book1

ini� a� ve seemed “overly dependent on donor funding” from the developed
countries. This would impact on the durability of REDD+ because recipient
countries lacked genuine mo� va� on. The overall parlous nature of donor
funding was also problema� c, and referred to by a number of respondents.
One respondent felt the situa� on would only improve if there were more
donors on board. At the � me of wri� ng, they noted that only Norway and
Denmark had made substan� ve contribu� ons. More were needed. They
were also concerned that the support eff orts of UN-REDD in channelling
funds to recipient countries in the absence of “proper independent expert
review of country programmes” meant that money might be approved for
countries “without a lot of transparency and oversight”. The situa� on was
very dependent on the UNDP country reps, and it was not clear to what
extent “funds are being transferred to country ins� tu� ons as opposed to
being used in the local UNDP offi ces”. In this context, according to another
respondent it was good to have both UN-REDD and FCPF in recipient
countries. If they were able to “harmonise” their ac� vi� es at na� onal level it
would improve REDD+ implementa� on
Southern respondents added two further comments. One echoed
concerns about the role of donor countries, and commented that, “money
will talk as always, and the big countries will get their way”. This was possibly
because, according to another respondent “it seems like poli� cs comes fi rst”.
The last respondent was concerned that the rise and fall of diff erent “interim
mechanisms” such as the REDD+ Partnership “could blur the quality of the
UNFCCC especially in terms of fi nancing, transparency and inclusiveness”.
Northern respondents noted without excep� on that they received no
resources to par� cipate in any of the REDD+ mechanisms. Only respondents
from the South answered that they had received support, one commen� ng
that they felt these had been “adequate”.
Government respondents
Governments were mostly concerned about the structures and processes
of REDD+. One southern respondent was par� cularly concerned that “very
li� le eff ort” had gone into ge� ng scien� sts actually involved in REDD+
related work to contribute to nego� a� ons. This meant that decision were
“too poli� cally based and not factually based”. One northern respondent
noted that part of the problem was that the bureaucra� c structures at both
the intergovernmental and na� onal levels were “a big barrier.” However, by
way of mi� ga� on, one Southern respondent noted that what REDD+ was
doing was new and that no one had all the answers. What was important
were the “collabora� ve arrangements” (like UN-REDD) that helped
collec� ve progress rather than “opera� ng separately”. They saw the value
of such collabora� on as “tremendous” and they consequently considered
their par� cipa� on in REDD+ to be “highly meaningful”. Finally, in terms of
resources, one Northern respondent noted that their government provided
all their costs. They did not consider it necessary for the mechanism itself to
fund par� cipa� on.
Changing paradigms of aid eff ec� veness in Nepal 111