REDDography

REDDOGRAPHY

2

REDDOGRAPHIES

a report by:

Lorenzo ApriglianoAchille Viggo CalegariGuido ChiefaloAlessandro PiacentiniGiacomo TraldiLaura Varisco

Politecnico di MilanoScuola del DesignLaurea Magistrale in Design della Comunicazione2° Anno - Sezione C3 - 2011/2012

Docenti:Prof. Paolo CiuccarelliProf. Donato RicciProf. Salvatore ZingaleProf. Stefano Mandato

1.

2.

2.1.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

INTRODUCTION

PREVENTING DEFORESTATION

REDD & FUNDS

CONTROVERSIES ABOUT REDD

MAPPING

RE-MAPPING

DIGITAL METHODS

CONCLUSIONS

3

GLOBAL WARMING & CLIMATE CHANGE

Earth’s current rise in co2 levels, and consequently in temperature, is having a harsh effect on its croplands, pastures and forestry products.

Climate change increases the amount of population at risk of hunger, especially in the regions of Sub-Saharan Africa, but it might be lowered by choosing specific socio-economic policies. While moderate warming may be beneficial to crop and pasture yields in mid-to-high regions, it will have an adverse effect in low-latitude regions which will immediately face a drop in production. Apart from temperature, farming and forestry production is also severely influenced by the increased frequency and harshness of extreme climate events, as proven by the unexpected drought that Europe faced in 2003.

TROPICAL FORESTS

Tropical forests cover about 15% of the world’s land surface and contain about 25% of the carbon in the terrestrial biosphere. But they are being rapidly degraded and deforested resulting in the emission of heat-trapping carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Roughly 13 million hectares – an area the size of Nicaragua – are converted to other land uses each year1. This loss accounts for a fifth of global carbon emissions, making land cover change the second largest contributor to global warming. Forests therefore play a vital role in any initiative to combat climate change.

Forest resources directly support the livelihoods of 90% of the 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty and are home to nearly 90% of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity. Local communities depend on forests as a source of fuel, food,

Chapter 1

Introduction

4

THE CAUSES OF DEFORESTATION

The causes of deforestation are multiple and complex and vary from country to country. Local pressures arise from communities using forests to provide sources of food, fuel and farmland. Poverty and population pressure can lead inexorably to the loss of forest cover, trapping people in perpetual poverty. Whilst millions of people still cut down trees to make a living for their families, a major cause of deforestation is now large-scale agriculture driven by consumer demand. In recent decades deforestation has shifted from a largely state-initiated to an enterprise-driven process. The drivers of the demand for agricultural land vary globally. In Africa, it is primarily small-scale subsistence farming. In South America, it is large-scale farming enterprises, producing beef and soya for export markets. In South East Asia, the driver is somewhere between the two,

with palm oil, coffee and timber the main products. Demand for timber also drives deforestation and therefore contributes to land-use change emissions.

INTRODUCTION

medicines and shelter. The loss of forests jeopardizes poverty alleviation. Indigenous and forest-dependent peoples are stewards of their forests, providing the rest of humanity with vital ecosystem services. Climate change will hit the poorest hardest and so reducing deforestation will help build their resilience to climate impacts.

At local to global scales, forests provide essential ecosystem services beyond carbon storage such as watershed protection, water flow regulation, nutrient recycling, rainfall generation and disease regulation. Old growth forests also soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, offsetting anthropogenic emissions. Protecting tropical forests has a double-cooling effect, by reducing carbon emissions and maintaining high levels of evaporation from the canopy.

5

The Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC allows afforestation and reforestation projects within developing countries, geared to offset emissions in developed countries. There is little uptake as yet for forest projects within either process. There is also a growing voluntary market in tree planting to offset carbon dioxide emissions. There is some debate over its effectiveness, and standards have been called for to better document the long-term carbon storage benefits.

UNEP has identified a number of immediate priorities on taking action against deforestation:

• Rapid and integrated assessment of forests and their services, including carbon and co-benefits, and of deforestation pressures. Investment in developing countries will need to be targeted, based on costs, benefits and risks.

• Spatial planning tools, to identify priority areas for action, based on information on carbon, deforestation risk and co-benefits.

• Methodologies and tools for the establishment of baselines and for whole-system carbon accounting and measurement.

Chapter 2

Preventing Deforestation

6

The basic idea behind Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) is simple: Countries that are willing and able to reduce emissions from deforestation should be financially compensated for doing so. Previous approaches to curb global deforestation have so far been unsuccessful, however, and REDD provides a new framework to allow deforesting countries to break this historic trend.

REDD is primarily about emissions reductions. The Bali Action Plan decided at the Conference of the Parties (COP) at its thirteenth session states that a comprehensive approach to mitigate climate change should include:“Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries”

A fundamental milestone was achieved at COP 11 in Montreal in 2005 when Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica supported by eight other Parties proposed a mechanism for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries.

The proposal received wide support from Parties and the COP established a contact group and thereafter began a two year process to explore options for REDD. This decision resulted in a wide range of Parties and observers over this period submitting proposals and recommendations to the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technical Advice to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and degradation.

PREVENTING DEFORESTATION

• Models and scenarios to identify the consequences of different approaches and alternative pathways.

• Common monitoring and reporting guidance for carbon emissions and co-benefits, including the assessment of impacts of changes in forest management and of any displacement of land use change into non-target ecosystems. Assessment of success in the demonstration phase is crucial to inform any post-2012 agreement.

• A global monitoring system for reforestation projects and forest cover changes.

7

REDD FUNDINGS

Climate Funds Update (CFU) data reports that $446 million was approved for REDD finance between 2008 and November 2011, of which $252 million has been disbursed. Today, REDD+ represents 13% of total climate finance. There has There is general agreement on the need for countries to have time and resources to prepare and build capacity for REDD+ implementation. The adoption of a phased approach allows countries with different circumstances to pilot and mainstream REDD+ actions, allowing necessary flexibility for countries to develop portfolios that combine fund-based (public) and market-based (private) sources of funding.Several major bilateral and multilateral funding initiatives have recently been created to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation plus conservation (REDD+).

Brazil has received the largest volume of REDD+ finance through its Amazon Fund. Public and private finance may be able to play complementary roles in delivering REDD+ finance: while public sources are essential in the initial preparation stages, the private sector may play a role in financing REDD+ implementation. Concerns over the scope of REDD+ financing, benefit sharing, effective stakeholder participation and the need for safeguards to avoid negative environmental and social impacts persist.The following initiatives all spend 100% of their funding in REDD+.

• The Amazon Fund • The UN-REDD Programme• The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)• The Forest Investment Program (FIP)• The Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF)• Norway’s International Climate and Forests Initiative (ICFI).

Chapter 2.1

Funds

8

The UN REDD Programme, a multi-donor trust fund that aims to help reduce global emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. It was established in 2008 by three UN Agencies: the UNEP, UNDP and FAO. Through its initial country programmes in Africa, Asia and Latin America, it is supporting national governments prepare and implement national REDD-plus strategies. As of September 2011, $80 million has been approved for project implementation, with a total of $63 million disbursed for 14 UN-REDD national programs. The UN-REDD programme has taken unique steps to engage civil society and Indigenous People’s groups, who are represented as full members on its governing policy board. It has developed guidance on the engagement of Indigenous Peoples and other Forest Dependent Communities, and worked with civil society to explore approaches

and tools to address governance issues as they relate to REDD+ implementation.

The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) is a World Bank pilot programme launched at the Bali COP in 2007, with the dual objectives of building capacity for REDD+ in developing countries and testing a programme of performance-based incentive payments in a small number of pilot countries. Thirty-seven forest developing countries (14 in Africa, 15 in Latin America and the Caribbean, and eight in Asia-Pacific) are participants in the FCPF. It consists of a Readiness Mechanism ($202 million), designed to assist developing countries reach a capacity level at which they will be ready to participate in a future system for positive incentives for REDD+, and a Carbon Fund ($118 million), intended to provide payments for verified emission reductions. The readiness mechanism has disbursed $5 million for readiness

preparation grants in 12 countries. 5 countries have been approved to participate in the Carbon Fund, which was made operational in May 2011.

$578 million has been pledged to the Forest Investment Program (FIP) of the World Bank Climate Investment Funds (CIFs). The FIP became operational in 2009, with the objective of directing scaled up finance to reduce deforestation and forest degradation and to promote sustainable forest management, including by addressing the drivers of deforestation in a small number of pilot countries. Significant time and effort was spent on the design of the FIP. In June 2011, investment plans for the Congo-Kinshasa ($60 million) and Burkina Faso ($30 million) were provisionally endorsed. Investment Plans for Brazil, Ghana, Indonesia, Laos, Mexico and Peru are also under development.

The Congo Basin Forest Fund (CBFF) was set up as a multi-donor fund in 2008 to protect the forests in the Congo Basin. It aims to support the people and institutions of Congo Basin countries to manage their forests and help local communities find livelihoods that are consistent with the conservation of forests and reduced rates of deforestation. As of November 2011, the CBFF, which is managed by the African Development Bank, had approved $20 million in funding and disbursed $16 million to 14 projects.

The government of Brazil has established the Amazon Fund to help prevent, monitor and combat deforestation, as well as to promote the preservation and sustainable use of forests in the Amazon Biome. It has approved almost $127 million in funding for 20 projects to date, and disbursed $33 million to 8 forestry projects.

FUNDS

9

Germany supports REDD+ programs through its International Climate Initiative and has approved and disbursed $103 million for 29 REDD projects between 2008 and 2011. Australia’s International Forest Carbon Initiative (IFCI) is a $48 million bilateral initiative focused on building monitoring capacity for REDD+, working primarily in Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. There has been no further disbursement of funding through the IFCI in 2011, however.

Bilateral development assistance agencies have engaged with forest related issues for decades, including through tropical forest conservation programs focused on biodiversity. Such programs continue and may contribute to the success of REDD+ over the longer term.

DELIVERING FUNDS

Delivering REDD+ finance has taken more preparatory work, capacity and tailoring than initially envisaged. Multilateral institutions financing REDD+ have made significant progress, and experience to date will inform and facilitate future implementation. Alongside this, Annex II countries are providing increasing volumes of finance through bilateral channels. There remains very little transparency around these bilateral arrangements.As REDD+ finance is not based on a compliance mechanism, but is supported by voluntary efforts, its financial mechanisms exhibit a number of shortcomings in ensuring effective delivery of REDD+ projects. Among the main obstacles are the tensions between the necessity to prevent deforestation at a global and national level, and the need to ensure that REDD+ activities are

tailored to the characteristics of different areas both between and within countries.The effective engagement of all affected stakeholders – particularly civil society organisations, forest dependent communities, women and Indigenous Peoples groups—in the design and implementation of effective national REDD+ strategies is essential. Strategies need to be designed to effectively target the drivers of deforestation, while addressing failures of governance that allow deforestation and forest degradation to persist.In this context, ensuring that the benefits of REDD+, including financial benefits, are shared equitably among countries, within countries and within communities, is a major challenge. It is not yet clear how forest-dependent communities who live mostly outside the market economy and often hold only traditional ownership rights might benefit from REDD+ schemes.

