1 Introduction

Humanity is at a critical juncture of environmental, social, and economic

factors. We know that human health and well-being are inextricably linked
with a healthy natural environment, one with ecosystem integrity, clean air,
and a stable climate. A stark illustration of this link is the COVID-19 pan-
demic, with its devastating impacts on both human health and the economies
of developing – and developed – countries around the globe.
The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which causes COVID-19, is one of the
growing number of zoonotic viruses, which means it originated in animals
and crossed over to humans. The increase in such viruses is directly linked
to environmental exploitation – by encroaching into ecosystems we have
never been exposed to before and altering interactions between animals and
humans, we let new viruses enter our population (Berardelli 2020).
At this juncture of humanity, independent evaluation is critical. We
emphasize the value of independent evaluation, which means that it is carried
out by entities and persons free from the control of those responsible for the
design and implementation of the development intervention, and, therefore,
objective and impartial.
Evaluation provides valuable lessons and guidance for organizations
and policy makers to better understand and consider the environmental-
social-economic interlinkages in designing programs and policies. It also
provides understanding based on evidence of what works, why, under what
circumstances, and for whom. Evaluation answers essential questions such
as: were the interventions the right ones and were they implemented to be
effective? Did unintended consequences occur that were not conceived at the
program design stage? In a world with limited resources, were the interven-
tions designed and implemented efficiently to deliver value for money? Were
the interventions sustainable well past implementation?
The human-environment nexus presents additional challenges and oppor-
tunities for evaluation. Evaluation must be able to provide evidence of how
actions in the development domain affect the environment and vice versa.
We need to be able to demonstrate the close interlinkages between social
and economic development and the environment in light of evidence from

