Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The report argues that REDD, as currently designed, focuses on reducing rather than stopping deforestation and risks becoming a tool for corporate profit rather than climate mitigation. It highlights significant risks to indigenous land rights, the potential for 'leakage' where deforestation simply moves to other areas, and the danger of replacing natural forests with monoculture plantations. The author criticizes the use of carbon markets to fund REDD, suggesting instead public funding derived from fossil fuel taxes and the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The REDD system is designed to reduce or mitigate deforestation rather than stop it entirely, which may allow deforestation to continue at an unacceptable rate and fail to protect biodiversity.
  • The inclusion of monoculture plantations in the definition of forests under REDD could lead to the replacement of natural forests with plantations, which only store 20% of the carbon found in intact natural forests.
  • Market-based financing for REDD may allow industrialized nations to avoid reducing their own fossil fuel emissions by using forest carbon offsets, potentially increasing net atmospheric CO2.
  • REDD risks marginalizing indigenous peoples and local communities by increasing land values and encouraging governments to ignore customary land rights to secure carbon assets.
  • There is a high probability of 'leakage,' where protecting one forest area simply shifts deforestation activities to another region or country.
  • The World Bank is positioning itself to control climate funds through mechanisms like the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FPCF) and Climate Investment Funds (CIF), despite its continued financing of fossil fuel industries.
  • The report proposes alternative funding sources for stopping deforestation that do not rely on carbon markets, such as taxes on fossil fuel consumption in industrialized countries and the removal of fossil fuel subsidies.

Cite the original document

APA
hall, R. (2008). les mythes au sujet du REDD. Friends of the Earth International. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/15-foei-forest-full-fr-lr.pdf
Chicago
hall, Ronnie. les mythes au sujet du REDD. Friends of the Earth International, 2008. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/15-foei-forest-full-fr-lr.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=hall |first1=Ronnie |title=les mythes au sujet du REDD |publisher=Friends of the Earth International |date=December 2008 |url=https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/15-foei-forest-full-fr-lr.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{hall2008les, author = {hall, Ronnie}, title = {{les mythes au sujet du REDD}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, year = {2008}, month = dec, url = {https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/15-foei-forest-full-fr-lr.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated