EVALUATION 2026/1 Evaluation on Finland’s Development Policy and Cooperation JOINT EFFORTS FOR A GREEN FUTURE: EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES, AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES Volume 2a • Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity © Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland 2026 This report can be downloaded through the home page of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs https://um.fi/development-cooperation-evaluation-reports-comprehensive-evaluations Contact: EVA-11@gov.fi ISBN 978-952-281-848-5 (PDF) ISSN 2342-83411 Layout: Grano Oy https://um.fi/development-cooperation-evaluation-reports-comprehensive-evaluations mailto:EVA-11%40gov.fi?subject= EVALUATION JOINT EFFORTS FOR A GREEN FUTURE: EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES, AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES FORESTS, ECOSYSTEMS AND BIODIVERSITY SUB-SECTOR EVALUATION REPORT Kristiina Mikkola Sari Laaksonen Anu Nieminen Julian Caldecott Warren Olding Richard Lemoine-Rodríguez Paula Tommila with inputs from Isaac Malugu Pham Quang Nam 2026/1 This evaluation was commissioned by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland to Particip GmbH. This report is the product of the authors, and responsibility for the accuracy of the data included in this report rests with the authors. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions presented in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. This report incorporates the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies to enhance and support the evaluation process. AI tools were employed to assist document review through the identification of relevant sources and to enable broader contextual research, including targeted searches. In addition, AI-based language tools were used to support proofreading and to improve clarity, coherence, and readability. The AI tools or techniques utilised in this report adhere to EVA-11’s requirements, ensuring ethical and responsible use, transparency, validation of results, and compliance with relevant internal regulations. For details on the specific AI methodologies and tools used and details regarding the validation of AI-generated results, refer to section/Annex 1 of this report. Contents ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS  �   1 1 Summary  �   2 2 Introduction  �   8 2.1 Scope and purpose  �   8 2.2 Approach and methods  �   14 3 Context Analysis  �   18 3.1 Global policy context and trends   �   18 3.2 Finnish policy and institutional context  �   21 3.3 Portfolio review  �   23 3.4 Engagement with private sector to date   �   29 4 Findings  �   32 4.1 Results and impacts  �   32 4.2 Most effective approaches  �   54 4.3 Finland’s added value in the results   �   57 4.4 Markets, competition and demand for Finnish private sector   �   61 4.5 Foreseen gains and benefits for Finnish companies and development cooperation   �   70 4.6 The best approaches and measures to private sector engagement  �   74 5 Conclusions  �   78 6 Potential Action Points   �   84 References  �   88 ANNEX 1: METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL PROCESS  �   101 ANNEX 2: INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORKS, AGREEMENTS AND INITIATIVES RELEVANT TO THE FORESTS, ECOSYSTEMS AND BIODIVERSITY SUB-SECTOR   �   112 ANNEX 3: ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES IN FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT POLICIES   �   113 ANNEX 4: FORVAC GEOSPATIAL ANALYSIS - METHODS AND RESULTS  �   115 ANNEX 5: PFP GEOSPATIAL ANALYSIS - METHODS AND RESULTS  �   134 ANNEX 6: MARKET ANALYSIS OF FOREST INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND ADJACENT SECTORS IN TANZANIA  �   152 ANNEX 7: MARKET ANALYSIS OF FOREST INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND ADJACENT SECTORS IN VIETNAM  �   157 ANNEX 8: COMPARABLE ACTIONS BY LIKE-MINDED PEER COUNTRIES  �   163 ANNEX 9: LIST OF INSTITUTIONS CONSULTED   �   171 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Theory of Change for the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector   �   15 Figure 2 Net forest area change by region, 1990–2020 (million ha per year)   �   19 Figure 3 Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity portfolio share from Environment and Natural Resources portfolio (commitments, EUR million)  �   23 Figure 4 Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity commitments in 2015–2022 (EUR million)  �   24 Figure 5 Trends in commitments to biodiversity and forestry related interventions (EUR million)  �   25 Figure 6 Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity portfolio per country (%)  �   25 Figure 7 Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity portfolio by instrument (%)  �   26 Figure 8 Use of instruments over time in Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity (%)  �   27 Figure 9 Percentage of tree cover loss in each village land forest reserve and its reference area relative to their area covered by trees in 2017   �   35 Figure 10 Tree cover dynamics 2017–2024 in the analysed village land forest reserves and their corresponding reference areas (5 km buffers)   �   36 Figure 11 Percentage of the total woodlot area planted by village   �   39 Figure 12 Total woodlot area planted by beneficiary gender   �   43 Figure 13 Improved reporting on climate and biodiversity variables   �   45 Figure 14 Sentinel-2 infrared composites of Tanzania for 2017 (a) and 2024 (b)  �   115 Figure 15 Steps of the hybrid land cover change detection method   �   118 Figure 16 Example of 500 m buffers used to estimate tree cover loss at increasing distances from village land forest reserves boundaries  �   119 Figure 17 Geographic distribution of the village land forest reserves included in our analysis and their corresponding reference areas  �   120 Figure 18 Tree cover dynamics 2017–2024 in the analysed village land forest reserves and their corresponding reference areas (5 km buffers)  �   121 Figure 19 Tree cover loss (ha) in each village land forest reserve  �   123 Figure 20 Percentage of loss relative to the area covered by trees in 2017 in each village land forest reserve  �   124 Figure 21 Tree cover loss in each village land forest reserve and its reference area (ha)  �   125 Figure 22 Percentage of tree cover loss in each village land forest reserve and its reference area relative to their area covered by trees in 2017  �   126 Figure 23 Median tree cover loss (ha) within the village land forest reserves and across buffer zones at increasing distances from their borders  �   127 Figure 24 Steps conducted to identify plantations within PFP-supported woodlots from 2016 to 2024  �   137 Figure 25 Geographic distribution of the PFP-supported woodlots included in our analysis   �   140 Figure 26 Distribution of woodlot sizes (ha) by establishment date   �   140 Figure 27 Total woodlot area planted by establishment date  �   141 Figure 28 Total woodlot area planted by district  �   142 Figure 29 Total woodlot area planted by village  �   144 Figure 30 Percentage of the total woodlot area planted by village  �   145 Figure 31 Total woodlot area planted by beneficiary gender  �   146 Figure 32 Total woodlot area planted by species genus  �   147 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Moderate and intensive studies of MFA-supported projects in the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector  �   11 Table 2 Annual rate of forest area change  �   18 Table 3 Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity commitments (2015–2022)   �   24 Table 4 Themes and strategies of MFA support in the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector  �   28 Table 5 Finnish private sector engagement opportunities in Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity-portfolio  �   66 Table 6 Assumptions and logical steps in the theory of change for the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector  �   102 Table 7 Structure of the proforma used to organise evidence in moderate studies  �   105 Table 8 Structure of the proforma used to organise evidence in intensive desk studies  �   106 Table 9 Issues identified in the village land forest reserves data and how they were addressed  �   116 Table 10 Total area, tree cover area in 2017, tree cover loss, and proportion of tree cover loss relative to 2017 in the analysed village land forest reserves  �   128 Table 11 Tree cover loss areas and proportions relative to 2017, along with the absolute and proportional differences in tree cover loss between village land forest reserves and their reference areas  �   131 Table 12 Number of Sentinel-2 scenes processed per year (2016–2024)  �   134 Table 13 Issues identified in the woodlot data and how they were addressed  �   135 Table 14 Summary of woodlots included in our assessment by district  �   139 Table 15 Summary of woodlots established by date  �   148 Table 16 Summary of woodlots by district  �   148 Table 17 Summary of woodlots by village  �   149 Table 18 Summary of woodlots by gender  �   151 Table 19 Summary of woodlots by species genus  �   151 Acronyms and Abbreviations AI Artificial Intelligence CSO Civil society organisation DFONRMP Decentralised Forest and other Natural Resources Programme EFSD+ European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus EQ Evaluation Question EU European Union EUR Euro FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FINNFOR Integrated Environmental and Forest Management Co-operation Project in Central America FOPER Forest Policy and Economics Education and Research project FORLAND Forestry, Land Use and Value chains Development in Tanzania Project FORMIS Development of Management Information System for the Forestry Sector Project FORVAC Forestry and Value chains Development (Tanzania) Project GEF Global Environment Facility GIS Geographic Information Systems GPS Global Positioning System ha Hectare/s ICI Institutional Cooperation Instrument ICT Information and Communication Technology INFORES National Forest Resources Monitoring and Assessment at regional and local levels in Tanzania (INFORES) IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature MFA Ministry for Foreign Affairs (Finland) NAFORMA National Forest Resources Monitoring and Assessment ODA Official Development Assistance OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PDR (Lao) People’s Democratic Republic PFG Informed forestry decisions, sustainable forest management and forest certification in smallholder forests in Vietnam Project – Participatory Forest Governance PFP Private Forestry Programme PIF Public Sector Investment Facility REDD+ 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 SDG Sustainable Development Goal SNGS Strengthening National Geographic Services in Laos Project SUFORD Sustainable Forestry and Rural Development Project (in Lao PDR) TOSP Tree Outgrowers Support Programme UN United Nations UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USD United States Dollar WWF World Wide Fund for Nature ZAPROPA Zambia ProMs Partnership EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 1 1 Summary This document reports on an evaluation of work funded in 2010–24 by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland in the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector within the Environment and Natural Resources policy priority area, as part of the wider Evaluation on Finland’s Develop- ment Cooperation in Environment and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources and Private Sector Opportunities. It is one of the four sub-sector reports with results feeding a synthesis report. The other sub-sectors are: (i) Clean Energy, Circular Economy, and Critical Minerals, (ii) Disaster Risk Reduction and Meteorology and (iii) Water as a Natural Resource. All four sub-sector studies aim to answer one summative question: “What results, including any realised or emerging impact, has Finland generated in this sub-sector during the period under evaluation?”, and one formative question: “What concrete and context-specific opportunities, entry points and models are there for Finland for partnering with Finnish and local companies and economic actors within the sub-sector topic(s) in the next five years?”. All will support a later synthesis report. The evaluation applied a mixed-methods, theory-based, macro-level and realist design built around a theory of change for the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector. Core methods included portfolio review, ‘moderate’ and ‘intensive’ desk studies using structured proformas, semi-structured interviews, in-country consultations (Tanzania and Vietnam), e-survey, market analysis focused on private sector engagement, like-minded peer country review, geospatial analysis (Tanzania), and supportive use of natural language processing for document navigation. Evidence was trian- gulated across documents, interviews and geospatial analysis. Interviewees spanned policy-level, intervention-level and private-sector knowledge-holders across MFA, embassies, multilateral part- ners, non-governmental organisations, research bodies and companies. A total of 67 informants shared their views for this evaluation: 31 policy-level, 25 intervention level, 6 private sector, and other knowledge-holders. All evidence was used to support the reporting of findings, conclusions and potential action points (see below). EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 2 KEY RESULTS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOAL Answers to Evaluation Questions 1.1 (a, b, c) and 1.2 on results and impacts, induced changes and benefits/beneficiaries Across Finland-supported bilateral and civil society interventions, strong environmental outcomes (long-range result 1) were evidenced, with approximately 11.1 million hectares brought under protection, sustainable management or restoration (FORVAC, Tanzania, 2017–2024: 460,518 ha; DFONRMP/DFA, Zambia, 2015–2019: 32,707 ha; WWF Finland, global, 2018–2024: 6.7 million ha; Siemenpuu, global, 2018–2025: 3.9 million ha). (SDG 15) Deforestation fell inside community-managed forests while comparable reference areas continued to lose tree cover, with tree-cover loss held to 0.88% inside village land forest reserves versus 5.44% in surrounding areas, maintaining about 286,811 hectares of tree cover within a 416,301-hectare area (FORVAC, Tanzania, 2017–2024). (SDG 15) With multilateral partners, 238 million hectares of terrestrial ecosystems (IUCN, global, 2021–2024: 11 million ha; GEF, global, 2018–2024: 227 million ha) (SDGs 13, 15) and 1.5 billion hectares of marine ecosystems (GEF, global, 2018–2024) have been protected or restored. Sustainable production and livelihood effects were notable (SDGs 1, 8, 15). In Tanzania, plantation forest/smallholder wood supply expanded with over 11,000 hectares of new or rehabilitated woodlots and plantations, of which 6,811 hectares independently verified (PFP I–II/TOSP, 2017–2024). Community forestry generated more than EUR 4 million in local revenues with around 55% reinvested and household-level income effects estimated at about 12% of average income in participating villages (FORVAC, Tanzania, 2018–2024). Across programmes, at least 8,700 micro, small and medium-sized enterprises received support (WWF Finland, global, 2018–2024; FORVAC, Tanzania, 2018–2024; PFP II, Tanzania, 2019–2024). At the macro level, Tanzania’s forest-asset value was estimated to rise by about EUR 0.5 billion between 2014–2021 alongside stronger smallholder supply, though not a result of Finland alone. Equity, rights and inclusion advanced in parallel (SDGs 1, 5, 10, 16). In Tanzania, community-managed forests channelled a majority share of revenues into community development funds, improving women’s and youth participation in decision-making and benefit-sharing (2017–2024). Across programmes, Finnish support reportedly benefitted 89,804 women, 62,374 indigenous/minority persons and 22,913 persons with disabilities (WWF Finland, global, 2018–2024; FORVAC, Tanzania, 2017–2024), while more than 64,000 families saw formalisation of land and resource rights (Siemenpuu, global, 2015–2025). Policy, legal and institutional reforms were institutionalised where mandates and budgets held and producer organisations consolidated (SDGs 12, 13, 15, 16, 17). Zambia expanded community forests from about 30,000 hectares (2015) to over 1 million hectares (2019) following a statutory instrument, a national seven- step procedure and community by-laws, with 32,707 hectares designated directly by a Finnish programme (DFONRMP/DFA, 2015–2019). Lao PDR embedded participatory sustainable forest management across roughly 2.3 million hectares and 1,078 villages, about 73% of the production-forest estate, linking approved plans to revenue-sharing and village rules (SUFORD, 2003–2017). Kenya consolidated its framework via the Forest Conservation and Management Act (2016) and organisational upgrades in Kenya Forest Service (2016–2019), while Tanzania issued planning guidelines, participatory village land-use tools and a FLEGT legal-trade review strengthening compliant value chains (2018–2024). Finnish-funded civil society work reinforced uptake: WWF Finland influenced 62 policies/decisions/investments, supported 94 land-use/forest/watershed plans and 35 nature-based/adaptation initiatives, and capacitated 347 local civil society organisations and 2,805 duty-bearers; regional instruments advanced, including the EAC Forest Policy/Strategy and a Southern African Development Community mechanism for seized timber stockpiles (Global/Southern Africa, 2022–2024). Information systems and clarified procedures shifted day-to-day practice towards evidence-based, rules-driven management (SDGs 13, 15, 16, 17). Vietnam converted paper-based forest monitoring into a nationwide digital system used across all 60 provinces, scaling to several thousand communes with approximately 1,300 active government forestry users and supporting Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade/REDD+ compliance (FORMIS I–II/PFG, 2016–2020). Primary relevance (EQ1) Secondary relevance (EQ1) EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 3 KEY RESULTS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOAL In Tanzania, NAFORMA delivered the first multipurpose national inventory and decision-grade statistics, including a quantified 19.5 million m³ annual wood deficit, that informed revision of the National Forestry Programme, while INFORES produced biomass/carbon data enabling national Forest Reference Emission Levels (FREL) and Paris Agreement reporting and supported research and miombo regeneration analysis (2015–2019). The forest resources management information system expanded from civil-society pilot to national timber-consignment tracking with real-time passes and e-revenue (PFP II/FORVAC/TFS, 2019–2024). Globally, FAO’s Forest Resources Assessment-2025 online platform further harmonised reporting—improving traceability across forest management information systems/ SDG/UN Economic Commission for Europe processes (2023–2024). ‘Do no harm’: No systematic negative environmental effects were evidenced; risks remained around biodiversity outcomes in exotic plantations, and around fire/ drought/pest exposure, underscoring the need for landscape-level biodiversity measures and risk management (Tanzania, 2017–2024). Answers to Evaluation Question 1.3 on most effective approaches Rights-based community forest management proved effective, with formalised tenure, mapped boundaries and clear village procedures reducing illegal use and supporting credible supervision. (SDGs 15, 16) Forest loss was reduced and results endured where local institutions were resourced. (SDGs 15, 16) Strengthening state capacity and legal frameworks anchored local practice in law, mandates and budgets, translating community rights into routine compliance and improving durability beyond project cycles. (SDGs 16, 15) A data-first approach – participatory inventories with operational forest management information systems and traceability – made planning and enforcement transparent and repeatable, aligned local decisions with national reporting, and sustained outcomes when systems were institutionalised and maintained. (SDGs 15, 16, 12) Effectiveness and sustainability increased further where these approaches were sequenced and paired with Institutional Cooperation Instrument projects alongside bilateral programmes, which convened capable partners, reinforced forest management information system uptake, and built lasting capacity. (SDGs 17, 16, 15) Answers to Evaluation Question 1.4 on Finnish added value Finland’s context-specific added value lay in exporting world-class forest informatics and measurement know-how with a clear demand by partners – national forest management information systems platforms and global, open tools that standardised data, strengthened compliance/monitoring, reporting and verification and, in countries like Tanzania and Vietnam, continued to deliver beyond project life. (SDGs 15, 13, 16, 17) This distinctive technical credibility, recognised by governments, FAO and peers, made Finland the trusted “go-to” actor when robust, interoperable information systems and forest inventory capacity were prerequisites for results. (SDGs 17, 16) Operationally, Finland generated results by combining instruments and partnerships. (SDGs 17, 16) Bilateral + Institutional Cooperation Instrument + FAO (+, at times, Finnfund) were sequenced to build institutions, methods and skills, with clear country tailoring (e.g. Kenya’s IC-FRA feeding the Forest Information System; Tanzania’s INFORES building on NAFORMA and linking with PFP/FORVAC; Vietnam’s FORMIS complemented by community-level piloting via PFG). (SDGs 17, 16, 15) Where mature relationships and trust existed, most visibly in Tanzania, Finland could broker coherence across public programmes and private investees (e.g. TOSP). (SDGs 17, 8, 16) Normatively, Finland’s comparative advantage was more indirect and concentrated in multilateral arenas than in bilateral policy reform. (SDGs 17, 16) By hard- wiring monitoring, reporting and verification and e-tracking (e.g. forest resources management information system in Tanzania) into partner systems, Finland enabled policy implementation and compliance pathways even when it was not fronting the dialogue. (SDGs 13, 15, 16) Normative influence is practiced chiefly through multilateral governance and agenda-setting on climate/biodiversity. (SDGs 17, 13, 15) However, Finland’s marginal contributions and diminishing official development assistance is feared to limit this influencing avenue. (SDG 17) EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 4 KEY RESULTS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOAL Answer to Evaluation Question 2.1 on market conditions affecting Finnish private sector engagement Digital forest information and compliance technology is in clear demand across East Africa, Southeast Asia and parts of Latin America and the Caribbean, with demand increasing and expanding to traceability because of the requirements linked to the European Union Deforestation Regulation. (SDGs 12, 15, 16) In addition, in countries where donors are active in the sector, community-based forestry and ecosystem management services show continuous demand. (SDGs 15, 16) Finland should approach these demands focusing on its competitive advantage of advanced technical systems and participatory governance and making use of the expanding blended finance and concessional financing mechanisms. (SDGs 17, 16, 15) Where GEF or UNEP (and other multilateral organisations) have laid down credible data systems, clarified rules and social safeguards, and built micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprise demand, Finnish firms may face lower entry barriers and clearer buyer mandates in Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity tenders. (SDGs 17, 16, 8, 15) For Finnish companies, the practical approach is to anchor offers in these enabling-environment gains (for example, interoperability with NAFORMA in Tanzania and Vietnam monitoring, reporting and verification), pair with Team Europe, GEF, or Green Climate Fund finance where relevant, and highlight lifecycle compliance and rights-based delivery. (SDGs 17, 12, 16, 15) Relevance (EQ2) Answer to Evaluation Question 2.2 (a, b) on potential gains for Finnish businesses and development cooperation Finnish companies are likely to make commercial gains by anchoring offers in forest management information systems and traceability and leveraging Public Sector Investment Facility/European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus financing, and their capability gains are likely to arise from deeper positioning in Team Europe and scalable Nordic consortia. (SDGs 8, 12, 17, 15) Potential development outcomes from deepening the engagement of the private sector include stronger governance, which can lead to benefits to local communities and climate and biodiversity impact. (SDGs 16, 13, 15) Finnfund’s investments in forestry already show measurable climate and livelihood impacts, and their human rights-based approach and environmental, social, and governance practices increase the development additionality. (SDGs 13, 8, 16) Systemic value would emerge when Finland’s various private sector instruments are used in a complementary manner to reduce barriers to market entry, support procurement, and scale promising solutions. (SDGs 17, 8, 9) For Finnish companies operating in Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity markets, this integrated approach could create a financing and support ecosystem that strengthens both commercial viability and development impact. (SDGs 17, 8, 9) EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 5 KEY RESULTS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOAL Answer to Evaluation Question 2.3 on promising models for Finnish private sector engagement Promising approaches to private sector engagement in Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity markets include (i) a ‘forest management information systems–to– Compliance Ladder’, (ii) creation of Nordic consortia focused on ‘Nature-Data and Water–Forest Nexus’ solutions, and (iii) systematic development of local operation and maintenance ecosystems. (SDGs 15, 6, 17, 9) The ‘forest management information systems–to–Compliance Ladder’ approach would position Finnish companies to deliver end-to-end digital solutions that start with basic forest inventories and scale up to advanced compliance and traceability systems. (SDGs 15, 12, 16) The Nordic ‘Nature-Data and Water–Forest Nexus’ approach would allow Finnish firms to expand their commercial reach and build institutional capacity for partnership management, knowledge sharing, and innovation. (SDGs 6, 15, 17, 9) Building local operation and maintenance ecosystems would not only secure the durability of Finnish solutions but also create shared value through local job creation, institutional strengthening, and sustainable development outcomes. (SDGs 8, 16, 9, 15) Conclusions 1. Environmental benefits are achievable at scale when conservation is embedded in governance systems and economic incentives. Fragmented design and premature exits limited the consistency of results, while long-term cooperation achieved impact and lasting results. 2. Biodiversity integration was uneven: global and civil society partners delivered tangible biodiversity benefits, while bilateral programmes prioritised forest cover and production over biodiversity outcomes. 3. Support to forest management information systems, an example of Finnish added value, has been among the most successful and strategically justified areas of Finnish support producing sustained outputs. 4. Community-based forest management emerged as Finland’s most effective and replicable approach, but its success depends on secure tenure, institutional capacity, and continuity of support. 5. Support to value chain development is a well justified area of Finnish support. However, results have been weak, largely because private sector has not been fully involved in the process. 6. Finland’s bilateral, Institutional Cooperation Instrument and civil society organisation support proved complementary, with synergies strongest where Institutional Cooperation projects paired with bilateral programmes to consolidate technical systems and capacities. 7. While combining instruments enabled complementary projects, and a high-quality capacity-building focus helped secure the sustainability of results, Finland largely left policy influencing and high-level dialogue to partners, factors also critical to long-term sustainability. 8. The structure of Finland’s Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity portfolio shifted from bilateral to multilateral and civil society organisation channels, reducing Finland’s direct possibilities to influence. This shift was largely driven by budgetary cuts rather than deliberate strategic choice. EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 6 9. The effectiveness of geospatial analysis as an evaluation tool is only as strong as the quality of the underlying data, making systematic data management a critical requirement for future projects. 10. Finland’s dual value proposition, advanced technical systems paired with participatory governance, can make Finnish private sector competitive in the markets which demand digital forest information and compliance technology and engagement in community-based forestry and ecosystem restoration. 11. For Finnish companies, engaging in Team Europe and Global Gateway initiatives is a strategic investment in organisational capacity that directly supports sustainable growth in Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity markets. On balance, the promise of commercial gains from forest management information systems, monitoring, reporting and verification, and traceability solutions, when supported by Public Sector Investment Facility and European Fund for Sustainable Development+, outweighs the challenges. 12. While we may not yet be fully there, the systemic value of private sector engagement lies in the ability of the existing instruments to work together as a coherent pipeline – from pilot to procurement to investment to regional scale. 13. Promising private sector engagement tactics in Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity call for integrated, step-wise, collaborative, strategic and systemic approaches. Potential action points 1. Continue support to Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sector. Scale community-based forest management through longer horizons and delegated cooperation. 2. Synergistic approaches across the Environment and Natural Resources sub-sectors should be sought to address the multiple crises of climate, biodiversity and security – and to link nature with human security. 3. Reorient value chain support towards market access and private-sector participation from the outset, grounded in a comprehensive analysis of institutional and technical bottlenecks and an explicit risk-management plan, with early buyer/off-taker commitments. 4. Sustain and increase biodiversity support. 5. Standardised and verifiable geospatial datasets should be applied in forestry projects to make meaningful geospatial analysis as easy as possible in future. 6. Look into more effective methods to incorporate private sector engagement in both bilateral and multilateral channels. 7. Look into more effective methods to support private sector and civil society organisation collaboration. 8. MFA and its implementing partners, Finland’s embassies and Finnfund require sufficient human and financial resources to actively engage Finnish private sector in Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity-interventions. EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 7 2 Introduction 2.1 Scope and purpose This document reports the findings and conclusions of an evaluation of work funded by the Min- istry for Foreign Affairs of Finland (MFA) in the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector of the Environment and Natural Resources policy priority area. It is part of a larger Environment and Natural Resources evaluation that also encompasses three other sub-sectors: Clean Energy, Circular Economy and Critical Minerals, Disaster Risk Reduction and Meteorology, and Water as a Natural Resource. This and the other sub-sector evaluations are ultimately intended to be used in support of a synthesis report which will present findings, conclusions and recommendations from the Environment and Natural Resources evaluation as a whole. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide the MFA and its stakeholders with information on the achievements, merits and worth of implementation of this policy priority area. The evaluation is to provide evidence-based recommendations on future directions for increased effectiveness for Finland to consider when it engages with this theme with a longer-term time perspective as well as well as inform MFA stakeholders about the achievements. The evaluation also aims to deepen understanding of Finland’s contributions to the 2030 Agenda, particularly in relation to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 13 (climate action), SDG 15 (life on land), and SDG 17 (partnerships for the goals). This sub-sector evaluation has both summative and formative dimensions. The specific objectives are: 1. To harvest and evaluate results (obtained and sustained), successes and challenges in achieving the objectives of the policy priority area and its sub-sectors (summative); 2. To present a synthesis of results and impacts, including early/emerging impacts (summative); 3. To identify and analyse opportunities, means and measures for engaging Finnish private sector actors into this work in the future (formative); 4. To provide realistic evidence-based policy and operational recommendations for the future, with due attention to the limitations in financial and human resources available (formative). This also includes documenting practical lessons on, and any opportunities for, applying geo-referencing and geospatial data for future monitoring and evaluation purposes to partly address reporting challenges. EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 8 The evaluation questions (EQ) addressed in the sub-sector evaluation are: EQ1: What results, including any realised or emerging impact, has Finland generated in this sub-sector during the period under evaluation? (summative) 1.1 What have been the most notable results and impacts? What relative change(s) resulted in the sub-sector through Finnish support during the period? Were there any unexpected and/or negative effects to the environment (do no harm)? 1.2 Who benefited, in what contexts, how and why (facilitating factors)? 1.3 What approaches have been particularly effective? 1.4 What has been Finland’s (context-specific) added value/comparative advantage in generating the results? EQ2: What concrete and context-specific opportunities, entry points and models are there for Finland for partnering with Finnish and local companies and economic actors within the sub-sector topic(s) in the next five years? (formative) 2.1 What type of markets, level of competition and local demand exists there for Finnish private sector funding, investments and/or solutions (products, services) in the sub- sector topic(s) in the locations assessed? 2.2 What are the foreseen gains to the Finnish companies in the short and long term? What are foreseen benefits/results from such partnerships from the point of view of advancing of Finland’s development policy objectives? 