Understanding the Contribution of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) in Mangrove Forest Conservation: A Case Study on Sundarbans Mangrove Forest, Bangladesh

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript provides a valuable investigation into the role of Green Climate Fund (GCF) investments in mangrove forest conservation, with a particular focus on the Sundarbans in Bangladesh. By analyzing funding trends, project effectiveness, and cost-benefit aspects, the study highlights critical gaps in financial allocations for mangrove protection. While the research offers meaningful insights into climate finance distribution and its implications for conservation efforts, certain areas require further refinement to improve methodological transparency, enhance comparative analysis, and strengthen the policy recommendations derived from the findings.

 

1. More clarity is needed on how the data were handled: the study mentions that the data were sourced from the GCF Single Country Project (2016-2023), but does not elaborate on which projects were included? Were some invalid data excluded?
2. 
   The study analyzed only six mangrove projects, compared with 30 other forest conservation projects, a large gap in sample size. Possible bias due to uneven data should be discussed or the use of normalization methods for comparative analysis should be considered.

 

3. The article mentions that GCF's investment in the energy sector is much higher than that in forest conservation projects, but it does not provide a detailed quantitative comparison. It is suggested that statistical tables or bar charts be added to make the comparison of the allocation of funds to different types of projects more intuitive.

 

4. The overall structure of the article is clear and logical, but there are inconsistencies in terminology.  For example, “mangrove conservation projects” and “forest-related adaptation projects” are used interchangeably in different paragraphs, and it is recommended that the terminology be harmonized.

 

5. The study mentions that “GCF prefers to finance mitigation rather than adaptation (mitigation > adaptation)”, but does not analyze the reasons behind this preference.

 

6. The article mentions that GCF funding in Bangladesh is mainly directed to the “private sector” (with private enterprises receiving as much as 61 per cent of the funding), but does not further discuss the reasons for this and the implications. It is suggested to add whether these projects are in conflict with ecological conservation?

 

7. Poor formatting of references

 

8. These articles may be helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript, please check them out:

         https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.134465

         https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.24.00143

Author Response

Comment 1: More clarity is needed on how the data were handled: the study mentions that the data were sourced from the GCF Single Country Project (2016-2023), but does not elaborate on which projects were included? Were some invalid data excluded?

Response 1: 

The projects that are forced only one country are the single country projects, and the projects implemented then in more than one country are multiple county projects. The data from multiple country projects are not included for analysis because during the study period 2016 to 2013 there was no mangrove projects investment from multiple country efforts. All single country on-going and finished project data are valid for this research. This was mentioned in 127 to 129 lines in the edited version.

Comment 2: The study analyzed only six mangrove projects, compared with 30 other forest conservation projects, a large gap in sample size. Possible bias due to uneven data should be discussed or the use of normalization methods for comparative analysis should be considered.

Response 2: In this investigation, we identified 36 projects focused on forest development and conservation from the project documents. Among them six are mangrove forest development and the other 30 projects focused on other different types of forest development. These efforts are already taken by Green Climate Fund, and we measured the GCF investment cost investment cost to reduce per metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO₂eq) emissions and benefit per beneficiary in US dollars. Therefore the number of projects do not effect in analysis.

Comment 3: The article mentions that GCF's investment in the energy sector is much higher than that in forest conservation projects, but it does not provide a detailed quantitative comparison. It is suggested that statistical tables or bar charts be added to make the comparison of the allocation of funds to different types of projects more intuitive.

Response 3: Table 1 has shown the investment cost for the single country projects according to the result areas of GCF investment. Figure 5 shows the the bar chart of GCF investment in eight different focus areas.

Comment 4: The overall structure of the article is clear and logical, but there are inconsistencies in terminology.  For example, “mangrove conservation projects” and “forest-related adaptation projects” are used interchangeably in different paragraphs, and it is recommended that the terminology be harmonized.

Response 4: Thanks for the positive comment. Here the forest conservation projects included all types of forest, including mangrove forest. The total number of projects are 36 during the study timeframe. But the mangrove conservation forests are only focused on the development of mangroves and surrounding locals livelihood. There are total six projects working on this objective.

Comment 5: The study mentions that “GCF prefers to finance mitigation rather than adaptation (mitigation > adaptation)” but does not analyze the reasons behind this preference.

Response 5: There is global trend among developed countries to focus more on mitigation because, they have budget allocation for that. As the donors are from developed countries, these reflections also covered in GCF investments. It was incorporated in the lines 235~236.

Comment 6: The article mentions that GCF funding in Bangladesh is mainly directed to the “private sector” (with private enterprises receiving as much as 61 per cent of the funding) but does not further discuss the reasons for this and the implications. It is suggested to add whether these projects are in conflict with ecological conservation?

