Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) E-Learning Series on International Frameworks that Support Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities, and Their Territories and Areas

The document provides an educational overview of REDD+, explaining its goal of providing financial incentives to developing countries to reduce carbon emissions by protecting forests. It details the debate over reference levels and funding mechanisms—specifically carbon markets versus a dedicated REDD+ fund—while highlighting significant risks to Indigenous peoples, such as forced evictions and the devaluation of non-monetary forest values. The guide compares the safeguards of UN-REDD and the World Bank, noting that UN-REDD's standards are generally stronger, though implementation remains a concern.

• REDD+ is a proposed intervention under the UNFCCC designed to provide financial incentives for developing countries to reduce carbon emissions through conservation, sustainable forest management, and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
• There is significant debate regarding 'reference levels' (the current rate of deforestation), with concerns that the system may create perverse incentives by rewarding countries with high historical deforestation rates while punishing those that have already maintained low levels.
• Two primary funding mechanisms for REDD+ are proposed: carbon markets, which allow private sector involvement but may let developed nations avoid reducing their own emissions, and a REDD+ fund, which places the financial responsibility on developed nations.
• Indigenous peoples and local communities face several risks under REDD+, including the potential for forced evictions due to lack of formal land tenure, corruption in fund management, and the loss of intangible, non-monetary values of forests.
• The Cancun Agreements from COP 16 (2010) provide the most promising safeguard language, calling for the 'full and effective participation' of Indigenous peoples and local communities and referencing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
• A comparison of implementing bodies shows that UN-REDD has stronger safeguards on paper, emphasizing free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), whereas World Bank programs (FIP and FCPF) have weaker provisions that only require 'consultation' and 'broad support'.
• An external evaluation of a UN-REDD pilot in Lam Dong Province, Vietnam, identified failures in the FPIC process, including a lack of information on risks, insufficient time for community discussion, and the absence of a grievance mechanism.

APA

Natural Justice (n.d.). Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) E-Learning Series on International Frameworks that Support Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities, and Their Territories and Areas. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/REDD.pdf

Chicago

Natural Justice. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) E-Learning Series on International Frameworks that Support Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities, and Their Territories and Areas. n.d. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/REDD.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Natural Justice |title=Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) E-Learning Series on International Frameworks that Support Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities, and Their Territories and Areas |url=https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/REDD.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{naturaljusticendreducing, author = {{Natural Justice}}, title = {{Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) E-Learning Series on International Frameworks that Support Indigenous Peoples, Local Communities, and Their Territories and Areas}}, institution = {Natural Justice}, url = {https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/REDD.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }