The State Of REDD Finance - Center For Global Development
The State of REDD FinanceMarigold Norman and Smita NakhoodaAbstractThis paper presents a thorough synthesis of available data to illuminate the currentglobal state of finance for reducing emissions from deforestation and forestdegradation (REDD ). It adds to a growing body of work that seeks to understandthe size and composition of finance for REDD initiatives, as well as the deliveryof climate finance more generally. The analysis shows that aggregate pledges ofboth public and private finance are significant, at more than US 9.8 billion for theperiod between 2006 and December 2014, but the pace of new pledges slowedafter 2010. The public sector contributes nearly 90 percent of reported REDD finance, with the preponderance of funding concentrated among a relatively smallnumber of donors and recipient countries. The paper analyzes early experience withperformance-based finance, although such finance represents less than two-fifths ofpledges to date. New institutions in the climate finance architecture such as the GreenClimate Fund have recognized the opportunity to engage on REDD finance, butthe extent to which they succeed in creating new and effective channels of supportremains to be seen.JEL Codes: F35, Q23, Q54CGD Climate and Forest Paper Series #5www.cgdev.orgWorking Paper 378September 2014Updated May 2015
The State of REDD FinanceMarigold NormanOverseas Development InstituteSmita NakhoodaOverseas Development InstituteThis is a joint paper with ODI. ODI is a leading independent think tankon international development and humanitarian issues. Their mission isto inspire and inform policy and practice which lead to the reduction ofpoverty, the alleviation of suffering, and the achievement of sustainablelivelihoods in developing countries.Marigold Norman is a Senior Research Officer in the Climate andEnvironment Programme at ODI. Contact: m.norman@odi.org.uk. SmitaNakhooda is a Senior Research Fellow in the Climate and EnvironmentProgramme at ODI, where she leads the International Climate Financeteam. Contact: s.nakhooda@odi.org.uk. The authors thank Stefan Agne,Charlie Parker, and Edward Davey for comments and suggestions.CGD is grateful for contributions from the Norwegian Agency forDevelopment Cooperation in support of this work.Marigold Norman and Smita Nakhooda. 2014. “The State of REDD Finance.” CGD Working Paper 378 . Washington, DC: Center for /state-redd-finance-working-paper-378Center for Global Development2055 L Street, NWFifth FloorWashington, DC 20036202.416.4000(f ) 202.416.4050www.cgdev.orgThe Center for Global Development is an independent, nonprofit policyresearch organization dedicated to reducing global poverty and inequalityand to making globalization work for the poor. Use and dissemination ofthis Working Paper is encouraged; however, reproduced copies may not beused for commercial purposes. Further usage is permitted under the termsof the Creative Commons License.The views expressed in CGD Working Papers are those of the authors andshould not be attributed to the board of directors or funders of the Centerfor Global Development.