Response 6: The development of Ready-made Garments (RMG) sector also reflected the upscaling of private sector. The RMG sector is the loan receiver of GCF investment, and it made the loan amount high for Bangladesh. These are incorporated in 312~318 lines. Again there will be problems about disposal in e-wastes, as Bangladesh is suffering from poor e-waste management, because there is no laws of e-waste management in Bangladesh. So there is a potential conflict with ecological conservation. 

Comment 7: Poor formatting of references.

Response 7: Extremely sorry for that. We edited the reference list.

Comment 8: These articles may be helpful in improving the quality of the manuscript, please check them out.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.134465

https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.24.00143

 Response 8: I had gone through these articles to improve my writing of this draft paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article deals with a critical yet underexplored aspect of GCF’s global portfolio—namely, the insufficient allocation of resources toward mangrove forest conservation, despite the well-documented ecological and carbon mitigation benefits of such ecosystems. The authors focus on Bangladesh, home to the world’s largest contiguous mangrove forest, the Sundarbans. The authors assess  how GCF investments from 2016 to 2023 align with the needs of this climate-vulnerable area. Using a combination of project data, sectoral funding trends, and cost-effectiveness analysis, the study draws attention to key gaps in current funding patterns.

The finding that only six mangrove-related single-country projects were funded globally, and none directly focused on the Sundarbans, is striking. The use of simple yet effective quantitative metrics—such as cost per MtCO₂e reduced and cost per adaptation beneficiary—proves the comparative value of mangrove-related investments. The analysis is accessible, transparent, and based on credible data from the GCF’s official records.

 

The paper also presents policy implications. It illustrates how the GCF’s current emphasis on infrastructure and energy generation, although efficient for emission reduction per dollar spent, may come at the cost of more socially inclusive and ecologically sustainable investments. The study shows that projects under the “forest and land use” sector have provided the highest combined benefits in terms of cost-effectiveness for both climate mitigation and local adaptation. This reinforces the case for nature-based solutions, particularly in countries like Bangladesh that face compound climate and development vulnerabilities.

 

There are also areas that would benefit from revision. Structurally, the paper would gain clarity by more clearly integrating tables and figures into the text. At times, the results section reads like a data report rather than an analytical discussion. A deeper discussion on the reasons behind the funding patterns—such as political, institutional, or technical constraints—would add nuance to the findings. Expanding on the two Sundarbans-related initiatives with richer qualitative detail or stakeholder perspectives could significantly strengthen the case study dimension.

 

In the conclusion, the authors call for a stronger focus on mangrove conservation in future GCF programming. This section could be improved by offering more concrete policy recommendations, such as increasing the proportion of grants over loans for least developed countries , or mandating a minimum percentage of ecosystem-based adaptation within country portfolios. Including a short reflection on the potential role of civil society or local institutions in shaping more targeted proposals would enrich the policy relevance of the paper.

Author Response

Comments 1: The article deals with a critical yet underexplored aspect of GCF’s global portfolio—namely, the insufficient allocation of resources toward mangrove forest conservation, despite the well-documented ecological and carbon mitigation benefits of such ecosystems. The authors focus on Bangladesh, home to the world’s largest contiguous mangrove forest, the Sundarbans. The authors assess how GCF investments from 2016 to 2023 align with the needs of this climate-vulnerable area. Using a combination of project data, sectoral funding trends, and cost-effectiveness analysis, the study draws attention to key gaps in current funding patterns.

Responses 1: Thank you very much and noted.

Comments 2: The finding that only six mangrove-related single-country projects were funded globally, and none directly focused on the Sundarbans, is striking. The use of simple yet effective quantitative metrics—such as cost per MtCO₂e reduced and cost per adaptation beneficiary—proves the comparative value of mangrove-related investments. The analysis is accessible, transparent, and based on credible data from the GCF’s official records.

Response 2: Thank you very much and noted.

Comments 3: The paper also presents policy implications. It illustrates how the GCF’s current emphasis on infrastructure and energy generation, although efficient for emission reduction per dollar spent, may come at the cost of more socially inclusive and ecologically sustainable investments. The study shows that projects under the “forest and land use” sector have provided the highest combined benefits in terms of cost-effectiveness for both climate mitigation and local adaptation. This reinforces the case for nature-based solutions, particularly in countries like Bangladesh that face compound climate and development vulnerabilities.

Response 3: Thank you very much and noted.

Comments 4: There are also areas that would benefit from revision. Structurally, the paper would gain clarity by more clearly integrating tables and figures into the text. At times, the results section reads like a data report rather than an analytical discussion. A deeper discussion on the reasons behind the funding patterns—such as political, institutional, or technical constraints—would add nuance to the findings. Expanding on the two Sundarbans-related initiatives with richer qualitative detail or stakeholder perspectives could significantly strengthen the case study dimension.