2.3 What kind of concrete models/partnerships (e.g. clusters/consortia/coalitions/multi- actor part-nerships) and instruments show best promise and viability, including possible funding sources for sustainable private sector business models, for accelerating private sector engagement for Finnish private sector actors? This report focuses on results and impacts of MFA-supported interventions from 2010 to 2024 across the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector. It draws from a purposive sample of MFA-funded projects and initiatives within the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity portfolio (see Table 1). During the Inception phase a sample of interventions was identified for further analysis. The interviews pointed to some additional projects and partners which were added to the sam- ple. The analysis of results and impacts achieved in the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector and of the Finnish private sector engagement build on that sample. Therefore, the anal- ysis incorporates most of the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector interventions that received MFA support during 2010–2024. Forestry is by far the most prominent theme, with 78% of the interventions, mostly in the form of bilateral and regional programmes and Institutional Co- operation Instrument (ICI) projects up to 2018. Ecosystems and biodiversity are mostly addressed through unearmarked or partially earmarked grants to United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) Finland, International Union for Conservation of Na- ture (IUCN) and Siemenpuu. There was only one project implemented by a Finnish company in the sample. A particular emphasis is placed on private sector engagement within the sub-sector, aiming to identify lessons learned and good practices in leveraging private sector involvement. EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 9 In terms of the main financial instruments used to fund interventions in the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector, the present evaluation identified the following instruments as the most relevant: (i) Multilateral support, e.g. Global Environment Facility (GEF) and United Nations (UN) agencies such as the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and UNEP; (ii) Support to civil society organisations (CSO), in particular through WWF Finland an Siemenpuu Foundation, among others; and (iii) Bilateral support to Finland’s partner countries. Cross-cutting objectives, including human rights-based approaches, gender equality and women’s empowerment, and non-discrimination, were excluded from the scope of this evaluation, as they were recently addressed in the 2023 Climate Finance Evaluation. EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 10 Table 1 Moderate and intensive studies of MFA-supported projects in the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector INTERVENTION (ACRONYM, YEARS) INSTRUMENTS (CATEGORIES FROM TERMS OF REFERENCE) IMPLEMENTING AGENCY AND MFA FINANCING GEOGRAPHY CONTEXT1 DEPTH OF STUDY Interventions with main focus on forests and forest management Miti Mingi Maisha Bora – Support to Forestry Sector Reform (MMMB, 2007–2015) Bilateral support Implementer: Government of Finland Finnish contribution/total budget: EUR 22.7 million Kenya Traditional Moderate study Scaling-up Participatory Sustainable Forest Management Project (SUFORD 2003–2008), Sustainable Forestry and Rural Project Additional Financing (SUFORD-AF, 2009–2013) and Scaling-up Participatory Sustainable Forest Management Project (SUFORD-SU, 2013–2019, with Finland technical assistance funding until June 2017) Bilateral support Implementer: Government of Finland (technical assistance) and World Bank World Bank: USD 51.98 million Finland: USD 33.82 million Government of Laos: USD 0.43 million (data only from one phase) Total budget (3 phases): USD 86.23 million Lao PDR Traditional Moderate study Strengthening National Geographic Services in Laos (SNGS, 2010–2015) Bilateral support Implementer: Government of Finland Finnish contribution/total budget: EUR 6 million Lao PDR Traditional Moderate study National Forest and Beekeeping Programme (NFBKP, 2013–2015) Bilateral support Implementer: Government of Finland Finnish contribution/total budget: EUR 13.7 million Tanzania Traditional Intensive study Forestry and Value chains Development (FORVAC, 2018–2024) Bilateral support Implementer: Government of Finland Finnish contribution: EUR 14.15 million Total budget: EUR 14.35 million Tanzania Traditional Private Forestry Programme (PFP, 2014–2019) and Participatory Plantation Forestry Programme in Tanzania (PFP II, 2019–2024) Bilateral support Implementer: Government of Finland Finnish contribution: EUR 9.34 million Total budget: EUR 9.87 million Tanzania Traditional Tree Outgrowers Support Programme in Tanzania (TOSP, 2019–2022) Bilateral support Implementer: Government of Finland Finnish contribution/total budget: EUR 1.17 million Tanzania Traditional Strengthening Forest Resources Management and Enhancing its Contribution to Sustainable Development, Land use and Livelihoods (also known as “FAO-Finland Forestry Programme”) (GCP/GLO/194/MUL), 2009–2014 Multilateral support Implementer: FAO Finnish contribution: EUR 15.25 million Global; Ecuador, Peru, Tanzania, Vietnam and Zambia Traditional 1 Context. Transitions from one context to another are not always clear and consistent. Thus the MFA definition of ‘transitional’ focuses on shifting from a development cooperation-based relationship to a private sector-based relationship, while the World Bank uses per-person Gross Domestic Product and the United Nations takes a wider basket of economic and human development indicators into account. Moreover, the dynamism of national economic systems does not always make for a simple progression, an example being Zambia which the World Bank demoted from the lower-middle to lower income category in 2022. Comparable ambiguity over economic status affects the status of Lao PDR. And the ‘conflictual’ context is also subject to radical change since, as seen since 2022 in Ukraine and elsewhere, it depends on military and peace-making initiatives by various stakeholders. National Forestry Resources Monitoring and Assessment in the United Republic of Tanzania (NAFORMA, 2009–2014) Multilateral support Implementer: FAO Finnish contribution: USD 5.8 million Tanzania Traditional VN/Management Information System for Forestry Sector Phase II (FORMIS II, 2013–2018) Bilateral support Implementer: Government of Finland Finnish contribution: EUR 9.7 million Total budget: EUR ~10.1 million Vietnam Transition Informed forestry decisions, sustainable forest management and forest certification in smallholder forests in Vietnam, Participatory Forest Governance (PFG, 2014–2018) INGO project Implementer: ActionAid Vietnam Finnish contribution: EUR 1.05 million ActionAid Vietnam: EUR 0.05 million Total budget: EUR 1.0946 million Vietnam Transition National Forest Resources Monitoring and Assessment (NAFORMA) at regional and local levels in Tanzania (INFORES, 2016–2019) ICI project Implementor: Natural Resource Institute, Finland Finnish contribution/total budget: EUR 0.7 million Tanzania Traditional Moderate study Integrated Land Use Assessment, II-phase (ILUA II, 2010–2017) Multilateral support Implementer: FAO Finnish contribution/total budget: USD 5.1 million Zambia Transition Moderate study Civil Society Environment Fund phase II (CSEF II, 2015–2019) Bilateral support Implementer: Government of Finland Finnish contribution/total budget: EUR 4.6 million Zambia Transition Moderate study Decentralised Forest and other Natural Resources Programme (DFONRMP, 2015–2018) Bilateral support Implementer: Government of Finland Finnish contribution/total budget: EUR 4.7 million Zambia Transition Moderate study Forest Policy and Economics Education and Research project (FOPER, 2004–2013) Regional cooperation Implementor: European Forest Institute Finnish contribution: EUR 6 million Total budget: EUR 6.8 million Western Balkans - Moderate study Livelihood Improvement through Generation and Ownership of Forest Information by Local People in Products and Services Markets project in the Mekong basin (FORINFO, 2011–2015) Regional cooperation Implementer: Regional Community Forestry Training Centre for Asia and the Pacific, RECOFTC Finnish contribution: EUR 3.8 million Mekong, Regional - Moderate study Sustainable Forest Management Programme in the Andean region (MFS, 2011–2016) Regional cooperation Implementer: Inter-American Institute for Agriculture, IICA Finnish contribution: EUR 8.08 million Andean region - Moderate study Integrated Environmental and Forest Management Co-operation Project in Central America (FINNFOR II 2012–2016) Regional cooperation Implementer: Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Centre, CATIE Finnish contribution: EUR 2 million Central America - Moderate study INTERVENTION (ACRONYM, YEARS) INSTRUMENTS (CATEGORIES FROM TERMS OF REFERENCE) IMPLEMENTING AGENCY AND MFA FINANCING GEOGRAPHY CONTEXT1 DEPTH OF STUDY EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 12 Support to Implementation of the Forest Policy and Strategy in Kosovo (GCP/KOS/005/FIN), 2011–2017 Multilateral support Implementer: FAO Finnish contribution/Total budget: EUR 4 million Kosovo - Moderate study FAO: Enhancing accuracy, accessibility and transparency of global forest resources data (GCP/GLO/1030/MUL), 2022–2023 Multilateral support Implementer: FAO Finnish contribution: USD 2.3 million Total budget: USD 7 million Global - Moderate study FAO: Forest and Farm Facility (GCP/GLO/931/ MUL) (2012–2025) Multilateral support Implementer: FAO Finnish contribution: USD 5 million (Phase I) and USD 2.37 million (Phase II) Total budget: USD 83.8 million (for both Phases) Global - Moderate study Interventions with main focus on ecosystems and biodiversity Regional Biodiversity Programme for the Amazon Region of Andean Countries (BioCAN 2010– 2013) Regional cooperation Implementer: General Secretariat of the Andean Community Finnish contribution: EUR 6.28 million Andean region, Regional - Moderate study UNEP Nature Fund (‘Living in Harmony with Nature’) 2023–2025 Multilateral support Implementer: UNEP Finnish contribution: USD 3.3 million The UNEP Nature Fund has received USD 8.43 million, mainly from Norway (58%) and Finland (39%). Global - Moderate study World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Finland multiyear development programmes, 2014–2025 CSO support Implementer: WWF Finland Finnish contribution EUR 12 million during 2021–2025 Global - Moderate study Siemenpuu multiyear development programmes, 2015–2025 CSO support Implementer: Siemenpuu Foundation Finnish contribution EUR 4 million during 2021–2025 Global - Moderate study IUCN-Finland Framework agreement, 2010–2025 Multilateral support Implementer: IUCN Finnish contribution EUR 2.8 million during 2021– 2024 Total budget: 633 million Swiss Franc Global - Moderate study Global Environment Facility, GEF replenishments GEF-7 and GEF-8, 1994–2026 Multilateral support Implementer: GEF Finnish contribution for biodiversity EUR 24.4 million during 2019–2026 Global - Moderate study Zambia ProMs Partnership (ZAPROPA), 2023– 2024 Private sector instrument Implementer: Arbonaut Oy Finnish contribution: EUR 0.03 million Total budget: EUR 0.04 million Zambia Transition Moderate study INTERVENTION (ACRONYM, YEARS) INSTRUMENTS (CATEGORIES FROM TERMS OF REFERENCE) IMPLEMENTING AGENCY AND MFA FINANCING GEOGRAPHY CONTEXT1 DEPTH OF STUDY INTERVENTION (ACRONYM, YEARS) INSTRUMENTS (CATEGORIES FROM TERMS OF REFERENCE) IMPLEMENTING AGENCY AND MFA FINANCING GEOGRAPHY CONTEXT1 DEPTH OF STUDY 2.2 Approach and methods The methodology is described in detail in Annex 1. It is focused on: (i) exploring beyond the pro- ject and programme level to shed light on aggregate and catalytic effects and synergies between actions, actors, instruments and policy-influencing activities within and across the sub-sector; and (ii) establishing how these encourage and enable wider changes at geographic, sectoral and/or institutional scales, including the role of private sector engagement and implications for the portfolio and policy level. It is therefore a ‘theory-based’, ‘macro-level’ and ‘realist’ evaluation: • theory-based, because it is built upon a theory of change for the sub-sector that indi- cates the logical connections between inputs and instruments, short-, medium- and long-range results, and impacts, and hence with an emphasis on the plausibility of assumptions and causal links between steps in the design logic; • macro-level, because it is focused on development cooperation across multiple inter- ventions, locations, and the 15 years 2010–2024; and • realist, because the study is embedded within a theory of change grounded in the large-scale, long-term development context that applies to those same multiple inter- ventions, locations, and years. This focus on the macro level differentiates the approach from that of micro-level or interven- tion-specific evaluation. It rules out applying a detailed understanding of local context to help understand patterns and themes, since contexts cannot be aggregated but only generalised or used in examples. For the same reasons, the key Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee’s evaluation criteria of effectiveness, impact and sustainability have different meanings compared with their uses in intervention-specific evaluation2. In the present macro-level context they are defined as follows: • effectiveness refers to the specific changes that occurred in a system during and as a result of particular kinds of MFA-supported interventions; • impact refers to the consequences of those specific changes for the system with which particular kinds of MFA-supported interventions were engaged; and • sustainability refers to the development of new outlooks, abilities, laws, budgets or administrative arrangements that are likely to promote the durability of those specific system changes after MFA’s eventual departure. The sub-sectoral theory of change The above makes clear that the sub-sectoral theory of change is of central importance to this eval- uation, since performance across the portfolio is to be judged in terms of changes in line with the theory of change and that contribute to the flow of results from short, medium and long-range to overall effects on achieving the SDGs and related objectives. An early step in the evaluation was therefore to develop a sub-sectoral theory of change (Figure 1) based on MFA’s existing theory of change and aggregate indicators for the Environment and Natural Resources policy area (2023) Outcome 1 “All people benefit increasingly from clean environment and healthy ecosystems, con- servation, sustainable management and use of renewable natural resources, such as forests and water bodies”, modified in light of relevant ecological principles and global good practice (such as those developed to meet relevant SDG targets in this sub-sector, including SDGs 12.2, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.5, and also 6.5, 13.1, 13.3, 15.9), and supported by theory of change assumptions listed in Annex 1. 2 At the micro level, effectiveness refers to the delivery of results by an intervention, impact refers to the consequences of the results during the project, and sustainability refers to durable change induced by the project and likely to survive it. Figure 1 Theory of Change for the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector Impact Figure 1 - Theory of Change: Forests, Ecosystems, and Biodiversity (FEB) MFA instruments MFA inputs Achievement of FEB-related SDGs and MEA goals so that sustainably-managed forests and other ecosystems continue to store carbon, protect biodiversity and provide other goods and services that support employment, income and added value. LRR-1. Environmental: improved climate change mitigation and adaptation, forest resources, biodiversity. LRR-2. Social: greater inclusion and equity outcomes for poor and vulnerable/impacted groups and forest-dependent communities. LRR-3. Cooperative: transboundary collaboration on management of shared ecosystems and water catchments. LRR-4. Economic: increased job creation, economic growth and productive uses based on enhanced value chains. MRR 1. Strengthened institutions, policies, laws, practices and awareness. MRR 2. Sustainable and inclusive forestry sector contributing to economic growth in partner countries. MRR 3. Sustainable supply chains, improved resource efficiency and environmental sustainability of forest industries. MRR 4. Equitable benefit sharing from renewable natural resources (RNRs) contributing to poverty reduction. Assessment/mapping of RNRs to clarify use and ownership rights and management responsibilities. User groups encouraged and enabled to manage ecosystems sustainably in partnership with national authorities. MSME businesses building viable, sustainable supply chains using diverse ecosystem goods and services. Ecosystems increasingly under conservation and/or participatory, sustainable, and integrated management. Public institutions benefit from community and business partnerships promoting sustainable ecosystem management. Participatory research, education and knowledge sharing on RNRs facilitate sustainable ecosystem management. (a) Bilateral support to partner countries (including regional cooperation); (b) Multilateral support (core funding and specific support to e.g. GCF, GEF, AfDB, IADB, NEFCO, multi-bi projects, loans, investments); (c) Private sector instruments (PSIs, including channels such as DevPlat, PIF, Finnfund, Finnpartnership); (d) Institutional Cooperation Instrument (ICI); (e) support to CSOs and international NGOs; and (f) EU development cooperation (including Global Gateway). Continued grant funding, investment capital, and policy and diplomatic engagement to promote the extensive expertise of Finnish operators in forest and biodiversity surveys and information systems, forest industry planning, forest environmental education and research, and small -scale producer-driven forestry. Long-range results Medium- range results Short-range results Source: Evaluation team, based on the theory of change and aggregate indicators for the Environment and Natural Resources policy area in MFA (2023) EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 15 A mixed-methods evaluation A mixed-methods design was adopted, tailored to each EQ. The core methods used in each sub-sector evaluation included: • Portfolio review: Mapping and screening MFA-funded interventions in the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sector (2015–2022), leading to the pre-selection of a wide sample of projects to be considered for assessment. • Desk studies: Moderate and intensive reviews of project and programme documenta- tion, including final and ex-post evaluations. Evidence was systematically captured into searchable proformas (project results frameworks presented in Table 7 and Table 8) where it could be easily retrieved at any stage and by the entire evaluation team. A total of 30 interventions were reviewed in the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiver- sity sub-sector, of which eight were studied in greater depth through intensive studies (see Table 1). Cutting across the sub-sectors, intensive reviews of four private sector engagement instruments were also included. • Interviews and survey: Conducted with a total of 67 informants: 31 policy-level, 25 intervention level, 6 private sector, and other knowledge-holders (see Annex 9 for more details) to complement desk review findings, clarify gaps, and explore strategic and operational aspects, including private sector engagement. Cutting across the sub-sec- tors, 19 companies responded to a private sector engagement survey, and approxi- mately half a dozen overall Environment and Natural Resources management inter- viewees from public and private sectors provided information and insights relevant to Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity. • Market analysis: Market analyses focusing on opportunities for Finnish companies were conducted relating to the interventions covered by the intensive studies in each sub-sector. Thus, in the case of Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity, the two market analyses focused on Forest Information Systems and Adjacent Sectors in Tanzania and Vietnam (Annex 6 and 7). This component drew on interviews, desk studies, and additional data sources to assess private sector engagement trends, barriers, and opportunities within the sub-sector. • Like-minded peer country review: Examined strategies, instruments, and delivery models used by comparator countries engage in activities in the same sub-sector. The analysis aimed to identify lessons and contrasts with Finland’s approach, including areas of innovation and convergence. In addition, cutting across the sub-sectors two like-minded peer country reviews focusing on engaging private sector were carried out. • Natural language processing: Used to efficiently identify the most relevant sources of information for the sub-sector from a large volume of evaluation reports and documen- tation, especially during the inception phase. • Geospatial analysis: Used in the forestry sub-sector to visualise and interpret the spatial dimensions of project implementation and impact in Tanzania. See Annex 4 and Annex 5 for full details. • In-country consultations: Conducted in Vietnam (a transitional context) and Tanzania (a traditional context) to validate findings, deepen analysis on clusters of interventions, and examine their private sector engagement relevance. Based on the distribution of different themes of MFA investment by country and partner as shown in the portfolio review, Vietnam and Tanzania were selected for in-country consultations that were conducted by national experts. Also considering the potential for Finnish private sector engagement to enter those markets, the objectives of the studies were to assess inter- est in and demand for digital forest resource data and digital tools for managing those data, among forest managers, together with looking at impacts of past interventions on these topics. Together, these methods enabled the evaluation team to triangulate evidence across a wide range of sources, ensuring that conclusions are robust and grounded in multiple lines of inquiry. Consistency and comparability All four sub-sector reports addressed the same EQs and contributed to the preparation of the syn- thesis report. To ensure comparability and enable aggregation across sub-sectors, all performance judgements (i.e. on effectiveness, impact and sustainability) were required to be evidence-based and expressed in a standardised manner by using the following three-point scale as qualifiers where appropriate: • Strong performance – Finnish support was assessed as being successful in achiev- ing most (if not all) of its expected results, made a significant contribution to broader effects or impacts (i.e. through Finnish added value) and benefitted a substantial part of the intended target populations; • Moderate performance – Finnish support was assessed at being successful or at least partially successful in achieving several (but not all) of its expected results, con- tributed to broader effects or impacts (but only to a limited degree while the contribu- tion of others is likely to have been more significant) and benefitted the intended target populations; • Weak performance – Finnish support only achieved a small proportion of its expected results, did likely not contribute to broader effects or impacts (or only in a very limited and indirect manner) and did not manage to create any wider benefits for the intended target populations. The adoption of this limited range reflected the nature of the evidence available across the sub-sec- tor portfolio, which did not support more granular distinctions. The same approach was applied across all the sub-sector evaluations to ensure coherence in synthesis. Throughout the reports, these assessments are put into context by a ‘realist perspective’ offering insights on the circum- stances and conditions in which Finland carried out its activities. In addition, further explanation is provided where needed to clarify specific cases or examples used as evidence, in particular where those might provide counterexamples and exceptions to the overall assessment, although these additional descriptive terms informed the evidence base rather than the formal findings. The subject of the evaluation (and of each sub-sector) being particularly complex and broad, there is a wide range of variables and factors that impact on outcomes and broader effects. Therefore, the evaluation aims at providing evidence for Finnish contribution to these effects, rather than seeking to establish direct claims of attribution. As a significant amount of Finnish funding is going through multilaterals, international organisations and other partners, it is not possible to claim any effects as direct results of Finnish support. Finland’s share can, in fact, be relatively small, and – wherever feasible – the evaluation attempts to specify the (likely) weight of Finnish contribution in given contexts. For consistency, beneficiaries were defined as individuals and institutions who could reasonably be considered to have received some form of benefit from an action funded wholly or in part by the MFA. Benefits and beneficiaries are discussed in the findings in Chapter 4. EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 17 3 Context Analysis 3.1 Global policy context and trends Most global indicators confirm a steady decline in the structure and condition of natural ecosystems since 1970, with an estimated deterioration of at least 1% per decade (IPBES, 2019). Forests, which host the majority of Earth’s terrestrial biodiversity, are at the centre of this crisis, and the conservation of global biodiversity depends critically on how societies use and manage forest re- sources. The biodiversity found in forests varies significantly according to forest type, geography, climate, soils, and the intensity of human use (FAO and UNEP, 2020). For terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems more broadly, land-use change – primarily agricultural expansion – has exerted the most damaging impact and continues to be the leading driver of de- forestation, forest fragmentation and associated biodiversity loss (IPBES, 2019; FAO and UNEP, 2020). Recent scientific evidence indicates that over 80% of tropical deforestation is linked to agriculture, including livestock production (Pendrill et al., 2022). This is followed by the direct ex- ploitation of plants, animals and other organisms through harvesting, logging, hunting and fishing (FAO and UNEP, 2020). Since 1990, an estimated 420 million hectares (ha) of forest have been converted to other land uses, with deforestation and forest degradation continuing at rates that contribute significantly to the ongoing loss of biodiversity (IPBES, 2019; FAO and UNEP, 2020). In the last decades, there has been some progress towards slowing global forest loss, as the an- nual rate of net forest area decline decreased from an average of 7.8 million ha in the 1990s to 4.7 million ha between 2010 and 2020 (Table 2). Table 2 Annual rate of forest area change PERIOD NET CHANGE (MILLION HA/YEAR) NET CHANGE RATE (%/YEAR) 1990–2000 -7.84 -0.19 2000–2010 -5.17 -0.13 2010–2020 -4.74 -0.06 Source: FAO and UNEP, 2020 The progress has not been equal across regions and over the decades (Figure 2). Asia and Europe recorded consistent net gains over periods, with the strongest increase recorded in Asia between 2000 and 2010 (over 2 million ha per year), though growth slowed somewhat in the following dec- ade. On the contrary, South America and Africa continued to face large-scale net deforestation throughout the three decades. South America showed the steepest declines between 1990 and 2010. While the global trend has generally been positive in terms of halting the loss of forest cover, Africa experienced intensifying net deforestation in 2010–2020. Nevertheless, the world remains off track to meet the United Nations Strategic Plan for Forests target of increasing global forest area by 3% by 2030 relative to 2015 (FAO and UNEP, 2020). EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 18 Figure 2 Net forest area change by region, 1990–2020 (million ha per year) Figure 2 - Net forest area change by region, 1990–2020 (million ha per year) Source: FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020 – Main report. Rome. The global policy architecture guiding Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity has expanded consid- erably over the past two decades, though implementation has lagged behind commitments (most relevant international frameworks, agreements and initiatives relevant to the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector are laid out in Annex 2). At the centre of this framework are the Sus- tainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular SDG 15 on Life on Land, SDG 13 on Climate Action, and SDG 12 on Responsible Consumption and Production (UN, 2015). Within the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2011–2020) and its Aichi Targets provided a comprehensive set of international biodiversity goals (CBD, n.d.), succeeded in 2022 by the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Global Biodiversity Framework). The Global Biodiversity Framework sets 23 global targets to 2030, including the “30x30” commitment to protect 30% of terrestrial and marine areas, and four long-term goals aimed at living in harmony with nature by 2050 (CBD, 2022). The Global Biodiversity Framework also explicitly recognises the role of women, youth, indigenous peoples and local communities, civil society organisations, the private and financial sectors, and stakeholders from all other sectors in advancing sustainable forest and ecosystem management. In 2024, this was further reinforced by the World Coalition for Peace with Nature: Call for Life, which echoed the UN Secretary-General’s warning of a global “war on nature” and framed “making peace with nature” as a defining task of the 21st century (CBD, 2024; UNFCCC, 2020). Forests are specifically addressed through the United Nations Forum on Forests and its UN For- est Instrument and Strategic Plan for Forests 2030, which define Global Forest Goals focused on sustainable forest management, forest protection, and increasing forest cover by 2030 (UNFF, 2019). The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Paris Agreement embeds forests into climate strategies, notably through REDD+ (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), which provides a mechanism for countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation while promoting conser- vation and sustainable management (UNFCCC, n.d.). The United Nations Convention to Combat EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 19 Desertification complements these commitments by advancing Land Degradation Neutrality tar- gets (UNCCD, n.d.). Additional layers of governance are provided by biodiversity-related conventions, including the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES, 1973), the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS, n.d.), the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO, 2001), the Ramsar Convention on the Conservation of Wetlands (IUCN, 1989), the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO, 1972), and the International Plant Protection Convention (UN, 1951). Each provides thematic tools relevant to Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity, from trade restrictions to habitat conservation and genetic resource management. Finally, a series of global and political commitments underscore the urgency of forest and ecosys- tem action: the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration 2021–2030 (UN, 2019), the Bonn Challenge (n.d.) to restore 350 million ha of degraded land by 2030, the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use signed by over 140 leaders covering 90% of the world’s forests (UNCC, 2021), and the Global Forest Finance Pledge of USD 12 billion in public climate finance to 2025 (UNCC and UK Government, 2021). Together, these frameworks and initiatives form an extensive policy architecture for halting deforestation, restoring ecosystems, and safeguarding biodiversity, even if the aggregate picture of progress remains uneven. While the architecture is robust, delivery has often fallen short of stated ambitions. Mechanisms for financing and operationalising the global frameworks have become increasingly central. The Global Environment Facility (GEF), as the financial mechanism for the Convention on Biological Di- versity and five other Multilateral Environmental Agreements (as of mid-2024), has long supported biodiversity and forest initiatives through project finance and capacity building, and since 2023 manages the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund to channel resources directly towards Global Biodiversity Framework implementation (GEF, 2023). In parallel, the Green Climate Fund under the UNFCCC provides the largest multilateral climate financing window, supporting ecosystem-based adaptation and REDD+ results-based payments, which link verified emission reductions from de- forestation and forest degradation to financial incentives for participating countries (GCF, 2024). At the market and regulatory level, pressure is rising. The European Union (EU) Deforestation Regulation requires geolocation data for commodities such as palm oil, soy, beef, cocoa and cof- fee, obliging companies to ensure deforestation-free supply chains by 2025 (EU, 2023). These private-sector compliance incentives are hoped to effectively translate global goals into verifiable delivery standards (Sarmiento, 2025). The EU Global Gateway further supports implementation by mobilising public and private finance towards green, resilient and deforestation-free value chains. Through Forest Partnerships and Team Europe Initiatives, it funds jurisdictional approaches, protected-area systems, agroforestry and community-based transitions (European Commission, 2022a; 2022b). It also provides tech- nical assistance for supply chains such as cocoa and coffee, supports smallholders in meeting traceability requirements, and mainstreams nature-based solutions in wider infrastructure pipelines with blended finance. In addition, voluntary and political pledges such as the New York Declaration on Forests (UNCC, 2014), the Bonn Challenge (n.d.), and the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration (UNCC, 2021) continue to mobilise governments, civil society and the private sector. These initiatives help bridge the imple- mentation gap by fostering coalitions and increasing accountability, even if they remain non-binding. EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 20 Taken together, these mechanisms illustrate how the high-level commitments of Multilateral Envi- ronmental Agreements, SDGs and international declarations are translated into operational action. The interplay of multilateral funds (GEF, Green Climate Fund), regulatory drivers (EU Deforest- ation Regulation), and strategic investment platforms (Global Gateway, Team Europe Initiatives) increasingly shapes the way Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity goals are delivered in practice. Yet, as noted in the trends analysis, progress remains insufficient: global deforestation continues, biodiversity indicators are deteriorating, and the 2030 goals under the Global Biodiversity Frame- work, SDGs and the UN Strategic Plan for Forests are not yet on track (European Commission, 2024; Forest Declaration Assessment Partners, 2024; UN, 2024). 3.2 Finnish policy and institutional context Finland’s development cooperation has long emphasised sustainability and the environment, with forests occupying a prominent place in policy since the early 1990s (see Annex 3 for more details). The 2013 Development Policy Guidelines for the Forest Sector (MFA, 2013) defined Finland’s Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity priorities as strengthening forest data and monitoring sys- tems, building institutional capacity, and improving governance for sustainable forest management. These principles remain visible across the portfolio, with interventions that emphasise participa- tory systems, gender equality, and rights-based approaches reflecting both domestic values and international standards. Finland has also promoted the integration of sustainable forestry and biodiversity conservation with economic development, for example through support for small and medium-sized enterprises in forest-based value chains, and by encouraging public–private part- nerships in ecosystem services and biological resource management (MFA, 2013; Development Policy Committee, 2016). The current Government Programme (Government of Finland, 2023) states that Finland is committed to supporting sustainable forestry and afforestation projects and to strengthening the global carbon sink – drawing on Finnish expertise. The link between climate change, biodiversity, pollution and security is also recognised in Finland’s foreign and security policy, which identifies climate change and environmental degradation as drivers of instability (Government of Finland, 2024a). Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity cooperation therefore carries a dual function: advancing climate and biodiversity goals while also supporting conflict prevention, disaster-risk reduction, and societal resilience consistent with Finland’s comprehen- sive security approach. Finland’s policies are consistent with international commitments, including the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement (including REDD+). Finland is a member of the High Ambition Coalition for Na- ture and People advancing the 30x30 target, and it signed the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use committing to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030. Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity cooperation also aligns with the UN Strategic Plan for Forests (2017–2030) and its Global Forest Goals. Finnish Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity interventions have thus been in line with global priorities of achieving sustainable forest management, reducing deforestation, and mitigating climate change. For example, Finland’s work on forest management information systems has responded to needs articulated by the Collaborative Partnership on Forests and the Committee on Forestry. Climate change mitigation and adaptation became more prominent following the Paris Agreement, and Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity cooperation contributes directly to SDG 15 (Life on Land), SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 21 Finland’s Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity policies are also embedded in broader climate and environmental diplomacy. By aligning with EU decisions and international agreements, Finland seeks to promote the transition to climate-resilient, low-carbon societies that protect biodiversity. This includes prioritising support to least-developed countries and Small Island Developing States in climate change mitigation, adaptation, and biodiversity protection, as well as generating demand for Finnish environmental and forestry technology in partner countries. (MFA, n.d.-a). The overall scale of Finnish official development assistance (ODA) has historically been and re- mains modest. In 2025, its share of gross national income is 0.36% (MFA, n.d.-b), well below the international 0.7% commitment. Comparative analyses show that Finland’s share of ODA allocated to biodiversity is among the lowest in the Nordic region – 0.5% in 2020, compared to 7.9% in Nor- way, 4.2% in Sweden, and 1% in Denmark (WWF Finland, 2022a). Both the Development Policy Committee (DPC, 2021) and OECD Development Assistance Committee peer reviews (2017, 2024) have urged Finland to increase biodiversity finance and mainstream biodiversity more effectively across its development cooperation. Finnish Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity support is channelled through a mix of bilateral pro- jects, multilateral contributions, and partnerships with civil society. Bilaterally, Finland has a long legacy of forestry programmes in Africa and Asia, although these have diminished in recent years as budget cuts reduced the scope of direct interventions. Biodiversity and ecosystem funding is now channelled primarily through multilateral institutions, notably the GEF, which is the main financing mechanism of the Convention on Biological Diversity/Global Biodiversity Framework, and the Green Climate Fund, which supports climate–forest linkages through REDD+ and ecosystem-based adaptation. Targeted contributions to organisations such as UNEP and IUCN further strengthen international cooperation on biodiversity and ecosystems. CSOs remain important partners as well. The Siemenpuu Foundation and WWF Finland, for instance, implement projects on community forestry, biodiversity conservation, and climate resilience, often complementing multilateral and bilateral efforts. These channels ensure that Finnish cooperation is directly linked to the Convention on Biological Diversity/Global Biodiversity Framework, UNFCCC/Paris Agreement and REDD+, and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification Land Degradation Neutrality framework. At the regional and global level, Finnish cooperation also connects to EU joint initiatives. Participa- tion in Team Europe Initiatives under the Global Gateway allows Finland to align with large-scale, multi-country investments in sustainable landscapes and biodiversity. One example is the Team Europe Green Initiative in Partnership with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)/ South-East Asia, which covers biodiversity and sustainable landscapes alongside green cities, sustainable food systems, clean energy, and circular economy transitions. This positioning enables Finland to contribute indirectly to jurisdictional approaches, deforestation-free value chains, and nature-based solutions that support the Global Biodiversity Framework and respond to regulatory drivers such as the EU Deforestation Regulation. EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 22 3.3 Portfolio review Quantitative portfolio data of ODA commitments in the Environment and Natural Resources policy priority area in 2015–2022, that was made available to the evaluation, indicate a total commitment of EUR 967.72 million.3 The Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector was the second largest sub-sector within the overall Environment and Natural Resources portfolio under review, with commitments at EUR 147 million. This translates to 15% of the total Environment and Natu- ral Resources commitments during the period (‘general’4 included). The evaluation identified 70 interventions with funding commitments to Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sector during the period. These data were used to demonstrate the relative size (in percent of the total) of MFA investments within the sub-sector as displayed in Figure 3. Figure 3 Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity portfolio share from Environment and Natural Re- sources portfolio (commitments, EUR million) 246,65 147,01 74,45 50,44 28,78 Portfolio per SS ('general' excluded) Energy Forestry Water DRR/M Private Sector 420,39 246,65 147,01 74,45 50,44 28,78 Portfolio per SS ('general' included) General Energy Forestry Water DRR/M Private Sector Source: MFA/evaluation team Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity commitments were highly volatile across the years, with peaks in 2018, 2021, and 2022, and a clear low in 2019 (Figure 4). 3 Finland’s exclusive ODA budget is administered by the MFA and excludes Finnfund investments. 4 ‘General’ refers to funding within the Environment and Natural Resources portfolio which is not directed to a specific sub-sector. Portfolio per sub-sector (‘general’ included) – commitments in million EUR Portfolio per sub-sector (‘general’ excluded) – commitments in million EUR EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 23 Figure 4 Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity commitments in 2015–2022 (EUR million) 0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 30,00 35,00 40,00 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Figure 4 Source: MFA/evaluation team The distribution of the portfolio is split almost evenly between forestry and biodiversity-related interventions (Table 3). Table 3 Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity commitments (2015–2022) CATEGORY COMMITMENTS (IN EUR MILLION) PERCENTAGE Forestry 71.80 49% Ecosystems and Biodiversity 75.21 51% Grand Total 147.01 100% Source: MFA/evaluation team Figure 5 illustrates that forestry commitments were strongest in the earlier years, particularly 2015 (EUR 18.96 million), 2016 (EUR 12.26 million), and 2018 (EUR 15.93 million). After 2018, forestry support dropped sharply, with very low allocations from 2019 onward. By 2022, commitments to forestry stood at just EUR 2.43 million, reflecting a structural decline in emphasis on forestry as a funding priority. Biodiversity funding, in contrast, gained significant ground after 2018. Following a strong increase in 2018 (EUR 17.88 million), biodiversity commitments continued at higher levels, reaching EUR 19.68 million in 2021 and EUR 19.93 million in 2022. This indicates a clear upward trend and a shift in emphasis within the portfolio from forestry to biodiversity in the latter half of the period. EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 24 Figure 5 Trends in commitments to biodiversity and forestry related interventions (EUR million) 0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00 25,00 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Figure 5 Biodiversity Forestry Source: MFA/evaluation team Country specific ODA commitments in the sub-sector represent 42% of all commitments made (EUR 62.42 million). Figure 6 presents the distribution of the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodi- versity portfolio across different countries (not taking into account regional commitments dedicated to multiple countries). Tanzania stands out as holding the largest share of the commitments. My- anmar and Kenya hold the second and third largest share, followed by Zambia. Notably, most of the country-specific portfolio is allocated to African countries. Figure 6 Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity portfolio per country (%) 43 % 27 % 16 % 6 % 2 % 1 % 5 % Figure 6 Tanzania Myanmar Kenya Zambia Viet Nam Madagascar Other * Category “Other” includes country-specific commitments < EUR 1 million. * Myanmar: The commitment to Myanmar includes EUR 8 million for National Forest Inventory and National Forest Monitoring Systems. Start-up of the project was delayed, and it was cancelled after the military coup in 2021. The other commitments were for an ICI project and a project implemented by UN Office on Drugs and Crime. * Kenya: The commitment includes EUR 9.5 million for Private Forestry and Forest Enterprise Support in Kenya. Changing circumstances led Finland to cancel this project in 2018 (Laaksonen et al., 2021). Source: MFA/evaluation team Figure 7 illustrates the distribution of the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity portfolio by instru- ment. The main instruments through which Finnish support to Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity has been channelled are multilaterals, civil society and bilateral support. The former having the EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 25 biggest share (47%), followed by bilateral support (27%) and support to CSOs (24%). Very little of the commitments were channelled through private sector instruments.5 It should be noted that Finland’s share of EU ODA is only visible as its total amount in the Finnish ODA statistics, and therefore it is not possible to determine how much of the Finnish contribution to the EU budget has been allocated to the sub-sector.6 In the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity portfolio data, one Global Gateway initiative, namely “Colombia Team Europe Initiative Forests for Biodiversity Climate and Peace (EUTF)” (EUR 0.09 million) appeared in the portfolio data. This was recorded under ‘EU instrument’. The instruments used to support interventions in the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sec- tor have changed during the period of review: in the early 2010s bilateral forestry projects formed a majority both in terms of financing volume and number of interventions. In 2020s the multilateral and intergovernmental partners and CSOs working on ecosystems and biodiversity channel 65% of the financing. Figure 7 Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity portfolio by instrument (%) 47 % 27 % 24 % 2 % 0 % 0 % Figgure 7 Multilateral support Bilateral support Support to civil society organisations Institutional Cooperation Instrument Private sector instruments EU instrument Source: MFA/evaluation team When looking at the trend in instrument use (Figure 8), it became evident that bilateral support used to be prominent but diminished over the years. In 2015, bilateral commitments stood at EUR 14.63 million, representing the largest share of the portfolio, but by 2022 no new bilateral commit- ments were made. This decline indicates a reduction in bilateral and regional projects. At present, the Forestry, Land Use and Value chain Development project (FORLAND) is the only bilateral forestry programme supported by the MFA.7 5 Finland’s exclusive ODA budget is administered by the MFA and excludes Finnfund investments. 