Key Messages

There was unshakeable agreement among the countries that forests, especially tropical forests, remain fundamental not only for achieving the NDC mitigation targets but also for broader climate goals beyond the Paris Agreement.

While countries may be at different levels of progress and adopt different approaches in their national REDD+ programs, the UNFCCC Warsaw Framework for REDD+ provided a common framework to track progress which can be further adapted to meet specific different donor requirements.

By embracing a practical “learning by doing” approach, participating countries were able to focus on iterative and continuous improvements rather than striving for perfection from the start.

At the same time, efforts needed to achieve these REDD+ results are often not fully captured in financial terms. This underscores the need for a better and more equitable pricing approach to capture the cumulative costs of direct and indirect activities that contribute to maintaining and increasing forest cover.

Additionally, costs for keeping the REDD+ framework operational and reinvesting in subnational areas that have successfully reduced deforestation rates remains essential, even though it may not always appeal to potential donors.

It is not always necessary to build something new. Countries can leverage existing groundwork such as strong political will, established  REDD+ policy instruments, and national development priorities which include FOLU measures. This entails a set of measures like social forestry, forest law enforcement, forest fire management, forest and mangrove rehabilitation, and Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs.

At the same time, a one-size-fits-all approach is limited in the long run. To continue to generate REDD+ results, actions and investments must be tailored to their specific goal – efforts to reduce deforestation and forest degradation or achieve emissions reductions must be distinguished from those aimed at promoting and enhancing carbon stocks or achieving emissions removals.

Continuous institutional capacity development and coordination at and within the subnational levels remain a key area to reinvest. Decentralized governance systems bring its own challenges because subnational interests and capacity to respond are not always aligned. Furthermore, the larger the country, the greater the challenges to coordinate REDD+ work between national, subnational, and local contexts.

Similarly, institutional arrangements and processes continue to require investments as institutions, among others, take up additional roles and responsibilities related to managing and disbursing RBPs, establishing and implementing benefit-sharing mechanisms, maintaining national registries, and ensuring environmental and social safeguards are addressed and implemented. In some cases, government institutions may be required to access other forms of climate finance, such as those through market-based mechanisms, or to seek accreditation to access vertical funds themselves.

While projects provide a vital space to pilot and refine environmental policies and exploring innovative implementation strategies, they are also vulnerable to shifting priorities and lack of long-term commitment. As such, concerted effort is needed to ensure these tried-and-tested policies are securely institutionalized. This is another area where REDD+ RBPs investments could be directed.

The challenge of REDD+ and its continuing contribution to the NDC remain significant. While resources like the RBPs have materialized, they are still insufficient for sustained progress over time. Nonetheless, a continuation of RBPs, such as those through the GCF and other bilateral agreements, remain an important opportunity and pathway for countries with REDD+ results.

The Tropical Forest Forever Facility, expected to be formalized at UNFCCC COP-30, is among the latest initiative to mobilize more climate finance. With an expected USD 100 billion to start, it is expected that USD 25 billion will be contributed by countries. Hence, it represents a significant source of potential funding for tropical forest countries.

The PBP, as an agile and inclusive financing tool, ensures that climate finance reaches the ground swiftly and effectively. This tool is designed to deliver measurable impacts while prioritizing social inclusion, ensuring that no one is left behind in the pursuit to meet climate goals.

Countries successfully adapted the PBP to align with existing national priorities. In Costa Rica, this included initiatives such as PES and forest fire management.  Indonesia focused on social forestry, rehabilitation of conservation, mangrove and coastal forests as well as forest fire management. Meanwhile, in Ecuador, efforts were directed toward reducing deforestation, increasing forest cover, and enhancing the management of Conservation Areas. In addition, countries could also enhance the PBP with their expertise in different areas such as incorporating existing monitoring systems, using nationally generated data, among others.

The agility of the PBP has inspired other countries to consider application in a diverse range of national initiatives: recovery of rural areas for productive use; support land use regulations that will contribute to REDD+ results; broader application of PES beyond forest cover to include other environmental services or expanding its use to new territories.

By incorporating social inclusion at its core, the PBP instrument is making climate action more equitable. From direct cash transfers to women and Indigenous Peoples to rewarding gender equality efforts, this approach ensures that climate finance benefits those who need it most, creating a stronger and more just future.

As such, the success of the PBP shows that innovation in climate finance is essential for adapting to evolving challenges, ensuring that funds are deployed efficiently and effectively to achieve long-term climate goals.

Countries recognized the importance and necessity of the SSE as it improves knowledge and captures valuable lessons learnt, reducing uncertainty related to the future of REDD+ in the FOLU sector. At the same time, the SSE has also built a community of practice and provided a mechanism that continues to mutually support efforts advocating for increasing climate finance towards global climate action.

The SSE has sparked interest in future thematic exchanges that will facilitate a deeper exploration of various topics. These include how different countries developed and implemented PBP, the design and implementation of benefit-sharing and grievance and redress mechanisms, the tracking and reporting of safeguards, and the impact of inconsistent land tenure structures on accountability for deforestation, among other issues.   

In addition, Costa Rica and Ecuador’s successful partnerships with the private sector in deforestation-free production is another timely and relevant theme for the next SSE. Spurred by the EU Deforestation Regulation, these partnerships with the private sector are growing economic and environmental opportunity with compounding impacts beyond the FOLU sector to include agriculture and the NDCs.