ContentsForeword . 1Summary . 21.Introduction . 32.Global REDD finance . 42.1 Scope . 42.2 REDD finance . 52.3 REDD in the context of Fast Start Finance . 102.43.Annual Trends in REDD Finance . 11REDD Donors . 133.1 Multilateral funds. 153.2 Disbursements of REDD pledges . 194.Recipients of REDD finance . 215.Paying for performance: Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation 265.1 Performance-based payments . 265.2 Performance-based payments and REDD donors . 275.3 REDD performance-based payments in action . 285.3.1 Payment timing and focus on results . 286.5.3.2Incentive mechanisms. 305.3.3Monitoring and Indicators. 305.3.4Other benefits . 31Private sector. 346.1 Overview of private finance volumes and markets . 356.2 Drivers of demand and investment . 367. Conclusion . 408. References . 43Annex: Methodology . 478.1 Where does the data come from? . 478.2 What counts as REDD finance? . 488.3 When is REDD finance counted? . 49
ForewordThis paper is one of more than 20 analyses being produced under CGD’s Initiative onTropical Forests for Climate and Development. The purpose of the Initiative is to helpmobilize substantial additional finance from high-income countries in support of the payfor-performance approach to transfers that is at the heart of the global REDD program.The analyses will feed into a book entitled Why Forests? Why Now? The Science, Economics, andPolitics of Tropical Forests and Climate Change. Co-authored by senior fellow Frances Seymourand research fellow Jonah Busch, the book will show that tropical forests are essential forboth climate stability and sustainable development, that now is the time for action ontropical forests, and that payment-for-performance finance for reducing emissions fromdeforestation and forest degradation (REDD ) represents a course of action with greatpotential for success.Commissioned background papers also support the activities of a working group convenedby CGD and co-chaired by Nancy Birdsall and Pedro Pablo Kuczynski to identify practicalways to accelerate performance-based finance for tropical forests in the lead up to UNFCCCCOP21 in Paris in 2015.This paper, “The State of REDD Finance” by Marigold Norman and Smita Nakhooda ofthe Overseas Development Institute, was commissioned by CGD to provide an up-to-datesummary of the international financial resources that have so far been mobilized forREDD initiatives. By providing authoritative estimates of funding totals broken down bysources, destinations, uses, and stage of disbursement, the paper is intended to illuminateand analyze current patterns and trends in REDD finance.Frances SeymourSenior FellowCenter for Global DevelopmentJonah BuschResearch FellowCenter for Global Development1
SummaryHow are we financing efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation? Thispaper analyses over 23,000 individual projects or pledges of support for REDD between2006 and 2014 to review experiences to date. Aggregate pledges and investments from boththe public and private sectors are significant, at more than US 9.8 billion for the periodbetween 2006 and end of 2014. More than 56% of all finance was pledged between 2006 and2010, reflecting optimism about design of a REDD mechanism in the lead up to the 2009Copenhagen Conference of Parties.But political momentum behind REDD has slowed, compounded by the global economiccrisis which has reduced political appetite for international spending in developed countries.As the difficult realities of REDD program delivery have become apparent, new pledgeshave been smaller and slower to manifest. Since 2010, global pledges for dedicated REDD initiatives average US 796 million annually.Almost 90% of REDD finance identified comes from the public sector. Bilateralinstitutions have played a central role, and manage 51% of finance pledged since 2006compared to around 33% of finance managed by multilateral funds. Bilateral programsactually represent the largest sources of finance for REDD , particularly in forest richcountries.While there are more than 20 REDD donors and 80 recipient countries, activity isrelatively concentrated. Norway, the US, Germany, Japan and the UK provide 77% ofidentified funding with ten countries receiving the majority of finance. Indonesia and Brazilcollectively receive 35% of allocated funding. 20% of funding is directed to global programsor international research and just 17% of allocated funding is supporting REDD activitiesand programs across the remaining 75 recipient countries.At least 58% of public funding is channeled as ex-ante grants for readiness activities whichare not directly reducing emissions. While 42% of public sector finance has been pledged asex-post payments on performance, these programs do not always pay for verified emissionsfrom reduced deforestation. It is therefore likely that a significantly higher proportion of thefinance pledged has been focusing on capacity building and other readiness activities to date.Norway and Germany have piloted performance-based programs. Experience to datesuggests the importance of mobilizing enough finance to incentivize desired results, and2