DOI: 10.4324/9781003207979-1
2 Introduction
the real world. Evaluation must draw on scientific knowledge to complement
analysis of real life from the field. This requires going beyond analysis of
discrete interventions, often carried out in isolation, to assess them in the
broader landscape and analyze how they interact with natural and human sys-
tems. Evaluators must adopt systems-based approaches to achieve and meas-
ure the impacts of interrelated interventions, recognizing the synergies and
trade-offs that might exist.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) recognize the three pillars of sustainable devel-
opment – social, economic, and environmental – and the interrelationships
among them. Too often, a healthy natural environment is considered an after-
thought to human health and sustainable development as a whole, despite
their essential interconnection. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic,
a shift in attitudes toward greater care for the environment is detectable, but
powerful interests may still seek to pursue growth at any environmental cost.
Even in the short period of this pandemic crisis, the slowdown in economic
activity resulted in measurable environmental and associated health benefits.
Should we return to environmental and development business as usual after
the crisis subsides, we will pay the price and the next pandemic will be wait-
ing in the wings. This crisis presents an opportunity to rethink our devel-
opment path and priorities and build back better, restructuring economies
toward more sustainability, respect for nature, equality, and participation.
This book draws on the findings from independent evaluation of envi-
ronmental programs in developing countries implemented by the Global
Environment Facility (GEF). The GEF was the first significant public fund
established to address global environmental problems following the 1992
Earth Summit. Although other funds dealing with climate change have since
emerged, the GEF remains virtually the only one focusing on biodiversity
conservation and other terrestrial and marine environmental challenges.
Throughout the GEF portfolio, we find significant overlap between vari-
ous environmental domains and interlinkages to socioeconomic benefits and
human health. Across the 27 years since its founding, the GEF has weathered
health and economic crises across the globe. Evaluations of GEF programs,
conducted by the organization’s Independent Evaluation Office, draw on this
long period of implementation and offer valuable evidence and insights on
the human-environment nexus – with critical relevance for this pandemic.
This book will also familiarize readers with approaches and current methods
in environmental evaluation while presenting rich evidence on the impacts
of environmental programs.
This book’s authors are intimately involved in independent evaluation
of the GEF and played an instrumental role in the Sixth Comprehensive
Evaluation of the Facility.1 As independent evaluators, we are not part of GEF
management and have a mandate to evaluate the performance, impact, and
effectiveness of the GEF in an open manner, reporting directly to the GEF
Council.
 Introduction 3
Trends in the global environment
Fully understanding and interpreting the findings we present requires an
appreciation of the current landscape within which the GEF is operating.
The global environment continues to deteriorate. In fact, in a number
of areas, damage to the global environment has exceeded critical levels and
threatens to lead to irreversible changes in global ecosystems. The long-term
averages of four core components of a planet suitable for human life – known
as “planetary boundaries” – have already been exceeded: human-driven
climate change, land system change, high levels of phosphorous and nitro-
gen flowing into oceans due to increased fertilizer use, and loss of biosphere
integrity (Steffen et al. 2015). All of these changes are leading the earth into
a new state – and show no signs of slowing down. Despite efforts to achieve
net-zero global carbon emissions by 2050, emission rates are still rising
(World Economic Forum 2020). Several other global challenges will require
significant public–private cooperation to address.
The top-of-mind challenge, of course, is the global pandemic that arose in
2020. Like the zoonotic coronavirus behind COVID-19, about two-thirds of
all infectious diseases in humans originate in animals (Jones et al. 2008). Land
mismanagement, habitat loss, overexploitation of wildlife, and human-induced
climate change have created multiple pathways for pathogens to transmit from
wildlife to domestic animals and humans. This pandemic has also revealed
substantial vulnerabilities even in developed countries, with severe economic
consequences.
Another daunting challenge is the expected global population increase of
2 billion by 2050, accompanied by a rapid increase in the global middle
class, reaching 3 billion in the next two decades. This population growth
accompanied by increased consumption will place unprecedented demands
on natural resources and energy use and will result in further expansion in
deforestation and transformation of land from nature to human uses. At the
same time, we are seeing rapid growth in unemployment, income and wealth
inequality within and across countries, and agrarian stress.
The threat of human-made environmental harm was highlighted in the
World Economic Forum’s Global Risk Report 2020, which named the top
five global risks in terms of likelihood and severity of impact:
1 Extreme weather events with major damage to property, infrastructure,
and life
2 Major biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse (terrestrial or marine)
with irreversible consequences for the environment
3 Failure of climate-change mitigation and adaptation by government and
business
4 Major natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions,
and geomagnetic storms
5 Human-made environmental damage and disasters, including environ-
mental crime, such as oil spills and radioactive contamination
4 Introduction
These trends will require the world to meet increased demands for food,
energy, human habitat, transportation, and more – all placing direct pressure
on the global environment.
The global landscape for environmental finance has evolved, especially
with regard to climate finance. Today, with greater awareness of environ-
mental issues, we have seen the launch of the SDGs, the Paris Agreement, and
the Sendai framework for disaster risk management. In 2015, an ambitious
plan to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all was
agreed upon unanimously by all countries: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
2015). It includes 17 SDGs and 169 targets reflecting the scale and ambition
of this new universal agenda. They are integrated and indivisible and balance
the three dimensions of sustainable development – economic, social, and
environmental.2 The Paris Agreement was the first-ever universal, legally
binding global climate change agreement, adopted at the Paris Climate
Conference (the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties) in December
2015. It sets out a global framework to avoid dangerous climate change by
limiting global warming to well below 2°C and pursuing efforts to limit it
to 1.5°C. It also aims to strengthen countries’ ability to deal with the impacts
of climate change and support them in their efforts.3 The Sendai Framework
for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 was the first major agreement of the
post-2015 development agenda and provides member states with concrete
actions to protect development gains from the risk of disaster. It works along-
side the SDG Agenda and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, was
endorsed by the UN General Assembly following the 2015 Third UN World
Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction, and advocates for “the substantial
reduction of disaster risk and losses in lives, livelihoods and health and in the
economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets of persons,
businesses, communities and countries.” The Sendai Framework recognizes
that the state has the primary role to reduce disaster risk but that responsibil-
ity should be shared with other stakeholders, including local government, the
private sector, and other stakeholders.4
Environmental issues are being mainstreamed across a broad range of
organizations, including the multilateral development banks. However, these
positive developments have been affected by the international environmen-
tal architecture of conventions, funds, programs, and donors that continues
to show increasing fragmentation, making it more difficult to coordinate
and harmonize funding for the implementation of environmental activities
globally. Global funding flows in recent years have increasingly prioritized
climate change and reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation
(REDD+) over other environmental issues – notably biodiversity and trans-
boundary waters. Further, the global landscape for climate change finance
has changed significantly since the GEF become the first operating entity
of the financial mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1996. The GEF was a principal source
 Introduction 5
of donor financing for climate change in the 1990s, but the landscape has
since expanded and fragmented, and the GEF has become a relatively smaller
contributor to climate-related projects. New multilateral institutions such
as the Climate Investment Fund and the Green Climate Fund have pledged
amounts that far exceed those of the GEF, and many carbon finance facili-
ties have become active. More and more, the private sector recognizes the
economic, financial, and human risks posed by unchecked climate change
and has increased its capital commitments across renewable energy and other
sectors (UN 2015).
Despite the establishment of new funding sources and a commitment by
the multilateral development banks, the global demand for environmen-
tal finance to address the risks far exceeds the resources made available by
donors. The international community has committed and invested sizable
resources each year to address the mounting environmental issues but needs
are huge relative to available funding and remain largely unmet. According
to Climate Policy Initiative estimates, investment required to achieve the
low-carbon transition ranges from $1.6 trillion to $3.8 trillion annually
between 2016 and 2050, for supply-side energy system investments alone
(IPCC 2018). The Global Commission on Adaptation (GCA 2019) esti-
mates adaptation costs of $180 billion annually from 2020 to 2030. Climate
finance flows reached a record high of $612 billion in 2017, driven by
increased renewable energy capacity in China, the United States, and India,
and by increased public commitments to land use and energy efficiency.
However, 2018 saw an 11 percent drop, to $546 billion. The United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that an annual
investment of $2.4 trillion – about 2.5 percent of the world’s economy – is
needed in the energy system alone until 2035 to limit temperature rise to
less than 1.5°C (IPCC 2018). And the effort to tackle climate change goes
beyond transforming energy systems: it must include spending on reforest-
ation, coastal-defense systems, and many other efforts to cut emissions and
adapt to rising temperatures. According to the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development, total public spending on climate finance
was $56.7 billion in 2017 (Yeo 2019). This in turn leveraged $14.5 billion in
private finance, for a total of $71.2 billion, well short of the IPCC funding
target requirements.
The response to these global environmental challenges has increased sig-
nificantly in recent years, mainly in the area of climate change, but action
still falls far short of the estimated funding required to meet both mitiga-
tion and adaptation requirements. Other environmental priorities such as
biodiversity have received even less attention. The funding situation is fur-
ther exacerbated by the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, increasingly frequent
famines and natural disasters attributed to accelerating climate change that
require immediate assistance, global market volatility, competing bilateral
programs for environmental finance, and political uncertainty created by the
US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement.
6 Introduction
The GEF’s global role
With its broad focus that extends to the environment beyond climate change,
the GEF occupies a unique space in the global environmental financing archi-
tecture and is even more important in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Despite limited funding of about $4.1 billion every four years, the GEF is the
only institution that addresses global environmental issues rather than climate
change alone. With a history and established standing of nearly three dec-
ades, the GEF supports major multilateral environmental agreements beyond
the UNFCCC, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), the United
Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and the Minamata
Convention on Mercury. The GEF also funds projects in the international
waters focal area, contributing to the implementation of many global and
regional agreements, and supports sustainable forest management initiatives
that are consistent with the objectives of the United Nations Forum on Forests.
GEF interventions also directly relate to SDG Goals 2, 6, 11, 13, 14, and 15 –
on zero hunger, clean water and sanitation, sustainable cities and communities,
climate action, life under water, and life on land. The GEF’s responses to the
SDGs are mainly through its support to the conventions. Through its pro-
grammatic approaches and multifocal projects, the GEF can – and does – create
interlinkages and synergies across focal areas and planetary boundaries.
The GEF strategy has continued to evolve to address growing environmen-
tal challenges and the drivers of environmental degradation, with an empha-
sis on integration. The GEF implements programs and projects in the focal
areas of biodiversity, land degradation, climate change mitigation and adapta-
tion, chemicals and waste, and international waters, with integrated programs
addressing sustainable forest management, sustainable cities and food systems,
and land use and restoration. Beginning in 2014, the GEF introduced these
integrated approaches to assist recipient countries in meeting commitments to
more than one global convention or thematic area by tackling underlying driv-
ers of environmental degradation. These programs are designed to promote
complementarities and synergies in seeking environmental benefits across var-
ious focal areas (multiple environmental benefits). Synergy refers to multiple
benefits that are achieved either simultaneously through a single intervention
or through the interaction of outcomes of at least two interventions.
The COVID-19 pandemic spotlights the GEF’s importance today. The sci-
entific literature makes clear how destroyed habitats provide ideal conditions
for such viruses to thrive. “We invade tropical forests and other wild landscapes,
which harbor so many species of animals and plants – and within those crea-
tures, so many unknown viruses,” David Quammen, author of Spillover: Animal
Infections and the Next Pandemic, recently wrote in The New York Times. “We
cut the trees; we kill the animals or cage them and send them to markets. We
disrupt ecosystems, and we shake viruses loose from their natural hosts. When
that happens, they need a new host. Often, we are it” (Quammen, 2020).
 Introduction 7

Figure 1.1 GEF projects by focal area

Against this backdrop, the GEF plays a very important role in reducing
environmental stresses, improving biodiversity, and reducing deforestation.
Since 1992, the GEF has invested over $16.1 billion and leveraged $94.2
billion in additional resources for more than 4,500 projects in 170 countries
(GEF 2020). Through four funding modalities – full-size projects, medi-
um-size projects (less than $2 million), enabling activities, and the Small
Grants Programme – the GEF implements targeted interventions in its five
focal areas and three integrated approach program categories. Figure 1.1 shows
the distribution of GEF’s resources in its various focal areas – biodiversity,
climate change, land degradation, chemicals and waste, and international
waters, along with projects that cut across more than one focal area, referred
to as multifocal projects.5

The GEF institutional framework

The GEF was set up in 1991 as a pilot program within the World Bank. In
1992, after the Rio Earth Summit, the GEF was restructured with three initial
implementing agencies: the World Bank, the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP), and the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP). Over the years, the GEF structure, governance, and partnership
framework have evolved, including a gradual and significant increase to 18
agencies. The expansion of the partnership aimed to increase choice, access,
and availability for numerous underserved countries, especially least devel-
oped countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS), based on
agency comparative advantage. The GEF continues to be the world’s largest
funder of public projects and programs that benefit the global environment.
8 Introduction

Figure 1.2 The GEF partnership

The GEF partnership structure

The GEF partnership is an arrangement comprising several entities, as pre-
sented in Figure 1.2.

Assembly
Each of the 183 member countries, or Participants, has a representative at the
ministerial level in the GEF Assembly. It meets every three to four years to
review general policies; review and evaluate the GEF’s operation based on
reports submitted to the Council; review the membership of the Facility; and
consider, for approval by consensus, amendments to the governing instru-
ment of the GEF.

GEF Council
The Council is the GEF’s main governing body and comprises 32 Members
appointed by constituencies of GEF member countries (14 from developed
countries, 16 from developing countries, and two from economies in tran-
sition). Council Members rotate every three years or until the constituency
appoints a new Member. The Council meets twice annually to develop,
adopt, and evaluate the operational policies and programs for GEF-financed
activities. It also reviews and approves the work program (projects submitted
for approval), making decisions by consensus.

Conventions
The GEF provides funding to assist developing countries in meeting the
objectives of international environmental conventions. The GEF serves
as a financial mechanism to five conventions: the CBD, the UNFCCC,
 Introduction 9
the Stockholm Convention on POPs, the UNCCD, and the Minamata
Convention on Mercury. The conventions provide broad strategic guidance
to the GEF Council and Assembly. The GEF Council converts this broad
guidance into operational criteria for GEF projects.

The Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel

Six internationally recognized experts in the GEF’s key areas comprise the
Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP), which advises the GEF on
policies, operational strategies, programs, and projects. STAP members are
supported by a global network of experts and institutions. The STAP interacts
with other relevant scientific and technical bodies, particularly with the sub-
sidiary bodies of the CBD, the UNFCCC, the UNCCD, and the Stockholm
Convention on POPs. The UNEP, which hosts the STAP Secretariat, acts as
its liaison with the GEF.

