in El Salvador

Social organisations in El Salvador critique the World Bank’s FCPF

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUpon

Social organisations in El Salvador reject the World Bank's FCPF

The Salvadoran Ecological Unit (UNES – Unidad Ecológica Salvadoreña) and other social organisations in El Salvador have written to Benoît Bosquet, the coordinator of the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) demanding the El Salvador’s R-PP is not approved.

UNES also wrote to the Government demanding that the R-PP be withdrawn. (The letter is available here – pdf file 584.2 kB – in Spanish.)

The letter to Bosquet is copied to Laszlo Pancel, the REDD-GIZ Regional Programme Coordinator, with a demand for REDD-GIZ “to suspend the co-financing”. The letter is based on a detailed review of the R-PP (available in Spanish here – pdf file 452.5 kB – and in English here – pdf file 193.3 kB). The letter points out “conceptual and methodological deficiencies” in El Salvador’s Readiness Preparation Proposal. As with other critiques of the World Bank’s FCPF, UNES is concerned about the consultation process carried out, which it describes as a “restricted, poorly consulted and transparency-lacking process”.

The letter is posted in full below (in English and Spanish).

But UNES is not just presenting a technical critique of REDD and the World Bank’s FCPF. In an interview last year, Carolina Amaya of UNES explains how the organisation views the climate crisis and how this view is in contrast with the “development” promoted by organisations like the World Bank:

We, as social movements, differentiate the climate crisis from other social crises, because this crisis has a component that cannot go unnoticed. It is the component of capacity: to recognize the capacity that the planet has. What do we say? First, as social movements we have to deconstruct the false paradigm of development because societies that are rich don’t want to give up this paradigm, and southern societies aspire to it, despite the fact that this is development that has lead us to climate change. The first challenge to the movements is to deconstruct the false paradigm of development that has led us to the climate chaos that threatens civilization.

Second, we need to reorient the way of life. We need to restructure our standard of living, according to the load bearing capacity of nature. Our ecosystem is finite, it has a limited capacity and this chaos is a result of exceeding the carrying capacity and limited capacities that the planet has.

This factor is the challenge we face. We must start placing limits and recognizing that we live in an ecosystem that is a planet that has limits and a limited capacity. This is our challenge because many of us also saw nature as infinite, but now we see it as a living organism, and that we are part of it, and can’t keep seeing it as a commodity from which we take.

An article published this week by IPS highlights one aspect of UNES’ work in El Salvador. The article describes how a local community is managing what they call an “energy forest”, that provides both food and fuelwood:

The idea came from UNES environmentalists who were working in the area, establishing an “agroschool” to teach the basic concepts of agroecology. But soon the local women made the idea their own. They have made it flourish – without financing.

It’s an approach that is in stark contrast to the top-down, carbon trading approach of the FCPF.

San Salvador, May 15th, 2012

SUBJECT: Refusal to El Salvador R-PP approval and demand for withdrawal by the Government

Mr. Benoît Bosquet
Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)
Environmental Department
World Bank
Washington D.C., US

Dear Mr. Bosquet,

The below signatories social organizations of El Salvador, would like to express our more profound concern and refusal to the eventual approval of the document Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP), submitted by El Salvador government through the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN), to the FCPF of the World Bank (WB), on April 23d this year. At the same time we request you to interpose your endeavors in order for the FCPF Participants Committee (PC) not to approve such R-PP proposal.

Our demand is based on the review, in-depth analysis and specific observations to the referred R-PP (document attached to this letter). The R-PP has serious conceptual and methodological deficiencies, and if it were approved by the FCPF, it would imply adverse consequences for the Salvadoran society, increasing vulnerability and disasters frequency, and postponing the accomplishment of urgent national and international commitments related to climate change. Also, we are requesting the Minister of Environment of Natural Resources to withdraw the R-PP from the official FCPF process, and the Regional Coordinator of the REDD-GIZ Program, to suspend the co-financing.

We demand that any consultation process in regard to REDD has to be organized and promoted on the basis of transparency, information, true participation, the best scientific knowledge available and the international commitments adopted; in order to define the pertinency and role of REDD+ in mitigating climate change appropriately under the framework of a National Climate Change Strategy and Plan and the commitments adopted in Cancun and Durban, considering different national approaches and proposals, including those of indigenous people.

Our organizations disagree and refuse the approach referred to as “Mitigation based on Adaptation” (MbA), in the way it has been conceived by MARN in the R-PP. We consider that such approach lacks a robust conceptual basis and generates a series of incoherencies, inconsistencies and gaps that would be reflected in every relevant result of the Readiness Phase. The MbA approach does not recognize neither rely on the adaptation knowledge produced by the scientific community, and it overlooks the climate change science findings, about which there exists a broad global consensus articulated in the IPCC technical and scientific reports.

As well, we express our high concern and discontent because of the restricted, poorly consulted and transparency-lacking process conducted by MARN minister during the R-PP formulation and elaboration process, particularly in the MbA approach. Such a process has not consulted relevant stakeholders and sectors, some of which had already proposed climate change policies and measures. It has also been driven with secretiveness and hastiness, separated from the multilateral climate change process, and overlooking governmental current commitments related to the definition and implementation of climate change policy frameworks, particularly national climate change strategies and plans, adaptation national plans, national appropriate mitigation actions, education, public awareness and social participation to face climate change effectively.

Based on previous argumentation, the criteria exposed in the analytical document attached and the current WB guidelines on indigenous people; we reiterate our refusal to the R-PP and the process under which it was conceived and officialized by MARN. We consider that the R-PP lacks scientific and technical basis, as well as social legitimacy, as to guarantee the political viability that is required for its successful internalization and implementation by all relevant stakeholders; particularly the most vulnerable populations to climate change and related variability, such as indigenous people, farmers, forest communities, disadvantaged women and marginalized rural and urban populations.

We rely on your concern as for the success of FCPF operations, which are evaluated in terms of their effective contribution to the accomplishment of decisions adopted by governments under the UNFCCC multilateral process. We also rely on your effective endeavors to operationalize recommendations given by such decisions in order for multilateral and bilateral organizations to adopt the “best practices” in the processes of definition, management and assessment of their programs.

We will be expecting for your favorable response to our inquiry.

Respectfully yours,

• Facility Management Team of the FCPF (FMT)
• Joélle Chassard, WB Carbón Financing Unity Manager
• Gerardo Segura, Agriculture and Development Team, LCA Región, WB Environmental Department
• Alberto Leyton, WB Representative El Salvador Office
• Ken Andrasko, Rajesh Koirala, Peter Saile, Stephanie Tam, Raju Koirala, Ken Andrasko, Pierre-Yves Guedez y Leonel Iglesias del BM
• Laszlo Pancel, REDD-GIZ Regional Program Coordinator
• Hermán Rosa, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of El Salvador
• Chris Lang, REDD-Monitor director


San Salvador, 15 de Mayo de 2012

ASUNTO: Rechazo a aprobación R-PP de El Salvador y exigencia de retiro por el gobierno

Señor Benoît Bosquet
Fondo Cooperativo para el Carbono de los Bosques (FCPF)
Departamento de Medio Ambiente
Banco Mundial

Estimado señor Bosquet,

Las organizaciones sociales de El Salvador abajo firmantes, nos dirigimos a usted para expresarle nuestra más profunda preocupación y rechazo al documento Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) presentado FCPF del Banco Mundial (BM) por el gobierno de El Salvador, a través del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (MARN), el 23 de abril del año en curso; y que interponga sus buenos oficios para que el Comité de Participantes del FCPF (PC) no apruebe dicho R-PP.

Nuestra demanda está sustentada en la revisión, análisis a profundidad y observaciones específicas al R-PP referido, las cuales le compartimos en el documento adjunto; ya que el R-PP presenta graves deficiencias conceptuales y metodológicas, y de ser aprobado por el FCPF tendría graves implicaciones negativas para la sociedad salvadoreña, aumentando su vulnerabilidad y la frecuencia de los desastres, y retrasaría el cumplimiento de los compromisos nacionales e internacionales urgentes en materia de cambio climático. Al mismo tiempo, nos aprestamos a solicitarle al titular del MARN que retire el R-PP del proceso oficial del FCPF y al coordinador del Programa Regional REDD-GIZ que suspenda el cofinanciamiento del mismo.

Exigimos que cualquier proceso de consulta que surja en nuestro país en torno a REDD, sea organizado e impulsado de manera transparente, informada, verdaderamente participativa, sustentado a la luz del mejor conocimiento disponible y de los compromisos internacionales adquiridos; a fin de definir la pertinencia y papel de REDD+ para la mitigación apropiada en el marco de una Estrategia y Plan Nacional de Cambio Climático y de los compromisos adoptados en Cancún y Durban, considerando los diferentes enfoques y propuestas nacionales, incluyendo las de los pueblos indígenas.

Nuestras organizaciones se desligan y rechazan el enfoque referido como “Mitigación basada en la Adaptación” (MbA), tal como ha sido adoptado en la propuesta del R-PP endosada por el titular del MARN, ya que consideramos que no se sustenta en un marco conceptual sólido, lo cual genera toda una serie de incoherencias, inconsistencias y vacíos reflejados en todos los aspectos relevantes de la propuesta, y que constituirían los resultados de la fase de ejecución del R-PP. El enfoque MbA planteado en dicha propuesta no reconoce ni se fundamenta en el conocimiento generado por la comunidad científica en materia de adaptación al cambio climático, ya que desconoce los hallazgos científicos generados por la ciencia del cambio climático, sobre los cuales ya existe un amplio consenso mundial reflejado en los hallazgos, propuestas e informes del IPCC.

Asimismo, expresamos nuestra alta preocupación y descontento por el proceso cerrado, inconsulto y poco transparente, conducido por el titular del MARN, para la concepción y elaboración del R-PP, particularmente el MbA, ya que además de no haber realizado consultas con los actores y sectores relevantes, algunos de los cuales ya han realizado propuestas en materia de políticas y medidas ante el cambio climático; dicho proceso ha sido manejado con alta secreticidad y premura, desvinculado del proceso multilateral de cambio climático y desconociendo los compromisos que actualmente tienen nuestros gobiernos en lo que respecta a la definición e implementación del marco de políticas y los instrumentos para su ejecución en materia de cambio climático, particularmente las estrategias y planes nacionales de cambio climático, los planes nacionales de adaptación, las acciones nacionales apropiadas para la mitigación, la educación, sensibilización, concienciación y participación social para enfrentar de manera efectiva el cambio climático, entre otros.

Con base en lo anteriormente expuesto y a los criterios y argumentos planteados en el documento adjunto, y considerando las directrices operacionales del BM en materia de pueblos indígenas, le reiteramos nuestro rechazo a la propuesta de R-PP y al proceso bajo el cual ha sido concebida y oficializada por el MARN. Consideramos que el R-PP no tiene la sustentación científico-técnica, ni la legitimidad social para garantizar la viabilidad política requerida para su apropiación e implementación exitosa por los actores relevantes; particularmente las poblaciones más vulnerables al cambio climático y a la variabilidad asociada, dentro de las cuales las comunidades indígenas, campesinas y dependientes de los sistemas forestales, las mujeres en desventaja económica y las poblaciones rurales y urbanas marginadas, juegan un papel preponderante.

Confiamos en su preocupación por el éxito de las operaciones del FCPF, el cual es evaluado por su contribución efectiva al cumplimiento de las decisiones adoptadas por los gobiernos, en el marco del proceso multilateral de la Convención Marco sobre Cambio Climático. Asimismo, no dudamos en sus buenos oficios para el cumplimiento de las recomendaciones emanadas en dichas decisiones para que los organismos multilaterales y bilaterales adopten las “mejores prácticas” en los procesos de definición, gestión y evaluación de sus programas. Reciba la expresión de nuestro más sincero respeto, y quedamos en espera de una decisión y respuesta favorable a nuestro requerimiento.

• Equipo de gestión del FCPF
• Joélle Chassard, gerente Unidad de Financiamiento de Carbono del BM
• Gerardo Segura, Aequipo Agricultura y Desarrollo, Región LAC, Dpto. Medio Ambiente, BM
• Alberto Leyton, representante oficina de país en El Salvador del BM
• Ken Andrasko, Rajesh Koirala, Peter Saile, Stephanie Tam, Raju Koirala, Ken Andrasko, Pierre-Yves Guedez y Leonel Iglesias del BM
• Laszlo Pancel, coordinador del Programa Regional de REDD-GIZ
• Hermán Rosa, ministro del ambiente y recursos naturales de El Salvador
• Chris Lang, director de REDD-Monitor


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on StumbleUpon

Leave a Reply


  1. The Bank will no doubt do what it always seems to do in such situations: find a few dodgy ‘briefcase’ NGOs in the capital city (or make sure that some get set up, if they don’t already exist), throw some money at them for ‘studies’ or ‘capacity building’, flood the ‘stakeholder’ meetings with them, make it appear that there is civil society support for their programmes, sow dissent and cause divisions amongst genuine NGOs, manipulate the so-called Technical Advisory Panel and its findings (or just ignore them), add a few weak and non-binding ‘recommendations’ for revising the RPP (which are then promptly forgotten), ‘approve’ the RPP (or whatever it is that the FPCF does when it gives the go-ahead)
    and, Hey Presto! money out of the door, job done….

  2. Las cooperativas de pequeños productores agropecuarios y pescadores artesanales representados en la Alternativa Salvadoreña de Cooperativas (ALSACOOP) de El Salvador, Centro América; y del Movimiento por la Vida Frente al Cambio Climático (MOVISAL), rechazan el documento Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) presentado FCPF del Banco Mundial (BM) por el gobierno de El Salvador, a través del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (MARN), el 23 de abril del año en curso; y que se interpongan los buenos oficios para que el Comité de Participantes del FCPF (PC) no apruebe dicho R-PP.

  3. Las cooperativas y comunidades campesinas atendidas por funprocoop, El Movimiento Vida y Equidad Campesina de El Salvador, ambos rechazamos el documento Readines Preparation Proposal (R-PP) presentado FCPF del Banco Mundial (BM) por el gobierno de El Salvador, a través del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (MARN), el 23 de abril del año en curso; y que se interpongan los buenos oficios para que el Comité de Participantes del FCPF (PC) no apruebe dicho R-PP.

  4. Thanks for posting the letter and detailed analysis of the RPP. Hopefully, this will help to broaden stakeholder-dialogue and improve the R-PP. However, the authors of the letter may not be aware that the FCPF uses a 2-step review process which leaves room for improvement. El Salvador’s draft RPP is undergoing the first step and is not being presented for approval by the PC at this stage, but only for critical review. Obviously, there is still a lot of work to be done and the R-PP will have to be revised and presented again at a later stage. However, if it is withdrawn from the first step now, no international review will be carried out and many of the issues mentioned here may not get the attention and leverage they could get from such an international review.

  5. La union Comunal Salvadoreña, las comunidades campesinas y afiliados departamentales rechazamos el documento Readines Preparation Proposal (R-PP) presentado FCPF del Banco Mundial (BM) por el gobierno de El Salvador, a través del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (MARN), el 23 de abril del año en curso; y que se interpongan los buenos oficios para que el Comité de Participantes del FCPF (PC) no apruebe dicho R-PP.

  6. la Asociación Nacional de Trabjadares del Campos, las comunidades campesinas y afiliados departamentales rechazamos el documento Readines Preparation Proposal (R-PP) presentado FCPF del Banco Mundial (BM) por el gobierno de El Salvador, a través del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (MARN), el 23 de abril del año en curso; y que se interpongan los buenos oficios para que el Comité de Participantes del FCPF (PC) no apruebe dicho R-PP.

  7. Seeker: el proceso de rechazo al R-PP que las organizaciones sociales hemos lanzado, está más allá de cualquier etapa del proceso en la que la propuesta de REDD de El Salvador se encuentre dentro del ciclo de proyectos del FPFC del Banco Mundial. Nos hemos posicionado en contra del contenido, por el poco fundamento y las inconsistencias que tiene, y por haberse basado en un proceso inconsulto y excluyente de las comunidades en que vivimos y con las que trabajamos.

    Seeker: the refusal to the R-PP that our social movements have promoted, is beyond of any phase of the process in which the R-PP (El Salvador)is along the process of the FCPF (WB). Our position is against the content of the R-PP, because of its lack of consistency and scientific basis, and because it has been built by a consultation-lacking process, that has excluded the communities in which we live and with which we work.

  8. @WATCHER (#7) – Thanks for this. As I pointed out in the post, the problems highlighted in the critique of the R-PP are not just technical issues.