having clear agreements that lay out mutual expectations. It also suggests the need tomonitor program performance rather than just spend, and improve how performance-basedREDD programs are structured and managed to deliver verified emissions reductions.1. IntroductionMore than 1.6 billion people or 25% of the global population rely on forests for theirlivelihoods and deforestation and degradation of forest land is estimated to account forroughly 12% of global greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC WGII, 2014). To address concernsaround the management and conservation of forests, a financial mechanism known asREDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation; conservation offorest carbon stocks; sustainable management of forests; and enhancement of forest carbonstocks1) was developed. REDD seeks to recognize the value of the carbon stored inforests, and shift incentives from deforestation and land use change to forest conservationand sustainability (Larson and Petkova, 2011).REDD officially became part of the international climate agenda in 2007 when parties tothe United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) committed toaddress climate change through the Bali Action Plan and the Bali Road Map. In 2009 at the15th session of the conference of the parties to the UNFCCC in Copenhagen, developedcountries pledged more than US 3.5 billion in fast-track financing for REDD (Streck et al,2010). Countries also agreed to a phased approach to REDD implementation wherefinance and activities would focus initially on REDD strategy development, capacitybuilding activities, implementation of policies and measures, and move towards results-baseddemonstration activities and verified emissions reductions. Financing for REDD couldtherefore move from public sector ex-ante grants and loans to ex-post payments based onactual results/emissions reduced, potentially funded through emerging carbon markets.Since then, the global economic crisis (2008-2009), the landscape for REDD looks verydifferent (Peters-Stanley et al, 2013; Lowery et al, 2014). This paper explores the global stateof REDD finance today. It highlights the level of REDD finance, the dominance ofpublic sector financing, the main donors, and their motivations in financing REDD .1 UNFCCC definition set out in Working Group III contribution to the IPCC 5th Assessment Report"Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change" that was accepted but not approved in detail by the 12thSession of Working Group III and the 39th Session of the IPCC on 12 April 2014 in Berlin, Germany.3
Methodology and contribution to the literatureThis paper adds to a growing body of work that seeks to understand finance for initiativesthat will reduce emissions from forest degradation, and the delivery of climate finance. Itbreaks new ground by presenting a thorough synthesis of available data on finance forREDD , by incorporating data from the ODI HBF Climate Funds Update (CFU)2 whichtracks the operations of dedicated climate finance initiatives, research on Fast Start Finance,including building on datasets compiled by WRI, ODI, IGES, Germanwatch, Cicero andClimate Advisors, as well as finance reported by donors to the Voluntary REDD Database(VRD) of the REDD Partnership (http://reddplusdatabase.org/). Annex I presents thefull methodology used to reconcile differences in reporting parameters and scope.2. Global REDD finance2.1 ScopeThe focus of this analysis is on the international financial flows or mechanisms originatingoutside a developing country that support actions aimed at reducing emissions fromdeforestation and forest degradation. Determining what actually counts as REDD andforest related finance is not easy and significantly impacts global estimates of how muchfinance is directed toward it.The UNFCCC decision on REDD refers to ‘policy approaches and positive incentives onissues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation; and the roleof conservation, sustainable management of forest and enhancement of forest carbon stocksin developing countries’ (Bali Action Plan, para 1 (b) (iii)) which will include activities thatare country-driven, promote co-benefits and biodiversity, actions that are consistent withconservation of natural forests, involvement of indigenous peoples and local communities aswell as transparent forest governance (Sánchez, 2010). However, donor institutions oftenreport funding against broad categories such as “environment” or “forests”. This cancomplicate efforts to determine the actual amounts or proportion that targets REDD andforest related activities, which in turn can result in the same flows being counted multipletimes.This report therefore tracks international pledges and flows of finance linked to theUNFCCC decisions on REDD as well as relevant activities that support policy approaches2http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/4
