“REDDX” stands for REDD eXpenditures and reflects the focus on tracking REDD+ finance from high level donor commitments, all the way down to how and when funds are actually expended/spent on the ground. Tracking commitments, disbursements and expenditures will highlight the full chain of donors and recipients as well as the length of time it takes for committed funding to reach REDD+ recipient countries and finally for activities to be implemented. The REDDX initiative aims to reveal the pros and cons of various existing REDD+ financing architecture, encourage broader discussion around REDD+ finance and support national and international REDD+ policy gaps and needs analysis.Back to top
Forest Trends works in partnership with local in-country civil society groups to collect the REDDX data, and with national REDD+ Focal Points and other stakeholders to review the data and analysis.
REDDX National Partners start by mapping the REDD+ landscape, determining the main donors and recipients of finance before conducting several rounds of interviews to map flows of funding committed, disbursed and transferred down a chain of recipients. Typically, the National Partner works with the national REDD+ Focal Point to host a review and validation meeting with REDD+ stakeholders and ultimately draft a national report summarizing the findings and submitting this data to the REDD+ Partnership Voluntary REDD+ Database (VRD).
By interviewing REDD+ donors and recipients in country, the REDDX initiative is compiling new data on REDD+ financing that has never been publicly available.
REDDX methodology at a glance
Working on an annual cycle starting in January of each year for the collection of previous years’ data, REDDX National Partners:
Starting in January of each year, REDDX begins to compile data for the previous year. We expect data collection to be completed by early Summer of each year with data clean-up, validation and publication completed by Fall, if not earlier. This timeframe also allows us to take into account different donor financial accounting and reporting periods which have tended to run from January to December and from April to March annually, respectively. In addition, occasional updates may also be made quarterly.
Therefore, 2013 data will be collected January – June 2014 and will likely be published in Fall 2014, if not earlier.Back to top
REDDX is currently active in fourteen countries:
Ghana – 2011 data reported; 2012 data coming Fall 2013
Liberia – 2012 data reported
Tanzania – 2012 data reported
Democratic Republic of Congo – scoping
Mexico – scoping
Ecuador – data updated through 2012
Brazil – completed feasibility studies
Guyana – scoping
Colombia – 2012 data reported
Peru – scoping
Indonesia – scoping
Vietnam –data updated through 2012
Papua New Guinea – scoping
REDDX aims to comprehensively track commitments, disbursements and expenditures as well as the nature of REDD+ activities/projects in the fourteen initiative countries. Given that this is a complex task involving thousands of intricate financial flows between organizations, not all activities can realistically be captured, especially during the first year.
REDDX relies on the interest and transparency of REDD+ donors, recipients and stakeholders who understand the value of this data in revealing the pros and cons of various existing REDD+ financing architecture. We promote a number of review and validation processes before data is published but ultimately rely on as many contributions as possible from those working in the REDD+ space. If you would like to report on any data that is missing or inaccurate, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org
REDDX is a multi-year initiative which will be able to integrate additional data, even from past years, annually at least through 2015.Back to top
Forest Trends' REDDX contracts local civil society groups in-country to work independently to interview REDD+ stakeholders and collect primary data. REDDX is therefore unique in the breadth of public and private data tracked and the focus on expenditures data.
However, Forest Trends only currently tracks this level of information in thirteen countries. To develop a better understanding of the global state of REDD+ financing, REDDX works with the following complementary REDD+ tracking initiatives:
The REDD+ Partnership’s Voluntary REDD+ Funding Database is a publicly available database of REDD+ finance submitted voluntarily by government REDD+ Focal Points, the major multilateral institutions and other organizations that are members of the Partnership. The VRD tracks commitments, pledges and disbursements of REDD+ funding (defined by the reporting party).
The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Climate Funds Update tracks a wider scope of climate finance data which includes, but is not limited to, REDD+. The data is compiled through research of publicly available information and consultations with climate funds.
The Global Canopy Programme’s REDD Countries Database tracks REDD+ data including some financial commitments, working independently with in-country organizations. The focus of the REDD Countries Database has been on tracking REDD+ activities with less emphasis on other forms of REDD+ finance.
Tropical Forest Group tracks all US government pledges and commitments for REDD+. The Tropical Forest Group has developed a database of all instances where US government agencies have stated either financial flows for sustainable tropical forestry or quantitative forest impacts (such as hectares protected, trees planted, kilometers of firebreaks, etc). The goals of the database are to improve transparency around US government REDD+ finance and to monitor how well the US is meeting its fast start finance REDD+ pledge of $1 billion.
