Scoping survey
Draft Note 
Synergies between international forest related
financing initiatives
Preliminary findings for informal discussion and feedback
8 September 2012
André Brasser – Beagle Sustainable Solutions andre@beaglesolutions.nl
This draft note summarizes preliminary findings of a scoping survey that is currently
implemented with the aim to identify possibilities for synergies to enhance the financing for
sustainable forest management (“SFM financing” in this document) from the international level.
The survey aims to feed the discussions on forest financing in the Facilitative Process and the
Ad Hoc Expert Group on Forest Financing that prepare the ground to come to a meaningful
UNFF decision on forest financing in 2013.
This draft note is specifically prepared to seize the opportunity at some upcoming events
including the Organization Led Initiative of September 2012, to share the initial results of the
survey and invite colleagues to provide their expert feedback to the author for consideration in
the final report.
Please send your observations before 6th of October to André Brasser:
andre@beaglesolutions.nl
Context, purpose and approach of the study
In the various international fora (like CBD, UNCCD, UNFCCC, UNFF), dealing with forests, the need to
mobilize new and additional financing from all sources has been identified as a key priority to be
addressed at the international level. These international dialogues revealed, a range of gaps, limitations
and opportunities in the current internationally forest finance architecture. Not only budgetary,
geographically and thematically, but also in terms of coherence and coordination. This survey carried out
by Tropenbos International has been commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs,
Agriculture and Innovation. It maps the most relevant international forest related financing initiatives, and
compares and analyzes how forest related financing is discussed and operationalized under the different
intergovernmental fora. It specifically aims to gain a better understanding of the processes that drive
improved coherence, coordination and collaboration and to provide recommendations for policy makers.
The survey focused on multilateral initiatives deciding on public funding. It generally inventorized the
activities, approaches and underlying assumptions and principles in the major intergovernmental fora,
and consequently mapped the differences and similarities in strategies and actions and identify
opportunities for improved alignment. For the most relevant initiatives the degree of alignment between
the funding streams have been assessed as well as the underlying drivers for alignment.
For the survey an internet search has been carried out on the structure of selected international fora; in
addition 11 experts in international forest related finance have been interviewed.
Following are some preliminary findings to date that the author has distilled from the survey.
1
Preliminary Findings
1. A fragmented (forest)landscape
Forest finance is a discussion topic in 6 UN Conventions (with 3 UN agencies involved in
implementation), 9 Multilateral Banks and 10 multinational regional initiatives, generating 41 multilateral
forest finance related funding streams.
The discussion on the Green Climate Fund under UNFCCC is generally regarded as the most relevant in
volume and possible impact on forest finance or on promoting SFM, followed by the Global
Environmental Facility. Apart from UNFF that generates no funding stream itself, in the other bodies and
conventions forest finance usually is one out of many issues and an element of a broader discussion on
e.g. biodiversity, climate, land degradation or other. Each of these fora have their own mandate,
objectives and procedures. This has resulted in a fragmented landscape with initiatives operating from
different implementation realities. In addition to these, bilateral aid, private sector- and NGO programmes
add other dozens of initiatives, diverging from the Norwegian Climate and Forest Initiative, the Business
and Biodiversity Program of Forest Trends to the Californian, Australian or European Emission Trading
Schemes. As identified in the 2012 study on forest financing by the Advisory Group on Finance of the
Collaborative Partnership on Forests, the funding available from all these sources “fall far short of even
the most conservative estimated needs”. Improved synergy between existing sources therefore seems to
be an interesting option to create higher effectiveness and impact with the same budget.
2.
Similarities on content, differences in process
A general conclusion from this survey is that from a process point of view funding initiatives have many
differences. They work with different political mandates. Donor interests often decide on thematic or
geographical focus tending to prioritize high forested countries above low forest countries and
biodiversity or climate themes above sustainable forest management. Forest funding initiatives work from
different governmental sectors with specific counterparts in receiving countries. This creates separate
implementation chains generating competition between implementing organization and obstructing a
coordinated approach between international donors. In implementing countries, this is further frustrated
by different implementation formats and procedures of funding streams.
From a content point of view there are many similarities in vision and approach. Though specific funding
streams highlight specific elements, reverse of forest loss, unlocking the full potential of forest products
and services, capacity building and good governance are shared ambitions. There is a generally shared
vision on the role of public versus private funding. As for implementation the initiatives have comparable
concerns on risk mitigation, safeguards and impact. Discussions on effectiveness and transparency also
show similarities e.g. on how to apply monitoring and evaluation protocols.
3.
Coordination OK, being coordinated no!
The survey identified a general understanding on the need for improved coherence, coordination and
collaboration in forest financing. Although the UNFF is being regarded as the forum where global forest
affairs are being discussed, a coordinating role on forest finance is for many not obvious. Many initiatives
say to promote improved coherence and are willing to take on a role in coordination, but are reserved of
being coordinated.
