Tag: funding
Policy learning in REDD+ Donor Countries: Norway, Germany and the UK
Almost 15 years have passed since the idea of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries) was adopted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and local, regional, national, bilateral, transnational and international policies, programmes and projects emerged under the banner of REDD+ (Corbera and Schroeder, 2011, Agrawal et al., 2011, Lederer, 2012). In recognition of the role forests play in climate change, major donor countries around the world, in particular the top five of Norway, Germany, the US, Japan and the UK, have increased their spending and institutionalization efforts on REDD+ (Dooley and Parker 2015). In 2015, the Paris Agreement sent a strong signal in favor of REDD+ in dedicating one whole article (Article 5) to the role of forests in addressing climate change (Korhonen-Kurki et al. 2019).
Mainstreaming Ecosystem Services from Indonesia’s Remaining Forests
With 120 million hectares of forest area, Indonesia has the third largest area of biodiversity-rich tropical forests in the world, and it is well-known as a mega-biodiversity country. However, in 2020, only 70 percent of this area remained forested. The government has consistently undertaken corrective actions to achieve Sustainable Development Goal targets, with a special focus on Goals #1 (no poverty), #2 (zero hunger), #3 (good health and well-being), #7 (affordable and clean energy), #8 (decent work and economic growth), #13 (climate action), and #15 (life on land). Good environmental governance is a core concept in Indonesia’s forest management and includes mainstreaming ecosystem services as a framework for sustainable forest management. This paper analyzes efforts to mainstream Indonesia’s remaining forest ecosystem services. We review the state of Indonesia’s forests in relation to deforestation dynamics, climate change, and ecosystem service potential and options and provide recommendations for mainstreaming strategies regarding aspects of policy, planning, and implementation, as well as the process of the articulation of ecosystem services and their alternative funding.
Mainstreaming revisited: Experiences from eight countries on the role of National Biodiversity Strategies in practice
Global biodiversity targets have not been met due to weak implementation at the national level. National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) are central for mainstreaming biodiversity by translating global ambition into national policies. This study analyzes the practical role of global and national biodiversity agendas. Interviews from France, Germany, Honduras, Indonesia, Mexico, Peru, Rwanda, and South Africa show that global targets and NBSAPs have raised awareness, mobilized initiatives, mobilized support for implementation, and fostered accountability. Nevertheless, conflicting interests, weak financial support, and poorly integrated institutional and regulatory structures remain challenges to implementation. Levers for harnessing the role of future NBSAPs to achieve the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework are: improving communication; defining concrete measures and clear responsibilities; fostering cross-sectoral commitment; enshrining targets into national laws; ensuring adequate public funding; reforming harmful subsidies; ensuring coordination among sectors and levels of governance; and strengthening accountability frameworks.
Implementing forest landscape restoration in Latin America: Stakeholder perceptions on legal frameworks
Legal frameworks could play a key role in enabling countries to meet their ambitious forest landscape restoration (FLR) targets. In this paper, we examine the perceptions of different types of stakeholders from 17 Latin American countries on aspects of forestry and environmental legal frameworks that enable or hamper FLR interventions at the national level. We first reviewed general, environmental, social and financial aspects of existing legal frameworks in order to provide the basis for a mixed qualitative – quantitative analysis of perceptions. The analysis combines information from semi-structured interviews and a Likert-scale questionnaire given to relevant stakeholders involved in implementing FLR interventions in the countries assessed. We interviewed stakeholders from government, academia, national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and local private and non-governmental organizations. We found that most legal frameworks are in the jurisdiction of either the agriculture or the environmental sectors. As a whole, we did not find evidence of the kind of legal frameworks articulation needed to enable the coordinated deployment of various forest FLR interventions across landscapes. We found efforts in Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Mexico to improve cross-sectorial communication and legislation, and to develop innovative financial mechanisms to support FLR interventions. In general, interviewees had a positive perception of the content of legal frameworks in their countries; however, they highlighted weak implementation capacities, insufficient funding, sectorial and social conflicts, and lack of transparency as key impediments for policy implementation. Academic and NGO stakeholders perceived the content of the legal frameworks more negatively, whereas government officials were more positive. Different perceptions and the prevalence of cross-sectorial conflicts highlight the importance of efforts aimed at improving governance mechanisms and policy integration in the region. In addition, a targeted effort is needed to develop long-term, funding options that are public, private or mixed, and to disseminate information on the importance of FLR interventions for national economies and human well-being. We consider our results as a preliminary overview of the legal environment for FLR implementation in Latin America.
Policy learning in REDD+ Donor Countries
Almost 15 years have passed since the idea of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries) was adopted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and local, regional, national, bilateral, transnational and international policies, programmes and projects emerged under the banner of REDD+ (Corbera and Schroeder, 2011, Agrawal et al., 2011, Lederer, 2012). In recognition of the role forests play in climate change, major donor countries around the world, in particular the top five of Norway, Germany, the US, Japan and the UK, have increased their spending and institutionalization efforts on REDD+ (Dooley and Parker 2015). In 2015, the Paris Agreement sent a strong signal in favor of REDD+ in dedicating one whole article (Article 5) to the role of forests in addressing climate change (Korhonen-Kurki et al. 2019).