Transparency International is aimed at helping ensure that climate financing decisions and actions are conducted with sufficient transparency, accountability and integrity to prevent corruption from undermining effective adaptation and mitigation. At the global level, TI is mapping key international institutions involved in the channeling of public climate finance (including REDD+), and an assessment of their independence, transparency, accountability and integrity (ie. vulnerability to corruption). The same assessment is being carried out at the country-level in six countries (Bangladesh, Dominican Republic, Kenya, Maldives, Mexico and Peru).
A working definition of “REDD+ finance” remains heavily debated within the international policy context. For the sake of this project and to promote consistency with other REDD+ tracking initiatives and broader international approaches to REDD+, the REDDX initiative defines “REDD+ finance” as:
“International NGOs/academia” includes international, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such environmental organizations and/or independent academic institutions with headquarters outside the recipient country. In general, academic institutions that are funded by governments, such as national universities and research centers are grouped under “donor governments”.
Many international institutions receive donor funding for REDD+ activities to be implemented at the international, regional and/or national level. Their finance is typically spent in the following ways:
REDDX defines “commitment” as a formal indication from a donor that they will fund REDD+ activities in a country. This “commitment” will be backed up by a legal or formal agreement specifying the total amount of funding for the recipient, a timeline for activities and a schedule for when finance will be spent.
This is not to be confused with a “pledge”. Pledges of REDD+ finance are often made as announcements of support from donor governments with no legal or formal indication that this funding will be released, no terms for how this might be spent, and whether this will be fully spent on REDD+ activities.Back to top
A “disbursement” in the context of this REDDX initiative is the transfer of funds from a donor to a recipient or from a recipient to an additional recipient in the funding chain.Back to top
An “expenditure” in the context of this REDDX initiative is when REDD+ finance is actually spent or expended on REDD+ activities on the ground.Back to top
In certain instances, donors or recipients requested that their information remain anonymous.
Forest Trends works carefully with National Partners to encourage transparency of all REDD+ finance information, and where possible, allow us to make the information public. By increasing transparency around REDD+ finance, donors will have a more comprehensive picture of the REDD+ financing landscape and be able to make the most effective funding decisions while better assessing REDD+ as a mechanism addressing climate change. For the most part, donors and recipients have been extremely supportive of this need to promote transparency and increase the level of information on REDD+ finance. To date, only two organizations have requested anonymity. In these cases, Forest Trends has aggregated data to maintain anonymity while highlighting general trends, levels of funding and the REDD+ activities supported. This data therefore will appear grouped and will not be associated with an organization or location.Back to top
The REDDX maps the timing of the disbursal of committed funds.
A short time lag between commitments and disbursements should be expected as grant agreements, and technical and administrative management structures for the funds are established. Financial commitments for REDD+ activities are often made for longer term projects or grants that span several years with the idea that activities and spending will be spread out over the period of the project. In a normal situation, disbursements should be expected to eventually “catch up” as all the committed funding is released for REDD+ activities.
Data collected by REDDX to date shows that there is significant variance in donor disbursement rates which is directly impacting when finance and REDD+ activities are implemented on the ground. REDDX does not, however, attempt to determine the cause of delays (unless it has been publicly acknowledged by both recipient and donor).Back to top
Not necessarily. There are many reasons why REDD+ finance can appear “stuck” with a donor or recipient. Required legal, bureaucratic, safeguard, administrative, and consultative structures can all contribute to delays in disbursals or implementation. Many of these requirements are difficult for recipient countries to meet without sufficient project preparation support. Often, slow disbursement rates are a combination of both donors and all the recipients in a funding chain, which ultimately, slows the rate at which REDD+ activities are implemented on the ground. Additional analysis of the reasons for slow disbursement rates will be available as part of a broader Forest Trends’ REDD+ Finance Report to be published Fall 2013.Back to top
There are two main reasons why the REDDX initiative does not currently show all of the funds that have been transferred from international institutions to additional recipients in-country.
No. Most REDD+ projects will have components directed at different types of REDD+ activities in-country. REDDX cannot disaggregate the relative breakdown of financial support going to different REDD+ activities into different categories.
A “tick” against a specific category only indicates that there is at least partial funding for the indicated REDD+ activity. This means that donors seemingly supporting stakeholder engagement and rights and tenure may be spending 90% of the funding on stakeholder engagement activities and only 10% of funding on rights and tenure. Or vice versa.
The first round of REDDX data collection has focused on mapping the REDD+ activities in country and starting to reveal the types of donors funding specific, different REDD+ activities. Additional data collection in the next three years will focus on determining the relative amounts of donor funding supporting different REDD+ activities to support national and international REDD+ gaps and needs analysis.Back to top