6 See, for instance, https://openaid.fi/en?budget_line=2430663 7 Commitments to FORLAND were made after 2022 and that’s why it does not show int the portfolio analysis. EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 26 https://openaid.fi/en?budget_line=2430663 By contrast, multilateral support has been growing strongly, increasing by around 280% from EUR 5.45 million in 2015 to EUR 20.88 million in 2022. Multilateral instruments have consistently held the largest share of the portfolio since 2016, except in 2021, when support to CSOs peaked at EUR 14.60 million. This shift illustrates a rebalancing away from bilateral channels towards mul- tilateral partnerships as the preferred modality for forestry support. CSO support has remained a significant element of the portfolio. The Institutional Cooperation Instrument (ICI) has played only a marginal role, appearing in 2015, 2016 and 2020, with modest volumes. Likewise, private sector instruments other than Finnfund remain negligible, with small climate change adaptation allocations (EUR 0.25 million in 2016, EUR 0.19 million in 2018, EUR 0.14 million in 2019, and minimal amounts thereafter). While not part of this portfolio analysis because Finland’s exclusive ODA budget analysed in this portfolio review is administered by the MFA and excludes Finnfund investments, Finnfund data shows, that Finnfund’s commitments in 2015–20238 to forestry-sector were 112 million EUR. Figure 8 Use of instruments over time in Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity (%) 0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 % 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 EU instrument Private sector instruments Institutional Cooperation Instrument Support to civil society organisations Bilateral support Multilateral support Source: MFA/evaluation team As described in Section 1.2 and Annex 1, the proforma technique was applied to selected past (since 2010) and ongoing (in 2025) interventions in the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector. Table 4 presents four distinct strategies of engagement that emerged from the pro- forma review. Each has a descriptive statement of its theme, a thumbnail portrait of its strategy, a note on how it relates to the sub-sectoral theory of change, and a list of the unique cases that were judged to be following that strategy. 8 Finnfund data is available for the period 2015-2023. EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 27 Table 4 Themes and strategies of MFA support in the Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity sub-sector THEME 1: FOREST DATA AND MEASUREMENT-REPORTING-VERIFICATION SYSTEMS Strategy: Build and institutionalise national forest information systems; finance multi-purpose National Forest Inventories and Measurement-Reporting-Verification capacity so governments manage forests on reliable, interoperable data and meet climate reporting needs. Links to theory of change: Connects short-range results (forest management information systems) to medium-range results (evidence-based planning and credible baselines) further to long-range results (access to results-based finance and stronger compliance). Cases: Vietnam FORMIS I–II; FAO Open Foris/Forest Resources Assessment online reporting; Tanzania NAFORMA; Tanzania INFORES with National Carbon Monitoring Centre/Sokoine University; Ecuador multi- purpose national forest inventory; Kosovo Forest Information System. THEME 2: LEGAL VALUE CHAINS, COMPLIANCE AND TRACEABILITY Strategy: Digitise permits and timber movement (e-tracking) and organise smallholders (Village Land Use Plans, improved germplasm, nurseries, silviculture, associations/out-growers) to form legal, functioning chains with market access. Links to theory of change: Connects short-range results (digital tracking + producer organisation) to medium-range results (reduced illegality, enforceable standards, market entry) further to long-range results (legal trade, higher e-revenues). Cases: Tanzania forest resources management information system national roll-out; PFP/PFP II; Tree Outgrowers Support Programme with Finnfund investees; Tanzania Tree Growers Association Union/New Forest Company delivery models. THEME 3: RIGHTS-BASED COMMUNITY FORESTRY AND TENURE Strategy: Secure community and grower rights (Village Land Use Plans, Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancies) and operate village/reserve-level management that links conservation outcomes to local revenues and services. Links to theory of change: Connects short-range results (clarified rights and procedures) to medium-range results (livelihood gains tied to conservation) further to long-range results (improved forest condition and lower deforestation). Cases: Tanzania FORVAC in village land forest reserves; PFP II mobile Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy application with Village Land Use Plan-supported tenure packages. THEME 4: POLICY, INSTITUTIONS AND REGIONAL COOPERATION Strategy: Reform laws/by-laws and stepwise community-based forest management procedures; strengthen agencies and regional bodies (Convention on Biological Diversity/Nagoya functions). Links to theory of change: Connects short-range results (coherent frameworks and regional coordination) to medium-range results (operational roll-out and national replication) further to long-range results (institutionalised practice and compliance). EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 28 THEME 4: POLICY, INSTITUTIONS AND REGIONAL COOPERATION Cases: Zambia DFONRMP statutory instrument and seven-step community-based forest management; Kenya Forest Conservation and Management Act 2016 and Kenya Forest Service reforms; Lao PDR SUFORD with the World Bank; BioCAN (Andean Committee on Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge reactivation; WWF Access and Benefit Sharing legislation and policies/illegal-wildlife-trade coordination; integrated biodiversity-information platforms). Source: proformas reviewed by the evaluation team 3.4 Engagement with private sector to date Key starting points for Private Sector Engagement (private sector engagement) in Forests, Eco- systems and Biodiversity can be tracked to the following: 1. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992 – Article 10 “Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possible and as appropriate: … (e) Encourage cooperation between its governmental authorities and its private sector in devel- oping methods for sustainable use of biological resources.” (CBD, 1992) This is one of the earliest formal legal obligations in international environmental law to explicitly engage the private sector in sustainable use of biodiversity. It places that responsibility on states, especially recognising developing country contexts. 2. “The Future We Want”/Rio+20 Outcome, 2012 – Broadening of stakeholder roles “We recognize that involvement of all stakeholders and their partnerships, networking and experi- ence‑sharing at all levels could help countries to learn from one another in identifying appropriate sustainable development policies, including green economy policies. … We invite governments, as appropriate, to create enabling frameworks that foster … innovation … We invite business and industry as appropriate … to develop sustainability strategies … We encourage … public‑private partnerships, to mobilize public financing complemented by the private sector …” (Rio+20, 2012) While not Forests, Ecosystems and Biodiversity‑specific, the Rio+20 Outcome reinforces the norm of private sector inclusion in sustainable development, including in areas overlapping with eco- systems, biodiversity, and forestry. It helps provide a policy environment that sees private sector engagement as legitimate and necessary. 3. CBD COP‑10 Decision X/21 (Nagoya, 2010) – “Business Engagement” “Invites Parties: (a) To promote a public policy environment that enables private sector engagement and the main- streaming of biodiversity into corporate strategies and decision‑making in a manner that contributes to the achievement of the three objectives of the Convention; … (b) To create conditions that facilitate private‑sector engagement, …; EVALUATION ON FINLAND’S DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION IN ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND PRIVATE SECTOR OPPORTUNITIES 29 (c) To identify a range of options for incorporating biodiversity into business practices …” (CBD COP‑10 Decision X/21, 2010) This is a turning point at the treaty implementation level: not just encouraging cooperation (as in CBD Article 10), but calling for enabling public policy, integrating biodiversity in corporate strategy, and concretely defining how to engage business in national policy, regulations, incentives, etc. Today, partnerships between private sector, communities and governments are of interest to GEF, IUCN, UNEP and WWF Finland. IUCN works closely with the private sector and initially devel- oped Business Engagement Strategy in 2004 (revised in 2012). IUCN published its Operational Guidelines for Private Sector Engagement already in 2007 (IUCN 2007, IUCN 2012) and is now in the process of developing a private sector engagement strategy to identify innovative options to strengthen business engagement and impact, in line with the draft work programme and the 20-year strategic vision (MFA, 2025). UNEP’s commitment to private sector engagement is fur- ther emphasised in its report Harnessing the Private Sector for solutions to the Three Planetary Environmental Crises, which opens by observing that “tackling the three planetary environmental crises requires a transformative shift in markets, sectors and systems. This means ambitious ac- tion from the private sector is critical, and that is why UNEP is seeking to build wider and deeper collaborations that have impact with lasting solutions.” (UNEP, 2024b). Specific examples include the Restoration Seed Capital Facility and the Climate Technology Centre and Network. In the GEF projects private sector engagement is gaining traction, with GEF-8 initiatives supporting partner- ships in sustainable food systems, nature-based solutions, and the blue economy. Nonetheless, overall engagement remains below potential (GEF, 2025). The GEF’s latest Private Sector En- gagement Strategy (2020) for the first time specifically mentions micro and small entrepreneurs such as smallholders, sole traders, artisans, and primary producers to be included in the GEF’s private sector engagement initiatives (GEF, 2022b). In addition to conservation objectives, the WWF Finland Programme improves nature-based live- lihoods, agriculture, and food security by supporting and partnering with indigenous peoples and local communities. Nature-based solutions are adopted to enhance climate resilience and develop livelihood mode