and positive incentives around the three phases of REDD . These include the followingactivities in the context of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation,conservation of forest carbon stocks, the sustainable management of forests, and theenhancement of forest carbon stocks: The development of national strategies or action plans, policies and measures, and capacity-building; The implementation of national policies and measures and national strategies or action plans that couldinvolve further capacity-building, technology development and transfer and results-based demonstrationactivities; Results-based actions that should be fully measured, reported and verified.2.2 REDD financeMore than 89% of all REDD and forest related funding tracked has been pledged by thepublic sector through both bilateral and multilateral channels.Twenty-one countries collectively pledged almost US 5 billion through bilateral agreementsbetween 2006 and 20143. In addition, developed countries and the private sector4 arechanneling finance through dedicated multilateral funds targeting REDD and sustainableforest management. Finance pledged to the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)Readiness Fund, Carbon Fund, the Forest Investment Program (FIP), the Amazon Fund,the Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF) and the BioCarbon Fund Initiative for SustainableForest Landscapes (ISFL) totaled US 3.2 billion between 2008 and the end of 2014. Donorcountries pledged US 23 million through multiple channels involving both bilateral andmultilateral programs5. Around US 463 million has been reported, though the particularchannels are not known.While hopes were high that REDD would attract investment from the private sector, theabsence of a compliance market for REDD credits has meant that private sectorengagement and investments have been low (Diaz et al, 2011). Voluntary offset transactions3 This figure is based on countries reporting to the REDD Partnership’s Voluntary REDD Database forREDD contributions between 2006 and 2014, as well as those reporting Fast Start Finance contributionsthrough ODI and HBF Climate Funds Update for the period 2010 to 2012. The two datasets have beencompared in detail to prevent double counting of commitments over the Fast Start Financing period between2010 and 2012. The 21 countries include: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the European Union,Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden,Switzerland, the UK and the US.4 Private investors include British Petroleum, CDC Climat supporting the FCPF Carbon Fund andPetrobras supporting the Amazon Fund for example.5 This figure is based on CFU data reported as of December 31, 2014 athttp://www.climatefundsupdate.org/data5
for REDD projects including sustainable forest management as well as afforestation andreforestation are estimated to be worth around US 1 billion over time6 by EcosystemMarketplace, a leading source of information on private markets for ecosystem services(Goldstein and Gonzalez, 2014). Forest Trends’ REDDX initiative reports just US 8.2million in private finance and US 101 million from private foundations across ten tropicalforest countries between 2009 and 20127.Table 1 summarizes reported REDD finance data by donor/funding channel. Ourconservative estimate of global financing for REDD is in the region of US 9.8 billionbased on tracked and verified finances analyzed and compared across a number ofcomplementary institutions and initiatives. This figure would likely be higher if morecomplete data was available on private sector investments. Figure 1 highlights how differentsources of REDD finance stack up.6 Ecosystem Marketplace track offsets reported since the 1990s through interviewing offset projectdevelopers, brokers, and retailers, as well as carbon offset-accounting registries, and exchanges that track andfacilitate offset ownership. Given the different timeframe for private sector finance, this report focuses ondiscussing public sector financing at the global level in the donor discussions. The report discusses some privatesector investments in the context of recipient countries which have been backed up by additional data fromForest Trends’ REDDX Initiative. Private sector investments are discussed in more detail in section 4.7 Forest Trends’ REDDX reporting REDD finance at the national level for the period 2008-2012 forBrazil, Colombia, DRC, Ecuador, Ghana, Indonesia, Liberia, Mexico, Peru and Tanzania. Available athttp://reddx.forest-trends.org/6