Tracking public investments in trees on farms in Rwanda – Analysis of Natonal Budget Allocatons (2015–2019)
Trees on Farms (TonF) or agroforestry is central to achieving the objectives of the UN Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. TonF are pivotal in mitigation actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change as they protect ecosystems by sequestering carbon. In 2011 the Government of Rwanda pledged to restore 2 million hectares of deforested and degraded land, as part of the Bonn Challenge. Increasing TonF is one of the strategies that can contribute to meeting this pledge. Under this framework the Government of Rwanda has recognized the importance of Trees on Farms and has set up a task force to coordinate the implementation of agroforestry activities.
The objective of this study was to track Rwanda’s public expenditure flows towards TonF priorities; their share in the national budget and how much is spent. Being able to reconcile expenditures on specific activities such as TonF requires reliable mechanisms that can be used to monitor and track funds allocated and spent on initiatives such as the climate ambition of nations that have pledged to restore landscapes and conserve biodiversity during the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Agroforestry tends to cut across the mandates of the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment and their agencies. As the two ministries have different mandates, there is not much coordination of agroforestry-related activities. This makes it difficult to track and monitor the actual expenditures.
The study estimated that over USD 358 million was allocated to TonF from national budgets between 2015 and 2019. More specifically, the national budget allocations to Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (SMNR) and TonF were approximately 6.8 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively, over the five-year period. Yet their parent sectors – agriculture and environment (forestry) – contributed significant amounts to Rwanda’s gross domestic product (GDP), i.e. 19.3 percent for agriculture, of which only 1.6 percent was reinvested in agriculture; and 5.5 percent for environment (forestry), of which only 0.5 percent was reinvested in environmental management. An estimated USD 358 million was allocated to TonF from national budgets in this period. Frequent institutional mergers and a lack of coordinating mechanism also had a restrictive impact on funding for land restoration, the study found.
Two key recommendations were made by the study. First, budget allocations need to be made more visible in the national expenditure system by labeling them as ‘planting trees on farm’ or ‘agroforestry.’ This should then enable a critical assessment of whether the allocated funds are sufficient to contribute to broader national targets, while consideration should be given to how donor budgets can be best used to supplement national activities. Second, the authors proposed the allocations for SMNR and TonF in the national budget to be increased to at least 10 percent and 5 percent, from the current levels of 6.8 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively. They also called for an improved visibility of TonF activities and funding in the budgets of relevant institutions and at district level, by clearly labelling them as ‘planting trees on farm’ or ‘agroforestry’ for better monitorable allocations to TonF and their contribution to the realisation of the country pledge to climate change as part of the Bonn Challenge.
Trees on Farms (TonF) or agroforestry is central to achieving the objectives of the UN Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. TonF are pivotal in mitigation actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change as they protect ecosystems by sequestering carbon. In 2011 the Government of Rwanda pledged to restore 2 million hectares of deforested and degraded land, as part of the Bonn Challenge. Increasing TonF is one of the strategies that can contribute to meeting this pledge. Under this framework the Government of Rwanda has recognized the importance of Trees on Farms and has set up a task force to coordinate the implementation of agroforestry activities.
The objective of this study was to track Rwanda’s public expenditure flows towards TonF priorities; their share in the national budget and how much is spent. Being able to reconcile expenditures on specific activities such as TonF requires reliable mechanisms that can be used to monitor and track funds allocated and spent on initiatives such as the climate ambition of nations that have pledged to restore landscapes and conserve biodiversity during the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Agroforestry tends to cut across the mandates of the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment and their agencies. As the two ministries have different mandates, there is not much coordination of agroforestry-related activities. This makes it difficult to track and monitor the actual expenditures.
The study estimated that over USD 358 million was allocated to TonF from national budgets between 2015 and 2019. More specifically, the national budget allocations to Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (SMNR) and TonF were approximately 6.8 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively, over the five-year period. Yet their parent sectors – agriculture and environment (forestry) – contributed significant amounts to Rwanda’s gross domestic product (GDP), i.e. 19.3 percent for agriculture, of which only 1.6 percent was reinvested in agriculture; and 5.5 percent for environment (forestry), of which only 0.5 percent was reinvested in environmental management. An estimated USD 358 million was allocated to TonF from national budgets in this period. Frequent institutional mergers and a lack of coordinating mechanism also had a restrictive impact on funding for land restoration, the study found.
Two key recommendations were made by the study. First, budget allocations need to be made more visible in the national expenditure system by labeling them as ‘planting trees on farm’ or ‘agroforestry.’ This should then enable a critical assessment of whether the allocated funds are sufficient to contribute to broader national targets, while consideration should be given to how donor budgets can be best used to supplement national activities. Second, the authors proposed the allocations for SMNR and TonF in the national budget to be increased to at least 10 percent and 5 percent, from the current levels of 6.8 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively. They also called for an improved visibility of TonF activities and funding in the budgets of relevant institutions and at district level, by clearly labelling them as ‘planting trees on farm’ or ‘agroforestry’ for better monitorable allocations to TonF and their contribution to the realisation of the country pledge to climate change as part of the Bonn Challenge.