Response 4: Thanks for the comment. We edited different parts of the results and discussion section through adding lines from 308 to 318. That part discussed the growth of private sector. And in conclusion part, we added some constraints to deal with mangrove projects (line 401~411).

Comments 5: In the conclusion, the authors call for a stronger focus on mangrove conservation in future GCF programming. This section could be improved by offering more concrete policy recommendations, such as increasing the proportion of grants over loans for least developed countries or mandating a minimum percentage of ecosystem-based adaptation within country portfolios. Including a short reflection on the potential role of civil society or local institutions in shaping more targeted proposals would enrich the policy relevance of the paper.

Response 5: It was discussed in 4.3 of results and discussion section. For example, a national public sector named Palli Karma Shahayak Foundation (PKSF) is working as direct access entity of ‘Resilient homestead and livelihood support to the vulnerable coastal people of Bangladesh (FP 206)’ project to enhance the livelihood adaptability to improve coastal region. Some of these responses are included in line 329 to 340.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work presented is both interesting and current. However, there are areas where improvements can be made. In the attached file, I have provided several suggestions that the authors should take into account when revising the manuscript

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: Tables and figures: The tables presented could benefit from improvements, particularly in terms of font size and line spacing. Figure 1 also requires refinement. Additionally, for figures 3, 4, and 5, the "Billion US$" label should be placed in the X-axis legend for clarity.

Responses 1: The tables and figures are edited as per suggestions.

Comments 2: Would it be possible to enhance the quality of equations (1) and (2)? For example, using a smaller font size and formatting them as mathematical equations could improve their presentation.

Responses 2: The equations are formatted as per suggestions. 

Comments 3: In section 3.1, it would be helpful to include a map of Asia, highlighting the location of Bangladesh as well as the Sundarbans mangrove forest. This would make it easier for readers who are less familiar with the geography to understand and interpret the study.

Responses 3: The map was incorporated in the edited draft of the paper (page 5, figure 4).

Comments 4 Exclusion of Bangladesh in Global Mangrove Projects: Despite having the world’s largest mangrove forest (Sundarbans), Bangladesh did not receive direct mangrove-specific GCF investments until 2023. Explain why Bangladesh was overlooked and advocate for more direct conservation funds.

Responses 4: Bangladesh achieved a high growth in readymade garments (RMG). It increased the capacity of private sector, especially the RMG sector. It was incorporated in lines 312~318 and provided reference in [67].

Comments 5: Disproportionate private sector emphasis: 61% of Bangladesh’s GCF funds went to private sector projects, which contrasts with the global trend of 84% public sector funding. Authors should justify this unusual distribution and examine whether private-sector involvement ensures long-term environmental sustainability.

Responses 5: Previous studies revealed involving private sector made the climate finance effective, but there should have balance between these sectors for successful investment. A large project for saving energy in Ready-made Garments (RMG) created this imbalance. The boost of RMG sector made the imbalance investment distribution for climate vulnerable Bangladesh.

Comments 6: Limited carbon impact of Mangrove Projects: The estimated 5.6 million tons of CO₂ removal from mangroves is insignificant compared to other tropical forests. Please quantify carbon benefits more precisely and consider enhancing mitigation outcomes.

Response 6: The GCF projects for mangrove forest development focuses on adaption purpose. The mitigation potentiality was not highlighted by the policy makers of mangrove forest producing countries and GCF. This draft paper argues to emphasis on investment in mangrove forests. Previous studies mentioned the potentiality of Bangladeshi Sundarbans for carbon mitigation. This investigation also identified about the cost-effectiveness of forest projects.

Comments 7: Inconsistent cost-benefit metrics: Although the forest/land sector is regarded as the most cost-effective, mangrove-specific cost metrics remain absent. Providing a detailed cost-per-MtCO₂eq for mangrove projects is crucial to accurately evaluate their financial efficiency. If feasible, including these metrics in the manuscript would improve transparency, enabling stakeholders to assess the actual impact of investments and supporting more informed, data-driven funding decisions for future mangrove conservation efforts.

Response 7 From the project document of the six mangrove focused projects, it was revealed these projects’ theme was adaption. CO₂ mitigation is essential for global emission reduction. This study urged to incorporate mangrove forests to achieve global emission reduction targets as the forest-based projects proved cost effective. The impact of the investments are forest/ land use projects required less investment, and the benefit in forest/mangrove investment will be higher. These things are incorporated in conclusion part (line 401~411).

Comments 8: Implementation oversight and monitoring: Although the document mentions local partner organizations, there is limited discussion on monitoring effectiveness and long-term outcomes. Stronger reporting frameworks and independent evaluations should be integrated into future GCF projects in Bangladesh.

Responses 8: In the edited draft, we put the tracking and monitoring of climate finance investment trough measuring carbon captures. It was incorporated from line 369 to 375, with the reference of [73] and [74].

Comment 9: Expand Adaptation & Mitigation Synergy: Integrate both mitigation and adaptation goals into future mangrove projects to maximize benefits.

Response 9 This simultaneous benefit of mangrove forests through adaptation and mitigation are given in sentence 370~371 in the edited version and cited in [74].  

Comments 10: Conclusion The conclusion effectively summarizes the main findings but lacks a clear, organized structure. It blends key results, policy implications, and recommendations without proper distinction. To enhance clarity and coherence, I recommend dividing the conclusion into three parts: Summary of findings, Policy implications, and Future directions. Additionally, there are a few areas that require further attention from the authors: - In line 347, the phrase "more cost-effective" is too vague and lacks specificity – the manuscript does not present mangrove-specific cost-per-MtCO₂eq data, which undermines the validity of this claim. Thus, authors should clarify how forest/mangrove conservation is more cost-effective by quantifying the benefits or referencing specific data presented in the results section.

Responses 10: The conclusion part is divided into three parts, as per suggestion. The conclusion part was edited as per suggestion.

Comments 11: While the conclusion highlights GCF’s bias toward energy projects, it does not explore why mangrove conservation is underfunded or the policy barriers behind this trend. Discuss potential reasons for the underrepresentation of mangrove-specific projects and how addressing policy gaps could improve future funding.

Responses 11: Thanks for your comment. It was incorporated in conclusion part from 401~411.

Comments 12: In lines 351-352, it is stated that no project specifically focuses on the Sundarbans. While this is an important observation, it is underdeveloped, as it lacks a deeper discussion on the ecological and socio-economic risks posed by the absence of dedicated conservation efforts. To strengthen this point, the authors should expand on the global significance of the Sundarbans, highlighting its status as the world’s largest mangrove forest and a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Response 12: It was edited as per suggestion and incorporated from line 382 to 386.

Comments 13: In lines 355-360, the call for "more attention" to non-dependent villages is unclear. It does not specify what type of support is needed or how it relates to mangrove conservation. Authors should provide specific recommendations, such as inclusive funding mechanisms, disaster resilience programs, or community-based mangrove conservation initiatives.

Responses 13: It was edited the conclusion part as per suggestions and incorporated the suggestions from lines 407 to 411.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript makes an analysis of a critical gap in global climate finance—namely, the underrepresentation of mangrove forest conservation projects within the GCF portfolio. The study centers on Bangladesh and the Sundarbans and explores how the country has been affected by the GCF’s funding practices.

Even it underwent a revision, the manuscript would benefit from further imrpovements in several areas.

Enrich the analysis by qualitative insights into institutional, political, or procedural reasons behind the low prioritization of mangroves.

Elaborate more on stakeholder dynamics—particularly the role of local institutions or NGOs—in shaping GCF proposals. For instance, while PKSF’s involvement is mentioned, more context on its capacity, challenges, and success cases would enhance the discussion.

Improve the policy recommendations by providing more actionable proposals for how GCF or national authorities might adjust funding criteria to better support ecosystem-based adaptation in vulnerable countries.

Author Response

Comments 1

Enrich the analysis by qualitative insights into institutional, political, or procedural reasons behind the low prioritization of mangroves.

Response１Thanks for the valuable comment.  In contrast, GCF prefers to make artificial sea walls instead of mangrove conservation when the biodiversity and livelihood benefits are proven essential, and climate finance organizations focus on sea wall building instead of mangroves conservation. We incorporated these reasons behind the low prioritization of mangroves from line 382 to 384 and put them under bibliography 7.

Comments 2

Elaborate more on stakeholder dynamics—particularly the role of local institutions or NGOs—in shaping GCF proposals. For instance, while PKSF’s involvement is mentioned, more context on its capacity, challenges, and success cases would enhance the discussion.

Response 2 Although the area is exposed to natural calamities, this project increased the adaptive capacity of beneficiaries through livelihood development trainings and improved finance management. The challenges, capacity building and success is mentioned from line 344 to 346.

Comments 3

Improve the policy recommendations by providing more actionable proposals for how GCF or national authorities might adjust funding criteria to better support ecosystem-based adaptation in vulnerable countries.

Response 3 Thanks very much. It was incorporated in 373 to 375.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for their careful review, which greatly improved the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

Comments 1: Thank the authors for their careful review, which greatly improved the quality of the manuscript.

Response 1: I convey my hearty gratitude for kind and careful editing of my draft.