REDD financeType offunding/donorScope of DataData TrackingInstitution/sourceBilateral21 donor countries8Multilateral6 multilateralREDD /forest focusedfunds 9Detailed assessment andcompilation using:ODI FSF data 2010-2012Voluntary REDD Database(VRD) of the REDD Partnership (2006-2014)ODI HBI CFU tracking (20082014)OtherMultilateralMultiplechannels21 donors and 6 multilateralREDD /forest focusedfundsUnknown21 donors and 6 multilateralREDD /forest focusedfundsPrivateFoundations10 REDD countries10Private sector162 projectsTotal financialpledge/investmentreported in millionsUS 4,9813,227ODI FSF data 2010-2012And ODI HBI CFU tracking(2008- 2014)Detailed assessment andcompilation using:ODI FSF data 2010-2012Voluntary REDD Database(VRD) of the REDD Partnership (2006-2014)Detailed assessment andcompilation using:ODI FSF data 2010-2012Voluntary REDD Database(VRD) of the REDD Partnership (2006-2014)Forest Trends' REDDX March201430Ecosystem Marketplace 20141,000Total234631019,825This includes countries self-reporting REDD financial contributions to the REDD Partnership’sVoluntary REDD Database for the period between 2006 and 2014, as well as those reporting Fast Start Financecontributions for the period 2010 to 2012. The two datasets have been compared in detail to prevent doublecounting of commitments over the Fast Start Financing period. The 21 donor countries included in this reportare: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, the European Union, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland,Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK and the US.89 Multilateral funds include: the Forest Investment Program (FIP), Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) ReadinessFund, FCPF Carbon Fund, the BioCarbon Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes, the Amazon Fund and the CongoBasin Forest Fund.10Including Brazil, Colombia, DRC, Ecuador, Ghana, Indonesia, Liberia, Mexico, Peru and Tanzania.7
Figure 1: How global REDD finance stacks up: Public and private pledges 2006 toDecember 2014Source: Compilation of public sector reported data from the REDD Partnership Voluntary REDD Database and ODI HBF Climate FundsUpdate covering REDD financial commitments for 2006 to 2014. Private sector data is sourced from Ecosystem Marketplace’s State of the ForestCarbon Markets Report 2014. Private Foundation data from Forest Trends’ REDDX initiative data as of December 2014. “PBP” stands for“performance-based payment” to represent programs paying on performance or verified emissions reduced.8
Other domestic sources of REDD financeThis paper focuses on international flows of finance for REDD and forest related activities. However,developing countries, particularly in emerging economies, are increasingly prioritising REDD within theirnational budgets and allocating domestic funds or co-financing international REDD programs. Domesticcontributions to REDD have not been comprehensively captured or tracked to date but are widely acceptedas an important component of the global REDD financing landscape (REDD Partnership 2012, 2013;Princes Charities 2012).Global estimates place domestic REDD financing in the region of US 10 billion per annum (Streck andParker, 2012) or twice the level of international REDD pledges (Tennigkeit et al, 2013). However data at thenational level (reported through Forest Trends’ REDDX) suggests that governments are responsible for up to50% of REDD finance. For example, the Mexican government reports domestic contributions of US 333million or 43% of Mexico’s total REDD finance, while the government of Ghana reports that it has providedover US 39 million or 37% of total REDD finance tracked in-country.As of January 2015, the REDD Partnership reports US 1.6 billion in domestic investments across 40countries. But this figure is likely significantly higher requiring more complete understandings of what “counts”as REDD finance within countries, and more systematic frameworks for reporting which ensures thatinternational finance is not re-packaged or double counted as new and additional finance. Many countries arenow investing in systems to identify and monitor domestic spending on climate finance, including through theuse of climate public expenditure reviews. For example, UNDP recently supported Indonesia to complete ananalysis of expenditure related to mitigation, which sought to quantify domestic spending on REDD activities.How much finance is really needed for REDD ?Estimating REDD financing needs has been described as ‘almost a meaningless question’ (Angelsen in Streckand Parker, 2012) as costs depend on a wide range of issues and local factors. There have been several attemptsto estimate needs with the Eliasch Review suggesting ‘that the finance required to halve emissions from the forestsector by 2030 could be around US 17-US 33 billion per year if including global carbon trading’ (2008: xvi). In2009, the Informal Working Group on Interim Finance for REDD estimated that between 15 and 25 billionEuros would be required for a 25% reduction in annual global deforestation rates by 2015 (IWG-IFR 2009).Reports such as the 2006 Stern Review focused on opportunity costs, and the importance of creating financialincentives to encourage governments and landowners to keep forests standing instead of cutting them down foralternative land uses, such as palm oil. The scale of payments needed is related to the opportunity costs of thesealternative uses. This type of needs estimation also looks at the costs of setting up and implementing a REDD system in-country.However, there is a lot of uncertainty in estimating opportunity costs of land including ‘the ability of developingcountries to implement needed safeguards, and the complex global market for food, biofuels, and forestproducts’ (Morris and Stevenson 2011: 3). A number of studies have developed economic models to estimatefinancial needs using a price range of US 5– 20 per ton of CO2e avoided (Kindermann et al 2008). Suchestimates suggest that with forest degradation currently releasing ‘around 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide into theatmosphere each year, reducing deforestation 50 percent by 2020 would cost in the range of US 15– 60 billionper year in direct financial transfers’ (Morris and Stevenson 2011: 3).To prepare for the later phases of REDD and longer term financing based on results, it is accepted thatdeveloping countries may need to undertake low emissions development planning; build measuring, monitoring,reporting and verification systems and create new agencies and institutions for management of REDD . Globalcost estimates for reducing deforestation do not often factor in these costs (Morris and Stevenson, 2011) but a2009 study estimated capacity building costs over the period 2010-2012 in the region of US 4-US 6 billion.9
2.3 REDD in the context of Fast Start FinanceThe 2009 Copenhagen Accord and the 2010 Cancun Agreements encouraged developedcountries to make some initial substantial financial commitments to support developingcountries mitigate and adapt to climate change. Developed countries pledged to provideUS 30 billion in new and additional ‘Fast Start Finance’ (FSF) from 2010 to 2012. Countriesreport that they exceeded these pledges, mobilizing US 35 billion for climate change(Nakhooda et al, 2013). Figure 2 highlights donor country FSF pledges with the proportionof funding directed towards REDD .Furthermore, developed countries also committed to a goal of mobilizing US 100 billion ofclimate finance per year for developing countries from public, private and alternative sourcesin the context of transparent and meaningful mitigation action.Figure 2: Donor Fast Start Finance and proportion focused on REDD 11Source: Nakhooda et al, 2013. Mobilising International Climate Finance: Lessons from the Fast Start Finance period. Conversions based onOECD exchange rates12.The EU contribution in Figure 2 comprises financial contributions from all EU Member States.Total figures are based on those reported to the UNFCCC, and for EU member states, those reported inthe EU Accountability Report on Financing for Development 2013. “Other FSF” includes all aggregate financereported at either the project or program level. Some data were provisional at time of reporting by governments.111210
REDD finance accounted for around 10% of FSF as a whole (Nakhooda et al, 2013). Thisis a relatively small share of overall climate finance, but some countries such as Norwaydedicated 79% of their FSF contributions to REDD activities. Japan’s small share (just 2%of FSF) directed to REDD has substantially lowered the average given it was the singlelargest contributor of FSF (Watson et al, 2014).2.4 Annual Trends in REDD FinanceDonor pledges to REDD were highest prior to 2010 (see figure 3) reflecting the politicaloptimism around the prospects for a global REDD mechanism in the lead up to theCopenhagen Conference of the Parties (Westholm et al, 2012). These included largecommitments of finance from Norway including a US 1 billion pledge to the Amazon Fundin 2009; a US 1 billion pledge to Indonesia in 2010, and a US 250 million pledge to Guyanain 2009 through the Guyana REDD Investment Fund (GRIF). As noted, REDD playeda significant but relatively small role in efforts to
Almost 90% of REDD finance identified comes from the public sector. Bilateral institutions have played a central role, and manage 51% of finance pledged since 2006 compared to around 33% of finance managed by multilateral funds. Bilateral programs actually represent the largest sources of finance for REDD , particularly in forest rich countries.
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
the priorities of Amazonian states in relation to a National REDD System or Strategy. 1 - Contribution by States of the Brazilian Amazon to the National REDD Strategy. Document in appendix. 2 - Cenamo, M.C., et al. State REDD System in Amazonas: Challenges, Opportunities and Recommendations.
This, too, is still basic to conventional literary criticism and is also open to seriou objection. De Wette in 1805 assigned Deuteronomy to the time of Josiah, such that pentateuchal matter considered dependent on Deuteronomy would be still later than it; 160 years later this is still commonly held, despite opposition. In the first half of the 19th century rival theses arose alongside the .
