REDD myths

The report critiques REDD as a flawed approach that focuses on reducing rather than stopping deforestation, potentially rewarding polluters through carbon offsetting. It highlights significant risks to Indigenous Peoples' land rights, the danger of replacing natural forests with carbon-poor plantations, and methodological failures such as 'leakage'. The author argues that market-based funding is volatile and inequitable, suggesting instead that funding should be grant-based, managed by the UN, and focused on addressing the underlying drivers of deforestation.

• REDD is designed to reduce emissions from deforestation rather than stop it entirely, which may allow deforestation to continue at unacceptable rates and damage biodiversity.
• The inclusion of plantations in the definition of forests under REDD risks the replacement of natural forests with monocultures that store only 20% of the carbon of intact natural forests.
• Funding REDD through carbon offsetting may increase net global CO2 emissions by allowing industrialized countries to avoid reducing fossil fuel consumption.
• REDD mechanisms may lead to the dispossession of Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities as forests become more valuable commodities.
• The report identifies 'leakage' as a major methodological flaw where deforestation activities simply shift to other areas or countries not participating in REDD.
• Market-based funding for REDD is criticized for being volatile and susceptible to corporate lobbying, as seen in the experience of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).
• The World Bank is criticized for driving the REDD process through its Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) while simultaneously increasing its financing for the fossil fuel industry.
• The report argues that the 'opportunity cost' approach to REDD funding effectively pays the polluter by compensating those engaged in deforestation.
• Measuring forest degradation is identified as a critical but expensive and unreliable process that may be excluded to accommodate private carbon investors.
• The author proposes that funding should be grant-based and managed by a transparent UN mechanism, rather than through the World Bank or GEF.

APA

Hall, R. (2008). REDD myths. Friends of the Earth International. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/15-foei-forest-full-eng-lr.pdf

Chicago

Hall, Ronnie. REDD myths. Friends of the Earth International, 2008. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/15-foei-forest-full-eng-lr.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Hall |first1=Ronnie |title=REDD myths |publisher=Friends of the Earth International |date=December 2008 |url=https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/15-foei-forest-full-eng-lr.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{hall2008redd, author = {Hall, Ronnie}, title = {{REDD myths}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, year = {2008}, month = dec, url = {https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/15-foei-forest-full-eng-lr.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }