View/Open - Sokoine University of Agriculture

The arguments for this option is its high legitimacy among most main actors, itsability to attract funding (compared to fund a in state administration and budgetsupport), its capacity of keeping transaction costs down as it goes outside of oftenrigid bureaucratic state administrations, and it has a lesser risk of corruption.Speaking against it though is the difficulty of sector-coordination and its limits whenit comes to accountability and additionality.2.3.2.3 Fund within a national state administrationThe third institutional option is also in the form of a national fund, however in thiscase as a fund within the national state administration. Therefore instead of building anew and independent institution, a fund would be put under already existing nationalstructures, and the capacities and competences of the present state administrationcould be utilized. A board consisting of various state administrative bodies andnational NGOs would then have the responsibilities of REDD issues. As with thesecond option, funds would be directed to both programs run by themselves and byothers, however as an addition, could also be directed to various state sectorprograms.The arguments in favour of such a fund is its good transparency and accountability, itsability to ensure good sector coordination, to keep transaction costs down and theability to deliver on co-benefits. On the other hand, it might be vulnerable tocorruption, might have difficulties in attracting funding, and might have issues withadditionality.2.3.2.4 Budget supportAs a final option, REDD money could also just be channelled directly to the stateadministration, and make up a part of the states´ ordinary budget process, and thenused according to the process and sector policies set by the state (Vatn and Vedeld2011). The arguments in favour of budget support is that it has high legitimacy withinthe state, will probably be good in accountability and most likely best on sectorcoordination, as will it have a strong capacity to deliver on co-benefits. Thearguments against it is it‟s vulnerability to corruption, possible issues with44