Over the past decade, a growing body of evidence has emerged demonstrating that tackling climate change is a prerequisite for sustaining economic development, and that the costs of inaction greatly exceed the costs of action. Nonetheless, funding from the international community to help developing countries pay for action to address climate change remains a contentious topic in the run-up to the twenty-first Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
With slow economic growth in most developed countries, official development assistance—including climate finance—faces increased scrutiny, even when it remains a fraction of one percent of developed country government budgets. Yet most developing countries, particularly the least-developed among them, can ill afford the capital and operating expenses of climate change mitigation and adaptation actions.
Because the damages wrought by climate change do not respect national boundaries, it is in the self-interest of the international community to promote and support the leadership of developing countries in addressing the problem—especially where the cost of mitigation is substantially lower than in “donor” countries and where co-benefits are important. In this timely report, Donna Lee and Till Pistorius combine a case study approach with review of a growing body of relevant literature to identify the impacts in developing countries of nearly $8.7 billion dollars in committed international funding to support reducing emissions from deforestation, reducing emissions from forest degradation, conservation of forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+).
A number of approaches emerged from their analysis that can be proposed as “best practices” for both donors and recipients of REDD+ finance:
? Integrate REDD+ into mainstream economic planning so that REDD+ finance leverages development finance, rather than funding isolated efforts that are likely to be undermined by much larger, traditional investments in agricultural expansion and/or infrastructure;
? Align REDD+ with relevant private sector initiatives and facilitate the application of REDD+ finance to foster private sector investment;
? Improve coordination of both foreign and domestic REDD+ finance; and, crucially
? Ensure that finance is adequate and predictable in both amount and duration for REDD+ implementation and results-based payments to shift “business-as-usual” practices.
How much developed countries should contribute to fund climate change action in developing countries lies beyond the scope of this report, but the analysis it contains suggests that during the past decade REDD+ finance has helped to lay the groundwork for REDD+ action globally. And in a few important places, REDD+ finance has contributed to what could be, and indeed must be, a transformation away from seeing deforestation as an inevitable cost of short-term economic gain toward seeing forests as a source of goods and services upon which sustainable economic growth depends. Realizing that potential is likely to require growing investments from the international community over the next decade, along with a shift in allocation of those resources from improving the enabling environment (i.e. “readiness”) toward implementation and results-based payments.
Blog » Impacts of International REDD Finance
Impacts of International REDD Finance
Over the past decade, a growing body of evidence has emerged demonstrating that tackling climate change is a prerequisite for sustaining economic development, and that the costs of inaction greatly exceed the costs of action. Nonetheless, funding from the international community to help developing countries pay for action to address climate change remains a contentious topic in the run-up to the twenty-first Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
With slow economic growth in most developed countries, official development assistance—including climate finance—faces increased scrutiny, even when it remains a fraction of one percent of developed country government budgets. Yet most developing countries, particularly the least-developed among them, can ill afford the capital and operating expenses of climate change mitigation and adaptation actions.
Because the damages wrought by climate change do not respect national boundaries, it is in the self-interest of the international community to promote and support the leadership of developing countries in addressing the problem—especially where the cost of mitigation is substantially lower than in “donor” countries and where co-benefits are important. In this timely report, Donna Lee and Till Pistorius combine a case study approach with review of a growing body of relevant literature to identify the impacts in developing countries of nearly $8.7 billion dollars in committed international funding to support reducing emissions from deforestation, reducing emissions from forest degradation, conservation of forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+).
A number of approaches emerged from their analysis that can be proposed as “best practices” for both donors and recipients of REDD+ finance:
? Integrate REDD+ into mainstream economic planning so that REDD+ finance leverages development finance, rather than funding isolated efforts that are likely to be undermined by much larger, traditional investments in agricultural expansion and/or infrastructure;
? Align REDD+ with relevant private sector initiatives and facilitate the application of REDD+ finance to foster private sector investment;
? Improve coordination of both foreign and domestic REDD+ finance; and, crucially
? Ensure that finance is adequate and predictable in both amount and duration for REDD+ implementation and results-based payments to shift “business-as-usual” practices.
How much developed countries should contribute to fund climate change action in developing countries lies beyond the scope of this report, but the analysis it contains suggests that during the past decade REDD+ finance has helped to lay the groundwork for REDD+ action globally. And in a few important places, REDD+ finance has contributed to what could be, and indeed must be, a transformation away from seeing deforestation as an inevitable cost of short-term economic gain toward seeing forests as a source of goods and services upon which sustainable economic growth depends. Realizing that potential is likely to require growing investments from the international community over the next decade, along with a shift in allocation of those resources from improving the enabling environment (i.e. “readiness”) toward implementation and results-based payments.