Clarification of rights over carbon tenure and traditional uses of forests, including the consideration of the gender dynamics of forest management, will be necessary in developing equitable benefit sharing schemes. Furthermore, robust safeguard policies to ensure that programs do not have negative environmental and social impacts will play an important role.

A lack of analysis and consideration of the full value (including intangible benefits) forest owners and users place on forests in many developing countries is a further impediment to REDD+. Determining people’s willingness to accept compensation for benefits foregone as well as a clarification of which forest benefits cannot be replaced with income could be a useful way forward that can also enhance meaningful and broad stakeholder participation. Visualizing such information can also help clarify the benefits and hidden costs of REDD+.

FUNDS

deposited

pledged

deposited

legend:

pledged

Australia

BpCanada

Cdc ClimateDenmark

European Union

FinlandFrance

Germany

Interest (From Fund)Interest (From Participating Organizations)

International Climate Fund (Uk > Etf/icf > Fcpf)Italy

Japan

Netherlands

Norway

Spain

SwitzerlandThe Nature Conservancy

United Kingdom

Amazon Fund

Congo Basin Forest Fund

Forest CarbonPartnership Facility

Forest Investment Program

International ForestCarbon Initiative

United States

UN-REDD Programme

Africa

Bolivia

Brazil

Burkina Faso

Cambodia

CameroonCentral African RepublicColombia

Congo

Costa RicaEcuador

Ethiopia

Gabon

Ghana

Global

Guyana

Indonesia

KenyaLaos

Liberia

Nepal

Panama

Papua New Guinea

ParaguayPeruPhilippinesRegional

Solomon IslandsTanzania

UgandaVanuatuVietnamZambia

DONORS FUNDS RECEIVERS

10

FUNDS

11

According to the publication, “The Little REDD Book”, the basic idea behind Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) is simple: Developing countries that are willing and able to reduce emissions from deforestation should be financially compensated for doing so. However, according to many Indigenous Peoples, REDD is CO2lonialism of Forests because it allows Northern polluters to buy permits to pollute or “carbon credits” by promising not to cut down forests and plantations in the South. The newspaper The Australian calls REDD a “classic 21st century scam emerging from the global climate change industry.

REDD will probably include forests in the carbon market which raises a crucial property rights issue: REDD commodifies and privatizes the air and forests. Carbon traders require legal title to the carbon in the forests or rights to the land. REDD

projects that utilize carbon market financing could also generate profits for loggers, polluters and forest destroyers and reduce forests to mere carbon sequestration experiments. REDD-type projects already exist on the voluntary carbon market without a clear and agreed upon framework that ensuresIndigenous land and forest rights, land tenure reforms and good governance. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is negotiating a mechanism for implementing REDD in the post-Kyoto Protocol 2012+ framework.

“World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility ultimate goal is to jump-start a forest carbon market.” The World Bank isn’t waiting for the UN to adopt a REDD implementation framework, it has moved forward with its own REDD-type projects through R-PINs (Readiness Plan Idea Notes) and

Chapter 3

Controversies about REDD

12

through its other carbon and climate funds.The UN-REDD Program is also moving forward with its own initiative set up by UNDP, UNEP, FAO and the World Bank. Additionally, governments, polluting industry, private sector and large NGOs are investing in carbon market REDD initiatives with no agreed upon policies that address Indigenous Peoples’ concerns.There are hundreds of REDD-type pilot projects in the world and many of them violate Indigenous Peoples’ rights and have resulted in militarization, evictions, fraud, disputes, conflicts, corruption, coercion, conmen, crime, plantations and 30-100 year contracts, deals with oil companies and other so-called “climate criminals”. Furthermore, economic speculation with carbon credits from REDD may contribute to the next market crash and Indigenous Peoples could lose out if their “benefits” are subject to the volatile price of carbon.

Lastly, Indigenous Peoples could be held liable if REDD projects fail due to natural ecological or climate change-related disasters such as floods, droughts, forest fires, storms, pests or plagues.

The going price for carbon credits from offsets is USD $25 to $35 but a REDD credit is calculated at as little as USD $4 which is more than 6 to 8 times cheaper. For big polluters, like oil companies and the United States, it will be cheaper to buy permits to pollute from REDD than to reduce emissions. Industrialized countries could find it easy to fulfill much of their targets with cheap REDD offset credits. According to The Economist, REDD “will push down the price. Companies would then buy cheap credits and continue doing business as usual rather than cutting their own emissions.” It’s just “trading thin air.”

According to the Director of NASA, James Hansen, the world’s most distinguished climatologist, “industrialized countries could offset 24-69% of their emissions via the CDM and REDD thus avoiding the necessary domestic cuts that are required to peak emissions around 2015 in line with avoiding dangerous climate change.” For many, the much trumpeted US climate change legislation is “counterfeit.

FUNDS

13

Experts on all sides of the debate, from international police to politicians to conservationists, have warned this week that REDD may be impossible to monitor and may already be leading to fraud. The UN itself accepts there are “high risks”.Interpol, the world’s leading policing agency, said this week that the chances were very high that criminal gangs would seek to take advantage of REDD schemes, which will be largely be based in corruption-prone African and Asian countries.Most of the countries rich in forests are also home to some of the world’s most corrupt politicians and uncontrolled logging companies, who stand to make billions of dollars if they can get REDD projects approved, and the fraud could include claiming credits for forests that do not exist or were not protected or by land grabs. While there are so many controversial on-going situations that the project itself could be considered

controversial, it’s quite clear that REDD’s situation needs serious clarifying in order to fully comprehend it’s mechanisms, it’s relationships between countries and funds.

VERSUS

With Density Design’s tool Versus, it was possible to understand the main themes of online discussion and press about REDD. By usign the Google Query “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation” it was possible to extract the most important keywords resulting from this topic. As geographical locations were the most important and recurring set of keywords, the most obvious answer was that geography plays the most important role in REDD. This is the starting point in truly understanding REDD’s workflow and function.

Chapter 4

Mapping

NO

RT

H

SO

UTH

NORTH SOUTH

WEST

EAST

AM

ERIC

A

EUROPE

AFRICA

ASIA

OC

EA

NIA

RESEARCHKNOWLEDGENETWORK

GOVERNMENTALORGANIZATION

NON GOVERNMENTALORGANIZATION

PRIVATEFINCANCE

UN

ITED

ST

AT

ES

CO

STA

RIC

A B

OLI

VIA

EC

UAD

OR

H

ON

DU

RAS

PARA

GU

AY

GU

YAN

A

MEX

ICO

G

REN

ADA

PAN

AMA

PER

U

NORWAY

UNIT

ED KIN

GDOM

FRANCE

G

ERMANY

D

ENMARK

ERUOPEAN UNIO

N

MOROCCO

ALGERIA

CAMEROON

GHANA

LIBERIA

TOGO

BURKINA FASO

ZAMBIA CONGO KENYA RWUANDA MADAGASCAR TANZANIA SOUTH AFRICA

INDIA PAKISTAN AZERBAIJAN

KYRGYZSTAN

SRI LANKA

KANTIPUR

TAJIKISTAN

IRAN RUSSIA

NEPAL

CAMBODIA

MALAYSIA

THAILAND

PHILIPPINES

VIETNAM

CHINA

JAPAN

MYANM

AN

INDONESIA

PAPU

A N

EW G

UIN

EA

FIJI T

UVA

LU

AU

STR

ALIA

14

VERSUS VISUALIZATION

15

As previously mentioned, there are many characteristics in REDD that at first sight appear controversial; much criticism is being moved against it and fundings and geography appear to play the main role within REDD’s complicated set of rules and behaviours.

The concept behind this essay is therefore to conduct an extended quantitative analysis of online resources and documentation, foreseeing the possibility of outlining underlying schemes and possible obscure situations in REDD and REDD’s fundings.

Countries have a geographical physical dimension and outline but their “involvement weight” in REDD’s controversial situation greatly varies upon their implications into this project. This weight must be determined and redrawn according to their network of actions.

Using digital methods for quantitative research, this essay mainly explores this network and every involved country’s specific weight by extrapolating three main sets of information:

• The actual network weight of every involved country

• The relationships that join the involved countries

• The redrawn flag of every involved country based upon their specific sensitivity to the project’s themes.

Chapter 5

Re-mapping

16

To carry on with this essay’s concept and developing useful methods capable of sorting REDD’s difficult-to-read situation, three main questions need to be gradually answered.

• Where REDD is mentioned

• How REDD is mentioned

• Which countries are mentioned by REDD

These three main questions can and will be answered by this research protocol.

1. CREATING THE INITIAL CORPUS

In creating the starting corpus the research started from three Google queries: “REDD”, “REDD+” and “Reducing emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation”. The first 100 results were extracted for each of the search terms through Harvester and a total of 199 were at last manually hand-picked. By using the three main names of the REDD project it was possible to obtain a substantial and useful list for the initial Corpus.

2. CREATING THE SPECIFIC CORPUS

Earlier generic results were refined researching the most relevant 5 pages related to REDD. This step brought 499 total pages.

Chapter 6

Digital Methods

17

3. EXPANDING THE SPECIFIC CORPUS

To expand the list, corpus pages were processed into a crawler. This process examined and saved a network of 58.000 links, a useful resource that helps and deepens the understanding of this phenomena and it’s relationships.

4. CLEANING

The pages obtained by the Crawler process were cleaned out by deleting the pages within a unique domain and using a scraper set to the keyword “REDD” to exclude irrelevant results.The list was therefore reduced to 5.175 links.

5. DOMAIN & PAGE EXTRACTION

From 5.175 links, 2.984 target pages were extracted together with their relative 1.166 domains, expanding the corpus into two parts: one dedicated to unique domain names (1.285 in total) and one dedicated only to pages (3.483). This sorting started two separate research branches, the first focusing on domain geolocalization to count the amount of domains belonging to which nation, and the second focusing on semantic analysis of every page.

6. DOMAIN & PAGE GEO-LOCALIZATION

As finding out where REDD is a known issue was the first priority, the domain list was passed through GEO-IP to analyze the domain’s home countries.Geo-localization dug through a total of 38 countries, separating donors, receivers and outsiders. This ouput was synchronized with the pages corpus to have a better view of their distribution.

DIGITAL METHODS - RESEARCH PROTOCOL

18

DIGITAL METHODS - RESEARCH PROTOCOL

7. SEMANTIC ANALYSIS

To know in which terms REDD is mentioned throughout the world, the corpus categorization into countries helped proceeding with the pages’ semantic analysis by using Alchemy.This procedure provided only enough material to understand 27 of the original 38 countries.

8. RESULT SORTING

Results from the semantic analysis where divided into two branches: mentioned countries and mentioned keywords.

• Geography relationship: The list of countries mentioned by the 27 analyzed countries was helpful in understanding geography and the relationships within different parts of the world, integrating the already-existing records of domain geo-localization.

• Word sorting In finding out how REDD is mentioned, the resulting keywords were organized by relevance and, choosing the first 20 for every country, have been associated with a color scheme depending on their category or argument of discussion: ENVIRONMENT, SOCIAL, ECONOMY, OTHER.

9. NEW FLAGS

Color-coded keywords allowed a redesign of the countries’ flags by a visual quantification of the amount of times a certain category of keyword is used

10. GENERAL DISCUSSION

By using the link between used keywords and their belonging categories a global network of keywords and countries was created, its purpose being a visualization of common discussion patterns. From this network keywords related to city names, “Climate Change”, “Redd”, “Forest” and “Carbon” were excluded in order not to contaminate this visual pattern. For the same reason, keywords that occur just one or twice are so small they are almost invisible but still their connection is made clearly visible. The circles are sized according to the number of connections they are related to.

RESEARCH PROTOCOL

GOOGLE QUERIES

HARVESTER

CRAWLER

EXTRACTION

SPECIFIC CORPUS

COUNTRY FILES

COUNTRY FLAGS

SEMANTIC NET

GEOGRAPHY

GEO-IP

(100) REDD, (100) REDD+, (100) “Reducing Emission from Deforestation and Forest Degradation”

MANUAL SEARCHSelection of the 5 most relevant pagesfor each generic domain

SCRAPERKeyword REDD delete pages with no reults. Results: 5175 links

Selection of unique pagesand relative domains

499 pages

PAGES3.483 pages

DOMAINS1.285 domains Geo-localization of hosts

Results: 38 countries

REDD DATAfound on climatefundupdate.org

GEPHIRelations between REDD countries

FIRST CORPUS199 pages

MANUAL CLEANINGDeletion of links with unique domain

Depth: 2; Properties: check relevance, try to identify actor. Results: about 58.000 link

ALCHEMY APISemantic analysis for every countrySet to concepts, entity, keywordsResults: 27 of the original 38 countries

RESULTS SORTINGResults divided into two branches:countries and words

ORGANIZATIONWords selected by relevance and organized by categories

GEO-LOCALIZATIONMapping speaking and mentioned countries with their relations

GEPHIGeographical relationsof REDD discussion

GEPHISemantic relation between countries

new geography

REDD FUNDING SYSTEM

legend:

donor

receiver

outsider 20

DIGITAL METHODS - VISUALIZATION

Africa

BF

KHCM CFCO

CD

CR

EC

ET

GA

GH

Global

GY

IDKE

LA

LR

NP

PA

PGPE

PH

Regional - Asia

SBTZ

UG

VU

VN

ZM

AU

BO BR

PY

Congo Basin Forest FundForest Carbon Partnership Facility Forest Investment Program International Forest Carbon InitiativeUN-REDD Programme

Amazon Fund

indegree connection

REDD FUNDING SYSTEM

legend:

climatefundsupdate.orgGephi

donor

receiver

fund

Each country and each fund is represented by a circle scaled on the base of incoming links to other entities.

climatefundsupdate.orgGephiclimatefundsupdate.orgGephi

21


BP

CA

CDC Climate

DK

EU

FI

FR

DE

Interest (From Fund)

Interest (from participating organizations)

IT

NL

NO

ESCH

The Nature Conservancy

GB

US JP

AU

Congo Basin Forest FundForest Carbon Partnership Facility Forest Investment Program International Forest Carbon InitiativeUN-REDD ProgrammeAmazon Fund

outdegree connection

REDD FUNDING SYSTEM

legend:


donor

receiver

fund

Each country and each fund is represented by a circle scaled on the base of outer links to other entities.


outdegree connection

REDD FUNDING SYSTEM

legend:


donor

receiver

fund

Each country and each fund is represented by a circle scaled on the base of outer links to other entities.


22


Africa

BF

KHCM CFCO

CD

CR

EC

ET

GA

GH

Global

GY

IDKE

LA

LR

NP

PA

PGPE

PH

Regional - Asia

SBTZ

UG

VU

VN

ZM

BP

CA

CDC Climate

DK

EU

FI

FR

DE



IT

NL

NO

ES

CH


GB

US JP

AU

BOBR

PY

Congo Basin Forest FundForest Carbon Partnership Facility Forest Investment Program International Forest Carbon InitiativeUN-REDD ProgrammeAmazon Fund

pledged funds by country

REDD FUNDING SYSTEM

legend:


donor

receiver

Localization of the pledged money flows.The size of the circles is determined by the amount of money pleadged by a country (blue) or by a fund (red).Each stroke weight is based on the amount of money “transfered”.

fund

* Circles and edges weighted on pledged money23


Africa

BF

KHCM CFCO

CD

CR

EC

ET

GA

GH

Global

GY

IDKE

LA

LR

NP

PA

PGPE

PH

Regional - Asia

SBTZ

UG

VU

VN

ZM

BP

CA

CDC Climate

DK

EU

FI

FR

DE



IT

NL

NO

ES

CH


GB

US JP

AU

BO BR

PY

Congo Basin Forest FundForest Carbon Partnership Facility Forest Investment ProgramInternational Forest Carbon InitiativeUN-REDD ProgrammeAmazon Fund

deposited funds by country

REDD FUNDING SYSTEM

legend:


donor

receiver

Localization of the actually deposited money flows.The size of the circles is determined by the amount of money deposited by a country (blue) or by a fund (red).Each stroke weight is based on the amount of money transfered.

legend:

donor

receiver

fund


* Circles and edges weighted on deposited money24


Africa

BF

KHCM CFCO

CD

CR

EC

ET

GA

GH

Global

GY

IDKE

LA

LR

NP

PA

PGPE

PH

Regional - Asia

SBTZ

UG

VU

VN

ZM

BP

CA

CDC Climate

DK

EU

FI

FR

DE



IT

NL

NO

ES

CH


GB

US JP

AU

BO BR

PY

Congo Basin Forest FundForest Carbon Partnership Facility Forest Investment ProgramInternational Forest Carbon InitiativeUN-REDD ProgrammeAmazon Fund

pledged&deposited

REDD FUNDING SYSTEM

legend:

donor

receiver

legend:


donor

receiver

fund 25


BE

DK

FR

DE

ID

IE

IT

NL

SG

ZA

CH

GB

US

VN

LK

AU

BR

CA

ET

HKIN

NO SE

donor

receiver

outsider

GeoIP

legend:

Gephi

FIRST CORPUS - HOSTSlocalization

* Circles dimensions based on the number of hosts for each country

legend:

donor

receiver

outsider 26


corpus expansion

CRAWLING NETWORK

donor

receiver

outsider

legend:

* Circles dimensions based on the number of links between two countries

DensityCrawlerGephi

BE LU

DK

FR

DE

ID

IE

IT

NL

SG

ZA

CHAT

GB

US

MX

VN

MYLK

PH

AU

NC

BR

CA

ET

AE HK

CNKR JP

RU

IN

NO SE FI

27


who is speaking?

SPEAKING COUNTRIES

legend:

* Circles dimensions based on the quantity of countries each state name

AlchemyAPIGephi

donor

receiver

outsider

Localization of the countries whose websites gave us back results from the semantic analysis

28


who is named?

NAMED COUNTRIES

legend:

* Circles dimensions based on the quantity each state is named

AlchemyAPIGephi

donor

receiver

outsider

Localization of the countries named in the semantic analysis

29


who is speaking?who is named?

SEMANTIC ANALYSIS

legend:

* Speaking countries (dark) and named countries (light).

AlchemyAPIGephi

donor

receiver

outsider

Localization of the speaking countries compared to the visualiza-tion of hte countries named in the semantic analysis


30


who speak about who?who is named by ?

SEMANTIC NETWORK

legend:

* Circles dimensions based on the quantity each state is named. Edges stroke weighted on the naming activity

AlchemyAPIGephi

donor

receiver

outsider

Visualization of the quoting flows between countries mapped thanks to the semantic analysis.

