REDD+ Financing to Enhance Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation and Biodiversity Co-benefits: Lessons from the Global Environment Facility

Kanako Morita, Ken'ichi Matsumoto

Abstract


This study explores ways to effectively and efficiently finance Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) activities to enhance climate change adaptation and biodiversity conservation by drawing on lessons from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The study analyzed trends in the focal areas of GEF forest-related projects, the executing and implementing agencies involved in GEF forest-related multi-focal area projects, and the cofundraisers’ trends in GEF forest-related multi-focal area projects. The analysis of GEF forest-related projects identified ways to finance REDD+ mobilization and distribution to enhance its multiple benefits. The key agencies that support REDD+ activities and enhance these co-benefits are the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and the national governments of developing countries. GEF and the co-fundraisers—multilateral aid agencies, such as UNDP, the World Bank, FAO, the Asian Development Bank, and UNEP, bilateral aid agencies, such as Germany, the United States and the European Union, the private sector and nongovernmental organizations—all work to enhance REDD+ co-benefits. Because private contributions to the GEF are limited, it is important to design a scheme to mobilize more private financing for REDD+.

Keywords


Adaptation; Biodiversity; Finance; Mitigation; REDD+

Full Text:

PDF

References


Busch, J. (2013). Supplementing REDD+ with biodiversity payments: The paradox of paying for multiple ecosystem services. Land Economics, 89(4), 655–675. crossref

GCF. (2017). GCF consultations on REDD+ results-based payments. Retrieved from website

GEF. (2010). The GEF incentive mechanism for forests: A new REDD+ multilateral finance program. Retrieved from pdf

GEF. (2014, May 22). GEF-6 programming directions. Retrieved from pdf

GEF. (2015). Forests and the GEF: A brief look at two decades of support for forests. Retrieved from website

GEF. (2016). Projects. Retrieved from website

GEF. (2017a). A GEF operational focal point’s guide to the GEF project cycle: What is a project cycle and why is it important?. Retrieved from pdf

GEF. (2017b). GEF Agencies. Retrieved from website

GEF. (2017c). Conventions. Retrieved from website

GEF. (2017d). Organization. Retrieved from website

GEF. (2017e, April). Sustainable forest management. Retrieved from pdf

IEO. (2017, May). IEO briefing: Evaluation of the multiple benefits of GEF support through its multifocal area portfolio. Retrieved from pdf

McFarland, B. J. (2015). International finance for REDD+ within the context of conservation financing instruments. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 34(6–7), 534–546. crossref

Streck, C. (2012). Financing REDD+: Matching needs and ends. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(6), 628–637. crossref

Streck, C. (2016). Mobilizing finance for REDD+ after Paris. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 13(2), 146-166. crossref

Sunderlin, W. D., Sills, E. O., Duchelle, A. E., Ekaputri, A. D., Kweka, D., Toniolo, M. A., … Otsyina, R. M. (2015). REDD+ at a critical juncture: Assessing the limits of polycentric governance for achieving climate change mitigation. International Forestry Review, 17(4), 400–413. crossref

UNFCCC. (2017). Green Climate Fund (GCF). Retrieved from website

Voigt, C., & Ferreira, F. (2015). The Warsaw Framework for REDD+: Implications for National implementation and access to results-based finance. Carbon and Climate Law Review, 9(2), 113–129. Retrieved from website

Watson, C., Patel, S., & Schalatek, L. (2016). Climate finance thematic briefing: REDD+ finance. Climate Finance Fundamentals, 5, 1-4. Retrieved from pdf

Well, M., & Carrapatoso, A. (2017). REDD+ finance: Policy making in the context of fragmented institutions. Climate Policy, 17(6), 687–707. pdf




DOI: http://doi.org/10.17503/agrivita.v40i0.1729

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.