The main driver behind, is the focus on delivering on self-defined objectives through self-defined
approaches. Though generally mentioned as an issue, creating improved coherence with other SFM
financing streams does not seem to be a priority.1
4.
Why coordination is not happening
The different priorities, reporting systems, types of projects and funding cycles of the identified SFM
financing streams in this study, make it very difficult to standardize projects/programmes in a way that
makes coordination functional. Real coordination implies a certain collaboration which might well require
financing initiatives to adapt programmes to fit in with others. The change might be such that an
amendment is needed to the original funding proposal.
1
This is one of the findings of a study on how coherence has been evaluated in different fields (including
SFM related financing). The study concludes that evaluation of coherence is still in an early and
nascent stage, especially when compared with ‘main stream’ development evaluation in relation to other
criteria such as effectiveness, efficiency and impact. The authors argue that this is not surprising
considering the limited amount of investment that has been made to evaluate coherence in international
cooperation Keijzer. N en Oppewal J. (2012) Learn to walk before you run, review of
methodological approaches for evaluating coherence in the field of international cooperation.
European Center for Development Policy management, ECDPM
2
Lack of coordination is not unique to International forest finance. It prevails also in many other themes
where players with different agendas meet on an overlapping issue. Coordination is becoming
increasingly difficult when diversity of issues, number of stakeholders and thus complexity increases.
This creates a vicious circle: more resource are needed to improve coherence, making it more costly and
less attractive to give it the priority required.
5.
The benefits of improved coordination
In management literature (Mooney and Reelay) coordination is being described as the “orderly
arrangement of group efforts to provide unity of action in the pursuit of common goals.” It gives proper
direction to organisations and enhances proper use of resources. Applied to this survey on SFM
financing, the fragmented forest finance landscape does not seem to support coordination. Nevertheless
various cases of coordination (at different levels and in different forms) in international forest financing
have been identified in the survey. These coordination cases can be grouped in two types of
coordination benefits generated:
5.1. Sharing of knowledge and capacity, agreeing on role division and joint policy making can be the
outcome if employees from different organizations pragmatically start to coordinate their operations.
This has happened in diverse cases as e.g. the REDD partnership within UNFCCC or the
FAO/ITTO attempt to align work programmes, the CBD/UNFCCC secretariat cooperation. The
development of joint working plans as e.g. between UNFF and UNCCD needed a formal approval of
the Conference of the Parties. The development of the Lifeweb internet platform that matches
supply and demand of projects is another form of “soft” coordination. The connectedness of
participants through social media, discussion platforms and other internet communication
opportunities in general increasingly facilitates these types of informal bottom up cooperation.
5.2. Streamlining of procedures and alignment of instruments as the result of a more robust type of
cooperation at the governmental level.
Where national governments are committed to perform, coordination at organizational level can
develop. In e.g. Ghana ,Vietnam and Mexico this has resulted in different types of national platforms
that coordinate the application and implementation of international donor funding. Establishment of
National Trust funds as in e.g. Brazil, Guyana and Indonesia provides another example of national
level coordination of forest finance. At the international level the joint FLEGT/REDD cooperation as
a result of the Chatham House talks are an example of this as is the UNREDD/FIP/FCPF
coordination that has been achieved due to pressure from various donors to change policies.
6.
Lessons learned: preconditions for coordination
Theory says that for coordination to be successful, four classical principles of coordination - as defined
by Mary Parket Follet - have to be in place2: 1. Early stage: coordinate already in the planning phase
2.Continuity: not only in the planning stage but in organizing, directing, controlling, 3. Direct contact:
between managers and subordinates; 4.Reciprocal relations: decision of one affects all others in the
organization. These theory applied to the coordination cases in SFM financing identified in this survey,
lead to a list of preconditions that have to be met to improve coherence, coordination and collaboration:
1. High priority.
There need to be clear self interest for coordination: non coordination has to have serious
consequences so that organizations have a genuine wish to coordinate among themselves on a
voluntary basis. Outside the forest finance sector this is e.g. demonstrated in the international
discussion on standard setting for Intellectual Property.
2. General agreement
There must be general agreement on the overall problem assessment, strategy and approach.
Bring to light policies that are at odds with each other. When such contradicting policies actually
share the same overall objective, it is clear that the incoherence needs to be resolved. If the
2
Mary Parker Follett (1868-1933) is a classical management theorist that stressed the importance of
coordination in labour situation of different individuals doing portions of the task. She gave four main
Principles of co-ordination the so called Follett's Principles of Coordination. These four principles must
be followed to make co-ordination effective. Atkinson M. (2007) Better at working together,
interagency collaboration, part 1 Literature review.
3
contradicting policies have very different objectives, it is important to properly evaluate their
respective impacts as a basis for trade-off decision at the political level.
3. Limited scope
The scope must be manageable and the number of issues limited to ensure that clear outcomes
can be reached.
4. Role division
Organizations must understand and recognize each other’s mandate and position. Work
programmes should be put next to each other to decide on the who does what, when. This was
e.g the case UNREDD/FIP/FCPF example where the issue was limited to REDD readiness and
organizations brought in different specific expertise on crediting (World bank) and field
assistance (FAO).
5. Resources
Political agreement on coordination improvement needs to be translated in a priority issue in
work programme, clear objectives and sufficient resources made available to enable
implementation. Some kind of a coordinating body needs to be in place.
6. Attitude
People involved need to be skilled in negotiating and networking, taking full advantage of the
communication facilities provided by the internet to feed in knowledge and expertise from a
broader constituency and build up wider support.
7
Avenues for improved coherence, coordination and collaboration
Not all preconditions necessarily need to be in place to improve coherence and coordination of
international forest financing fora. There are different avenues. In general four models can be
distinguished with respectively a focus on International coordination, coordination on the country level,
brokering and spontaneous coordination through an “invisible hand”.
1. International coordination
International funding streams work with very similar procedures and create a logical role division in
types of funding and in regions. This provides an easy to understand and logical palette of
international funding streams for receiving countries.
Focus on interna onal alignment
Interna onal
Agree on interna onal role division
Streamline procedures
One format for all
Na onal
2. National alignment
In this model there is no attempt to improve coordination of international forest financing initiatives.
The focus is on the creation of a national platform in receiving countries. Depending on their needs
and specifics, countries develop their own arrangement to “pick and choose” the international
funding streams that are most appropriate. In countries as e.g. Brazil such national leadership is
already the case
4
Focus on na onal alignment
Interna onal
No interna onal coordinaton
Agree on role division at countries level
Countries pick and choose what fits
Na onal
February 16th 202
3. Brokering
Both on the national and on the international level no coordination between different
organizations is required. Intermediate organizations provide matching services to national
governments to link up with the most appropriate international funding mechanism. On the other
hand these intermediates support international funding streams to match with the country that fits
best to their priorities and requirements.
Brokering
Interna onal
Match make
Na onal
4.The invisible hand
In this “let hundred flowers blossom” model there is no coordination at all. The international
forest finance arena is regarded a market place. A continuous stream of international funding
streams is introduced on the market. The most successful operating funding streams will remain
and the less successful disappear.
The invisible hand
Interna onal
Let 100 flowers blossom
Survival of the fi est mechanism
No coordina on at all
Na onal
5
Discussion, (draft) conclusions and recommendations
The invisible hand model probably resembles the current situation the most. The benefit of this scenario
is the freedom of organizations to launch funding streams they think work the best for their purpose. It
creates an almost open source type of learning space where ideally the quality of funding streams
gradually improves due through an iterative process of learning by doing. From this perspective the
forest finance landscape is not “fragmented” but “diverse”, with initiatives complementing each other.
The downside of this scenario however are the inefficiencies, doubling of activities and gaps as observed
in the scoping survey. In combination with the far too limited budget available for forest finance this
doesn’t seem to be the preferred scenario.
Taking the above listed preconditions required for coordination into consideration it seems that in the
current situation, a focus on national level coordination provides most benefits. Priority, agreement,
scope and role division, seem to be easier to establish at the national than at the international level.
There is also a legal rational: countries are responsible for their own government. The role of
international SFM financing should be to strengthen national forest financing processes.
These national processes show great differences. Countries with limited resources and poorer
developed forest sectors face the danger to be too exclusively focused on attracting funding streams as
such. National forest policies then change with changing “vogues” in international SFM financing,
provoking a donor driven approach, frustrating structural improvements of the national forest sector.
Countries with a better organized forest sector can take a more independent position in attracting
international SFM funding and decide on which funds are appropriate and which aren’t. Intermediates
with a brokering function can help to develop towards such a model as identified in the broker model.
The avenues identified do not exclude each other. In the process towards country self reliance, the
current “Invisible hand” model might well be complementary to a national alignment model. The strength
of the “invisible hand” to deliver a variety of different international funding streams, could be of help at the
national level to have enough variety to pick and choose from and link up with the many different realities
and public and private investment needs in countries. But the observed inefficiencies in international
SFM financing should be reduced to create a better functioning model.
International forest financing policy makers should be aware of these different avenues and try to find the
right balance between national and international alignment strategies. At the international level there is
not much added value in attempts to create “an orderly arrangement of group efforts to provide unity of
action in the pursuit of common goals“ as coordination can be defined. The focus should and can be on
streamlining procedures, complementary work planning and other forms of coordination on the technical
level, where needed secured by governmental approvals. The increased connectedness through internet
and associated opportunities for coalition building makes this “soft coordination” almost a natural process
that has taken off already.
6