Navigating Complexity: Country Perspectives on Multiple REDD+ Finance & Integrity Requirements

Background

Since the establishment of the Warsaw Framework for REDD+ in 2013, countries have built a significant track record in REDD+ readiness and implementation. To date, 21 countries have reported verified REDD+ results through the UNFCCC Lima REDD+ Information Hub. The UN-REDD Programme has supported more than 50 partner countries in advancing REDD+ readiness, while the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) has supported 47 developing countries in establishing national REDD+ frameworks. Through the FCPF Carbon Fund, 15 Emission Reductions Payment Agreements (ERPAs) have been signed, representing a combined value of USD 721 million, with 10 countries already receiving USD 234.6 million in verified results-based payments. Seven FCPF countries have also generated emission reductions beyond their contracted volumes.

Additional progress has been made through the Green Climate Fund (GCF) REDD+ Results-Based Payments pilot programme, launched in 2017 with an initial USD 500 million envelope and expanded by an additional USD 250 million in 2024. The pilot supported 12 countries across multiple regions and informed the development of the GCF’s permanent REDD+ Results-Based Payments policy approved in 2024. At the same time, participants in the ART-TREES programme have received more than USD 353 million in payments for verified results, while bilateral initiatives such as NICFI and Germany’s REM programme have contributed further support for implementation and verified disbursements.

Together, these efforts represent a strong and growing body of demonstrated REDD+ results. However, this progress has unfolded within an increasingly complex and fragmented finance landscape. Countries are now required to navigate a rapidly expanding range of funding windows and integrity frameworks, including the GCF REDD+ Results-Based Payments mechanism, ART-TREES, LEAF Coalition proposals, bilateral programmes, Article 6 cooperative approaches, CORSIA, and emerging successor initiatives such as SCALE.

While these mechanisms create new opportunities for forest finance, they also introduce overlapping and often divergent requirements related to reference levels, MRV methodologies, safeguards documentation, registries, non-permanence accounting, authorization frameworks, and benefit-sharing systems. Countries such as Costa Rica, Ghana, Viet Nam, and Colombia are simultaneously engaging across multiple finance and integrity windows, while countries with more limited institutional capacity face growing compliance burdens with fewer technical and financial resources.

At the same time, integrity requirements across the REDD+ landscape continue to evolve and become more stringent. As scrutiny of carbon market quality increases, countries are expected to meet increasingly complex standards related to additionality, safeguards, non-permanence, and transparency. The phasing out of the FCPF Standard, ongoing revisions to ART-TREES requirements, evolving Article 6 guidance, and the development of CORSIA-related integrity frameworks further contribute to a rapidly changing compliance environment.

These challenges are compounded by practical implementation constraints. The limited availability of qualified Validation and Verification Bodies (VVBs), small national technical teams, staff turnover, and the need to coordinate across multiple international processes create significant institutional pressure on countries seeking to access finance efficiently and at scale.

As a result, a growing gap risks emerging between countries’ demonstrated REDD+ results and their ability to secure timely and predictable finance. With less than five years remaining to meet the 2030 global goal of halting and reversing deforestation, there is an urgent need to strengthen coordination, simplify support systems, and reduce barriers that slow implementation.

Against this backdrop, the REDD+ Community of Practice, launched at SB62, provides an important platform for technical exchange, peer learning, and dialogue among countries, donors, and multilateral partners. This session will explore practical experiences and identify opportunities to streamline support architectures, strengthen coordination, and enhance access to REDD+ finance and implementation support without compromising environmental integrity.

Objective and Target Audience

This session aims to bring together forest countries, donors, and multilateral programmes to discuss how support for REDD+ can become more coordinated, accessible, and effective in the lead-up to 2030. Participants will explore ways to simplify requirements, better align finance and support mechanisms, and identify priority gaps that must be addressed to accelerate REDD+ finance, integrity, and implementation.

Format

Opening Presentations

Country experiences
Lessons from REDD+ implementation and engagement with multiple finance and integrity requirements, including technical, institutional, and financial implications.
Countries: Brazil, Ghana, Nepal (10 minutes)

Countries will reflect on:

• Technical, social, legal, and administrative challenges
• Lessons learned for other countries
• What could have been done differently
• How support to countries could be strengthened

Donor perspectives
Perspectives on the current REDD+ support and finance landscape (10 minutes)

Facilitated Roundtable Discussion

Towards a coherent approach to enhance REDD+ support and implementation by 2030 (25 minutes)

Discussion questions:

• How can countries, donors, and multilateral initiatives streamline REDD+ finance requirements, without compromising integrity, to ensure faster and more predictable access to support by 2030?
• What practical steps are needed to build a coherent, country-driven support architecture that aligns readiness support, results-based finance, and market and non-market approaches under a unified REDD+ framework?
• Which policy, institutional, or technical gaps continue to constrain countries’ ability to implement REDD+ at scale, and what commitments can donors and multilateral programmes make to address these gaps?