31


ADAPTATION FUND

AFRICA

AFRICAN UNION

AGRICULTURE

AMERICA LATINA

ASIA

ASIA PACIFIC REGION

ASIA-PACIFIC

ASIA-PACIFIC REGION

ASSESSMENT

BIODIVERSITYBIRD

BOTTOM-UPAPPROACH

CARBONABATEMENT

ACCRUE

CARBON CREDITS

CARBON DIOXIDE

CARBON EDUCATION

CARBON EMISSIONS

CARBON FINANCE

CARBONMANAGEMENT

SOFTWARE

CARBON MARKET

CARBON OFFSETS

CARBON PLANET

CARBONPOLLUTIONREDUCTION

SCHEME

CARBON POSITIVE

CARBON STOCK

CASE STUDIES

CENTRAL AFRICA

CIVIL SOCIETY

CLEANDEVELOPMENT

MECHANISM

CLIMATECHANGE

CONFERENCE

CLIMATECHANGEIMPACTS

CLIMATE TALKS

COAL

CONCEPTUAL ART

CONSERVATION

CONSERVATION BIOLOGY

CONSULATE

COST

COST CURVES

DECISIVE ACTION

DEFORESTATION

DESTINATIONCONSULTANCY

DEVELOPED NATIONS

DEVELOPMENT

DIGITAL DIVIDE

DOCTOROF PHILOSOPHY

DOCTORATE

EARTH

EARTH EUROPE

EAST ASIA

ECOLOGY

ECONOMICS

ECOSYSTEM

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

EFFICIENTCOMMONSECURITY

EMISSION REDUCTION

EMISSIONS TRADING

ENDANGEREDSPECIES

ENERGY ASSESSOR

ENERGYCONSUMPTION

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

ENVIRONMENTALSERVICES

EQUITABLEREDD+

IMPLEMENTATION

EUROPE

EVALUATIONDEPARTMENT

EVICTION

EXTINCTION

FINANCE

FOOD SECURITY

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

FOREIGN MINISTERS

FOREST AREAS

FOREST CARBON

FOREST DEGRADATION

FOREST INITIATIVE

FOREST LANDS

FOREST TENURE

FORESTRY

FORESTRY MINISTRY

FOSSIL FUEL

FUNDING SYSTEMS

GLOBAL ASIA

GLOBALCLIMATEREGIME

GLOBALENVIRONMENTAL

ACTION

GLOBAL FORESTINFORMATION

SERVICE

GLOBAL FUND

GOLD CERTIFICATION

GOVERNMENT

GREATER LEVERAGE

GREENHOUSE GAS

GREENHOUSE GASEMISSION

HARD ECONOMIC TIMES

HEADSOF FORESTRY

SERVICES

HONORARYCONSULATE

HUGE TENTS

HUMAN RIGHTS

HUMANITY'SDEMANDS

IMPORTANT MEASURE

IN THE WILD

INCENTIVE

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

INDIRECT DRIVER

INDIVIDUAL COUNTRIES

INDUSTRIALREVOLUTION

INTERNATIONALCLIMATE

INTERNATIONALDEVELOPMENT

INTERNATIONAL TREATY

INTERNATIONALTROPICAL

TIMBER

JOURNALISM

KOREAN PENINSULA

LAND CHANGE

LANDRESOURCEDIVISION

LATESTSCIENTIFICRESEARCH

LATIN AMERICA

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

LOCAL COMMUNITIES

MANAGEMENT

MANAGERS

MARKET PRICE

MEMBER COUNTRIES

METHANE

MONETARY POLICY

NATIONALPROGRAMME

NATIONALREDD+

PROCESSES

NATURALENVIRONMENT

NATURAL FOREST

NATURAL RESOURCE

NATURALRESOURCE

MANAGEMENT

NATURAL SYSTEMS

NEWSCHOOL

PROGRAMS

NGO MEDIA OFFICERS

NON-GOVERNMENTALINTERNATIONAL

NETWORK

NON-GOVERNMENTALORGANIZATIONS

OFFICIALDEVELOPMENT

ASSISTANCE

OPERATORS

PACIFIC COMMUNITY

PACIFIC ISLAND

PARALLEL EVENT

PARTNERSSERVICE

DELIVERY

PEAT

POLICY

POOR COMMUNITIES

POOR FOREST DWELLERS

POVERTY

POVERTY REDUCTION

POWERFULEXTERNAL

ACTORS

PREVIOUSOPPOSING

STAND

PRIVATE SECTOR

PROPERMAINTENANCE

RAIN FORESTS

RAINFOREST

REGIONAL

REGIONAL PROJECT

REMOTE SENSING

RESEARCH

SERVICES CARBON

SHIPPING INDUSTRY

SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS

SINGLE PRICE

SMALLBUSINESSCARBON

SOUTH ASIA

SOUTH CHINA SEA

SOUTHEAST ASIA

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

SUSTAINABILITY

SUSTAINABLEDEVELOPMENT

THREATENEDSPECIES

TRAINING WORKSHOP

TROPICAL

TROPICAL AFRICA

TROPICAL FORESTS

TROPICAL RAINFOREST

TROPICAL SPECIES

UNFOLDINGECOLOGICAL

CRISIS

UNITED STATESGOVERNMENT

VARIOUS MEASURES

VARIOUSSOCIO-ECONOMIC

FACTORS

VIEWER

WEATHER

WESTERN SAHARA

WIENORGANISIERTEN

TAGUNG

WORKSHOP

WORLD WAR II

3.200 TIGER

ABDOULIE JANNEH

ADANSONIA DIGITATA

ADAPTATIONFUND

BOARD

AFRICAPROGRESS PANNEL

AFRICANDEVELOPMENT

BANK

AGENDA 21

AGUS PURNOMO

ALBERTO PANIAGUA

AMAZON

AMAZON FUND

AMAZONASSUSTAINABLEFOUNDATION

ANDRE CORREA

ANWARUL HODA

ARCGIS

ARYA RESIDENCES

ASEAN LEADERS

ASIA-EUROPEENVIRONMENT

FORUM

ASIA-EUROPEFOUNDATION

BASHAR AL-ASSAD

BENMANSOUR-GUEDDES

BINDINGCLIMATE

DEAL

BIRDLIFEINTERNATIONAL

BOLSAFLORESTAPROGRAM

CAPSICUM ANNUUM

CENTRALINTELLIGENCE

AGENCY

CENTRALKALIMANTAN

CEREMONIALCOUNTIES

OF ENGLAND

CLARK LABS

CLARK UNIVERSITY

CLEANCLOTHES

KAMPAGNE

CONSERVATIONINTERNATIONAL

COOLENATIONRESOURCE

PACK

COP

CORRUPTIONERADICATIONCOMMISSION

CSDP

DAN GUIMBO

DANIEL NELSON

DANISHRESEARCHCOUNCILS

DEPARTMENTOF GEOGRAPHY

DERECHO FORESTAL

DIRECTORY OFOPEN ACCESS

JOURNALS

DR IAN PAYTON

DR MARTIN HEROLD

DR SEAN WEAVER

ENDENOVEMBER

AKTIVISTINNEN

ERKKI TUOMIOJA

EUROENVIROAGENCY

EUROPEANCOMMISSION

EUROPEANPARLIAMENT

EUROPEAN UNION

EVALUATION

FAO

FONDATIONROI BAUDOUIN

FORESTSTEWARDSHIP

COUNCIL

G3MS LITE AFFILIATE

GABRIEL RIBENBOIM

GEORGE MAGNUS

GEORGE SOROS

GERMANFEDERAL

MINISTRY

GERMAN SOCIETYFOR INTERNATIONAL

COOPERATION

GREENPEACE

GULF OF ADEN

HAYMARKET HOUSE

HUMANDEVELOPMENT

INDEX

IBNMAAOUIA-HOUIMLI

INDONESIANGOVERNMENT

INDONESIANPRESIDENTIAL

ELECTION2004

INTERGOVERNMENTALPANEL

ON CLIMATE CHANGE

INTERNATIONALTROPICAL TIMBER

ORGANIZATION

INTERNATIONAL UNIONFOR CONSERVATION

OF NATURE

INTERNATIONALUNION

FOR CONSERVATIONOF NATURE

RED LIST

INTERNATIONAL UNIONOF FOREST RESEARCH

ORGANIZATIONS

IRISH AID

JACQUES DIOUF

JACQUIE MCGLADE

JAN O'SULLIVAN

JENS STOLTENBERG

JOINTIMPLEMENTATION

SUPERVISORYCOMMITTEE

KALIMANTAN

KAMPAR PENINSULA

KUNTOROMANGKUSUBROTO

LAKE VICTORIA

LANDCHANGE

MODELER

LAS PALMAS

MAIZE

MARRIOTTINTERNATIONAL

MELANESIA

MIKE ANANE

MILLENNIUMDEVELOPMENT

GOALS

MILTON KEYNES

MR GORDONKONAIRAMO

NAGOYA PROTOCOL

NATIONSFRAMEWORKCONVENTION

NEW SOUTH WALES

NORWEGIANGOVERNMENT

OPENSOCIETY

INSTITUTE

ORANGE RIVERROOM

PALM OIL

PANKAJ GHEMAWAT

PARC NATIONAL

PEAT SWAMP ORESTS

PEATLANDS

PETER HAYES

PETER WARR

POLICY BOARD

POLICY BOARDMEETING

POTABLEWATERUSAGE

PRESIDENT OBAMA

PRIMARY FORESTS

PROGRAMMEPOLICY BOARD

PROVINCESOF INDONESIA

PUNJABAGRICULTUREUNIVERSITY

PYONGYANGREADINESS

PREPARATIONPROPOSALS

REDD+ READINESS

REGULATORYLANDSCAPEAUSTRALIA

RIO CONVENTIONS

ROMAIN PIRARD

SALEEMUL HUQ

SECONDARY FOREST

SECRETARIATOF THE

PACIFIC COMMUNITY

SECRETARY-GENERALOF THE

UNITED NATIONS

SHORT-LIVEDCONTEMPORARY

WORKS

SIEMENPUUFOUNDATION

SOLOMON ISLANDSMINISTRY OF FORESTS

SOROSFUND

MANAGEMENT

SUMATRA

SUSILOBAMBANG

YUDHOYONO

SUSTAINABLEFOREST

MANAGEMENT

SWEDISHENVIRONMENTAL

SECRETARIAT

SWISSFEDERALOFFICE

TAE-HWAN KIM

TARJA HALONEN

THAKSINSHINAWATRA

THOMSONREUTERS

FOUNDATION

TUMBIRACOMMUNITY

UN CLIMATE TALKS

UN-REDDPROGRAMME

UN-REDDPROGRAMME POLICY

UNITED NATIONS

UNITED NATIONSDEVELOPMENTPROGRAMME

UNITED NATIONSECONOMIC

COMMISSIONFOR AFRICA

UNITED NATIONSENVIRONMENTPROGRAMME

UNITED NATIONSFRAMEWORKCONVENTION

ON CLIMATE CHANGE

UNIVERSITYOF COPENHAGEN

VIRGILIO VIANA

WANDOJO SISWANTO

WEST MIDLANDS

WEST SUSSEX

WEST YORKSHIRE

WORLD BANK

WORLDCLIMATESUMMIT

WORLDCONSERVATION

CONGRESS

WORLD WIDE FUNDFOR NATURE

WWF

WWF'SLIVING PLANET

YANG

SPECIFIC WORDSGENERIC WORDS

* Words’ circles dimensions based on the number of links.

legend:

donor

receiver

outsider

generic specificenvironment

environment + social

social

social + economic

economic

economic + nature

other

32


Australia

Czech Republic Denmark Etiopia Finland France Germany

KoreaJapanItalyIrelandIndonesiaIndia

Luxembourg

Singapore United Kingdom United States

Malaysia Netherlands New Caledonia Norway Philippines

Austria Belgium Brazil Canada China

Corea

Olanda

33


Australia

Czech Republic Denmark Etiopia Finland France Germany

KoreaJapanItalyIrelandIndonesiaIndia

Luxembourg

Singapore United Kingdom United States

Malaysia Netherlands New Caledonia Norway Philippines

Austria Belgium Brazil Canada China

34


XXCOUNTRIES THAT MENTION COUNTRIES THAT ARE MENTIONEDObserved Country

AUAustralia

35

ATAustria

36

BEBelgium

37

BRBrazil

38

CAUnited Kingdom

39

CNChina

40

CZCzech Republic

41

CZCzech Republic

42

DKDenmark

43

ETEthiopia

44

FIFinland

45

FRFrance

46

DEGermany

47

INIndia

48

IDIndonesia

49

IEIreland

50

ITItaly

51

JPJapan

52

LULuxembourg

53

MYMalaysia

54

NLNetherlands

55

NCNew Caledonia

56

NONorway

57

PHPhilippines

58

SGSingapore

59

KRSouth Korea

60

UKUnited Kingdom

61

US

62

63

Norway is both REDD’s top investing country and the one who is pledging the most funds at the same time. The “Forest Carbon Partnership” is the fund with the most simultaneously donations towards receiving countries and the most joined by donor countries. Congo, India e Ghana receive financial support from the most funds concurrently. Many investments were originally promised, while much less was actually donated to funds by pledging countries. Even less so is the money which actually got to receiving countries.USA is the most discussing nation about this theme, even if domain names attached to it could possibly belong to foreign countries. As found out through crawler processes, the most prolific discussion axis evolve between USA and Europe as a donor-donor relationship, and between USA and Indonesia (donor-receiver). Norway appears to fall into the USA-European axis.

Most cited countries are mostly donors or receiver, but many outsiders are still mentioned.The semantic network confirms the result outputs of the crawler processes.Donors and outsiders mention mostly generic words, while receivers take more care into using specific words, probably foreseeing and knowing better where and how those funds will be used.Discussion themes vary between countries, as seen in the remapped country flags.

Norway is the most involved country within the economic theme, and its most relevant keyword is “Greenhouse Gas”. This result is confirmed by the fact that Norway is Europe’s worst Co2 polluter according to CDIAC’s “List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita”.

Chapter 7

Conclusion

Date post:	11-Mar-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	densitydesign
View:	221 times
Download:	1 times

REDDography

Documents