Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines REDD+ as a tool for developing countries to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation while fostering low-carbon development. It highlights that while over $4.5 billion had been pledged by 2012, significantly more funding is needed to meet estimated costs of $22 to $36 billion by 2015 to reduce global deforestation by 25%. The brief warns that REDD+ could increase the vulnerability of forest-dependent and indigenous peoples if land rights are not secured. It emphasizes that success requires long-term investment in monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems, which may take up to a decade to establish, and the integration of forest policies into broader national development strategies.

The document examines REDD+ as a tool for mitigating climate change through the reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. It argues that while REDD+ offers opportunities for low-carbon transitions, economic growth, and climate adaptation, its success depends on significant institutional investment and the mitigation of risks to forest-dependent communities.

The document examines the 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation' (REDD) framework, highlighting how its implementation often prioritizes corporate profit and carbon market volatility over the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Through case studies in countries like Indonesia, Mexico, and Paraguay, it illustrates risks such as 'leakage', the displacement of forest-dependent populations, and the lack of genuine free, prior, and informed consent. The report concludes that REDD should be decoupled from carbon markets and instead focus on reducing demand for agricultural commodities and timber while rewarding those who have historically conserved forests.

The report critiques 'Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries' (REDD), claiming it risks exacerbating inequality and privatizing forest resources. It highlights how energy companies use REDD for greenwashing while continuing fossil fuel extraction. Through case studies in Indonesia, Mexico, Paraguay, and others, the document illustrates failures in community consultation, the risk of 'leakage' where deforestation simply shifts location, and the danger of including monoculture plantations in carbon accounting. It concludes that REDD should be decoupled from volatile carbon markets and instead based on public funding and the recognition of Indigenous land rights.

The report outlines how tropical forests can be transitioned from net carbon emitters to net sinks through the REDD+ framework. It details specific reforestation, restoration, and sustainable production forestry techniques, while emphasizing the necessity of 'additional' carbon benefits beyond business-as-usual baselines. The authors argue that achieving zero net emissions by 2030 requires a combination of reducing deforestation and scaling up sequestration activities, supported by international financial incentives and national policies that protect biodiversity and the rights of indigenous and local communities.

The document analyzes the outcomes of COP15 for REDD-plus, highlighting the Copenhagen Accord's role as a political mandate for further action. It details the three-phase implementation approach proposed by the AWG-LCA and examines critical challenges including the definition of 'forest', the integration of REDD into Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA), and the development of Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) systems based on IPCC guidelines. The report also discusses the necessity of social and environmental safeguards for indigenous peoples and local communities, the role of the Green Climate Fund, and the potential for both grant-based and market-based financing mechanisms.

The author posits that improved forest management is a "no regrets" strategy that simultaneously addresses immediate vulnerabilities—such as floods and droughts—and long-term climate risks through carbon sequestration. While ecosystem-based adaptation can be a cost-effective alternative to hard infrastructure, the author warns that protecting forests may create trade-offs for local communities. The document suggests using REDD+ mechanisms to finance protection in high-carbon forests while reserving other adaptation funds for low-carbon areas, such as sub-Saharan Africa. Finally, it emphasizes that overcoming poor governance and establishing democratic public participation are essential to implementing these strategies.

The executive summary argues that REDD mechanisms are flawed because they focus on reducing emissions rather than stopping deforestation, potentially rewarding polluters and harming Indigenous Peoples. It warns that funding REDD through carbon offsetting undermines climate mitigation in industrialized nations and risks displacing forest-dependent communities. The author advocates for grant-based funding, the exclusion of plantations from forest definitions, and a rights-based approach to forest conservation.

The document examines the technical and political challenges of integrating REDD into global climate policy, focusing on the scope of activities (from REDD to REDD++), financing mechanisms, measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) standards, and institutional governance. It highlights the diversity of national circumstances, particularly in Africa, and the need for a phased implementation approach that balances equity with efficiency.

The report analyzes how sustainable development issues enter Argentina's trade and investment agenda, noting that external pressures are significant for environmental and food safety standards but less so for labor and climate change. It highlights Argentina's unique position due to its lack of north-south trade agreements and its low-polluting economic structure, while emphasizing the need for a holistic, coordinated approach to manage future international commitments and unilateral measures.

The report critiques REDD as a flawed approach that focuses on reducing rather than stopping deforestation, potentially rewarding polluters through carbon offsetting. It highlights significant risks to Indigenous Peoples' land rights, the danger of replacing natural forests with carbon-poor plantations, and methodological failures such as 'leakage'. The author argues that market-based funding is volatile and inequitable, suggesting instead that funding should be grant-based, managed by the UN, and focused on addressing the underlying drivers of deforestation.

