Principal–Agent Theory and Results-Based Climate Finance: A Review of Lessons from the World Bank's Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes

This review examines how Principal–Agent theory explains the performance of Results Based Climate Finance (RBCF), drawing on the World Bank's Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes (ISFL) as its primary empirical case. PA theory identifies four structural risks in climate finance: adverse selection when agents overstate readiness; moral hazard when grant-funded activities lack performance discipline; multitask trade-offs when carbon metrics crowd out social and environmental co-benefits; and contract incompleteness when verification systems cannot anticipate all contingencies. Evidence from ISFL's decade-long operation confirms that results-based design — through Emission Reductions Purchase Agreements (ERPA), jurisdictional monitoring, buffer mechanisms, and Benefit Sharing Plans (BSPs) — meaningfully addresses some of these problems. Yet readiness delays, additionality uncertainty, and persistent equity tensions reveal that agency risks are restructured rather than eliminated by results-based payments. Effective climate finance requires complementary institutional reforms that distribute risks equitably, build adaptive governance capacity, and embed incentive design within broader political economy conditions that contracts alone cannot create.

Principal–agent theory; results-based climate finance; Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes; moral hazard; adverse selection

1. Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W. D., & Verchot, L. V. (Eds.). (2012). Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/003805 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Barrett, S. (2005). Environment and statecraft: The strategy of environmental treaty-making. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/environment-and-statecraft9780199286096?cc=gb&lang=en& [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ben Jelili, R. (2025, September 29). Beyond principal-agent: Rethinking central banks under systemic climate risk. SSRN. https://ssrn.com/abstract=5560818 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5560818 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Birdsall, N., & Savedoff, W. D. (2010). Cash on delivery: A new approach to foreign aid. Center for Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/9781933286600-cash-delivery-new-approach-foreignaid [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Easterly, W. (2002). The cartel of good intentions: The problem of bureaucracy in foreign aid. The Journal of Policy Reform, 5(4), 223–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/1384128032000096823 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Hawkins, D. G., Lake, D. A., Nielson, D. L., & Tierney, M. J. (Eds.). (2009). Delegation and agency in international organisations. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491368 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Helm, C., & Wirl, F. (2014). The principal–agent model with multilateral externalities: An application to climate agreements. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 67(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2013.11.006 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Holmstrom, B. (1979). Moral hazard and observability. Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 74–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3003320 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. (1991). Multitask principal–agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 7(special_issue), 24–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/7.special_issue.24 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hotte, N., Mahony, C., & Nelson, H. (2016). The principal-agent problem and climate change adaptation on public lands. Global Environmental Change, 36, 163–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.01.001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Houskeeper, S. (2025). Climate finance as a principal-agent problem [Working paper]. https://www.peio.me/wp-content/uploads/PEIO18/submission_197.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304405X(76)90026-X [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Karsenty, A., Vogel, A., & Castell, F. (2014). “Carbon rights”, REDD+ and payments for environmental services. Environmental Science & Policy, 35, 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.08.013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Keohane, R. O., & Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592710004068 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kiewiet, D. R., & McCubbins, M. D. (1991). The logic of delegation: Congressional parties and the appropriations process. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/L/bo3629025.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Laffont, J.-J., & Tirole, J. (1993). A theory of incentives in procurement and regulation. MIT Press. https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262121743/a-theory-of-incentives-in-procurement-and-regulation/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Martens, B., Mummert, U., Murrell, P., & Seabright, P. (2002). The institutional economics of foreign aid. Cambridge University Press. https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/08187/index/9780521808187_index.pdf [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Sugiyama, T., & Michaelowa, A. (2001). Reconciling the design of CDM with inborn paradox of additionality concept. Climate Policy, 1(1), 75–83. https://doi.org/10.3763/cpol.2001.0107 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Moe, T. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 739–777. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110997 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Mosley, P. (1986). Aid-effectiveness: The micro-macro paradox. IDS Bulletin, 17(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.1986.mp17002004.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Pickering, J., Betzold, C., & Skovgaard, J. (2017). Special issue: Managing fragmentation and complexity in the emerging system of international climate finance. International Environmental Agreements, 17, 1– [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9349-2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Pollack, M. A. (1997). Delegation, agency, and agenda setting in the European Community. International Organization, 51(1), 99–134. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2703953 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Ross, S. A. (1973). The economic theory of agency: The principal's problem. American Economic Review, 63(2), 134–139. https://ideas.repec.org/a/aea/aecrev/v63y1973i2p134-39.html [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Streck, C., Haupt, F., & Ehringhaus, C. (2015, December). Results-based finance for REDD+: Emerging approaches. Climate Focus. https://climatefocus.com/publications/results-based-finance-redd-emergingapproaches/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Svensson, J. (2003). Why conditional aid does not work and what can be done about it? Journal of Development Economics, 70(2), 381–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(02)00102-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Vaubel, R. (2006). Principal-agent problems in international organisations. Review of International Organizations, 1, 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-006-8340-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Weikmans, R., & Roberts, J. T. (2019). The international climate finance accounting muddle: Is there hope on the horizon? Climate and Development, 11(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2017.1410087 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. World Bank Group. (2017). Results-based climate finance in practice: Delivering climate finance for lowcarbon development (English). Washington, D.C. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/410371494873772578 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Wunder, S. (2015). Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 117, 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.016 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. World Bank Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes (ISFL) Documents [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. World Bank. BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes: Annual Report 2016. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2016. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. World Bank. BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes: Annual Report 2017. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2017. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. World Bank. BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes: Annual Report 2018. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. World Bank. Nesting of Initiatives in the ISFL Jurisdictional Programs (technical paper). Washington (DC): World Bank; 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. World Bank. BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes: Annual Report 2019. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2019. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. World Bank. BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes: Annual Report 2020. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. World Bank. BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes: Annual Report 2021. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2021. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. World Bank. BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes: Annual Report 2022. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. World Bank. ISFL Buffer Requirements. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. World Bank. BioCarbon Fund Initiative for Sustainable Forest Landscapes: Annual Report 2023. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2023. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. World Bank. ISFL Annual Report 2024. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. World Bank. Pause and Reflect: Summary Report (ISFL). Washington (DC): World Bank; 2024. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. World Bank. Toward a Holistic Approach to Sustainable Development: A Guide to Integrated Land-Use Initiatives. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. World Bank. ISFL Vision. Washington (DC): World Bank; 2014. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. World Bank. BioCarbon Fund ISFL—Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Washington (DC): World Bank; 2018. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste - Case Study in Cai Rang District, Can Tho City, Vietnam
• Youth Activism, Intentional Integration of Policies to Raise Awareness on Climate Change Action among the Youth
• Breathing Spaces: Environmental & User Experience in Dhanmondi and Zigatola Multistoried Apartments, Dhaka, Bangladesh
• Effects of Solid Waste Disposal on Soil Quality in Makurdi Metropolis, Benue State, Nigeria
• Environmental Impact of Artisanal and Small-Scale Gold Mining in Borgu Local Government Area