Trees on Farms (TonF) or agroforestry is central to achieving the objectives of the UN Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. TonF are pivotal in mitigation actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change as they protect ecosystems by sequestering carbon. In 2011 the Government of Rwanda pledged to restore 2 million hectares of deforested and degraded land, as part of the Bonn Challenge. Increasing TonF is one of the strategies that can contribute to meeting this pledge. Under this framework the Government of Rwanda has recognized the importance of Trees on Farms and has set up a task force to coordinate the implementation of agroforestry activities.
The objective of this study was to track Rwanda’s public expenditure flows towards TonF priorities; their share in the national budget and how much is spent. Being able to reconcile expenditures on specific activities such as TonF requires reliable mechanisms that can be used to monitor and track funds allocated and spent on initiatives such as the climate ambition of nations that have pledged to restore landscapes and conserve biodiversity during the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Agroforestry tends to cut across the mandates of the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment and their agencies. As the two ministries have different mandates, there is not much coordination of agroforestry-related activities. This makes it difficult to track and monitor the actual expenditures.
The study estimated that over USD 358 million was allocated to TonF from national budgets between 2015 and 2019. More specifically, the national budget allocations to Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (SMNR) and TonF were approximately 6.8 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively, over the five-year period. Yet their parent sectors – agriculture and environment (forestry) – contributed significant amounts to Rwanda’s gross domestic product (GDP), i.e. 19.3 percent for agriculture, of which only 1.6 percent was reinvested in agriculture; and 5.5 percent for environment (forestry), of which only 0.5 percent was reinvested in environmental management. An estimated USD 358 million was allocated to TonF from national budgets in this period. Frequent institutional mergers and a lack of coordinating mechanism also had a restrictive impact on funding for land restoration, the study found.
Two key recommendations were made by the study. First, budget allocations need to be made more visible in the national expenditure system by labeling them as ‘planting trees on farm’ or ‘agroforestry.’ This should then enable a critical assessment of whether the allocated funds are sufficient to contribute to broader national targets, while consideration should be given to how donor budgets can be best used to supplement national activities. Second, the authors proposed the allocations for SMNR and TonF in the national budget to be increased to at least 10 percent and 5 percent, from the current levels of 6.8 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively. They also called for an improved visibility of TonF activities and funding in the budgets of relevant institutions and at district level, by clearly labelling them as ‘planting trees on farm’ or ‘agroforestry’ for better monitorable allocations to TonF and their contribution to the realisation of the country pledge to climate change as part of the Bonn Challenge.
Trees on Farms (TonF) or agroforestry is central to achieving the objectives of the UN Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. TonF are pivotal in mitigation actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that lead to climate change as they protect ecosystems by sequestering carbon. In 2011 the Government of Rwanda pledged to restore 2 million hectares of deforested and degraded land, as part of the Bonn Challenge. Increasing TonF is one of the strategies that can contribute to meeting this pledge. Under this framework the Government of Rwanda has recognized the importance of Trees on Farms and has set up a task force to coordinate the implementation of agroforestry activities.
The objective of this study was to track Rwanda’s public expenditure flows towards TonF priorities; their share in the national budget and how much is spent. Being able to reconcile expenditures on specific activities such as TonF requires reliable mechanisms that can be used to monitor and track funds allocated and spent on initiatives such as the climate ambition of nations that have pledged to restore landscapes and conserve biodiversity during the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Agroforestry tends to cut across the mandates of the Ministries of Agriculture and Environment and their agencies. As the two ministries have different mandates, there is not much coordination of agroforestry-related activities. This makes it difficult to track and monitor the actual expenditures.
The study estimated that over USD 358 million was allocated to TonF from national budgets between 2015 and 2019. More specifically, the national budget allocations to Sustainable Management of Natural Resources (SMNR) and TonF were approximately 6.8 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively, over the five-year period. Yet their parent sectors – agriculture and environment (forestry) – contributed significant amounts to Rwanda’s gross domestic product (GDP), i.e. 19.3 percent for agriculture, of which only 1.6 percent was reinvested in agriculture; and 5.5 percent for environment (forestry), of which only 0.5 percent was reinvested in environmental management. An estimated USD 358 million was allocated to TonF from national budgets in this period. Frequent institutional mergers and a lack of coordinating mechanism also had a restrictive impact on funding for land restoration, the study found.
Two key recommendations were made by the study. First, budget allocations need to be made more visible in the national expenditure system by labeling them as ‘planting trees on farm’ or ‘agroforestry.’ This should then enable a critical assessment of whether the allocated funds are sufficient to contribute to broader national targets, while consideration should be given to how donor budgets can be best used to supplement national activities. Second, the authors proposed the allocations for SMNR and TonF in the national budget to be increased to at least 10 percent and 5 percent, from the current levels of 6.8 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively. They also called for an improved visibility of TonF activities and funding in the budgets of relevant institutions and at district level, by clearly labelling them as ‘planting trees on farm’ or ‘agroforestry’ for better monitorable allocations to TonF and their contribution to the realisation of the country pledge to climate change as part of the Bonn Challenge.