The report argues that REDD, as currently designed, focuses on reducing rather than stopping deforestation and risks becoming a tool for corporate profit rather than climate mitigation. It highlights significant risks to indigenous land rights, the potential for 'leakage' where deforestation simply moves to other areas, and the danger of replacing natural forests with monoculture plantations. The author criticizes the use of carbon markets to fund REDD, suggesting instead public funding derived from fossil fuel taxes and the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies.

The report critiques REDD, asserting that it is designed to reduce rather than stop deforestation and may incentivize the replacement of natural forests with carbon-poor plantations. It warns that financing REDD through carbon markets could allow industrialized nations to avoid reducing fossil fuel emissions, undermine national sovereignty in developing countries, and lead to the displacement of indigenous communities. The author argues that REDD's 'opportunity cost' calculations often benefit polluters and that the mechanism is susceptible to market volatility and corporate lobbying. The document advocates for a non-market, grant-based funding system managed by the UN, focused on ecosystem justice, the recognition of indigenous land rights, and the elimination of the underlying drivers of deforestation.

The working paper by the Graz Group outlines strategies to enhance the environmental integrity and completeness of LULUCF accounting. It suggests moving toward 'fuller accounting' through activities-based, emissions/removals-based, or land-use-based approaches. Key recommendations include mandatory accounting for forest and peatland degradation, a 'restricted stock-change approach' for harvested wood products to prevent false credits, and policy-based methods for 'factoring out' natural disturbances. The authors argue that current Kyoto Protocol rules allow significant emissions from degradation to go uncounted, particularly in Annex I countries that did not elect Article 3.4.

The briefing identifies three primary financing categories for REDD: direct carbon markets, market-linked approaches, and voluntary sources. Direct carbon markets offer the highest funding potential (tens of billions of dollars annually) but risk a zero-sum effect on global emissions if offsets are not real and verifiable. Market-linked approaches, such as using auction revenues or dual markets, provide additional reductions and can fund capacity building and stabilization. Voluntary sources, including official development assistance, provide the fastest way to build initial capacity but offer the least reliable and smallest funding scale (hundreds of millions of dollars annually). The author proposes a phased timing strategy: utilizing voluntary funding in the short term, increasing market-linked funding toward 2020, and transitioning to direct carbon markets as the primary source in the 2020s once capacity and verification systems are established.

The document argues that REDD is a cost-effective method for reducing heat-trapping emissions, noting that $5 billion annually could protect nearly 20% of tropical forests at risk, while $20 billion could protect about half. It identifies opportunity costs as the largest expense and highlights that global models provide more conservative, comprehensive cost estimates than regional studies. Total implementation, administrative, and transaction costs are estimated at nearly $1 per ton of reductions, with separate stabilization costs estimated at $630 million per year for the ten most critical countries to prevent international leakage.

The CDKN's Africa START research call provides £300,000 for 16 projects and £150,000 for management and a learning forum. The funded research addresses diverse climate risks across Africa, including forest degradation in Nigeria and Cameroon, water management in Benin and Ethiopia, and coastal lagoon sensitivity in North Africa, all aimed at enhancing food security and rural livelihoods.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) asserts that trade liberalization in forest products, specifically through WTO tariff reductions and APEC non-tariff measure reviews, can intensify forest loss, degradation, and the introduction of alien species. CIEL argues that current international and national forest protection frameworks are inadequate to ensure sustainable trade. The document criticizes the USTR/CEQ review process as inadequate in duration and scope, urging the U.S. government to adopt formal environmental assessment procedures based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and to promote forest protection measures in tandem with trade liberalization.

The briefing contends that addressing international drivers of deforestation is essential for the success of REDD+ and is legally permissible under both UNFCCC and WTO frameworks. It asserts that UNFCCC Article 3.5 does not prohibit trade-impacting measures as long as they are not arbitrary or disguised restrictions. Furthermore, it highlights that the WTO allows trade-related measures to protect the environment, specifically citing GATT Article XX exceptions for protecting life, health, and exhaustible natural resources. The authors point to at least fifteen existing Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) that incorporate trade measures as precedent, arguing that collective action within the UNFCCC would demonstrate the 'good faith negotiations' often required by WTO arbitration panels. The document concludes that ignoring international drivers due to perceived WTO conflicts risks 'leakage' and undermines the goal of halting forest loss.

The document argues for a transparent, country-driven MRV system for REDD+ that integrates carbon monitoring with social and environmental safeguards. It emphasizes the need for clear definitions of 'forest' using FAO categories to distinguish between the five REDD+ activities and calls for the full participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in the MRV process. The submission also highlights the necessity of a common reporting format for REDD+ finance to ensure transparency and accountability, particularly regarding 'new and additional' funding and the Green Climate Fund safeguards.