REDD After Copenhagen: The way forward

The document analyzes the political and technical status of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD-plus) following the 2009 Copenhagen Accord. It details the outcomes from various UNFCCC negotiating tracks, including the AWG-LCA and SBSTA, and identifies critical gaps in forest definitions, safeguards, and monitoring systems. The report proposes a phased approach to Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) based on IPCC tiers and discusses the tension between national and subnational implementation. It also examines the integration of REDD-plus with Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and the necessity of coordinating financing through both grant and market-based mechanisms.

• The Copenhagen Accord provided a political endorsement for REDD-plus by recognizing the need for positive incentives and the immediate establishment of a mechanism to mobilize financial resources from developed countries.
• The AWG-LCA draft text proposes a three-phase implementation process for REDD-plus: first, the development of national strategies and capacity building; second, the implementation of policies and demonstration activities; and third, results-based actions.
• A significant challenge to the scope of REDD-plus is the lack of a consistent operational definition of 'forest', as tree-cover based definitions may include plantations while natural forest definitions might overlook substantial emission reduction potential.
• The report emphasizes that REDD-plus must address the drivers of deforestation, particularly agricultural expansion, which is the leading cause of tropical land-use change, to avoid pushing deforestation into neighboring landscapes.
• Social and environmental safeguards are now integrated into the operational text of the AWG-LCA, including references to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the prevention of natural forest conversion.
• The report suggests a phased MRV capacity development framework based on IPCC reporting tiers, where least developed countries start with Tier 1 (default values) and progress to Tier 3 (detailed factors and complex modelling) as capacity increases.
• There is a conflict in institutional preferences: developing countries generally favor new institutions under the UNFCCC due to dissatisfaction with the World Bank and GEF, while developed countries prefer utilizing existing institutions.
• Financing for REDD-plus is expected to transition from 'quick-start' grant funding (with US$3.5 billion already pledged by six nations) toward a potential combination of funds and market-based approaches in later phases.
• The report identifies a critical link between REDD-plus and the agricultural sector, noting that several African nations have advocated for expanding the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to include agricultural soil carbon sequestration.

APA

Minang, P. A., & Murphy, D. (2010). REDD After Copenhagen: The way forward. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/redd_after_copenhagen.pdf

Chicago

Minang, Peter Akong, and Deborah Murphy. REDD After Copenhagen: The way forward. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2010. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/redd_after_copenhagen.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Minang |first1=Peter Akong |last2=Murphy |first2=Deborah |title=REDD After Copenhagen: The way forward |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=February 2010 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/redd_after_copenhagen.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{minang2010redd, author = {Minang, Peter Akong and Murphy, Deborah}, title = {{REDD After Copenhagen: The way forward}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2010}, month = feb, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/redd_after_copenhagen.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }