. new farms in forest reserves; Beneficiary) -Farmer yield trends Traditional Monetary Performance based -Agreement signed with TC Councils incentive payment -Documents showing development of HIA / Sub-HIA landscape governance system (constitution, by-laws, management plan); (Primary -ER from HIA/Sub-HIA landscape or Beneficiary) deforestation rate against estimated HIA baseline. HIA / Sub-HIA Non- Community development -Agreement to participate in HIA/Sub- communities Monetary projects HIA gov. system; 18 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft (Secondary -Developed HIA/Sub-HIA landscape beneficiaries) documents (Constitution, by-laws, management plan; -Successful implementation and monitoring of plan Government of Ghana Forestry Monetary Logistics for HIA forest -Procured monitoring equipment and Commission monitoring and law logistics enforcement. (Benefits -Stationed Rapid Response Team (RRT) (Primary money covers vehicle in HIAs beneficiary) costs, while FC budget -District forest monitoring reports pays for additional staff). - Increased tree/forest cover in the programme area Monetary Support to legal unit for -Training and capacity development prosecution of cases programmes conducted -Prosecuted cases of illegal activities Monetary Support for -Safeguards monitoring reports implementation and monitoring of Safeguards COCOBOD Monetary Support for CSC -COCOBOD extension officers(s) extension teams in HIA. attached to HIA; (Secondary -No. of trainings and No. of farmers beneficiary) trained on CSC; -Report on CSC inputs and resources distributed to registered farmers. -No. of farms mapped and proportion on-reserve -Increased cocoa yields MMDAs Monetary Support to DA to enable -Agreement to participate in participation in HIA Consortium; (Secondary Consortium and support -Documentation of human resource beneficiary) implementation of support to HIA Management Plan Management Plan Monetary Support to DA to support -Passage of HIA/Sub-HIA by-laws; passage of HIA by-laws Monetary Support to DA to support -Documentation of DA human resource FC forest monitoring and support to forest monitoring and safeguards monitoring in safeguards monitoring HIAs 3.2 Non-Carbon Benefits The GCFRP’s priority non-carbon benefits have the potential to carry the program, even if performance is low, and are meant to secure engagement in the program and success over the long-term (past the ERPA 19 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft time-frame) by ensuring that significant non-carbon monetary and in-kind benefits accrue to the main stakeholders across the landscape and in the cocoa supply chain. Average cocoa farm-yields in Ghana are amongst the lowest in the world, and increasing yields sustainably using climate-smart, best practices is well documented11 and proven12,13. Therefore, for farmers, the most important non-carbon benefit is the expected yield and income increases that will come from the adoption of CSC practices and resources. The estimated economic value of doubling yields from 400 kg per hectare14 to 800 kg per hectare across an estimated target population of 23,457 cocoa farmers per HIA15 (Table 6), over the seven-year ERPA period is just over $50 million, equivalent to the total carbon benefits from the program. Across six HIAs, the estimated value is worth more than $305 million. The value of doubling yields is based on the current producer price of $1.69/kg16 and the assumption that farmers will be reached incrementally and the value of yield increases will compound annually, as shown in Table 617 . Table 6: Number of new CSC farmers targeted per year and estimated value of doubling yields 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 No. of new farmers doubling 500 2,500 3,351 3,351 4,000 4,877 4,878 yields from CSC per HIA Total number of farmers doubling 500 3,000 6,351 9,702 13,702 18,579 23,457 yields from CSC per HIA Annual USD value $338,000 $2,028,000 $4,293,303 $6,558,606 $9,262,606 $12,559,458 $15,856,986 per year per HIA Total value per HIA for ERPA Total value for all HIAs for $50,896,959 $305,381,756 period ERPA period 11 See CCAFS “Mainstreaming climate-smart cocoa production in Ghana�. https://ccafs.cgiar.org/blog/mainstreaming-climate-smart-practices-cocoa-production-ghana#.WPpNbcZBrIU; and Forest Trends & NCRC, “Understanding and defining climate-smart cocoa: Extension, practices, yields and farming practices. http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_4359.pdf 12 Asare, R., Asare, R.A., Asante, W.A., Markussen, B., Raebild, A. 2016. Influences of shading and fertilization on on-farm yields of cocoa in Ghana. Expl. Agric. (1-16). Cambridge University Press. 13 McKinley, J., Lanier Nalley, L., Asare, R.A., Dixon, B.L, Popp, J.S., D’Haese, M. 2016. Managing risk in cocoa production: Assessing the potential of climate-smart crop insurance in Ghana. Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Vol. 10:1. 14 Ghana Cocoa Board, 2015. Ghana Cocoa Sector Development Strategy II, Draft Final, Accra. 15 The estimated target farmer population per HIA is based upon Cocobod CHED data and 2010 census data, including records of the rural populations of individuals age 15-64 across HIA districts (productive age-range). 16 The current producer price is GHS 7,600 per tonne. Assuming an exchange rate of 4.5 cedis to the dollar, this equates to US$ 1.69 per kilo of cocoa. 17 Computation of value per HIA: Assuming yield increment from 400 to 800 kg/ha. This results in additional 400kg of income (i.e. $1.69 x 400kg = US$ 676). To estimate annual values (row 4) and total value for 6 HIAs (row 5), multiply total number of famers doubling yields from CSC in the HIA each year (row 3), by US$676. 20 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Table 7 gives an outline of the expected Non-Carbon Benefits for the relevant beneficiaries and the source of the benefit, while indicating the monetary and non-monetary type, monitoring indicators, and a prioritization ranking. Though the CF methodological framework does not require performance indicators for non-carbon benefits, Ghana includes these indicators due to the importance of non-carbon benefits in the overall success of the program. As such, the High Priority Level Non-Carbon benefits will be monitored and reported upon, while monitoring (but no reporting) of the Medium and Low priority benefits will be conducted due to the monitoring requirement of other key stakeholders, including the private sector cocoa companies under their commitments, as part of the Cocoa Forest Initiative (CFI). Table 7: GCFRP Non-Carbon Benefits and Indicators Non-Carbon Benefit Description of benefit Source of Monitoring Priority Beneficiary Type benefits Indicators Level HIA Landscape Beneficiaries Registered Non- Farmers receive input Private sector -No. farmers Farmer monetary packages, trainings, registered per High Groups and planting materials Sub-HIA/HIA to improve capacity in -No. farmers CSC production practicing CSC in Sub-HIAs /HIAs -No. farmers who receive CSC package per Sub- HIA/HIA Monetary Access to financial Private sector -Credit High credit and risk agreements for reduction instruments HIA farmer groups signed with HIAs and Consortiums Monetary Increased yields and Private sector -Average yield High incomes through COCOBOD increase per HIA adoption of CSC -Average income practices increase per HIA Monetary Increased incomes Private sector -Average income Medium from COCOBOD from - farm diversification - NGOs diversification, CSC premiums/price cocoa production -increased cocoa or CSC premiums production Non- Mapping of farm to -Private -No. of farms Medium monetary improve land tenure Sector mapped and farm management -COCOBOD -No. of local land -NGOs agreements signed 21 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Non- Improved tree and -Government -Documents High monetary land tenure security -Traditional citing tenure Authorities reform -Passage of Wildlife Bill -Tree registration Traditional Non- -Improved landscape -Government -No. of HIAs / High Authorities Monetary governance and -Traditional Sub-HIAs management Councils established -Women and minority groups have representation HIA / Sub- Non- - Improved landscape -Government -No. of HIAs / High HIA Monetary governance and -NGO Sub-HIAs Communities management established -Women and minority groups have representation Government Forestry Non- Strengthened law HIAs -No. of HIA /Sub- High Commission monetary enforcement and HIA partnering FC monitoring from in forest collaborative forest monitoring management -Passage of Wildlife Bill COCOBOD Monetary Increased cocoa NA -National Medium production and production achievement of trends national targets Monetary Sale of CSC beans at Ghana CSC -Successful Medium premium price Landscape testing of Standard Standard -Sale of CSC beans MMDAs Monetary Improved landscape -Passage of High governance and HIA/Sub-HIA management by-laws Private Sector Private Non- Achievement of cocoa NA -See CFI actions Medium Sector monetary sectors Cocoa & and indicators Forest Initiative, and 22 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Ghana Framework for Action, goals Monetary / Meet sustainability Ghana CSC -Verification by Low Non- targets thru purchase Landscape Verra (VCS) Monetary of sustainably Standard Landscape produced climate- Standard smart cocoa beans, or increase income from sale of sustainable CSC beans. Reduced risk to NA -ERs produced; Low sustainability of supply -Forest cover change trends; -Ave. No. shade trees per ha; -No. farmers adopting CSC practices; Monetary Improved supply chain NA -No. farmers Low efficiency from HIA registered per role in aggregating HIA; and securing farmer -Tonnage trends loyalty. to LBCs in HIA Consortium . 4. Distribution of ERPA Proceeds and Fixed Costs Only verified reductions in deforestation and degradation will trigger carbon payments from the FCPF-CF to be shared between the identified beneficiaries. The total GCFRP budget will be supported by financing and investments from multiple sources. The FC and COCOBOD will together cover approximately 37% of program costs, coupled with an equal anticipated investment of 37% from the private sector and NGOs. The anticipated carbon finance will account for 21% of the program. It is likely that the government will need to secure grants or additional support to cover 5% of costs. To date, Ghana has secured over $157.5 million from government, NGO and private sector stakeholders, with 5 major MOUs signed and more expected. Annex 4 provides a Table of committed funding. By implementing the GCFRP, Ghana expects to produce 10 MT of emission reductions, which will generate approximately USD$ 50 million in CF payments. The allocation of ERPA revenue shall be distributed to the various beneficiaries, as shown in Figure 3, based on demonstrated performance against indicators. Of the total carbon payments, 4% will cover the program’s annual fixed costs, while 69% is designated for HIA Stakeholders and 27% for government stakeholders. After fixed costs, 3% of performance-based payments will go into a temporary benefit sharing buffer to cover potential short-falls that could result from under-performance. However, if left unspent, it would be distributed to beneficiaries during the final disbursement. The distribution of carbon payments is shown in Figure 3, below. 23 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Figure 3: Allocation of ERPA proceeds 4.1 Fixed Costs Fixed costs will cover basic human resource, operational and financial expenses, as shown in Table 8. This include financial operational costs, support the GCFRP’s Program Management Unit (PMU) for the ERPA period, until the associated positions can be fully integrated into the FC and COCOBOD budgets, as well as the cost of forest monitoring and reporting and some logistical support to the PMU. Third party verification of carbon audits will be borne by the World Bank-FCPF, and therefore is not included under fixed costs. 24 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Table 8: GCFRP fixed costs FIXED COSTS 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total Operational Costs Account audits n.a. 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 24,000 RDA Board Operational costs n.a. 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000 Sub-Total 114,000 PMU Positions and Logistics PMU Coordinator ** 12,300 12,915 13,561 14,239 14,951 16,166 84,131 Deputy Coordinator ** 8,300 8,715 9,151 9,608 10,089 11,304 57,167 MRV Specialist ** 5,650 5,933 6,229 6,541 6,868 8,083 39,303 Safeguards Specialist ** 5,650 5,933 6,229 6,541 6,868 8,083 39,303 Governance Specialist ** 5,650 5,933 6,229 6,541 6,868 8,083 39,303 BSP Specialist ** 5,650 5,933 6,229 6,541 6,868 8,083 39,303 Private Sector Specialist ** 5,650 5,933 6,229 6,541 6,868 8,083 39,303 Consultants n.a. 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 180,000 Forest Monitoring and Reporting Costs n.a. 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 1,140,000 2 Vehicles n.a. 150,000 150,000 Running of Vehicles (fuel & maintenance) 9,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,000 69,000 Sub-Total 1,876,812 Total 446,850 302,293 304,857 307,550 310,377 318,885 1,990,812 ** Costs covered for 2018 4.2 MRV time-frames and target ERs The program has adopted an implementation start date of 2018 and will run until 2024. The last year, 2025, will be for the final disbursement of benefits. As outlined in Tables 9 and 10, Ghana will request an advanced payment (upfront) of US$ 2.5 million in 2019 (against the signing of the ERPA) to cover fixed costs and government implementation. In 2019, Ghana will also conduct its first monitoring to track progress internally. In 2020, Ghana will request a second advanced payment (interim) of US$ 2.5 million to cover fixed costs and government implementation costs. Ghana will also conduct the first full monitoring with verification by the CF, with the release of performance-based funds in 2021. Subsequent monitoring and verifications will follow in 2022 and 2024, with release of funds in 2023 and 2025. The annual performance monitoring and every-other-year verification (starting in 2020) ensures that Ghana and the GCFRP stakeholders maintain a clear picture of progress and any potential challenges. The 25 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft first year of fixed costs, including financial costs and PMU operational costs, are either not necessary or have been met by the government for 2018. Therefore, the fixed cost request is for 2019 onward. Table 9: Timing of MRV and carbon payments Year Actions Payment Type of Transaction Year 2019 ERPA signing and request for advanced 2019 Release of advanced payment payment—USD 2.5 million; (upfront) to cover fixed costs and Gov. implementation Monitoring to track progress 2020 Request for advanced payment–USD 2.5 2020 Release of advanced payment million (interim) to cover fixed costs and Gov. implementation. 2020 Monitoring with Verification by CF 2021 Payment against verification 2021 Monitoring to track progress 2022 Monitoring with Verification by CF 2023 Payment against verification 2023 Monitoring to track progress 2024 Monitoring with Verification by CF 2025 Payment against verification Ghana’s advanced payment requests, estimated payments and target emission reductions over the program period are shown in Table 10, but are still subject to ERPA negotiations. Table 10: Advanced payment & target emission reductions 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Payments 2.5 million 2.5 million 7,407,405 10,092,593 11,851,850 13,148,148 50,000,000 (US$) (advanced- (advanced- upfront) interim) Buffer ERs 51,852 473,148 518,519 706,481 829,630 920,370 Target Ers 148,148 1,351,852 1,481,481 2,018,519 2,370,370 2,692,630 10,000,000 Actual ERs 200,000 1,825,000 2,000,000 2,725,000 3,200,000 3,550,000 10,000,000 26 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft 5. ER Payments and Performance Scenarios 5.1 ER Payments To determine the quantum of ER payments that beneficiaries at the HIA level receive, a weighting scale called ‘Relative Performance Weight’ will be applied. Relative Performance Weight is determined by aggregating two (2) sets of factors, namely: • Social performance indicators: these indictors include all actions that need to be taken by the beneficiaries to demonstrate their commitment to change behaviour. It also includes actions that lead to emission reduction in the HIAs. See Annex 2 for the list of indicators and their respective weights. • Emission reduction indicators: the indicators describe the level of emission reduction in the HIAs based on monitoring and verification. See Annex 2 for the list of indicators and their respective weights. Relative Performance Weight is give below: 𝐻𝐼𝐴′ 𝑠 𝑠𝑜�𝑖𝑎𝑙 �𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛�𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖�𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛�𝑒 𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 (𝑃𝑤 ) = ∗ 𝐻𝐼𝐴′ 𝑠 𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑑𝑢�𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖�𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑜�𝑖𝑎𝑙 �𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑛�𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖�𝑎𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠 The ER payment for each HIA is determined as the product of ‘ER Payment for a given category of HIA beneficiaries’ and ‘Relative Performance Weight’. 𝐸𝑅 𝑃𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝐻𝐼𝐴 = 𝐸𝑅 �𝑎𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐻𝐼𝐴′𝑠 �𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖�𝑖𝑎𝑟𝑦 �𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑦 ∗ 𝑃𝑤 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐻𝐼𝐴 5.2 Emission Performance Scenarios Ghana’s ER Program envisages the possibility of both 100% performance and under-performance with respect to its emission reductions target. Under a “best case scenario�, in which Ghana demonstrates 100% performance on projected ERs and there is quick disbursement of funds into the country, and then down the financial disbursement channels, all beneficiaries should expect to receive their allocated benefits (See Scenario 1). To reduce the risk of repayment or shortfalls in benefit sharing, Ghana will establish an “Under-Performance Buffer� and pay-in 3% of ER payments received per every accounting period (when verification has been conducted and actual ER payments effected). This buffer would be used to compensate HIA Stakeholders who have demonstrated performance albeit, overall performance of the programme fallen below 50%. The BSP describes four (4) performance scenarios and how ER Payments will be distributed to beneficiaries in the cases 100% and low performance: • Scenario 1: Assuming 100% performance within the ER Program; 
 • Scenario 2: Assuming 50% performance within the ER Program; 
 • Scenario 3: Assuming 20% performance within the ER Program and • Scenario 4: Overall non-performance within the ER Program (no reduction in deforestation in the ER Program area) albeit some isolated performance in some HIA(s). 
 27 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Scenario 1: 100% performance within the ER Program 
 Under the 100% performance scenario, the ER Program will achieve 10 million tCO2e emission reduction worth US$ 50 million for the period, 2018-2024. The carbon benefits generated will be distributed according according to the defined benefit sharing arrangement (Figure 2). Four (4%) worth US$ 2 million will be deducted to cover fixed cost, 27% (US$ 13.5 million) for government level beneficiaries and 69% (US$ 34.5 million) for HIA level beneficiaries. However, 3% of the respective share for government (US$ 405,000) and HIA level beneficiaries (US$ 1.035 million) worth US$ 1.440 million will be transferred into the performance buffer fund. Sixty-nine (69%) of the net amount (after deducting for the buffer fund) worth US$ 33.465 million will be paid to HIA level beneficiaries (farmer groups, traditional authorities, and HIA communities) according to their respective percentage shares as carbon benefit. Government (FC, COCOBOD, MMDAs) will receive US$ 13.095 million (27%) of the ER payment. When 100% performance is achieved, the accruals in the performance buffer will be redistributed among all the beneficiaries as carbon benefit. Table 11 illustrates how the performance-based payments may be distributed among beneficiaries when 100% performance is achieved in the various accounting years. 28 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Table 11: ER payments to beneficiaries based on 100% performance (Scenario 1) Beneficiaries Gov’t HIAs Gross Performance Buffer Government (27%) HIAs (69%) Year ER (tCO2e) Gross ER Fixed Gross ER ER (3%) (US$) Payments Cost (4%) Payments Payments COCOBOD MMDAs Farmer HIA Traditional (US$) (US$) (US$) (US$) Gov’t HIAs FC (85%) (7.5%) (7.5%) Groups Communities Authorities (US$) (US$) (US$) (58%) (US$) (39%) (3%) (US$) (US$) 2021 1,500,000 7,500,000 300,000 2,025,000 5,175,000 60,750 155,250 1,669,613 147,319 147,319 2,911,455 1,957,703 150,593 2023 4,500,000 17,500,000 700,000 4,725,000 12,075,000 141,750 362,250 3,895,763 343,744 343,744 6,793,395 4,567,973 351,383 2025 5,000,000 25,000,000 1,000,000 6,750,000 17,250,000 202,500 517,500 5,565,375 491,063 491,063 9,704,850 6,525,675 501,975 Total 10,000,000 50,000,000 2,000,000 13,500,000 34,500,000 405,000 1,035,000 11,130,750 982,125 982,125 19,409,700 13,051,350 1,003,950 In distributing ER payments to HIA beneficiaries, the relative performance weight of the HIA will be applied to the total amount of ER payment available for each category of beneficiaries (farmer groups, HIA communities, traditional authorities). Assuming HIA #1 has fulfilled two (2) social performance indicators (i.e. registration of farmers/farmer groups; letter of agreement to establish HIA governance structure), but experiences increasing deforestation, its relative performance weight will be 0.0625. HIA # 2 fulfils three (3) social performance indicators (i.e. registration of farmers/farmer groups; letter of agreement to establish HIA governance structure; participation of traditional authorities in management development and implementation), but experiences no net reduction in deforestation, its relative performance weight will be 0.25. HIA # 3 fulfils four (4) social performance indicators (i.e. registration of farmers/farmer groups; letter of agreement to establish HIA governance structure; participation of traditional authorities in management development and implementation; establishment of HIA governance structure). It experiences reduced deforestation. The relative performance weight of HIA #3 will be: 0.6563. Therefore, the ER payment for a given HIA level beneficiary such as ‘registered farmer group’ in HIA #1 in year 2021 will be: 0.0625*$2,911,455 = $181,966. While ER payment for ‘registered farmer group’ in HIA #2 will be: 0.25*$2,911,455 = $727,864; and ER payment for HIA #3 will be: 0.6563*$2,911,455 = $1,910,788. Table 12 describes the respective value of ER payments for HIA beneficiaries. Table 12: ER payments to HIA #1 beneficiaries in 2021 HIA # Relative Farmer Groups (58%) HIA Communities Traditional Authorities performance (39%) (3%) weight 1 0.0625 181,966 122,356 9,412 2 0.25 727,864 489,426 37,648 3 0.6563 1,910,788 1,284,840 98,834 29 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Scenario 2: 50% performance within the ER Program 
 In a case of 50% performance, the ER Program will achieve 5 million tCO2e emission reduction worth US$ 25 million. ER payment generated will be distributed to government (FC, COCOBOD, MMDAs); and HIA level beneficiaries (farmer groups, traditional authorities, HIA communities) who achieved at least 50% emission reduction target according to the defined benefit sharing arrangement (Figure 1). In practice, 4% (US$ 1 million) will be deducted to cover fixed cost, 27% (US$ 6.750 million) for government level beneficiaries and 69% (US$ 17.250 million) for HIA level beneficiaries. However, 3% of the respective share for government (US$ 202,500) and HIA level beneficiaries (US$ 621,000) worth US$ 720,000 will be transferred into the performance buffer fund. Sixty-nine (69%) of the net amount (after deducting for the buffer fund) worth US$ 16.733 million will be paid to HIA level beneficiaries (farmer groups, traditional authorities, and HIA communities) according to their respective percentage shares as carbon benefit. Government (FC, COCOBOD, MMDAs) will receive US$ 6.548 million (27%) of the ER payment as carbon benefit. Table 13 illustrates how the performance-based payments may be distributed among beneficiaries when 50% performance is achieved in the various accounting years. Table 13: ER payments to beneficiaries based on 50% performance (Scenario 2) Beneficiaries Gov’t HIAs Gross Performance Buffer Government (27%) HIAs (69%) Year ER Gross ER Fixed Gross ER ER (3%) (US$) (tCO2e) Payments Cost (4%) Payments Payments COCOBOD MMDAs Farmer HIA Traditional (US$) (US$) (US$) (US$) Gov’t HIAs FC (85%) (7.5%) (7.5%) Groups (58%) Communities Authorities (US$) (US$) (US$) (US$) (US$) (39%) (3%) (US$) 2021 750,000 3,750,000 150,000 1,012,500 2,587,500 30,375 77,625 834,806 73,659 73,659 1,455,728 978,851 75,296 2023 1,750,000 8,750,000 350,000 2,362,500 6,037,500 70,875 181,125 1,947,881 171,872 171,872 3,396,698 2,283,986 175,691 2025 2,500,000 12,500,000 500,000 3,375,000 8,625,000 101,250 258,750 2,782,688 245,531 245,531 4,852,425 3,262,838 250,988 Total 5,000,000 25,000,000 1,000,000 6,750,000 17,250,000 202,500 517,500 5,565,375 491,063 491,063 9,704,850 6,525,675 501,975 In distributing ER payments to HIA beneficiaries, the relative performance weight of the HIA will be applied to the total amount of ER payment available for each category of beneficiaries (farmer groups, HIA communities, traditional authorities). Assuming HIA #1 has fulfilled two (2) social performance indicators (i.e. registration of farmers/farmer groups; letter of agreement to establish HIA governance structure), but experiences increasing deforestation, its relative performance weight will be 0.0625. HIA # 2 fulfils three (3) social performance indicators (i.e. registration of farmers/farmer groups; letter of agreement to establish HIA governance structure; participation of traditional authorities in management development and implementation), but experiences no net reduction in deforestation, its relative performance weight will be 0.25. HIA # 3 fulfils four (4) social performance indicators (i.e. registration of farmers/farmer groups; letter of agreement to establish HIA governance structure; participation of traditional authorities in management development and implementation; establishment of HIA governance structure). It experiences reduced deforestation. The relative performance weight of HIA #3 will be: 0.6563. 30 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Therefore, the ER payment for a given HIA level beneficiary such as ‘registered farmer group’ in HIA #1 in year 2021 will be: 0.0625*$1,455,728 = $90,983. While ER payment for ‘registered farmer group’ in HIA #2 will be: 0.25*$1,455,728 = $363,932; and ER payment for HIA #3 will be: 0.6563*$1,455,728 = $955,394. Table 14 describes the respective value of ER payments for HIA beneficiaries. Table 14: ER payments to HIA #1 beneficiaries in 2021 HIA # Relative Farmer Groups (58%) HIA Communities Traditional Authorities performance (39%) (3%) weight 1 0.0625 90,983 61,178 4,706 2 0.25 363,932 244,713 18,824 3 0.6563 955,394 642,420 49,417 Scenario 3: 20% performance within the ER Program 
 In the case of 20% performance, the ER Program will achieve 2 million tCO2e emission reduction worth US$ 10 million. ER payment generated will be distributed to only HIA level beneficiaries (farmer groups, traditional authorities, and HIA communities) who achieved at least 20% emission reduction target according to the defined benefit sharing arrangement (Figure 1). Government (FC, COCOBOD, MMDAs) will not receive ER payments under the 20% performance scenario. In practice, 4% (US$ 400,000) will be deducted to cover fixed cost, 27% (US$ 2.700 million) for government level beneficiaries and 69% (US$ 6.900 million) for HIA level beneficiaries. However, 3% of the respective share for government (US$ 202,500) and HIA level beneficiaries (US$ 621,000) worth US$ 288,000 will be transferred into the performance buffer fund. Sixty-nine (69%) of the net amount (after deducting for the buffer fund) worth US$ 6.693 million will be paid to HIA level beneficiaries (farmer groups, traditional authorities, and HIA communities) according to their respective percentage shares as carbon benefit having achieved at least 20% of their emission reduction target. Table 15 illustrates how the performance-based payments may be distributed among beneficiaries when 20% performance is achieved in the various accounting years. Table 15: ER payments to beneficiaries based on 20% performance (Scenario 3) Beneficiaries Gov’t HIAs Performance Buffer HIAs (69%) Year ER Gross ER Fixed Gross ER Gross ER (3%) (tCO2e) Payments Cost Payments Payments Gov’t HIAs Farmer HIA Traditional (4%) (US$) (US$) Groups Communities Authorities (58%) (39%) (3%) 2021 300,000 1,500,000 60,000 405,000 1,035,000 12,150 31,050 582,291 391,541 30,119 2023 700,000 3,500,000 140,000 945,000 2,415,000 28,350 72,450 1,358,679 913,595 70,277 2025 1,000,000 5,000,000 200,000 1,350,000 3,450,000 40,500 103,500 1,940,970 1,305,135 100,395 Total 2,000,000 10,000,000 400,000 2,700,000 6,900,000 81,000 207,000 3,881,940 2,610,270 200,790 In distributing ER payments to HIA beneficiaries, the relative performance weight of the HIA will be applied to the total amount of ER payment available for each category of beneficiaries (farmer groups, HIA communities, traditional authorities). Assuming HIA #1 has fulfilled two (2) social performance indicators (i.e. registration of farmers/farmer groups; letter of agreement to establish HIA governance structure), but experiences increasing deforestation, its relative performance weight will be 0.0625. HIA # 2 fulfils three (3) social performance indicators (i.e. registration of farmers/farmer groups; letter of agreement to establish HIA governance structure; participation of traditional authorities in management development 31 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft and implementation), but experiences no net reduction in deforestation, its relative performance weight will be 0.25. HIA # 3 fulfils four (4) social performance indicators (i.e. registration of farmers/farmer groups; letter of agreement to establish HIA governance structure; participation of traditional authorities in management development and implementation; establishment of HIA governance structure). It experiences reduced deforestation. The relative performance weight of HIA #3 will be: 0.6563. Therefore, the ER payment for a given HIA level beneficiary such as ‘registered farmer group’ in HIA # 1 in year 2021 will be: 0.0625*$582,291 = $36,393. While ER payment for ‘registered farmer group’ in HIA #2 will be: 0.25*$582,291 = $145,573; and ER payment for HIA #3 will be: 0.6563*$582,291 = $382,158. Table 16 describes the respective value of ER payments for HIA beneficiaries. Table 16: ER payments to HIA #1 beneficiaries in 2021 HIA # Relative Farmer Groups (58%) HIA Communities Traditional Authorities performance (39%) (3%) weight 1 0.0625 36,393 24,471 1,882 2 0.25 145,573 97,885 7,530 3 0.6563 382,158 256,968 19,767 Scenario 4: Overall non-performance albeit some isolated performance in some HIA(s) In the case of overall non-performance of the ER Program (for instance 10% performance) although, some isolated good performance by some HIAs, the performance buffer will be triggered to distribute payments to such HIAs. Under this scenario, ER payments will be not made to government and HIAs as a whole. Rather specific HIAs identified to have achieved at least 50% of emission reduction in relation to the actual emission reduction of the programme in the given accounting year. The payment will be made solely from the performance buffer. For example, if the programme achieves only 10% performance, translating into 1 million tCO2e emission reduction worth US$ 5 million, 4% (US$ 200,000) will be deducted to cover fixed cost, 27% (US$ 1.350 million) for government level beneficiaries and 69% (US$ 3.450 million) for HIA level beneficiaries. However, 3% of the respective share for government (US$ 40,500) and HIA level beneficiaries (US$ 103,500) worth US$ 144,000 will be transferred into the performance buffer fund which will be used to pay identified HIA level beneficiaries who achieved at least 50% of emission reduction in relation to the actual emission reduction of the programme in the given accounting year as their carbon benefits. In practice, assume that in year 2021, HIA #3 fulfils four (4) social performance indicators (i.e. registration of farmers/farmer groups; letter of agreement to establish HIA governance structure; participation of traditional authorities in management development and implementation; establishment of HIA governance structure); and significantly reduced deforestation. It achieved more than 50% of emission reduction relative to the actual emission reduction of the programme in that accounting year. Then, the relative performance weight of HIA #3 will be: 0.6563. Therefore, the ER payment for the given HIA level beneficiary ‘farmer group’ in HIA #3 will be: 0.6563*$12,528 = $8,222. While ER payment for ‘HIA Communities’ in HIA #3 will be: 0.6563*$8,424 = $5,529; and ER payment for HIA #3 will be: 0.6563*$648 = $425. Tables 17 and 18 describe the respective value of ER payments for HIA beneficiaries. 32 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Table 17: ER payments to HIA #1 beneficiaries against overall non-performance (Scenario 4) Beneficiaries Gov’t HIAs Performance Buffer HIAs (69%) Year ER Gross ER Fixed Gross ER Gross ER (3%) (tCO2e) Payments Cost Payments Payments Gov’t HIAs Farmer HIA Traditional (4%) (US$) (US$) Groups Communities Authorities (58%) (39%) (3%) 2021 150,000 750,000 30,000 202,500 517,500 6,075 15,525 12,528 8,424 648 2023 350,000 1,750,000 70,000 472,500 1,207,500 14,175 36,225 29,232 19,656 1,512 2025 500,000 2,500,000 100,000 675,000 1,725,000 20,250 51,750 41,760 28,080 2,160 Total 1,000,000 5,000,000 200,000 1,350,000 3,450,000 40,500 103,500 83,520 56,160 4,320 Table 18: ER payments to HIA #3 beneficiaries in 2021 HIA # Relative Farmer Groups (58%) HIA Communities Traditional performance (39%) Authorities (3%) weight 3 0.0625 8,222 5,529 425 33 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft 6. Flow of Funds & Governance As depicted in Figure 1, the World Bank FCPF will disburse ERPA payments to the MoF, as required under the Financial Administration Act, 2003 (Act 654). The MoF is in the process of establishing an account with the Bank of Ghana that will be “ring-fenced� for World Bank project funds; ensuring that the associated payments are secure. No fee will be taken for the management of the account. Within this, an account will be created which will be called the REDD+ Dedicated Account (RDA), into which CF performance-based payments will be received. The RDA will serve as the over-arching vehicle for the disbursement of monetary and non-monetary carbon benefits. Funds intended for the government beneficiaries will flow from the RDA to the accounts of the beneficiary government agencies, including the FC, Cocobod, and designated DA under the Ministry of Local Government, following local monitoring, reporting and approval processes. Funds intended for the HIA stakeholder beneficiaries will be transferred to approved HIA accounts and Traditional Council accounts for disbursement to TA, following a due diligence processes of monitoring, reporting and approval. In order to reduce risks associated with under-performance, 3% of the funds intended for Government and HIA Stakeholder beneficiaries will be held back in a performance buffer with the intention to off-set benefit sharing financing gaps, but if unused would be shared in the final disbursement. 6.1 Governance of REDD+ Dedicated Account The RDA will be managed by an independent, multi-stakeholder board of trustees of seven to nine members, made up of representatives from government (not directly affiliated with the GCFRP), private sector cocoa companies, civil society, and NGOs. The non-governmental and NGO representatives will have the majority. The members of the Board will be selected on the basis of their personal competence, and widely recognized independence. It is proposed that a smaller executive committee is carved out of the Board to allow the flexibility of meeting more frequently to handle short-term and urgent decisions, while the full Board meets only once or twice each year. The RDA Board of Trustees will be co-chaired by a senior official from the MoF and an independent observer to the program from civil society. Both co-chairs will serve as signatories to the account and will authorize disbursement of benefit sharing payments. The PMU Benefit Sharing Specialist will serve as a Secretary to the Board to provide administrative, technical and oversight support, but will not be a member of the Board and therefore will not have voting rights. Neither the FC nor Cocobod will sit on the Board as this would represent a significant conflict of interest as both institutions are intended beneficiaries of the CF payments, who play lead roles in coordinating, monitoring, and implementing activities. The RDA will report to the GCFRP’s Joint Coordinating Committee (JCC), which has oversight of the program. The JCC is a six-person committee that was established in 2015 to support the development of the program, and under implementation will ensure high level institutional coordination and oversight. The JCC is made up of two representatives from the NRS, two representatives from the Forest Investment Programme (one from FC and one from the MLNR), and two representatives from the Cocobod. To ensure accountability and transparency, activities of the Board shall be guided by an agreed term of 34 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft reference and operations manual, so as to ensure systematization and consistency. The RDA and Board’s activities shall be audited each year by an independent accounting firm that applies generally accepted international accounting standards and meets all donor and national government requirements. The audit and performance reports shall be made publicly available on the FCPF-CF website, as well on REDD+ Data Management Platform, and be submitted to the JCC for review and acceptance. 6.2 Governance of HIA Benefit Sharing Funds Funds that are obligated to the HIA Stakeholders will be transferred to designated HIA Accounts (for farmers and communities). Six HIAs will start opening accounts consistent with the roll-out of activities and formation of Sub-HIA and HIA governance structures. Governance of the program at the landscape level is structured around the concept of HIAs and Sub-HIAs (Figure 2), which will be governed by a tiered structure starting at the community level with Community Resource Management Committees (CRMC), up to representatives on Sub-HIA Executive Committees, and then an overarching HIA Landscape Management Boards with representatives from all HIAs and guidance from the Traditional Authorities (Figure 4). Figure 4: HIA landscape governance structure with key bodies 35 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Each HIA will work in collaboration with a formal Consortium of key stakeholders, including private sector cocoa companies, NGOs and government agencies, through an established HIA Implementation Committee with representatives from both the HIA Management Board and the Consortium on this committee. The Board of the RDA will communicate with the HIA Implementation Committee to coordinate monitoring of performance against indicators, the transfer of payments into the HIA Account, and the distribution of non-monetary benefits. This will then be shared to the PMU The logic is that the landscape will be divided into a series of sub-landscape HIAs (Sub-HIAs) which together will cover the area of the whole HIA. Each sub-HIA will provide localized leadership and governance within defined boundaries which reflect divisional or sub-chiefs jurisdictions and/or appropriate environmental/geographic boundaries. Key aspects of creating or supporting Sub-HIAs will be to determine the boundaries, the zoning of conservation areas and development areas, as well as the creation of sub-HIA and HIA bye-laws and then a Management Plan. At the landscape level, all of the Sub- HIAs will have representatives on an umbrella body—the HIA Landscape Management Board. This Board will also have a formal relationship with the Consortium and be advised by the highest level of Patrons from the Traditional Council. Figure 5 shows how the entire governance structure fits together and the agreements that will be put in place. It also contains the HIA Implementation Committee which will ensure coordination of implementation activities and monitoring, reporting and sharing of benefits to beneficiaries. Figure 5: Relationship between Consortium stakeholders and HIA governance structure with key agreements and documents 36 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft As shown in Figure 6, benefit sharing funds will be transferred from the RDA to each HIA’s account. This account will be opened and managed by an HIA Implementing Committee. There will be six members of the committee with three selected by the HIA Management Board and three selected by the Consortium. Signatory rights with sit with a Committee Head and Treasurer from the Consortium; either representing the private sector partners or an NGO partner. The designated benefits to the TA will be transferred to the Traditional Council’s account directly. However, designated funds for farmers in registered groups will be shared as in-kind, non-monetary benefits. Therefore, the Consortium will work with the registered farmers to agree the appropriate items (as described in Boxes 1-3 (page 13-14)) to be given to each farmer or group of farmers. The Committee will then be responsible to designate Consortium partners to procure the items and distribute. Benefits to communities will also be shared in the form of community development projects. Communities that receive co-financing from either the DA or from Consortium partners (private sector companies or NGOs) will be prioritized. The Committee will receive applications prepared by the HIA Management Board and then select those projects that can be supported. The Committee will then conduct a procurement and contracting process to identify the company that can realize the project. All such projects will have to adhere to internationally recognized “best practice� procurement guidelines and practices that also meet governments standards for small-scale infrastructure and development projects. 37 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Figure 6: Flow of funds from RDA to HIA stakeholders 7. Safeguards ERP payments will be made for verified ERS that comply with the safeguards policy of the World Bank. At the national level, under the first phase of readiness, Ghana carried out a Strategic Environmental and Social Assessment (SESA) using a consultative process, which was completed in 2014. The SESA took into account national and institutional sustainability policies, plans and strategies and also addressed World Bank Safeguards Operational Policies. By conducting the SESA, the relationship between national policies, laws, and regulations, and their effects on the proposed REDD+ interventions were identified. The SESA process also determined which World Bank Safeguards Operational Policies (OPs) would be triggered by planned REDD+ interventions, and this subsequently produced an Environmental and Social Management 38 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Framework (ESMF) with the necessary mitigation options for identified risks. The national SESA process for readiness produced three reports; the SESA report, the ESMF and the Resettlement Policy Framework (RPF). Two additional documents were produced under Ghana’s Forest Investment program (FIP), based on the SESA conducted for readiness, these are the Pest Management Plan and the Process Framework for stakeholder engagement. An updated SESA report was developed in 2016 to better understand the environmental and social concerns of the GCFRP, and to define the necessary mitigation mechanisms and safeguards compliance issues associated with the seven strategy options that are to be applied through implementation of the GCFRP. The strategy options include: I. Improving the quality of multi-stakeholder dialogue and decision-making II. Clarifying rights regime III. Addressing unsustainable timber harvesting IV. Mitigating effects of agricultural expansion (particularly cocoa in the HFZ) V. Strengthening local decentralised management of natural resources VI. Expansion of high biomass agroforestry /tree crops systems VII. Improving regulation of mining activities to reduce forest degradation These safeguards instruments will need to be adhered to by all implementing partners. A Programme Operating Manual (POM) has been drafted to serve as a guide to programme implementing partners on ensuring that their activities ‘’do no harm’’ both socially and environmentally but rather benefits are enhanced and livelihood of communities enhanced. Ghana is defining its Country Approach to Safeguards (CAS) and developing a Safeguards Information System (SIS) in collaboration with SNV Netherlands Development Organization with technical support from Climate Law and Policy (CLP). This is funded by the German Government. A legal analysis has been conducted on each of the Cancun safeguards outlining what is on paper and what is being practiced, the gaps with respect to Policies, Laws and Regulations (PLRs) on paper and practice and recommendations for addressing the gaps. However, the results of the legal analysis and of the SESA clearly identify legislative and policy gaps which will require reforms. Ghana’s SIS will provide information on how safeguards are being addressed and respected throughout implementation of the GCFRP ER programme. The SIS will contain indicators for monitoring the compliance on the World Bank Safeguards, Cancun safeguards and other Donor safeguards requirements, Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanism (FGRM), benefit sharing, co-benefits, etc. An online web platform has been developed to host Ghana’s REDD+ SIS. There is work currently on-going by members of the Safeguards Sub-working group to define Principles, Criteria and Indicators (PCIs) and also gather socio-economic data on livelihood, impacts, etc. within the GCFRP programme area. This data will be populated onto the web platform. Ghana envisages to have a fully functional SIS before the end of year 2018. Ghana’s SIS web address is www.reddsis.fcghana.org A SIS design document that clearly describes how the SIS will function (flow of information) has been initiated. Ghana plans on submitting its first Summary of Information (SoI) by the end of 2018. There are plans to improve the SIS overtime as REDD+ evolves and new information is gathered. 39 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft The National REDD+ Secretariat (NRS) has successfully trained Safeguards Focal Persons (SFPs) who are mainly Forestry Commission’s Assistant Regional Managers, Assistant District Managers, and Assistant National Park Managers. These focal persons are responsible for the effective monitoring and reporting of safeguards compliance in their various regions and districts. These SFPs led landscape level capacity building programmes where they sensitized relevant Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) as well as MMDAs and local community leaders who would be involved in the implementation of REDD+ and HIAs. The SFPs will also lead the formation of safeguards teams at their various regions and districts for safeguards reporting purposes. The safeguards teams will compose the district/regional safeguards focal person, as well as representatives of HIAs and Consortiums from HIA Management Boards, the private sector, NGOs, District Assembly members, Traditional Authority, and opinion/religious leaders. The teams will be responsible for ensuring safeguards compliance and reporting. In terms of Safeguards reporting, the regional and district SFPs will collect data and information and in collaboration with the various partners and stakeholders. Once collected, they will ensure that the data and information is reviewed and verified by the safeguards team(s) before it is sent to the Programme Management Unit (PMU) Safeguards Specialist. The PMU Safeguard Specialist will then forward the programme’s safeguard information and data on to the National Safeguards Specialist for final validation and approval, with the knowledge of the Acting Director for Climate Change. The Acting Director, will give final validation of safeguards information and then trigger reporting to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the UNFCCC (national communication), the World Bank, and enable web-based publication and updates into the SIS for relevant stakeholders and the general public. 40 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Figure 8: Safeguards reporting structure 7.1 Feedback and grievance redress mechanism The Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanism (FGRM) will be operationalized in four steps. Parties seeking to have any REDD+ dispute resolved will file their complaint at the district FGRM office within the ER programme area where it will be received and processed before it is communicated to the National FGRM coordinator. 1. If the parties are unable or unwilling to resolve their dispute through negotiation, fact-finding or inquiry a mediator chosen with the consent of both parties would be assigned to assist the Parties to reach a settlement. 2. Where the mediation is successful, the terms of the settlement shall be recorded in writing, signed by the mediator and the parties to the dispute and lodged at the FGRM registry. The terms of the settlement will be binding on all parties. 41 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft 3. If the mediation is unsuccessful, the Parties will be required to submit their dispute for compulsory arbitration, by a panel of five (5) arbitrators, selected from a national roster of experts. 4. The awards of the arbitration panel will be binding on the Parties and can only be appealed to the Court of Appeal. All questions of law would be referred to the High Court. The five (5) member Arbitration Panel will be made up of a qualified arbitrator, a lawyer, a forestry/natural resources expert and a governance expert. At least one of them should be a woman. The proposed timelines for the FGRM process is forty-five (45) working days (Table 18). Table 19: FGRM steps and time-frame Step in Process Number of Days Grievance update and record acknowledgement 5 working days Process, research and fact finding 15 working days Response 5 working days Implement agreed response 20 working days Total process timeline 45 working days 8. Monitoring of the BSP The integrated coordination and monitoring of the GCFRP, including the BSP, is the responsibility of the PMU, which is the executive and coordinating agency for the GCFRP. Day to day oversight and monitoring will specifically fall to the PMU Coordinator and Deputy Coordinator, with support from the BSP Specialist, Safeguards Specialist, Governance Specialist, MRV Specialist, and Private Sector Specialist. Direct responsibility to coordinate and implement the sharing of benefits from CF payments, and therefore the BSP itself with associated monitoring and reporting, is the responsibility of the RDA Board of Trustees at the program level, and the HIA Implementation Committees at the HIA level. PMU responsibilities at the general program level include: • Developing GCFRP annual plans and linking to HIA planning through the HIA Implementation Committees; • Supervising the implementation of annual plans across HIAs, and HIA plans within HIAs in collaboration with the HIA Implementation Committees; • Coordinating discussions towards additional finance to fill gaps, as needed; PMU responsibilities for forest monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) include: • Coordinating the forest monitoring at the program level, led by the MRV Specialist with oversight by the NRS MRV officer; • Reviewing internal forest monitoring reports (non-verified) for responsive actions at the program and HIA levels; • Submitting monitoring reporting on ERs generated to the CF for independent verification; • Sharing reports to JCC, RDA Board, HIA Implementation Committee and making reports available to all stakeholders; • Reporting ER transactions on the FCPF registry; 42 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft • Assessing each HIA’s relative performance against the FREL and sharing with the HIA Implementation Committees and RDA Board; PMU responsibilities with respect to safeguards monitoring and reporting include: • Monitoring and guiding safeguards implementation, including application of SIS and implementation of the FGRM (as described in Section 7). This will be led by the Safeguards Specialist with oversight by NRS Safeguards officer; • Submitting reports on safeguards implementation, the SIS, and the FGRM to the World Bank and CF, and making reports publicly available; • Ensuring that an external independent SESA and ESMF audit is carried out at mid-term and at the end of the ERPA period to check correct implementation of safeguards. • The audit team will report to the PMU and the World Bank, who will deal with the implementation of any corrective measures that might be required. The audits are necessary to ensure that (i) the ESMF process is being implemented appropriately, and (ii) mitigation measures are being identified and implemented accordingly. The audit will be able to identify any amendments in the ESMF approach that are required to improve its effectiveness. PMU responsibilities with respect to the BSP include: • Overall coordination and monitoring of the implementation of the BSP, including supporting HIA Implementation Committees to report against HIA beneficiary indicators, disbursement of funds, and sharing of benefits to beneficiaries; • Developing the RDA Board of Trustees operational manual and supporting the MoF in the establishment of the RDA and selection of Board members; • Communicating and coordinating with the RDA Board of Trustees with respect to the Board’s responsibilities. RDA Board of Trustees responsibilities with respect to monitoring and implementing the BSP and disbursement of performance-based benefits include: • Submitting bi-annual reports to the JCC; • Supporting MoF to arrange for annual auditing of the RDA account and Board activities by an independent accounting firm that applies generally accepted international accounting standards and meets all donor and national government requirements. The audit and performance reports shall be made publicly available on the FCPF-CF website, as well on REDD+ Data Management Platform, and be submitted to the JCC for review and acceptance. • Receive, review, and approve reports from each Government beneficiaries (FC, Cocobod, MMDAs) that include: o Reporting on indicators and explanation of un-met indicators (as required) o Request for funds o Descriptions of action plan for use of CF payments for each beneficiary group o Description of challenges, lessons learned and recommendations • Authorize disbursement of funds to government accounts (FC, Cocobod, MMDAs) against approved reports and action plans. • Receive, review, and approve reports from each HIA Implementation Committee for HIA beneficiaries (Farmer groups, TA, communities) that include: 43 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft o Reporting on indicators and explanation of un-met indicators (as required); o Request for funds; o Descriptions of action plan for use of CF payments for each beneficiary group; o Community development project contracting proposals and progress/completion reports from on-going projects (from previous disbursements); o HIA account audit; o Description of challenges, lessons learned and recommendations • Authorize disbursement of funds to HIA account (for sharing to farmer groups, TA, and communities) against approved reports and action plans. HIA Implementation Committees responsibilities with respect to monitoring and reporting on the BSP, and disbursement of performance-based benefits at the HIA level include: • Coordinating, with PMU and Consortium to support, monitoring of HIA stakeholder indicators. • Receive requests for community development projects from HIA Management Board. • Supporting process towards annual auditing of HIA account. • Submitting reports to RDA Board for the HIA that include: o Reporting on HIA stakeholder indicators for farmer groups, TA and communities; o Requests for funds for each stakeholder group; o Developed action plans for use of CF payments for each beneficiary group; o Community development project contracting proposals and reporting on progress/completion of on-going community development projects (from previous disbursements); o Description of challenges, lessons learned and recommendations. 44 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Annex Annex 1: Approach to designing benefit sharing plan for GCFRP In order to ensure the design of an equitable, effective and efficient benefit sharing mechanism for the REDD+ programme, the BSP has been a subject of several transparent and participatory processes. These processes took place at the local and national level with participation of different stakeholders including local communities, traditional authorities, civil society organizations (CSOs), government, private sector and experts. The information gathering process for the initial draft of a benefit sharing plan took a period of 3 months (October-December, 2017). Subsequently, the draft BSP was subjected to several consultation process and review for another period of 6 months (January-June, 2018). Tables 22-28 provides details on various consultations with stakeholders and experts, while Table 29 summarizes all of the discussions, interviews, and consultation meetings that made up this process. Additional details and participant information is available at the following link: http://fcghana.org/nrs/index.php/reports-documents/category/3-benefit-sharing Design & Consultation Process Information gathering on the determination of beneficiaries and their respective roles and responsibilities, types and scale of benefit to be distributed, and indicators for measuring performance was conducted through an extensive field study. The field study involved focus group discussions and key informant interviews. Thirty (30) focus group discussions were conducted in ten (10) administrative districts located in six (6) HIAs within the Ghana Cocoa-Forest REDD+ Programme Area (Table 20, Figure 7). The focus group comprised 413 individuals, including 304 men (74%) and 109 women (26%). Focus group discussion members were of varying ages (young and old) drawn from farmers, extension officers, opinion leaders, MMDAs representatives, etc. In addition to the focus group discussions, twenty-seven (27) key informant interviews were conducted at the local level to obtain individualized perspectives. Table 20: BS study areas HIA Region Study Area (Districts) 4 Eastern Begoro, Kibi 5 Central Assin Fosu 6 Ashanti New Edubiase, Fomena 7 Brong Goaso Ahafo 8 Western Enchi, Akontombra 9 Western Juabeso, Debiso Figure 7: Administrative districts by main regions of the GCFRP 45 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Table 21: Focus group discussion locations, gender make-up and dates Districts Male Female Date New Edubiase 45 20 02 November, 2017 Goaso 35 9 02 November, 2017 Enchi 27 11 08 November, 2017 Juabeso 24 10 08 November, 2017 Akontombra 33 9 09 November, 2017 Debiso 33 11 09 November, 2017 Fomena 28 14 14 November, 2017 Assin Fosu 31 11 16 November, 2017 Begoro 25 8 07 December, 2017 Kyebi 23 6 08 December, 2017 Table 22:Key information interview locations, interviewees and dates Districts Designation/Designation Date New Edubiase Community Chief (2) 02 November, 2017 Chief farmer (1) Cocoa extension officer - PBC/Touton (3) Goaso UNDP (1) 02 November, 2017 Municipal Planning officer (1) Chairman of cooperative union executive (2) COCOBOD (1) Forest Services Division (1) Municipal Assembly member (1) CREMA Executive (2) Enchi Assembly man 08 November, 2017 District Manager (FSD) Assistant District Manager (FSD) Juabeso Chief farmer (2) 08 November, 2017 UNDP-ESP (1) Mondelez (3) Akontombra Chief farmer (3) 09 November, 2017 Debiso Chief of migrant community (1) 09 November, 2017 COCOBOD (1) District president – Youth in Cocoa Fomena COCOBOD (1) 14 November, 2017 Assin Fosu Plantation developer (2) 16 November, 2017 District Manager (FSD) Begoro Forest Services Division (1) 07 December, 2017 Kyebi COCOBOD 08 December, 2017 Chief farmer (1) Forest Services Division (2) 46 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft The outputs of the synthesis of the results of the field study (focus group discussion, key informant interviews) was presented to representatives of the stakeholder groups that took part in the field survey and interviews for validation in a workshop. Subsequently, a draft benefit sharing plan was developed and subjected to three (3) consultation meetings with multiple stakeholders (private sector, CSOs, government, traditional authorities, experts) for comments. Subsequently, a revised draft was developed and subjected to three (3) expert reviews to produce a final BSP document for GCFRP. In all, about 100 individuals participate in the consultation and expert review meetings. Information on the consultation and expert review meetings is provided below. Table 23: Private sector consultation as a group Private sector Date Venue 30 November, 2017 Labadi Beach Hotel, Accra Meeting agenda Solicit the views of private sector actors on the benefit sharing plan for the GCFRP Main inputs/issues Private sector actors indicated that, they are not interested in receiving any share of the carbon benefits. And that, they are committed to supporting farmers that will be engaged in the emission reduction programme through provision of farm inputs and other non- carbon benefits. List of Participants attached as pdf Table 24: Private sector consultation exchange meeting on GCFRP Private sector Date Venue 05 July, 2018 Tomreik Hotel, Accra Meeting agenda Presentation of the GCFRP. HIA concept further explained. Main inputs/issues GCFRP pillars were thoroughly discussed. Sensitization of other private sector players about to other private sector players such as Touton have already engaged in the HIA implementation by forming a consortium made up on SNV, NCRC, Agro Eco, COCOBOD and FC. List of Participants attached as pdf Stakeholders Consultative meetings Table 25: 1st Multi-stakeholder consultation meeting Date Venue 1st Consultative meeting with 19 January, 2018 Forestry Commission Auditorium, Accra various stakeholders Meeting agenda Validate results of the field study (focus group discussion, key informant interviews) Main inputs/issues Generally, participants confirmed that the results presented reflected the views they expressed during the field study. Regard the scale of benefit, participants were pleased that farmers and local communities receive a significant portion of the carbon benefits. 47 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft There was consensus that the percentage share of carbon benefits assigned to each beneficiary was equitable. However, a subject that came up for discussion was the 10% share of carbon benefits for traditional authorities. There was consensus that, traditional authorities’ share is slashed with part of it converted into direct cash benefit while the remaining part is added to the percentage share of the communities. This was to keep up with long standing tradition of royalties’ payment. Another issue that was raised was the need for the consultant to provide more information on the nature and structure of REDD+ Dedicated Fund. List of Participants attached as pdf Table 26: 2nd Multi-stakeholder consultation meeting Date Venue 2nd Consultative meeting with 02 March, 2018 Forestry Commission Auditorium, Accra expert stakeholder group Meeting agenda Presentation of response and recommendations for questions and concerns raised in the previous consultative meeting Expert review of the draft report on the BSP Main inputs/issues Generally, participants confirmed that the results presented reflected the views they expressed during the field study. Regard the scale of benefit, participants were pleased that farmers and local communities receive a significant portion of the carbon benefits. There was consensus that the percentage share of carbon benefits assigned to each beneficiary was equitable. It was accepted that 2% of the traditional authorities’ carbon benefits is paid to them directly as cash. The remaining 8% percent of their share was added to the local communities’ percentage share of the carbon benefits. Local communities’ share of the carbon increased to 28%. There was unanimous agreement to the new adjustment. Issue about the nature and structure of REDD+ Dedicated Fund was clarified by the consultant. It was agreed that, the Fund is lodged in any reputable bank other than Bank of Ghana as initially suggested in the earlier draft report. The reason was to avoid possible interference with Government. List of Participants attached as pdf 48 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft BSP Experts’ Review Meetings Table 27: 1st Experts' BSP review meetings Date Venue st 1 Expert review meeting 09-11 April, 2018 Aruba Guest House, Aburi Meeting agenda Discuss draft report on the benefit sharing plan (BSP) for GCFRP based on comments from the consultative meetings Main inputs/issues Review consultant’s response to comments for a draft BSP report Review information accuracy and validity Review the proposed BSP Provide additional and latest information on private sector contribution to the emission reduction programme List of Participants Name Institution/Organization Yaw Osafo Legal expert on climate change financing and REDD+ Michael Akowuah Lawyer, Forestry Commission Alex Asare Socio- economist, Forestry Commission Elijah Danso Natural resource management consultant, PAB Consult Hilma Manan Safeguard and information system, National REDD+ Secretariat – Forestry Commission Florence Adu National REDD+ Secretariat – Forestry Commission Rebecca Asare REDD+ expert, NCRC William Dumenu Lead consultant, CSIR- Forestry Research Institute of Ghana Table 28: 2nd Experts' BSP review meetings Date Venue nd 2 Experts’ review meeting 30 May, 2018 Forestry Commission, Accra Meeting agenda Discuss revised draft report on the benefit sharing plan (BSP) for GCFRP Main inputs/issues Review of the revised draft BSP Discuss emerging information for incorporation into the proposed BSP based on comments from World Bank List of Participants Name Institution/Organization Michael Akowuah Lawyer, Forestry Commission Alex Asare Socio- economist, Forestry Commission Elijah Danso Natural resource management consultant, PAB Consult Hilma Manan Safeguard and information system, National REDD+ Secretariat – Forestry Commission Florence Adu National REDD+ Secretariat – Forestry Commission Rebecca Asare REDD+ expert, NCRC William Dumenu Lead consultant, CSIR- Forestry Research Institute of Ghana 49 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Table 29: 3rd Experts' BSP review meetings Date Venue rd 3 Experts’ review meeting 22 June, 2018 Forestry Commission Boardroom, Accra Meeting agenda Discuss revised draft report on the benefit sharing plan (BSP) based previously identified emerging issues Main inputs/issues Discuss current draft of the BSP Consultants directed to provide ER payments options for emission reduction scenarios List of Participants Name Institution/Organization Michael Akowuah Lawyer, Forestry Commission Alex Asare Socio- economist, Forestry Commission Elijah Danso Natural resource management consultant, PAB Consult Hilma Manan Safeguard and information system, National REDD+ Secretariat – Forestry Commission Florence Adu National REDD+ Secretariat – Forestry Commission Thomas Gyambrah Assistant manager, National REDD+ Secretariat – Forestry Commission Rebecca Asare REDD+ expert, NCRC William Dumenu Lead consultant, CSIR- Forestry Research Institute of Ghana 50 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Table 30: Summary of focus group discussion, interview, and consultations Event Date Venue/Location Agenda Main inputs/issues Focus Group 2nd November – Ten (10) districts namely: Gather stakeholders’ The following are the outputs of the focus Discussions at 8th December, New Edubiase, Goaso, view on the following: group discussions: Community Level 2017; Enchi, Juaboso, - Who (beneficiaries) -Determination of beneficiaries and their Akontombra, Debiso, should receive respective roles and responsibilities; Fomena, Assin Fosu, carbon benefits - Identification of types and scale of Begoro and Kyebi and/or the non- benefit to be distributed; carbon benefits - Determination of indicators for (priority) and why; measuring performance, and modalities - What type of for benefits distribution. benefits (carbon benefit and/or the non-carbon benefits) should be distributed to identified beneficiaries; - When and how (manner) should carbon benefits be distributed; - How should the performance of beneficiaries be assessed for payment or distribution of carbon benefits and non-carbon benefits; - What benefit sharing scheme(s) should be used in distributing the identified benefits to the identified beneficiaries. 51 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Key Informants 2nd November – Ten (10) districts namely: Gather stakeholders’ The following are the outputs of the focus Interviews at 8th December, New Edubiase, Goaso, view on the following: group discussions: Community Level 2017 Enchi, Juaboso, - Who (beneficiaries) -Determination of beneficiaries and their Akontombra, Debiso, should receive respective roles and responsibilities; Fomena, Assin Fosu, carbon benefits - Identification of types and scale of Begoro and Kyebi and/or the non- benefit to be distributed; carbon benefits - Determination of indicators for (priority) and why; measuring performance, and modalities - What type of for benefits distribution. benefits (carbon benefit and/or the non-carbon benefits) should be distributed to identified beneficiaries; - When and how (manner) should carbon benefits be distributed; - How should the performance of beneficiaries be assessed for payment or distribution of carbon benefits and non-carbon benefits; - What benefit sharing scheme(s) should be used in distributing the identified benefits to the identified beneficiaries. Private sector 30 November, Labadi Beach Hotel, Accra Solicit the views of Private sector actors indicated that, they consultation on the 2017 private sector actors are not interested in receiving any share BSP on the benefit of the carbon benefits. And that, they are sharing plan for the committed to supporting farmers that will GCFRP be engaged in the emission reduction 52 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft programme through provision of farm inputs and other non-carbon benefits. Round Table 19 January, 2018 Forestry Commission Validate results of Generally, participants confirmed that the meeting on the draft Auditorium, Accra the field study (focus results presented reflected the views they BSP group discussion, key expressed during the field study. informant interviews) Regard the scale of benefit, participants were pleased that farmers and local communities receive a significant portion of the carbon benefits. There was consensus that the percentage share of carbon benefits assigned to each beneficiary was equitable. However, a subject that came up for discussion was the 10% share of carbon benefits for traditional authorities. There was consensus that, traditional authorities’ share is slashed with part of it converted into direct cash benefit while the remaining part is added to the percentage share of the communities. This was to keep up with long standing tradition of royalties’ payment. Another issue that was raised was the need for the consultant to provide more information on the nature and structure of REDD+ Dedicated Fund. Stakeholder 02 March, 2018 Forestry Commission Presentation of Generally, participants confirmed that the Consultative Auditorium, Accra response and results presented reflected the views they meeting on the draft recommendations for expressed during the field study. BSP questions and Regard the scale of benefit, participants concerns raised in were pleased that farmers and local the previous communities receive a significant portion consultative meeting of the carbon benefits. There was Expert review of the consensus that the percentage share of draft report on the carbon benefits assigned to each BSP beneficiary was equitable. 53 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft It was accepted that 2% of the traditional authorities’ carbon benefits is paid to them directly as cash. The remaining 8% percent of their share was added to the local communities’ percentage share of the carbon benefits. Local communities’ share of the carbon increased to 28%. There was unanimous agreement to the new adjustment. Issue about the nature and structure of REDD+ Dedicated Fund was clarified by the consultant. It was agreed that, the Fund is lodged in any reputable bank other than Bank of Ghana as initially suggested in the earlier draft report. The reason was to avoid possible interference with Government. 1st Expert Team 09-11 April, 2018 Aruba Guest House, Aburi Discuss final draft Review consultant’s response to the Meeting on the draft report on the benefit reviewers’ comments on the draft report BSP sharing plan (BSP) for Review information accuracy and validity GCFRP Review the proposed BSP Provide additional and latest information on private sector contribution to the emission reduction programme Private sector 24 May, 2018 Mensvic Hotel The Technical meeting on the BSP Support Mission for REDD+ met private sector (Touton, Mondelez, etc.) to further engage with them on the BSP and to better understand their expectations (in terms of benefits) 54 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft 2nd Expert Team 30 May, 2018 Forestry Commission’s Review latest draft of Discuss current draft of the BSP Meeting on the draft Meeting Room 3, Accra the BSP BSP 3rd Expert Team 22 June, 2018 Forestry Commission’s Discuss new outline Discuss current draft of the BSP meeting on the draft Board Room, Accra of the BSP by Review draft Mozambique BSP BSP reviewing the Work on scenarios for emissions Mozambique draft BSP as an example Public-Private 5 July, 2018 Tomreik Hotel, East This meeting had The GCFRP was presented to them. The Exchange meeting Legon - Accra various private sector HIA concept clearly explained and the on the GCFRP and companies GCFRP pillars were discussed thoroughly. BSP participating. Some of them were The idea was to explain to them that Hershey, Nyonkopa other private sector such as Touton had (subsidiary of Barry already taken the lead and their HIA has Callebaut, World been launched. They have also formed a Cocoa Foundation consortium made up on SNV, NCRC, Agro (WCF), Cargill, Eco, COCOBOD and FC. Mondelez and Touton. 55 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Annex 2: HIA social performance/emission reduction indicators and their respective weights Table 31: Social performance indicators and respective weights Social Performance Indicators Data/Measurement Weight Proxy Registration of farmers/farmer groups No. of farmers 0.5 registered per HIA/Sub- HIA Launching of HIA Consortium Documentation of 0.5 launch Letter of Agreement/MoU to establish HIA governance Letter/MOU 0.5 structure Development of management plan Management Plan 1 document Verified participation of Traditional Authorities in Signature from TAs in 1 development of management plan MP Establishment of HIA governance structure Sub-HIA and HIA 1.5 Constitutions and then 1.5 Adoption of CSC practices by farmer group & By-laws Implementation of management plan HIA annual report 1.5 Total 8 Table 32: ER indicators and respective weights Emission reduction indicators Weight Increased deforestation in HIA 0.5 No net change in deforestation 1 Reduced deforestation 1.5 56 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Annex 3: Determining Beneficiaries Six (6) categories of beneficiaries related to carbon benefits were identified through field-based focus group discussions and key informant interviews. The recommended list of beneficiaries included: Farmers, Farming Communities, the Forestry Commission (FC) field officers, Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), Traditional Authorities, and Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies (MMDAs). At least two-thirds of the total number of focus groups mentioned these categories of stakeholders as deserving to receive REDD+ benefits. Interestingly, farmers were mentioned in all the different focus group deliberations, followed by local communities (83%), Traditional Authorities (80%) and FC (80%). Some of the reasons cited for strongly recommending them as beneficiaries closely aligned with their roles in the landscape, either formal or informal, that can directly support sustainable forest management as well as activities that reduce deforestation and forest degradation. For instance, farmers were identified as beneficiaries due to their role in integrating trees on farms and in fallow lands through planting and nurturing of trees, and the avoidance of illegalities such encroachment on forest reserves. Local communities were also recognized for their potential critical role in local monitoring of illegality (particularly illegal logging and illegal mining) and protection of forests. The FC and COCOBOD were cited for the technical assistance they provide to farmers on tree management and sustainable cocoa farming practices. MMDAs represent the branch of local government and they were mentioned due to the support given on forest law enforcement, the enactment and enforcement of district bye-laws, and the provision of logistical support for monitoring of illegal logging and mining. Traditional Authorities were recognized as beneficiaries for being custodians of the land and their important role in enforcement of forest laws against illegal mining and illegal logging and encroachment. Table 29 presents the reasons that participants chose beneficiaries and their perceived respective roles and responsibilities in reducing deforestation and forest degradation respectively. Table 33: Reasons for selection of beneficiaries Beneficiaries Reasons for the choice Frequency *Percent of respondents (N=30) Farmers Prevent deforestation and forest degradation, plant and 30 100 manage trees on farms, avoid advancing farms into forest reserve (encroachment), respect local bye-laws Local Critical role in monitoring of illegality (illegal logging, illegal 17 57 Communities mining), protection of forests Traditional Custodians of lands, critical role in project endorsement, 25 83 Authorities backbone to community structure and organization Forestry Protect forests, forest law enforcement, Education and 21 70 Commission awareness creation, provide technical knowledge or assistance COCOBOD Provide cocoa seedlings, provide technical knowledge or 20 67 assistance Metropolitan, Local government development agents, enact and enforce 21 70 Municipal and bye-laws to protect the environment, provide monitoring District logistics Assemblies (MMDAs) 57 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Annex 4: Secured Funding Table 34: Secured funding and sources Lead Amount US$ No. Years HIA * Activities Stakeholder (and partners) Touton SA $16,856,000 5 Juabeso Bia HIA governance structure; (working with HIA* CSC extension services; SNV, NCRC, Tree seedlings distribution; Agro-Eco, Inputs supply; Cocobod, FC) Testing “The Landscape Standard� Farm mapping Mondelez $5,000,000 5 Asunafo North Support to CSC (UNDP, Olam) & South HIA, Tree planting Juabeso Bia CREMAs HIA, Landscape monitoring Ahafo Ano, Atwima Mponua, Atwima Nwabiagya Solidaridad $17,000,000 Across GCFRP, Cocoa Rehabilitation (Corip I, II) determining Engaging young farmers HIA GAP & UTZ Certification Smart & Sustainable Landscapes NCRC 1,000,000 4 Kakum HIA gov structure Landscape HIA, NTFP value chain Consortium Cocoa Agroforestry extension and CSC under Input supply formation Shade tree seedlings Cocoa seedlings Testing “The Landscape Standard� Rainforest 500,000 1 Sefwi Develop landscape partnerships Alliance and (to be Akontonbra Landscape Management Board Olam extended) Sefwi Wiaso Support CSC practices Global TBD The CFI commitment is agreed and now Chocolate individual companies (more than 40) Industry are developing their company specific plans and investment packages. Plan to be announced in late 2018, but discussion underway for WCF to give more information earlier. GoG—Cocobod 71,806,466 5 Across all HIA Extension services districts Pruning and GAP 58 Ghana ER Program (GCFRP) Benefit Sharing Plan Advanced Draft Pollination Pest & Disease spraying Farm mapping GoG—Forestry 15,412,000 NRS, PMU Staff Commission Field Staff and support Field work logistics Ghana FIP 25,000,000 Western CSC extension and inputs Region & parts CREMA / HIA development of BA Tree planting Stopping illegal mining FIP—DGM 5,000,000 (Solidaridad) TOTAL $157,574,466 59