The Independent Evaluation Office

The GEF Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) is the core of the GEF part-
nership-wide evaluation function. The IEO has the central role of ensuring
the independent evaluation function within the GEF and operates as an organ-
izational unit independent of GEF Secretariat management or agency. The
IEO prepares the overall evaluation policy for the GEF to be endorsed by the
Council, sets the minimum requirements for evaluation in the GEF partnership,
sets an evaluation agenda for approval by the Council, validates the terminal
evaluations of projects and programs by agencies, conducts a broad spectrum of
independent evaluations, shares evaluative evidence and lessons learned within
and outside the GEF, and develops recommendations for the partnership to
improve the effectiveness of GEF policies and programs. The IEO works in
close partnership with the global evaluation community to remain on the cut-
ting edge of emerging and innovative methodologies in environmental evalua-
tion. It consults and collaborates with all relevant partners to foster a network of
evaluation professionals who may add value to GEF operations and results (GEF
IEO 2019). Chapter 2 explores the origins and the role of the IEO.

Trustee
The World Bank serves as the GEF Trustee, administering the GEF Trust
Fund of contributions by donors. Among its responsibilities, the Trustee
helps mobilize resources for the trust fund, disburses funds to GEF Agencies,
prepares financial reports on investments and use of resources, and monitors
application of budgetary and project funds.

The GEF Secretariat

The Secretariat coordinates overall implementation of GEF activities and is
led by a Chief Executive Officer (CEO)-Chairperson, who is appointed for
10 Introduction
a four-year term by the Council, renewable for one additional term. The
Secretariat implements decisions of the Assembly and the Council. Among
other responsibilities, it coordinates and oversees programs, ensures policies
are implemented in consultation with the GEF Agencies, chairs interagency
group meetings to ensure effective collaboration among the GEF Agencies,
and coordinates with Secretariats of the conventions.

GEF Agencies
The Agencies are the operational arm of the GEF. They work closely with
project proponents – government agencies, civil society organizations, and
other stakeholders – to design, develop, and implement GEF-funded projects
and programs.

GEF Focal Points

Each of the GEF member countries has designated government officials
responsible for GEF activities who serve as the liaison with the Secretariat
and the GEF Agencies. All of the GEF member countries have Political Focal
Points, who focus mainly on governance, including policies and decisions,
and relations between member countries within their constituencies.
Recipient countries eligible for GEF support also have Operational Focal
Points, who are responsible for operations of GEF activities within their
countries. This includes reviewing and endorsing project proposals to ensure
that they are in line with national priorities and strategies.

Conflict Resolution Commissioner

Working directly with member countries, GEF Agencies, and affected stake-
holders, the Commissioner helps resolve disputes and address complaints
and other issues relevant to GEF operations. The Commissioner reports
directly to the CEO and allows the CEO to expand feedback and respond
more quickly to issues and concerns that may arise in GEF-funded projects.

Organization of this book

To explore the relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of environmental
interventions and explore the links between environment and socioeco-
nomic outcomes in developing countries, we draw primarily on the Sixth
Comprehensive Evaluation of the GEF (OPS6), completed in 2017, and the
component evaluations conducted by the GEF IEO. OPS6 presented rich
evidence on the impacts of environmental interventions and the policies that
support the implementation of such programs through a partnership arrange-
ment. As noted in the description of the GEF structure, independent eval-
uation in the GEF is not influenced by program or agency implementation
 Introduction 11
units. It reports directly to the Council, which approves the IEO work pro-
gram and budget. Although the IEO engages with other constituents of
the GEF partnership to enhance the utility of evaluation, it is financially
and behaviorally independent in the conduct of its evaluations. As such, the
results and the cases we present in this book have not been influenced by
program participants.
Chapter 2 provides a historical perspective and discusses evolution of the
evaluation function in the GEF. It demonstrates the shift in evaluation from
management to an independent unit and the importance of the IEO within
the overall GEF structure.
The evaluation process is an important determinant of the quality of
evaluation. Development of the approach paper, stakeholder engagement
throughout the process, and a well-developed report with evidence and clear
communication of findings are important processes. Chapter 3 presents the
framework and the approach of the Sixth Comprehensive Evaluation on
which this book is based and discusses the crucial role of evaluation in the
GEF replenishment process.
Chapter 4 describes the methods and tools the IEO uses and explores their
links with the evaluation questions. We demonstrate the usefulness of remote
sensing and geospatial methods for measuring environmental impact: they
provide reliable and cost-effective baseline information, help detect changes
over time, and track progress toward the achievement of environmental and
other development targets. These methods complement our other evaluation
approaches, and we discuss the advantages of a mixed-methods approach.
Chapter 5 presents the overall performance results of the GEF portfolio
and various factors driving these results. We look deeper by exploring per-
formance ratings by region and consider the attributes affecting performance:
project design, quality of implementation and execution, and cofinancing.
The chapter also explores the longer term impacts and sustainability of GEF
interventions and the channels through which these are achieved. Central
to success for impact and sustainability is the concept of broader adoption,
which occurs when governments and other stakeholders adopt, expand, and
build on GEF interventions, based on their initial success.
In its 2020 Strategy, the GEF recognized that incremental environmental
strategies alone are not sufficient given the unprecedented nature of the pres-
sures facing the earth’s ecosystems; rather, transformative change is impera-
tive. Chapter 6 develops a framework for evaluating transformative change
and presents evidence from the GEF experience.
Evaluations must be timely and of good quality to be useful. Chapter 7 dis-
cusses the usefulness of OPS6 and its role in the replenishment process of the
GEF. We underscore the importance of delivering an evaluation in a timely
manner with good quality and stakeholder participation to influence future
programming and financing.
In the final chapter, we reflect on the results of GEF programs and pres-
ent lessons learned from the IEO’s program of evaluations over a period of
12 Introduction
five years. These lessons are relevant for evaluators, environmental practi-
tioners, and policymakers and applicable to the current pandemic situation.

Notes
1. Geeta Batra and Juha Uitto managed the component evaluations that were con-
ducted by staff and consultants of the IEO and drafted the overall comprehensive
evaluation (OPS6). Osvaldo Feinstein is an independent consultant and was part of
the advisory panel for OPS6.
2. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld.
3. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement.
4. https://www.undrr.org/implementing-sendai-framework/what-sendai-framework.
5. Data as of June 30, 2020.

References
Berardelli, J. 2020. “Human Impact on the Environment May Make Pandemics
More Likely, Experts Warn.” CBS News April 2, 2020. www.cbsnews.com/news/
coronavirus-environment-pandemic-infectious-diseases/
GCA. 2019. Adapt Now: A Global Call for Leadership on Climate Resilience. https://cdn.gca.
org/assets/2019-09/GlobalCommission_Report_FINAL.pdf
GEF IEO. 2019. GEF Evaluation Policy 2019. Washington, DC: Global Environment Facility
Independent Evaluation Office. www.gefieo.org/evaluations/gef-me-policy-2019.
IPCC. 2018. Global Warming of 1.5°C. IPCCSpecial Report. www.ipcc.ch/sr15/
Jones, K.E., N.G. Patel, M.A. Levy, A. Storeygard, D. Balk, J.L. Gittleman, and P.
Daszak. 2008. “Global Trends in Emerging Infectious Diseases.” Nature 451: 990–993.
Quammen, D. 2020. “We Made the Coronavirus Epidemic.” The New York Times
January 28, 2020. www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/opinion/coronavirus-china.html
Steffen, W., K. Richardson, J. Rockström, S.E. Cornell, I. Fetzer, E.M. Bennett, R.
Biggs, S.R. Carpenter, W. De Vries, C.A. De Wit, C. Folke, D. Gerten, J. Heinke,
G.M. Mace, L.M. Persson, V. Ramanathan, B. Reyers, and S. Sörlin. 2015. “Planetary
Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet.” Science 347: 736,
1259855.
UN. 2015. Trends in Private Sector Climate Finance. Climate Change Support Team of the
UN Secretary General. https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/SG-
TRENDS-PRIVATE-SECTOR-CLIMATE-FINANCE-AW-HI-RES-WEB1.pdf
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2015. “Transforming
Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” https://sdgs.un.org/
2030agenda
World Economic Forum. 2020. The Global Risks Report 2020. www.weforum.org/reports/
the-global-risks-report-2020
Yeo, S. 2019. “Where Climate Cash Is Flowing and Why It’s Not Enough.” Nature 573:
328–331. www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02712-3#:~:text=The%20OECD’s%
20latest%20assessment%2C%20released,a%20total%20of%20%2471.2%20billion%20