Our impression is that it’s easier to reallocate funds to REDD+ from funds already allocated to climate change or international development than it is to create new budgets for it. Therefore it seems more likely that funds would have a counterfactual of “other climate change” or “international development” than “miscellaneous”. Counterfactuals are hard, and it’s possible that a more detailed analysis of this area could shed more light.
Did you find specific examples of governments allocating funds to REDD+ from buckets of money intended for climate change/development? This sort of thing is often hard to track, of course, but maybe there’s an example like a government committing $X to climate change reduction, then announcing later on that CFRN is one of the projects getting a share of that $X (implying that other orgs would’ve received that share had CFRN not existed).
Yes, we understand that both of those have happened (i.e. money for REDD+ coming from climate change buckets or development buckets), and, indeed, are common—especially for it to come from money already earmarked for climate change
Did you find specific examples of governments allocating funds to REDD+ from buckets of money intended for climate change/development? This sort of thing is often hard to track, of course, but maybe there’s an example like a government committing $X to climate change reduction, then announcing later on that CFRN is one of the projects getting a share of that $X (implying that other orgs would’ve received that share had CFRN not existed).
Yes, we understand that both of those have happened (i.e. money for REDD+ coming from climate change buckets or development buckets), and, indeed, are common—especially for it to come from money already earmarked for climate change