Forest Conservation Performance
Rating (fCPR) Report 2
Bad News for the Pan-Tropics and Everybody Else
David Wheeler, Dan Hammer, and Robin Kraft
Abstract
This paper updates Working Paper 294, “FCPR—Forest Conservation Performance Rating for the
Pan-Tropics.”
Forest Conservation Performance Rating (fCPR) is a system of color-coded ratings for tropical
forest conservation performance that can be implemented for local areas, countries, regions, and the
entire pan-tropics. The ratings reward tropical forest conservation in three dimensions: (1) Progress
toward elimination of tropical forest clearing by 2050; (2) progress toward achieving more ambitious
REDD+ goals; and (3) achieving an immediate reduction in forest clearing. We assign green ratings
to areas that meet condition (2); yellow to areas that meet (1) only; dark red to areas that fail both
conditions, with forest clearing still increasing; and light red to areas that fail both conditions, but
with declining forest clearing. This paper introduces quarterly conservation performance ratings for
56 tropical forest countries, as well as 781 of their states and provinces that contain tropical forests.
We also combine the fCPR country ratings to produce ratings for major regions and the entire pantropics. Overall, we find that conservation performance has deteriorated significantly since 2005 at
the global and regional levels. Some gains were made at the height of the global economic crisis, but
they have proven to be temporary. Since 2010, forest clearing has exhibited rapid growth in most of
tropical Asia, Latin America and Africa.
JEL Codes: Q20, Q23, Q27
Keywords: forests, conservation, satellite imagery.
www.cgdev.org
Working Paper 317
March 2013
Forest Conservation Performance Rating (fCPR) Report 2: Bad
News for the Pan-Tropics and Everybody Else
David Wheeler
Senior Fellow Emeritus, Center for Global Development
Dan Hammer
University of California–Berkeley
Robin Kraft
World Resources Institute
This paper updates Working Paper 294, “FCPR—Forest Conservation
Performance Rating for the Pan-Tropics.”
David Wheeler is senior fellow emeritus, Center for Global Development;
Dan Hammer is a doctoral candidate, Department of Agricultural and
Resource Economics, University of California–Berkeley; Robin Kraft is a
research associate, World Resources Institute. The authors thank Nancy
Birdsall, Ken Chomitz, Michele de Nevers, Darius Nassiry, Nigel Purvis,
Bill Savedoff, and Fred Stolle for useful comments and suggestions.
CGD is grateful to its funders and board of directors for support of this
work.
David Wheeler, Dan Hammer, and Robin Kraft. 2013. “Forest Conservation Performance
Rating (fCPR) Report 2: Bad News for the Pan-Tropics and Everybody Else.” CGD
Working Paper 317. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.
http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1427012
Center for Global Development
1800 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20036
202.416.4000
(f ) 202.416.4050
www.cgdev.org
The Center for Global Development is an independent, nonprofit policy
research organization dedicated to reducing global poverty and inequality
and to making globalization work for the poor. Use and dissemination of
this Working Paper is encouraged; however, reproduced copies may not be
used for commercial purposes. Further usage is permitted under the terms
of the Creative Commons License.
The views expressed in CGD Working Papers are those of the authors and
should not be attributed to the board of directors or funders of the Center
for Global Development.
Contents
Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Why We Developed fCPR .............................................................................................................. 1
How fCPR Rates Tropical Forest Areas ....................................................................................... 2
fCPR Country Ratings ..................................................................................................................... 4
fCPR State and Province Ratings ................................................................................................... 7
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 10
References ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Summary
This paper introduces and illustrates fCPR (Forest Conservation Performance Rating), a
system of color-coded ratings for tropical forest conservation performance that can be
implemented for local areas, countries, regions, and the entire pan-tropics. The ratings
reward tropical forest conservation in three dimensions: (1) Progress toward elimination of
tropical forest clearing by 2050; (2) progress toward achieving more ambitious REDD+
goals; and (3) achieving an immediate reduction in forest clearing. We assign Green ratings
to areas that meet condition (2); Yellow to areas that meet (1) only; Dark Red to areas that
fail both conditions, with forest clearing still increasing; and Light Red to areas that fail both
conditions, but with declining forest clearing
We have developed fCPR at the Center for Global Development (CGD), using biweekly
forest clearing indicators from CGD’s FORMA (Forest Monitoring for Action). This paper
introduces quarterly conservation performance ratings for 56 tropical forest countries, as
well as 781 of their states and provinces that contain tropical forests. We also combine the
fCPR country ratings to produce ratings for major regions and the entire pan-tropics.
Overall, we find that conservation performance has deteriorated significantly since 2005 at
the global and regional levels. Some gains were made at the height of the global economic
crisis, but they have proven to be temporary. Since 2010, forest clearing has exhibited rapid
growth in most of tropical Asia, Latin America and Africa.
While these results are disappointing, we should note that some improvements at the
state/provincial level have been scored by Brazil, Indonesia, and other major forest-clearing
countries. These provide reminders that appropriately-focused, effective implementation of
local policies can reduce forest clearing significantly. We hope that the fCPR ratings, and
FORMA itself, will contribute by monitoring progress toward this goal, and indicating
problem areas where focused attention may promote more rapid progress. We will publish
frequent updates on CGD’s website (http://www.cgdev.org) and inform subscribers to our
newsletter at http://www.cgdev.org/section/topics/climate_change/newsletter_archive.
Why We Developed fCPR
fCPR (Forest Conservation Performance Rating), developed by the authors at the
Center for Global Development (CGD), mobilizes the latest forest monitoring technology
to produce frequently-updated conservation performance ratings for local areas, countries
and regions in the pan-tropics. We have designed fCPR to support the mission of REDD+
(Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries)
in three ways. First, fCPR directly promotes conservation by recognizing governments that
protect their forested lands. Second, the system aids priority-setting by highlighting areas
where forest conservation is lagging. Third, fCPR offers the global community an opensource, unbiased, frequently-updated view of global, regional and national progress toward
achieving the goals of REDD+. Its ratings reward tropical forest conservation in three
1
dimensions: (1) Progress toward elimination of tropical forest clearing by 2050; (2) progress
toward achieving more ambitious REDD+ goals; and (3) achieving an immediate reduction
in forest clearing.
We have developed fCPR using biweekly forest clearing indicators from FORMA (Forest
Monitoring for Action). This paper rates the conservation performance of 56 tropical forest
countries currently tracked by FORMA, as well as 781 of their states and provinces that
contain tropical forests. It is the first in a series that will draw on FORMA’s forest clearing
indicators at 500-meter spatial resolution for the entire pan-tropics.1
How fCPR Rates Tropical Forest Areas
Rating performance requires benchmarks for judging progress. In REDD+ programs, a
common benchmark is forest clearing during a previous period. We begin with a benchmark
based on average forest clearing at two-week intervals during the first three years of
FORMA coverage: 2006-2008.2 Once the initial benchmark is set, we rate an area’s progress
relative to two paths that decline from the benchmark to zero clearing in 2050 and 2025,
respectively. The moderate variant, which we term the “mid-century path”, reflects a
conservative view of potential progress. The steeper variant, or “REDD+ path”, reflects the
global community’s recognition that we are unlikely to avoid a climate catastrophe unless
carbon emissions plummet in the near future.3
Once the mid-century and REDD+ paths are established for the 56 countries tracked by
FORMA, we assign quarterly performance ratings as illustrated in Figure 1.
We develop the ratings from 12-month moving averages (MA) of FORMA’s twice-monthly
clearing indicators, to remove seasonal fluctuations.4 We further stabilize the series by
calculating quarterly averages of the MA. Countries are Green if their quarterly averages are
below their REDD+ lines. Green countries are on track to achieve zero clearing by 2025.
We assign Yellow to countries whose quarterly averages are between their mid-century and
REDD+ lines. Yellow countries will achieve zero clearing by 2050 if progress continues, but
they are not yet on track to zero clearing by 2025. Finally, we assign Red to poor performers:
countries whose quarterly averages are above their mid-century and REDD+ lines. To
A previous paper (Wheeler, Hammer and Kraft, 2012) provided pilot fCPR estimates for 27 countries
based on initial FORMA data reported monthly at 1-km. spatial resolution. Since publication of that paper,
FORMA has advanced to full coverage of the pan-tropics; a biweekly reporting cycle; spatial resolution of 500
meters, and significantly-improved signal-processing methodology. For the 27 countries included in the pilot
exercise, the results reported in this paper supersede the previous estimates.
2 The average for each area is based on 70 observations.
3 In the pilot FCPR paper (Wheeler, Hammer and Kraft, 2012), the slope of the moderate path was adjusted
country-by-country to reflect an econometric estimate of the typical relationship between income per capita and
deforestation. However, this adjustment created so much interpretive confusion and digressive discussion of the
econometrics that we have opted for simplicity and clarity with the mid-century path.
4 The moving average for a month is calculated from its clearing indicator and the indicators for the
previous 11 months.
1
2
recognize incremental progress, we assign Light Red to countries where clearing is falling or
stable, and Dark Red to countries where clearing is still increasing.
FORMA’s biweekly database currently spans December 19, 2005 to September 29, 2012.
Using a three-year period (2006-2008) to set the initial benchmark for each country, we
develop 16 quarterly performance ratings for Q4 2008 - Q3 2012.5
Figure 1: Assigning Performance Ratings
Mid-Century Path
5 We use two months for the Q3 2012 rating; it will be extended to three months in the next update. The
rating for Q4 2008 is based on the 12-month moving average for December, 2008. We have checked to see
whether longer benchmark periods significantly affect country ratings, and they do not: The correlations
between scores for 3-, 4- and 5-year benchmark periods are all 94% or higher.
3
fCPR Country Ratings
Table 1 presents color-coded ratings for the 56 countries, along with regional and global
ratings.6 To aid interpretation, we include average quarterly clearing indicator values for Q4
2008 – Q3 2012 as a measure of relative scale. We separate the countries by region and sort
to highlight countries whose current ratings are Red. Figure 2 summarizes the country
results, while Figure 3 provides geographic information.
The graphs in Figure 2 track general performance trends since 2005: Green for total
countries that achieve Green or Yellow ratings; Red for countries that achieve Dark Red or
Light Red ratings. The results suggest overall deterioration in performance, with a temporary
reversal during the global economic crisis. Red countries increased from 40 in Q4 2008 to 48
in Q3 2012, while Green countries fell from 16 to 8.
Figure 3 displays geographic patterns for the first rating quarter (Q4 2008), the quarter that
registered the maximum impact of the economic crisis (Q4 2010), and the final rating quarter
(Q3 2012). Besides the overall decline in positive ratings since Q4 2008, the most striking
feature is the deterioration of Asia's relative ratings. In Q3 2012, the regional count for
Green or Yellow ratings in Asia has fallen to 0.
Reflecting the overall deterioration in performance, the weighted global color rating in Table
1 has shifted from parity in the counts of Yellow and Light Red during the first 8 rating
quarters to uniformly Light Red during the most recent 5 quarters. In Asia, a general trend
toward Red was partially offset by Indonesia’s achievement of a Green rating from Q3 2009
to Q3 2011. Since then, however, Indonesia has reverted to Dark Red and the regional rating
has followed suit. In contrast, Latin America has remained Yellow since Q3 2009 because
Brazil has remained Green while performance elsewhere has deteriorated. Africa has
remained Red for all 16 quarters, because its Red-rated countries have much more clearing
than its Green-rated countries. In addition, the continent’s Green country count has fallen
from 6 in Q4 2008 to 3 in Q3 2012.
When regional results are compared, it becomes clear why the global rating in Q4 2012
remains Light Red: Latin America remains Yellow, with a global indicator weight of 5,741,
while Asia and Africa are Dark Red, with global indicator weights of 5,424 and 828,
respectively. But Latin America only remains Yellow because Brazil, with an indicator weight
of 3,745, remains Green. Without the massive counterweight of Brazil, the global rating
would now be Dark Red.
6 To develop the summary ratings, we assign numerical scores to color codes as follows: Green (4); Yellow
(3); Light Red (2); Dark Red (1). For a regional rating, we calculate each country’s share of total clearing in the
region during the rating quarter. Then we weight country scores by these shares; add the share-weighted scores;
round the result to the nearest whole number; and assign the color associated with that number. For the global
rating, we follow the same procedure with countries’ scores weighted by their shares in total (56-country) clearing
during the rating quarter.
4
Figure 2: Country Ratings, 2008 Q4 - 2012 Q3
5
Figure 3: Country Performance Ratings
6
fCPR State and Province Ratings
Table 2 provides ratings for 781 states and provinces that contain tropical forest areas, while
Figure 4 provides summary information for localities whose performance has been superior
(Green or Yellow) or sub-par (Dark or Light Red). Here we see striking evidence of
widespread deterioration: Superior ratings fell steadily from 435 in Q4 2008 to 298 in Q3
2012, while sub-par ratings rose from 346 to 483.
Figures 5 and 6 provide more detailed views for South America and Southeast Asia, the two
regions that dominate tropical forest clearing. In Figure 5 (and Table 2), the period from Q4
2008 to Q3 2010 was marked by the “greening” of the Brazilian Amazon and substantial
areas of Bolivia and Paraguay, accompanied by the spread of Red areas in the rest of Brazil’s
northern and western neighbors, along with southern Brazil. While Brazil retained its overall
Green status in Q3 2012, the period since Q3 2010 was also marked by deterioration in the
states of Amazonas, Bahia, Goias, Tocantins and Espirito Santo, while most of Bolivia
reverted to Red, and Green areas continued to disappear in the other states on Brazil’s
periphery.
Indonesia displays a highly-varied pattern in Figure 6 and Table 2. Among major forestclearing provinces in Sumatra, Aceh and Sumatera Utara have been consistently Red, Riau
has been consistently Green, and Sumatera Berat and Sumatera Selatan have varied widely.
Kalimantan exhibits similar variation, with consistent Red ratings in Kalimantan Timur and
Kalimantan Barat, consistent Green in Kalimantan Tengah, and deterioration from Green to
Red in Kalimantan Selatan.
Figure 4: State/Province Ratings, Q4 2008 – Q3 2012
7
Figure 5: Provincial Performance Ratings, South America
8
Figure 6: Provincial Performance Ratings, Southeast Asia
9
Elsewhere in Southeast Asia, Table 2 and Figure 6 reveal a steady pattern of deterioration. It
was particularly evident in Myanmar, Malaysia and Papua New Guines from Q4 2008 to Q3
2010, but by Q3 2012 the pattern had become quite general.
Conclusion
In this paper we have introduced fCPR (Forest Conservation Performance Rating), which
color-codes performance in 56 pan-tropical countries and 781 of their states and provinces.
We assign Green ratings when countries, states and provinces are on track to zero tropical
forest clearing in 2025; Yellow when their progress is consistent with zero clearing by 2050,
and Red when they fail to achieve either benchmark.
Our results are sobering, with 48 countries rated Red and only 8 Green or Yellow in the
most recent rating period (Q3 2012). We find a general pattern of deterioration since Q4
2008, with only Brazil retaining Green status among major forest clearing countries. And
even within Brazil, some states have moved from Green to Red during the past two years.
The rest of Latin American has trended strongly Red since our first rating period. Indonesia
has reverted to Red after an extended Green period, and the rest of Asia has trended
strongly Red as well. Africa has remained Red since Q4 2008.
Although we find few grounds for optimism in these results, we should note that nearly 300
of the 781 states and provinces are currently rated Green, and a significant number of
localities have improved their ratings since Q4 2008. These positive developments provide
reminders that appropriately-focused, effective implementation of local policies can reduce
forest clearing significantly. We hope that the fCPR ratings, and FORMA itself, will
contribute by monitoring progress toward this goal, and by indicating problem areas where
focused attention may promote more rapid progress. We will publish frequent updates on
CGD’s website (http://www.cgdev.org) and inform subscribers to our newsletter at
http://www.cgdev.org/section/topics/climate_change/newsletter_archive.
10
References
Wheeler, David, Dan Hammer and Robin Kraft. 2012. FCPR–Forest Conservation
Performance Rating for the Pan-Tropics. Center for Global Development Working
Paper No. 294. May. http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/1426160
11
Table 1: Country Performance Ratings, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Clearing 2008
Indicator Q4
GLOBAL
11994.21
ASIA/PACIFIC
5424.22
Bhutan
India
Lao PDR
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Indonesia
Bangladesh
Myanmar
Thailand
Nepal
Cambodia
Sri Lanka
China
Vietnam
Malaysia
Brunei Darussalam
5.11
667.24
373.58
82.58
11.78
2002.45
65.62
667.08
53.11
4.21
94.11
0.02
119.1
343.92
929.38
4.93
LATIN AMERICA
5741.13
Guyana
Venezuela, RB
Ecuador
Suriname
French Guiana
Colombia
55.38
235.61
9.26
69.07
10.76
304.37
Q1
2009
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
2010
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
2011
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
2012
Q2
Q3
Table 1: Country Performance Ratings, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Clearing 2008
Indicator Q4
Costa Rica
Peru
Panama
Guatemala
Bolivia
Mexico
Nicaragua
Honduras
Haiti
Paraguay
Argentina
Brazil
El Salvador
2.83
408.96
57.28
103.25
368.8
53.12
0.58
1.12
0.73
236.6
78.31
3745.1
0
AFRICA
828.86
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Cote d'Ivoire
Liberia
Cameroon
Gabon
Sierra Leone
Uganda
Tanzania
Togo
Central African Republic
Ghana
Nigeria
Rwanda
98.82
37.77
104.92
13.85
5.77
157.41
12.88
47.97
3.69
0.27
14.9
237.45
0.56
Q1
2009
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
2010
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
2011
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
2012
Q2
Q3
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Province/State
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
ASIA/PACIFIC
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Bhutan
Brunei Darussalam
Brunei Darussalam
Brunei Darussalam
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Barisal
Chittagong
Dhaka
Khulna
Rajshahi
Sylhet
Bumthang
Chhukha
Chirang
Daga
Geylegphug
Mongar
Pemagatsel
Samchi
Samdrup Jongkhar
Shemgang
Tashigang
Belait
Brunei and Muara
Temburong
Tutong
Batdâmbâng
Bântéay Méanchey
Kaôh Kong
Kep
Krong Pailin
Krong Preah Sihanouk
0
52.2686
1.0562
0.7319
0.0768
11.4901
0.0308
0
0
0
0.6631
0.0716
0.0016
0
4.2738
0.0642
0
2.7562
0.6144
0.878
0.6835
18.5338
1.0139
19.8773
0
1.5516
3.2237
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
Cambodia
China
China
China
China
China
China
China
China
China
China
China
China
India
India
India
Province/State
Krâchéh
Kâmpóng Cham
Kâmpóng Chhnang
Kâmpóng Spœ
Kâmpóng Thum
Kâmpôt
Kândal
Môndól Kiri
Phnom Penh
Pouthisat
Prey Vêng
Rôtânôkiri
Siemréab
Svay Rieng
Takêv
Chongqing
Fujian
Guangdong
Guangxi
Guizhou
Hainan
Hubei
Hunan
Jiangxi
Sichuan
Yunnan
Zhejiang
Andaman and Nicobar
Andhra Pradesh
Arunachal Pradesh
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0
1.8764
1.1701
8.3785
5.7173
6.4632
0.6747
0
0.076
24.4947
0
0.0072
1.039
0
0.0109
0
1.4554
5.0464
47.2011
3.8933
16.1964
0.088
0.2763
0.7048
1.7783
42.2605
0.201
1.9248
5.4755
35.2639
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
India
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Province/State
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Dadra and Nagar Haveli
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jharkhand
Karnataka
Kerala
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Nagaland
Orissa
Puducherry
Sikkim
Tamil Nadu
Tripura
Uttar Pradesh
Uttaranchal
West Bengal
Aceh
Bali
Bangka-Belitung
Banten
Bengkulu
Gorontalo
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
254.9501
1.7491
3.6286
0
0
0
0
0.6676
26.9834
119.444
0.1808
0.8712
4.7497
33.924
28.5642
21.8497
6.8706
0.0326
0
70.1772
47.4778
1.2977
0.1484
1.0107
120.1906
0.0564
31.0479
2.9002
47.965
8.4153
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Indonesia
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Province/State
Irian Jaya Barat
Jakarta Raya
Jambi
Jawa Barat
Jawa Tengah
Jawa Timur
Kalimantan Barat
Kalimantan Selatan
Kalimantan Tengah
Kalimantan Timur
Kepulauan Riau
Lampung
Maluku
Maluku Utara
Papua
Riau
Sulawesi Barat
Sulawesi Selatan
Sulawesi Tengah
Sulawesi Tenggara
Sulawesi Utara
Sumatera Barat
Sumatera Selatan
Sumatera Utara
Yogyakarta
Attapu
Bokeo
Bolikhamxai
Champasak
Houaphan
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
12.873
0
89.9647
5.088
2.3267
0.3372
218.5557
45.8049
199.917
157.4037
3.4176
19.3401
21.6565
6.5124
4.4442
430.7542
22.2395
29.9284
37.5416
15.3564
2.7202
63.4753
225.3671
176.2014
0.6516
1.2566
8.9277
96.6913
2.8325
9.0439
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Lao PDR
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Malaysia
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Province/State
Khammouan
Louang Namtha
Louangphrabang
Oudômxai
Phôngsali
Saravan
Savannakhét
Vientiane
Vientiane [prefecture]
Xaignabouri
Xaisômboun
Xiangkhoang
Xékong
Johor
Kedah
Kelantan
Melaka
Negeri Sembilan
Pahang
Perak
Perlis
Pulau Pinang
Sabah
Sarawak
Selangor
Trengganu
Ayeyarwady
Bago
Chin
Kachin
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
60.892
10.7924
16.7137
10.8435
4.0317
1.2788
39.3634
45.6295
7.2806
23.0006
20.4856
11.6024
2.9144
44.49
29.33
55.6112
2.0203
18.949
107.4681
79.6456
0.371
2.4686
162.4404
379.3127
17.2369
30.0383
3.0938
24.5853
132.4687
31.5716
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Myanmar
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Nepal
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Province/State
Kayah
Kayin
Magway
Mandalay
Mon
Rakhine
Sagaing
Shan
Tanintharyi
Yangon
Central
East
Far-Western
Mid-Western
West
Central
Chimbu
East New Britain
East Sepik
Eastern Highlands
Enga
Gulf
Madang
Manus
Milne Bay
Morobe
New Ireland
North Solomons
Northern
Sandaun
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0.6402
8.244
17.9669
8.6219
7.8298
327.3127
29.9051
47.2695
27.4534
0.1205
2.5244
0.327
0.3155
0.8352
0.2053
5.5461
0
12.5155
0.3311
0
0.0287
0.5576
1.5516
0.5678
2.7707
3.3788
5.3198
0.3602
27.8816
0.3822
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Papua New Guinea
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Province/State
Southern Highlands
West New Britain
Western
Western Highlands
Abra
Agusan del Norte
Agusan del Sur
Aklan
Albay
Antique
Apayao
Aurora
Basilan
Batanes
Batangas
Biliran
Bohol
Bukidnon
Bulacan
Cagayan
Camarines Norte
Camarines Sur
Camiguin
Capiz
Catanduanes
Cavite
Cebu
Compostela Valley
Davao Oriental
Davao del Norte
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0.0326
21.1044
0.247
0
0
0.0518
0.1447
0
0
0.0005
0.1215
0
0.1188
0
0
0.0109
0.0835
0.2608
0
0.0143
0
0
0.0114
0
0
0.0109
0.0217
0.149
0.0838
0.1366
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Province/State
Davao del Sur
Dinagat Islands
Eastern Samar
Guimaras
Ilocos Norte
Ilocos Sur
Iloilo
Isabela
Kalinga
Laguna
Lanao del Norte
Lanao del Sur
Leyte
Maguindanao
Marinduque
Masbate
Metropolitan Manila
Misamis Occidental
Misamis Oriental
Negros Occidental
Negros Oriental
North Cotabato
Northern Samar
Nueva Ecija
Occidental Mindoro
Oriental Mindoro
Palawan
Quezon
Quirino
Rizal
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0.1165
0.0109
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1767
0.4979
0.077
1.447
0
0.0217
0
0
0.1151
0
0
1.4689
0.0651
0
0.1776
0.1053
0.2303
0
0.0109
0
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Thailand
Province/State
Romblon
Samar
Sarangani
Shariff Kabunsuan
Sorsogon
South Cotabato
Southern Leyte
Sultan Kudarat
Sulu
Surigao del Norte
Surigao del Sur
Tawi-Tawi
Zamboanga Sibugay
Zamboanga del Norte
Zamboanga del Sur
Badulla
Colombo
Galle
Gampaha
Hambantota
Kalutara
Kandy
Kegalle
Kurunegala
Matale
Matara
Moneragala
Nuwara Eliya
Ratnapura
Ang Thong
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0
0.2684
0.2292
1.8948
0
0.1732
0.0651
0.2963
0.9327
0.1027
0.0671
1.2158
0.0451
0.5132
0.2339
0
0
0.0114
0
0
0.0048
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0696
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Province/State
Bangkok Metropolis
Chachoengsao
Chai Nat
Chaiyaphum
Chanthaburi
Chiang Mai
Chiang Rai
Chon Buri
Chumphon
Kamphaeng Phet
Kanchanaburi
Khon Kaen
Krabi
Lampang
Lamphun
Loei
Lop Buri
Mae Hong Son
Nakhon Nayok
Nakhon Pathom
Nakhon Phanom
Nakhon Sawan
Nakhon Si Thammarat
Nan
Narathiwat
Nong Bua Lam Phu
Nong Khai
Nonthaburi
Pathum Thani
Pattani
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0.0322
0.0504
0.0252
1.5826
0.5527
0.2056
0.624
0.0707
0.8343
0
1.1422
0.0109
1.9458
0.1385
0.561
0.657
0.0035
0.154
0
0.1707
0
0.6144
4.1848
9.7174
0.7191
0
4.2546
0.0529
0
0.0217
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Province/State
Phangnga
Phatthalung
Phayao
Phetchabun
Phetchaburi
Phichit
Phitsanulok
Phra Nakhon Si Ayutthaya
Phrae
Phuket
Prachin Buri
Prachuap Khiri Khan
Ranong
Ratchaburi
Rayong
Sa Kaeo
Sakon Nakhon
Samut Prakan
Samut Sakhon
Samut Songkhram
Saraburi
Satun
Sing Buri
Songkhla
Sukhothai
Suphan Buri
Surat Thani
Tak
Trang
Trat
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0.3274
0.253
0.5889
0.3135
0.2911
0
0.872
0.0726
1.9662
0.3246
0.0443
3.1378
0.1923
1.2754
0.3589
0
0.024
0.0925
0.0383
0
0
0.3832
0.0099
2.8137
0.2795
0.0735
4.5666
1.0542
2.6485
0.7462
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Thailand
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Province/State
Udon Thani
Uthai Thani
Uttaradit
Yala
Bac Trung Bo
Nam Trung Bo
Tây Bac
Tây Nguyên
Ðong Bang Sông Cuu Long
Ðong Bang Sông Hong
Ðông Bac
Ðông Nam Bo
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0.3206
0.0417
1.0527
0.5554
253.9936
4.605
13.2129
65.1727
2.609
1.9181
1.8741
0.5351
Catamarca
Jujuy
La Rioja
Misiones
Salta
Tucumán
Chuquisaca
Cochabamba
El Beni
La Paz
Pando
Santa Cruz
Tarija
Acre
Alagoas
0
0.1955
0
69.5735
8.5428
0
0
23.339
131.5036
30.2025
45.5209
138.2305
0
142.1339
0
LATIN AMERICA
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Argentina
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Bolivia
Brazil
Brazil
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Brazil
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Province/State
Amapá
Amazonas
Bahia
Ceará
Espírito Santo
Goiás
Maranhão
Mato Grosso
Mato Grosso do Sul
Minas Gerais
Paraná
Paraíba
Pará
Pernambuco
Piauí
Rio Grande do Norte
Rio Grande do Sul
Rio de Janeiro
Rondônia
Roraima
Santa Catarina
Sergipe
São Paulo
Tocantins
Amazonas
Antioquia
Arauca
Bolívar
Boyacá
Caldas
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
43.3327
898.2297
171.3852
0.0328
49.8587
1.4817
69.7926
825.0555
5.5332
88.1097
29.3419
0.056
959.0543
0.0043
0.226
0.0039
1.6946
2.5372
337.677
48.8076
11.8523
0.1555
35.8137
22.9307
0.3913
30.9439
0.0114
32.9277
0.4606
1.3651
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Colombia
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Costa Rica
Province/State
Caquetá
Casanare
Cauca
Cesar
Chocó
Cundinamarca
Córdoba
Guainía
Guaviare
Huila
La Guajira
Magdalena
Meta
Nariño
Norte de Santander
Putumayo
Quindío
Risaralda
Santander
Sucre
Tolima
Valle del Cauca
Vaupés
Vichada
Alajuela
Cartago
Guanacaste
Heredia
Limón
Puntarenas
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
74.9796
0
1.8352
6.106
24.8595
0.4398
5.0637
0.3611
17.4965
0
0.9644
3.3369
56.1788
0.1982
9.2414
10.0877
0
0.0321
14.81
10.8214
0.117
0.0952
0.6495
0.5943
1.0145
0.3018
0.3048
0.1505
0
0.5989
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Costa Rica
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
Ecuador
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
El Salvador
French Guiana
French Guiana
Guatemala
Province/State
San José
Azuay
Bolivar
Carchi
Cañar
Chimborazo
Cotopaxi
El Oro
Esmeraldas
Guayas
Imbabura
Loja
Los Rios
Manabi
Morona Santiago
Orellana
Pastaza
Pichincha
Sucumbios
Tungurahua
Zamora Chinchipe
Ahuachapán
Chalatenango
La Paz
San Vicente
Santa Ana
Sonsonate
Cayenne
Saint-Laurent-du-Maroni
Alta Verapaz
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0.4582
0
0
0
0
0.0354
0
0
0.2444
0.2268
0.1785
0
0.0826
0.0134
0.2543
3.3169
0.6695
0.1141
4.1286
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.0008
7.7598
1.4002
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guatemala
Guyana
Guyana
Guyana
Guyana
Guyana
Guyana
Guyana
Guyana
Guyana
Guyana
Haiti
Province/State
Baja Verapaz
Chimaltenango
Chiquimula
El Progreso
Escuintla
Huehuetenango
Izabal
Jutiapa
Petén
Quezaltenango
Quiché
Retalhuleu
Sacatepéquez
San Marcos
Santa Rosa
Sololá
Suchitepéquez
Totonicapán
Zacapa
Barima-Waini
Cuyuni-Mazaruni
Demerara-Mahaica
East Berbice-Corentyne
Essequibo Islands-West Demerara
Mahaica-Berbice
Pomeroon-Supenaam
Potaro-Siparuni
Upper Demerara-Berbice
Upper Takutu-Upper Essequibo
Centre
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0.02
0.3932
0
0
2.2115
0.562
0.4215
0
89.8777
1.161
0.067
0.5785
0
1.2332
0.7865
0
4.3293
0
0.2128
20.4883
1.1736
1.4813
1.1265
1.7814
4.5549
18.5345
3.1286
0.1778
2.9325
0.0168
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Haiti
Haiti
Haiti
Haiti
Haiti
Haiti
Haiti
Haiti
Haiti
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Honduras
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Province/State
Grand'Anse
L'Artibonite
Nippes
Nord
Nord-Est
Nord-Ouest
Ouest
Sud
Sud-Est
Atlántida
Colón
Comayagua
Copán
Cortés
El Paraíso
Francisco Morazán
Gracias a Dios
Intibucá
Islas de la Bahía
La Paz
Lempira
Ocotepeque
Olancho
Santa Bárbara
Yoro
Campeche
Chiapas
Guanajuato
Hidalgo
Oaxaca
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0.254
0.0043
0.1069
0.0317
0
0
0.2595
0.0451
0.0091
0.126
0.6824
0
0
0.1486
0
0
0
0
0.0717
0
0
0
0.0655
0.0074
0.0143
8.8576
12.0997
0
0
11.4639
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Mexico
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Panama
Panama
Panama
Panama
Panama
Panama
Panama
Province/State
Puebla
Querétaro
Quintana Roo
San Luis Potosí
Tabasco
Tamaulipas
Veracruz
Yucatán
Atlántico Norte
Atlántico Sur
Boaco
Carazo
Chontales
Estelí
Granada
Jinotega
Managua
Masaya
Matagalpa
Nicaragua
Nueva Segovia
Rivas
Río San Juan
Bocas del Toro
Chiriquí
Coclé
Colón
Darién
Emberá
Herrera
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0.077
0
13.0685
0
3.2898
0
4.0264
0.2392
0.1094
0.0547
0.0095
0.1314
0.1496
0
0.0035
0
0.0217
0
0.0109
0
0
0.0065
0.0826
0.0109
0
0
1.3159
35.0543
13.2899
0
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Panama
Panama
Panama
Panama
Panama
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Paraguay
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Peru
Province/State
Kuna Yala
Los Santos
Ngöbe Buglé
Panamá
Veraguas
Alto Paraná
Amambay
Caaguazú
Caazapá
Canindeyú
Concepción
Guairá
Itapúa
Paraguarí
San Pedro
Amazonas
Ancash
Apurímac
Ayacucho
Cajamarca
Cusco
Huancavelica
Huánuco
Junín
La Libertad
Loreto
Madre de Dios
Pasco
Piura
Puno
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0.3115
0
0
7.2503
0.0519
18.3422
22.9127
22.3477
13.0895
62.4372
13.045
1.7708
8.0905
0.098
74.4672
5.6622
0
0.0102
0.4372
0.0795
1.3876
0.0306
56.6953
2.3793
0.0543
126.3071
18.8314
14.3158
0
0.3343
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Peru
Peru
Peru
Suriname
Suriname
Suriname
Suriname
Suriname
Suriname
Suriname
Suriname
Suriname
Suriname
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Province/State
San Martín
Tumbes
Ucayali
Brokopondo
Commewijne
Coronie
Marowijne
Nickerie
Para
Paramaribo
Saramacca
Sipaliwini
Wanica
Amazonas
Anzoátegui
Apure
Aragua
Barinas
Bolívar
Carabobo
Cojedes
Delta Amacuro
Distrito Capital
Falcón
Guárico
Lara
Miranda
Monagas
Mérida
Portuguesa
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
115.995
0
66.443
17.8806
1.9862
5.4306
2.7574
10.3162
5.4792
0.0496
8.4644
14.561
2.1405
13.9309
0
0.266
0
0.0744
54.1861
0
0
142.1207
0.1312
0.3444
0
0.1976
0.0109
8.1061
0.2063
0.0877
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Venezuela, RB
Province/State
Sucre
Trujillo
Táchira
Yaracuy
Zulia
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
2.2944
0.4556
3.0072
0
10.187
AFRICA
Angola
Benin
Benin
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi
Burundi
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cameroon
Cabinda
Ouémé
Plateau
Bubanza
Bujumbura Mairie
Bujumbura Rural
Bururi
Cibitoke
Gitega
Kayanza
Muramvya
Mwaro
Rutana
Adamaoua
Centre
Est
Littoral
Nord
Nord-Ouest
Ouest
Sud
Sud-Ouest
0
0.0327
0.026
0.0313
0.0312
0.2391
0
0.0444
0
0
0
0
0
1.5054
3.8132
0.0161
2.4559
0
0.2449
3.4522
0.7723
1.5931
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Central African Republic
Central African Republic
Central African Republic
Central African Republic
Central African Republic
Central African Republic
Central African Republic
Central African Republic
Central African Republic
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Congo, Dem. Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Congo, Rep.
Cote d'Ivoire
Cote d'Ivoire
Cote d'Ivoire
Cote d'Ivoire
Province/State
Bangui
Basse-Kotto
Kémo
Lobaye
Mambéré-Kadéï
Mbomou
Ombella-M'Poko
Ouaka
Sangha-Mbaéré
Bandundu
Bas-Congo
Kasaï-Occidental
Kasaï-Oriental
Katanga
Kivu
Orientale
Équateur
Bouenza
Cuvette
Cuvette-Ouest
Kouilou
Likouala
Lékoumou
Niari
Plateaux
Sangha
Agnéby
Bafing
Bas-Sassandra
Dix-Huit Montagnes
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0
0.0053
0
0.0026
0.0269
0.0752
0.0109
0
0.1475
14.3475
1.07
2.4379
33.1671
0.2879
26.8097
4.4557
16.2397
0
2.8189
0
0
0.8622
0
0.0873
1.4468
0.2473
0.1618
0.3482
12.5137
4.4297
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Cote d'Ivoire
Cote d'Ivoire
Cote d'Ivoire
Cote d'Ivoire
Cote d'Ivoire
Cote d'Ivoire
Cote d'Ivoire
Cote d'Ivoire
Cote d'Ivoire
Cote d'Ivoire
Cote d'Ivoire
Cote d'Ivoire
Gabon
Gabon
Gabon
Gabon
Gabon
Gabon
Gabon
Gabon
Gabon
Ghana
Ghana
Ghana
Ghana
Ghana
Ghana
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea
Province/State
Fromager
Haut-Sassandra
Lacs
Lagunes
Marahoué
Moyen-Cavally
Moyen-Comoé
N'zi-Comoé
Sud-Bandama
Sud-Comoé
Worodougou
Zanzan
Estuaire
Haut-Ogooué
Moyen-Ogooué
Ngounié
Nyanga
Ogooué-Ivindo
Ogooué-Lolo
Ogooué-Maritime
Wouleu-Ntem
Ashanti
Brong Ahafo
Central
Eastern
Greater Accra
Volta
Western
Boké
Conarky
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0.127
5.4554
0.0021
4.4826
0.0016
6.0691
0.0063
0.0275
0.9306
2.9806
0.2319
0
0.1758
0
1.8321
0.0716
0.501
0
0.1845
2.9976
0.0109
3.4662
0.7161
0.4332
2.4377
0
0.3635
7.4832
0.0217
1.237
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Guinea
Guinea
Guinea
Kenya
Kenya
Kenya
Kenya
Kenya
Kenya
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Liberia
Madagascar
Madagascar
Madagascar
Madagascar
Madagascar
Madagascar
Province/State
Faranah
Kindia
Nzérékoré
Central
Coast
Eastern
Nyanza
Rift Valley
Western
Bomi
Bong
Gbapolu
Grand Cape Mount
GrandBassa
GrandGedeh
GrandKru
Lofa
Margibi
Maryland
Montserrado
Nimba
River Cess
River Gee
Sinoe
Antananarivo
Antsiranana
Fianarantsoa
Mahajanga
Toamasina
Toliary
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0.709
13.6563
49.4688
0
0.0065
0
0
1.5963
0
5.4027
12.5016
9.1911
4.2883
8.0868
5.2743
1.3049
27.134
3.6325
1.4441
2.8294
7.7598
5.8404
3.3244
6.9028
0.3485
4.9205
3.2482
0.3536
4.2645
6.9191
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Nigeria
Rwanda
Rwanda
Rwanda
Rwanda
Rwanda
Rwanda
Rwanda
Rwanda
Rwanda
Province/State
Abia
Adamawa
Akwa Ibom
Anambra
Bayelsa
Benue
Cross River
Delta
Ebonyi
Edo
Ekiti
Enugu
Imo
Kwara
Lagos
Ogun
Ondo
Osun
Oyo
Rivers
Taraba
Butare
Byumba
Cyangugu
Gikongoro
Gisenyi
Gitarama
Kibuye
Kigali
Ruhengeri
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
0.5319
0.0371
3.0394
0.9129
5.9795
0.0109
3.0637
34.0806
0.0113
49.1537
6.942
0.124
1.5691
0.6779
7.0477
36.7029
36.1454
38.7879
8.6479
3.9312
0.0486
0
0
0.1851
0
0.1113
0
0.0076
0
0.252
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Sudan
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Tanzania
Togo
Togo
Togo
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Province/State
Eastern
Northern
Southern
Western
Equatoria
Arusha
Dodoma
Iringa
Kigoma
Kilimanjaro
Manyara
Morogoro
Rukwa
Tanga
Centre
Kara
Plateaux
Bundibugyo
Bushenyi
Hoima
Kabale
Kabarole
Kamwenge
Kanungu
Kapchorwa
Kasese
Kibale
Kisoro
Kitgum
Kotido
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
60.2358
56.4645
38.9961
1.7115
0
0.0399
1.3448
24.0083
0
2.5115
0
10.0499
0
10.0192
1.0551
0
2.6339
0
0.0109
2.1371
0
0.0475
0.2476
0.0218
0
0.4727
8.3372
0.1534
0
0
Table 2: Performance Ratings of Provinces and States, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Uganda
Province/State
Kyenjojo
Lake Albert
Mbale
Mbarara
Moroto
Nakapiripirit
Nebbi
Ntungamo
Rukungiri
Sironko
Clearing 2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Indicator Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
1.4432
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0043
0
0
Table 1: Country Performance Ratings, Q4 2008 - Q3 2012
Region/Country
Kenya
Burundi
Guinea
Congo, Rep.
Madagascar
Benin
Angola
Sudan
Clearing 2008
Indicator Q4
1.6
0.35
65.09
5.46
20.05
0.06
0
0
Q1
2009
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
2010
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
2011
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
2012
Q2
Q3