    @Seeker (#4) – Your point about the review process is interesting. You are arguing that no matter how bad the R-PP is, it should go through the FCPF’s review process, because the international review process will “improve” the R-PP. Having made their point, then, the El Salvadorean NGOs should sit back and allow the international experts to sort things out. I wonder whether you can give examples of this development model being successfully applied?

  9. Thanks @Chris Lang (#8)
    @Seeker (#4) – We have been informed that the number of reviews depends on the “quality level” of the R-PP. If FCPF considers that any R-PP version accomplishes WB criteria and expectations, El Salvador R-PP would be approved in any of the subsequent meetings of the Participants Committee (PC), which is unacceptable by us. To face this, we will persist in and reaffirm our refusal to an eventual approval of the R-PP by the WB, and we will continue demanding that the R-PP has to be withdrawn by the Government (MARN), in order to initiate, strengthen and base a wide, transparent, inclusive and participative process to define and build the National Climate Change Plan and Strategy, and the National Adaptation Plan (NAP)as accorded in Durban. The process MUST incorporate indigenous peoples and other vulnerable communities effectively. Our well established position is that the pertinency and rol of REDD+ for our country have to be evaluated only in this context.

    Gracias @Chris Lang (#8).
    @Seeker (#4): Nos hemos informado que el número de revisiones dependen de la calidad del R-PP, y si a juicio del FCPF la versión de R-PP presentada por el MARN está conforme a sus criterios y expectativas, el R-PP e El Salvador sería aprobado en cualquiera de las próximas reuniones del Comité de Participantes (CP), lo cual no es aceptado por nosotros y nosotras. Persistiremos en nuestro rechazo a una eventual aprobación del R-PP y en nuestra demanda de que éste sea retirado por el gobierno, a fin de iniciar, fortalecer y fundamentar un proceso nacional amplio, transparente, inclusivo y participativo, en el que se defina y se construya la Estrategia y Plan Nacional de Cambio Climático, y el Plan Nacional de Adaptación tal como acordado en Durban, incorporando plenamente a los pueblos indígenas y otras poblaciones vulnerables. Nuestra bien cimentada posición es que sólo en este contexto es que debemos evaluar la pertinencia y papel de REDD-plus para nuestro país.

  10. El Movimiento Salvadoreño por la Defensa de la Vida ante el Cambio Climático (MOSDEVI), de El Salvador, Centroamérica; expresa su más profunda preocupación y rechazo al documento Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP), presentado al FCPF del Banco Mundial (BM) por el gobierno de El Salvador, a través del Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (MARN); y solicita al Señor Benoit Bosquet, Coordinador del Fondo Cooperativo para el Carbono de los Bosques (FCPF), del Departamento de Medio Ambiente, del Banco Mundial, Washington, a que interponga sus buenos oficios para que el Comité de Participantes del FCPF (PC) no apruebe dicho R-PP

  11. WB has not set up the R-PP Analysis in English in their web site yet. Our organizations sent the analysis in English on Thursday, May 17th, only two days after the letter and analysis in spanish was sent. We expect for a transparent process, in which all information be available for people who are interested to know how the FCPF process has been developed in our country, and to inform the international community about the inconsistencies and hazards that REDD+, as propposed in the R-PP by the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources, would foster to our communities, ecosystems and livelihoods.

    El BM aún no ha puesto en su sitio de Internet, el Análisis en Inglés del R-PP; el cual fue enviado por nuestras organizaciones el jueves 17 de mayo pasado, a penas dos días después que la carta y el análisis en español fueron enviados. Esperamos un proceso transparente, en el cual toda la información esté disponible para las personas interesadas en conocer como el proceso del FCPF se ha desarrollado en nuestro país, e informar a la comunidad internacional acerca de las inconsistencias y amenazas que REDD+, así como ha sido propuesto en el R-PP por el Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Recursos naturales, traería para nuestras comunidades, ecosistemas y medios de vida.

  12. @Chris Lang (#8): No, I am not suggesting R-PPs should go throgh the FCPF’s review process no matter how bad they are. Of course their should be a sense of both the government submitting and the organizations having been involved in the dialogue so far, and even the FMT itself, that the R-PP offers a sufficient level of quality in order to go for informal presentation. I am also not suggesting that international experts can sort things out. But the review process brings up many voices, including those of civil society, including the comments made by UNES. Also, the critical review doesn’t focus only on technical issues but very much on how inclusive and transparent the process itself has been. If there is reason to be concerned about this in the case of El Salvador, I would expect the Participants Committee to formally recommend the Salvadoran government to improve the process. It is this kind of leverage I was talking about, not a technofix development model, which I totally agree doesn’t work in any place of the world.

    @ Watcher: Yes, the number of reviews depends on the quality level. There can be even several informal presentations before a final formal presentation gets endorsed. The time between informal and formal presentations can be more than a year in some cases, and there will be no automatic WB grant approval without formal presentation in front of the Participants Committee. But obviously, your organisations have all the right in the world to demand that the R-PP doesn’t get presented even informally. Just wanted to make sure you know that there are several review steps and that El Salvador has not yet asked for formal endorsement.

  13. @J. Lichtenstein (#13) Thanks for this. The English language version of the R-PP analysis is not on the FCPF website, as @Forester (#11) pointed out above.

  14. It is possible that the Government (MARN) has advocated WB for the R-PP to continue in the FCPF´s review process, even though they know that many reviews will be necessary, because of the low quality level in terms of content of such propposal. If the R-PP is not withdrawn by the MARN, MARN representative should be sure that civil society organizations (which include peasant, forestry and indigenous peoples, cooperatives and communities) will continue following up, analysing and demanding the proces to be inclusive, transparent and previously well informed to all stakeholders. But it is not only about the consultation process, as MARN has attempted to make social organizations think about, in its recent response to us! Beyond this, our position is that no REDD+ Strategy can rise apart of the National Climate Change Plan elaboration process, which must include NAMAs and NAP; so that no elements of REDD+ could increase our vulnerability nor promote maladaptation measures. This will take the MARN more than the time they think it is necessary to implement such consultation process for the R-PP in the last minute and after our demand (one or two months?), and it will require capacities, efforts and logistic that they have not been able to implement in the last three years.

    Es posible que el Gobierno 8MARN) haya abogado con el BM para que el R-PP continúe en el proceso de revisión del FCPF, a pesar de saber que al R-PP le faltan muchas revisiones por la baja calidad que el R-PP tiene en términos de contenido. Si el R-PP no es retirado por el MARN, el Ministro debe estar seguro que las organizaciones de la sociedad civil (que incluyen personas, cooperativas y comunidades campesinas, dependientes de los bosques e indígenas)continuaremos dando seguimiento, analizando y demandando que el proceso sea inclusivo, transparente y bien informado previamente a todos los actores. Pero no es sólo acerca del proceso de consulta como el MARN ha intentado hacernos pensar en su respuesta a nosotros y nosotras recientemente! Más allá de esto, ninguna Estrategia REDD+ podrá surgir afuera del proceso de elaboración del PLAN NACIONAL DE CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO, el cual debe incluir las NAMAs y el PAN (Plan Nacional de Adaptación); de tal forma que ninguna acción REDD+ pudiese aumentar nuestra vulnerabilidad ni generar medidas de desadaptación. Esto tomará al MARN más del tiempo que ellos han pensado para hacer el proceso de consulta para el R-PP, a última hora y después de nuestra demanda (¿uno o dos meses?), y tendrá que involucrar capacidades, esfuerzos y logística que ellos no han sido capaces de implementar en los últimos tres años.

  15. To Chris Lang: I´m a journalist from El Salvador trying to make a tv report on that topic, also, to write a feature for IPS. Thing is, I haven´t got any source from FCPT or another WB official on that matter. I was told that Augusto García, FCPT Project Manager El Salvador is in Managua. Do you know if there is any REDD official available in El Salvador to talk to?


    edgardo ayala.

  16. @edgardo ayala (#16) – Thanks for this. I would suggest that you need to write to the World Bank about this. Here are some suggested contacts who should be able to tell you whether the World Bank has anyone competent to answer your questions in El Salvador:

    FCPF Secretariat:
    Benoît Bosquet (coordinator of the FCPF):
    Gerardo Segura (Agriculture and Development Team, LCA Región, WB Environmental Department):
    Alberto Leyton (World Bank Representative El Salvador Office):

    Hope this is useful and good luck with your article! Please let me know when it’s finished!