Reducción de emisiones debidas a la deforestación y la degradación forestal (REDD+)

The document provides an educational overview of REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), detailing its three-phase implementation process and the technical challenges of establishing reference levels for carbon emissions. It contrasts market-based financing (carbon credits) with fund-based approaches, highlighting concerns that carbon offsets may allow developed nations to avoid reducing their own emissions. The guide emphasizes significant risks to indigenous communities, including forced eviction due to land tenure insecurity and the potential for corruption in fund distribution. It evaluates the safeguards of the UN-REDD and World Bank programs, noting that while UN-REDD has stronger theoretical protections, practical implementation remains a concern, as evidenced by a case study in Vietnam where free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) was found to be deficient.

• REDD+ is implemented through a three-phase approach: Phase 1 focuses on preparation and national strategies; Phase 2 involves policy reforms and demonstration projects; and Phase 3 requires full compliance with UNFCCC standards to receive performance-based payments.
• The establishment of 'reference levels' to measure emission reductions is technically complex and criticized for potentially creating perverse incentives that reward countries with high historical deforestation rates while penalizing those that have traditionally protected their forests.
• Market-based financing via carbon credits is criticized because it allows developed countries to use 'offsets' to avoid reducing emissions at their source, and because carbon stored in trees is not scientifically interchangeable with carbon from fossil fuels.
• Indigenous peoples and local communities face severe risks from REDD+, including forced eviction and loss of livelihoods, particularly where formal land tenure is not recognized, as forests become more financially lucrative.
• The Cancun Agreements (COP16) provide a critical framework for safeguards, promoting respect for indigenous knowledge, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and the 'full and effective participation' of stakeholders.
• A comparison of major implementers shows that UN-REDD generally has stronger safeguards on paper than the World Bank, which only requires 'broad support' and consultations rather than full free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).
• A case study of a UN-REDD pilot project in Lam Dong province, Vietnam, revealed failures in the FPIC process, including insufficient information on risks, inadequate time for community discussion, and the absence of a grievance mechanism.

APA

Natural Justice (2014). Reducción de emisiones debidas a la deforestación y la degradación forestal (REDD+). https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/REDD_Spanish.pdf

Chicago

Natural Justice. Reducción de emisiones debidas a la deforestación y la degradación forestal (REDD+). 2014. https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/REDD_Spanish.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Natural Justice |title=Reducción de emisiones debidas a la deforestación y la degradación forestal (REDD+) |date=May 2014 |url=https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/REDD_Spanish.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{naturaljustice2014reduccin, author = {{Natural Justice}}, title = {{Reducción de emisiones debidas a la deforestación y la degradación forestal (REDD+)}}, institution = {Natural Justice}, year = {2014}, month = may, url = {https://naturaljustice.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/REDD_Spanish.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }