The REDD Negotiations: Moving into Copenhagen

This report by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) analyzes the state of negotiations regarding Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) leading up to the 2009 COP 15 in Copenhagen. It examines the technical and political challenges surrounding the scope of REDD, financing mechanisms, measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) systems, and institutional governance, providing guidance for developing countries to navigate these negotiations.

• There is a lack of consensus on the precise scope of REDD, with options ranging from basic RED (reducing emissions from gross deforestation) to REDD++ (including all land cover transitions affecting carbon storage, such as agroforests and plantations). The report notes that the operational definition of "forest" remains a critical and unresolved issue, as the current UNFCCC definition can lead to counter-intuitive results, such as not classifying the replacement of natural forest with oil palm as deforestation.
• Negotiators are considering a three-phase implementation approach for REDD: first, the development of national action plans and capacity building; second, the implementation of these plans; and third, results-based measures subject to MRV. A primary point of contention is the alignment of financing with these phases, as some countries fear that funding will only be available in the final results-based phase via carbon markets, leaving them without necessary front-end capacity building funds.
• Financing for REDD is a central conflict, with options including public funds, market-linked revenues (such as auctioning emissions trading allowances), and a combination of both. Developing countries generally advocate for a delivery approach administered by the COP to ensure equitable access and ownership, whereas developed countries prefer utilizing existing institutions like the World Bank or Global Environment Facility (GEF).
• Measurement, Reporting and Verification (MRV) systems are essential for REDD, with general consensus that reference emission levels (RELs) should be established and verified. However, disputes remain over whether to use historical or futuristic baselines and whether to employ gross or net carbon accounting. The report suggests that countries' analytical capacities align with IPCC reporting tiers, where Tier 3 provides the highest accuracy and best ability to monetize carbon but requires the most significant investment.
• There is a divide over whether REDD should be integrated into Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) or remain a separate mechanism. Integration into NAMAs could potentially allow finance to flow directly from developed to developing countries via a registry, but some fear this could jeopardize a final decision on REDD or conflict with those seeking a market-based approach that generates offset credits.
• The economic viability of REDD depends on understanding three types of costs: opportunity costs (forgone profits from land conversion), transaction costs (MRV and certification), and implementation costs (planning and policy reform). A 2007 study by the ASB Partnership in Indonesia, Cameroon, and Peru found that at the time, the European carbon market paid approximately USD$16 per tonne of carbon, while the returns for farmers converting forest to annual crops were less than USD$5 per tonne of CO2e, suggesting a strong economic incentive for forest conservation.

APA

International Institute for Sustainable Development (n.d.). The REDD Negotiations: Moving into Copenhagen. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/redd_negotiations.pdf

Chicago

International Institute for Sustainable Development. The REDD Negotiations: Moving into Copenhagen. n.d. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/redd_negotiations.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=International Institute for Sustainable Development |title=The REDD Negotiations: Moving into Copenhagen |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/redd_negotiations.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{internationalinstituteforsustainabledevelopmentndredd, author = {{International Institute for Sustainable Development}}, title = {{The REDD Negotiations: Moving into Copenhagen}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/redd_negotiations.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }