Finance for REDD+ to Enhance Mitigation and Adaptation and Biodiversity Co-benefits:
Lessons from the Global Environment Facility
Based on a paper for AGRIVITA Journal of Agricultural Science (forthcoming)

Kanako Morita, Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, and Ken’ichi Matsumoto, Nagasaki University
2. Materials and Methods

1. Research Goal and Background

The Case of GEF Financing

Goal• Explore ways to effectively and efficiently finance
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation (REDD+) activities to enhance climatechange adaptation and biodiversity conservation bydrawing on lessons from the Global Environment Facility(GEF).

••

To date, the GEF has supported over 411 forest projects and programs totaling more than USD2.7 billion in GEF grant support,leveraging USD13.8 billion from other sources (as of 1st April, 2017) (GEF, 2017).
GEF has a unique governing structure organized around an Assembly, the Council, the Secretariat, 18 Agencies, a Scientific andTechnical Advisory Pane, and an Evaluation Office.
GuidanceOperations

ActionSTAP
GEF
Secretariat

GEF Assembly

Background

GEF Council• To promote the implementation of REDD+ it is essential
to create effective international institutions, including afinancing system for REDD+. To enhance not only
greenhouse gas emissions reduction, but also REDD+ cobenefits including adaptation and biodiversity
conservation effectively and efficiently, it is important todesign institutions, especially financing systems that
support and enhance them.
• Existing studies have failed to provide concretesuggestions for effective finance mobilization andallocation for enhancing not only emissions reduction but
other co-benefits of REDD+, such as adaptation andbiodiversity.
• The GEF is the only agency serving as a financial
mechanism for the UNFCCC, which addresses mitigation
and adaptation, and the Convention on Biological
Diversity, which addresses biodiversity conservation. theGEF is able to finance forest-related activities that
produce multiple benefits.

Countries: Council
Members/Constituencies

Conventions
CBD
UNFCCC
Stockholm (POPs)
UNCCD
Montreal Protocol
Minameta

GEF Trustee
Independent
Evaluation Office

Agencies
UNDP
UNEP
WB
ADB
AfDB
EBRD
FAO
IADB
IFAD
UNIDO
WWF‐USCIIUCNDBSA
FUNBIO
BOAD
CAF
FECO

Projects
Countries:
GEF OFPs/PFPs
Convention FPs
Other governmentalagencies
NGOs/CSOs
Private sector

The GEF Institutional Framework (GEF, 2017)

Data from the GEF Project Database• Analyzed the following three items using the information available from the GEF project database and project reports:
1) Trends in the focal areas of GEF forest-related projects;
2) The implementing and executing agencies in GEF forest-related multi-focalarea projects;
3) The co-funders and the amount of co-funding for GEF forest-related multifocal area projects.
• Used forest-related project data from the GEF project database (as of July 11, 2016). Using the term “Forest” to search the data, weextracted 149 approved national forest-related projects and 29 approved global and regional forest-related projects.
• organized the data in relation to the number of projects as well as the focal area, implementing agencies, executing agencies, andco-funding for each project. We also classified the project information according to the replenishment period, GEF-1 to GEF-6(e.g., projects starting between July 1994 and June 1998 were categorized as GEF-1).

3. Results of Analyses

Number of projects

50aBiodiversity

40

Multi focal area
Land degradation30

Climate change2) Approved GEF forestrelated global and regionalprojects

 The number of forest-related global
and regional projects is limited.
0 The focal areas of forest-related global
GEF1 (1994- GEF2 (1998- GEF3 (2002- GEF4 (2006- GEF5 (2010- GEF6 (20141998)
2002)
2006)
2010)
2014)
2018)
and regional projects are diverse.
Focal area Of the forest-related multi-focal area
global and regional projects, 85.7%baddress multiple issues, including
climate change and biodiversity.
 UNEP and the World Bank are theprimary implementing agencies offorest-related multi-focal area global
and regional projects.
 The range of executing agencies offorest-related multi-focal area global
and regional projects is diverse; itc
includes national governments of hostcountries, as well as research institutes,
IGOs, and NGOs.
 The share of co-funding for each
forest-related multi-focal area global
and regional project is high.
 Co-funders include multilateral aid
The number of GEF forest-related national projects, and forest-related multi- agencies (e.g., UNEP, the World Bank, The number GEF forest-related global and regional projects, and forest-related
focal area national projects. a) the composition of focal areas of GEF forest- UNDP, and FAO), bilateral aid
multi-focal areal global and regional projects. a) the composition of focal areas
related national projects; b) the composition of implementing agencies ofagencies (e.g., Germany, and the EU), of GEF forest-related global and regional projects; b) the composition of
GEF forest-related multi-focal area national projects; c) the composition of
agencies of GEF forest-related multi-focal area global andgovernments in developing countries, implementing
executing agencies of GEF forest-related multi-focal area national projects.
regional projects; c) the composition of executing agencies of GEF forest-related
NGOs (e.g., WWF and WCS), and the multi-focal area global and regional projects.
private sector (e.g., MacArthur
Average amount of GEF Average amount of coFoundation).
Average amount of GEF Average amount of co- Average share of coAverage share of cofunding for each project funding for each project
20
1016
14
12

Number of projects

 The number of forest-related nationalprojects is increasing.
 Until GEF-3 (2006), biodiversity was themain focal area of forest-related national
projects. Currently, however, the major
focal areas of these projects are multifocal areas, climate change, andbiodiversity, and the number of forestrelated multi-focal area national projects
is increasing.
 Of the forest-related multi-focal area
national projects, 90.8% address multiple
issues, including climate change andbiodiversity
 Currently, the main agencies
implementing forest-related multi-focal
area national projects are UNDP andFAO.
 Most of the agencies executing theforest-related multi-focal area national
projects are the national governments ofhost countries.
 The share of co-funding for each forestrelated multi-focal area national projectis increasing.
 Co-funders include multilateral aid
agencies (e.g., UNDP, FAO, the World
Bank, ADB, and UNEP), bilateral aid
agencies (e.g., Germany, the EU, and theUS), governments in developing
countries (e.g., ministries addressing theenvironment and forestry), NGOs (e.g.,
WWF and WCS), and the private sector(e.g., the banking and financial sector,
nut producers, and coffee institutes).

60

10

UNDP

WB

UNEP

FAO

ADB

IADB

IFAD

IUCN

86420

GEF1 (1994- GEF2 (1998- GEF3 (2002- GEF4 (2006- GEF5 (2010- GEF6 (20141998)
2002)
2006)
2010)
2014)
2018)
Implementing agency

454035

Num ber of projects

1) Approved GEF forest-related
national projects

Nationalgovernment

30
25

NGO

20
15
1050

GEF1 (1994- GEF2 (1998- GEF3 (2002- GEF4 (2006- GEF5 (2010- GEF6 (20141998)
2002)
2006)
2010)
2014)
2018)
Executing agency

GEF1(1994–1998)
GEF2(1998–2002)
GEF3(2002–2006)
GEF4(2006–2010)
GEF5(2010–2014)
GEF6(2014–2018)

funding for each project(USD)

funding for each project(USD)

funding for each project------

3,322,673

6,756,400

67.7%

3,668,226

27,780,306

72.9%

6,511,468

32,671,945

79.7%

7,530,084

44,789,038

81.4%

Co-financing of the GEF forest-related multi-focal area national projects

GEF1(1994–1998)
GEF2(1998–2002)
GEF3(2002–2006)
GEF4(2006–2010)
GEF5(2010–2014)
GEF6(2014–2018)

funding for each project

(USD)

(USD)

---------

4,125,593

11,192,389

72.4%

3,941,250

4,118,700

53.4%

5,342,465

68,300,000

92.7%

Co-financing of the GEF forest-related multi-focal area global and regional projects

4. Conclusions
The analysis of GEF forest-related projects provides a justification for implementing financial mobilization and distribution to enhance the REDD+ co-benefits such as adaptation andbiodiversity. The UNDP, the World Bank, FAO, UNEP, and the national governments of developing countries are the key agencies that support REDD+ activities that enhance these cobenefits. Furthermore, GEF, and project co-funders, which include multilateral aid agencies, such as UNDP, FAO, the World Bank, ADB, and UNEP, bilateral aid agencies, such as Germany,
the EU, and the US, NGOs, and the private sector, play a key role in enhancing REDD+ co-benefits. Since contributions from private funds are limited in the GEF, it is important to design ascheme to mobilize more private financing for REDD+.

This research was supported by grants from the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (S-14) of the Ministry of the Environment in Japan.