With the institutionalization of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+), the global REDD+ financial network has been formed to support the implementation of REDD+ in developing countries. Although the rapid expansion of the network made it decentralized, it is still a highly centralized network in terms of the distribution of financial resources, revolving around only a few major actors. While the source of financing was diversified due to an increase in influential donors, the majority of financing still came from a few constant major donors, and a few constant major developing countries received most of the financial support. Although increases in donor numbers and the amount of finance received can provide more chances to support developing countries, it may cause inefficiency due to overlaps and duplications. Also, over-centralization of financial resources can be ineffective in terms of achieving maximum greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, and can broaden gaps between developing countries’ ability to cope with climate change and deforestation. Lack of coordination among donors and the differing capacity of developing countries may have caused centralization of financial resources in the global REDD+ financial network. To minimize this problem, a comprehensive monitoring system and platforms for information sharing are needed.

A cooperative approach for REDD+ between developing and developed countries can be a sound means to achieve national and global mitigation targets. To accomplish the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) of countries and the global 2 °C climate target more effectively, it is necessary to explore the coordination options, based on the understanding of bilateral REDD+ cooperation. This study explains the current status of bilateral REDD+ cooperation and investigates determinants affecting REDD+ recipient decisions of donor countries, by analyzing bilateral REDD+ arrangements, which has been promoted for 10 years under the the Kyoto Protocol regime from 2006 until 2015. The results show that Norway and Japan supported more than half of the total financial pledges for bilateral REDD+ projects for 10 years. Out of 87 REDD+ recipients, four countries—Brazil, India, Indonesia, and China—accounted for more than half of the 10-year financial pledges. Approximately 78% of total financing was found to be concentrated in the top 10 recipients. The aid darlings and orphans problem, the concentration of bilateral supports in a few developing countries and the exclusion of several developing countries from the recipient selection process, which has been discussed in ODA researches, was also observed. Applying a shared frailty model, recipient need, recipient merit, and donor interest was found to be the main determinants of donors’ REDD+ recipient decision. Donor interest and recipient merit were found to have more significant effects on the decision than recipient need. A balanced two-track approach is further required, in which, along with the bilateral REDD+ cooperation in the REDD+ darling countries, international organizations and multilateral funds for REDD+ need to increase financial accessibility, including the result-based compensation system for the REDD+ orphan countries.

Under the Kyoto Protocol regime, various forms of financial support have been committed to helping the implementation of reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, as well as fostering conservation, the sustainable management of forests, and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD+) in developing countries. We analyzed the fragmentation of REDD+ finance and suggested methods for its coordination under the Paris Agreement regime. The fragmentation of REDD+ finance was observed, but it was lower than that of general official development assistance (ODA). However, we found that the trend of fragmentation in REDD+ financing is different from that of general ODA, with a few major donors occupying a large portion of the total size of committed REDD+ finance. Thus, it may not be appropriate to consider the fragmentation of REDD+ finance merely as an obstacle that needs to be decreased. Still, the total amount of REDD+ finance should be increased and adjusted for various donor–recipient relationships, in consideration of the REDD+ finance options in the Paris Agreement. Some REDD+ countries have made progress in national REDD+ and accomplished emission reductions. However, REDD+ finance needs to be stratified considering the progress of national REDD+. For such forms of cooperation, an information-sharing and monitoring system that collects information on ongoing REDD+ cooperation, the commitment and expenditure of REDD+ finance, and the support needs of REDD+ countries at a global level should be established. Multilateral organizations need to provide safeguarding functions for developing countries that are isolated from bilateral REDD+ finance.

National forest inventories have long and strong traditions in many countries and they can offer a wealth of information about the biophysical aspects of forests such as tree growth, carbon fluxes and biodiversity. However, these are in most cases not paralleled by data representing the socioeconomic dimensions of forests. Integration of socioeconomic and biophysical data has the potential to better unveil interactions between human and natural resources and can therefore better support policy. Climate change has multiple impacts on forest resources. Policies to support sustainable forestry, the bioeconomy, and climate change mitigation and adaptation are constantly developing. At the same time, forest owners’ attitudes and forest markets are evolving. More data is needed to advance the understanding of the links between the human and biophysical factors and the relationship between these factors and the complex objectives of forests. We compared the national forest inventories, national forest owner surveys, and national forest product surveys across Argentina, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the USA. The national forest inventories in all selected countries are built on solid methodological grounds and have strong institutional support and funding. However, the consistency of methods, frequency of implementation, and institutional support for forest owner and forest product surveys are in many cases lacking. There is also a lack of integration between biophysical and socioeconomic data. The USA was the only studied country with integrated biophysical and socioeconomic data. We suggest that this approach reflects the needs of data integration and can serve as a reference for other countries.

We draw insights regarding intricacies with spatially explicit data and analyses when studying the vulnerability of forest socio-ecological systems to disruptive abiotic and biotic factors. Common issues associated with data include location precision, spatial delimitation, methodological comparability, and measurement consistency. Spatial data analyses are challenged by issues of interpolation and extrapolation, inferences using data at different spatial scales, and assessment of disruption impacts at detectable spatial scales. The inextricable empirical nature of spatial data and analyses requires carefully conducting and disclosing the sensitivity of findings, and including robustness tests to openly inform decision-makers on issues of uncertainty associated with possible interventions. These considerations might be central to identifying forest socio-ecological hotspots as forest-dominated geographic areas encompassing social and ecological systems vulnerable to disruptions caused by abiotic and biotic factors, but where risks to human wellbeing may be considerably reduced through adaptive interventions.