REDD After Copenhagen: The way forward

This report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) analyzes the state of negotiations and implementation pathways for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) following the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. It examines the outcomes of the Copenhagen Accord, the role of the UNFCCC's various working groups, and the technical challenges regarding monitoring, safeguards, and financing for REDD-plus activities in developing countries.

• The Copenhagen Accord provided a political endorsement for REDD-plus, recognizing the need for positive incentives to mobilize financial resources from developed countries and establishing the Copenhagen Green Climate Fund to support mitigation activities, including REDD-plus.
• The AWG-LCA draft text proposes a three-phase implementation process for REDD-plus: first, the development of national strategies, policies, and capacity building; second, the implementation of these policies and results-based demonstration activities; and third, results-based actions.
• A significant challenge for REDD-plus is the lack of a universally accepted operational definition of 'forest', 'sustainable management of forests', and 'enhancement of carbon stocks', which affects the eligibility of activities for payments.
• Effective REDD implementation requires addressing the direct drivers of deforestation, primarily agricultural expansion, which accounts for 96% of deforestation cases in the tropics, necessitating a multisectoral approach.
• Proposed safeguards for REDD-plus include the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, transparent forest governance, and ensuring that actions do not lead to the conversion of natural forests.
• Monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems are encouraged to follow IPCC Good Practice Guidance, which utilizes a three-tier approach ranging from Tier 1 (default values) to Tier 3 (detailed, area-specific factors and complex modelling).
• There is a tension in institutional arrangements between developing countries, who prefer new UNFCCC institutions to ensure equitable governance and direct fund access, and developed countries, who prefer utilizing existing institutions.
• Financing for REDD-plus is expected to involve a mix of grant funding and market-based sources, with an initial commitment of US$3.5 billion from Australia, France, Japan, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
• The report highlights the strong link between REDD and agriculture, noting that many developing countries have submitted Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) that include both forestry and agricultural land-use activities.

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} }