REDD and REDD+: Can They Save the World’s Forests?

In 2005, a promising climate initiative emerged at a UN conference in Montreal. Countries agreed to financially reward developing nations for protecting their forests and reducing carbon emissions from deforestation. Nearly two decades later, this program-known as REDD+-has drawn billions in funding and hundreds of projects worldwide. But has it actually saved the world’s forests?

What is REDD+ and where did it come from? 🔗

REDD+ stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, with the “plus” representing additional activities like conservation, sustainable forest management, and enhancing forest carbon stocks. Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica first introduced the concept at COP11 in Montreal in 2005, proposing that developing countries receive financial incentives to reduce emissions from deforestation.

The logic seemed straightforward. Deforestation and forest degradation account for approximately 11 percent of global carbon emissions. By paying countries to keep their forests standing, the international community could achieve cost-effective emission reductions while protecting biodiversity and supporting local communities.

The framework gained momentum at COP13 in Bali in 2007 and was formally established through the Warsaw Framework at COP19 in 2013. Since 2008, over $5.6 billion in public funding has been pledged to REDD+ initiatives, with major contributors including Norway, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

How REDD+ projects actually work 🔗

REDD+ operates through two main pathways. Countries can implement national-level programs that receive results-based payments for verified emission reductions. Alternatively, individual projects can generate carbon credits in voluntary carbon markets, where companies purchase these credits to offset their own emissions.

A 2022 study analyzing 40 REDD+ projects certified under the Verified Carbon Standard found that deforestation within project areas was reduced by 47 percent compared to similar areas without projects. This sounds impressive until you examine what that means in practice.

The absolute reductions were modest in most projects. Six sites actually experienced increased deforestation, and seven saw increased forest degradation. More comprehensive meta-analyses have found that REDD+ initiatives have had small-sized effects, similar to what other conservation instruments have achieved.

The baseline problem and phantom credits 🔗

A fundamental challenge with REDD+ is establishing accurate baselines. Projects must estimate how much deforestation would have occurred without intervention. This hypothetical “business as usual” scenario is difficult to verify, creating opportunities for inflated claims.

A 2019 investigation revealed that Brazil used different baselines for different funding sources, claiming credit for between 4 billion and 7 billion tons of avoided emissions-even as deforestation rates actually increased. A 2023 investigation found that over 90 percent of credits from Verra, which has certified nearly half of all voluntary carbon market projects, were essentially worthless.

The human cost of carbon credits 🔗

Beyond questionable carbon accounting, REDD+ projects have caused significant harm to the communities they were supposed to benefit. Human Rights Watch documented in Cambodia’s Southern Cardamom REDD+ project that the program operated for 31 months before consulting Indigenous Chong people living in the area, violating their right to free, prior, and informed consent.

Chong families described forced evictions by rangers and staff, arrests, and criminal charges for farming and foraging on their traditional lands. One man recounted being beaten during an arrest while collecting resin-a sustainable activity the community had practiced for generations. Three community members were detained for months without trial following evictions.

Indigenous rights repeatedly ignored 🔗

Research published in 2024 found that REDD+ implementation can place restrictions on Indigenous access to natural resources in their territories, and Indigenous Peoples’ lack of legal standing exacerbates these problems. Many REDD+ projects have failed to fully adhere to international principles of free, prior, and informed consent, with evidence of land grabbing and divisions within Indigenous and forest-dependent communities.

In Uganda’s Mount Elgon REDD+ project, the Benet people were forcibly displaced from land they had stewarded for generations when the area was designated as a National Protected Park. Similar patterns emerged in Colombia, where the Cumbal Indigenous reservation sold carbon credits without the knowledge of many community members.

A 2024 report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples called for a moratorium on carbon markets due to the extent of harmful impacts on human rights.

Tree plantations are not forests 🔗

Another critical flaw in REDD+ involves the use of monoculture tree plantations in reforestation efforts. These plantations do not enhance carbon stocks the way natural forests do. Natural forests absorb carbon for decades and support biodiversity, while monoculture plantations release stored carbon when regularly harvested.

Studies show monoculture plantations burn more intensely during wildfires and facilitate fire spread, whereas old-growth forests are superior at mitigating fire spread, storing carbon, and fostering biodiversity. Despite this, requests to establish tree plantations have nearly doubled in the last three years, with major beneficiaries including logging companies, pulp and paper companies, and large conservation organizations.

In some REDD+ projects in Peru, logging continues alongside forest management activities, contributing to ongoing degradation even as carbon credits are sold.

The offsetting illusion 🔗

The fundamental problem with REDD+ is that it allows major polluters to continue business as usual. When a fossil fuel company purchases carbon credits from a forest protection project, those emissions still happened. While deforestation accounts for about 11 percent of global emissions, the carbon offset model doesn’t address the root cause-it simply allows pollution to continue in one place while claiming protection elsewhere.

Chevron, which emitted 745 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2023, purchased credits from Colombia’s Cumbal project. Meanwhile, Indigenous community members who formed an environmental collective couldn’t obtain basic information about the project on their own land, received no benefits, and faced internal tensions as a result.

Leakage undermines effectiveness 🔗

A Carbon Market Watch report found that 59 percent of REDD+ projects reported no leakage deductions at all, despite requirements to account for deforestation simply shifting to unprotected areas. When protection in one area drives logging to another location, overall deforestation doesn’t decrease-it just moves.

Alternative approaches that work 🔗

Evidence shows that Indigenous territories cover 45 percent of the Amazon’s intact forests while representing only 2.6 percent of Amazon carbon emissions. Indigenous land management and forest governance provide some of the most effective protection against regional deforestation.

Rather than funding complex carbon credit schemes with questionable results, direct support for Indigenous land rights and territorial defense has proven more effective. When communities have secure tenure and control over their lands, they protect forests far better than top-down conservation projects.

The evidence is clear. After nearly two decades and billions in funding, REDD+ has not delivered its promised results in reducing deforestation. Instead, it has facilitated land grabbing, enabled continued pollution through offsetting, and caused human rights violations against the very communities that have protected forests for generations.

What do you think? If REDD+ projects have consistently failed to deliver promised results while harming Indigenous communities, should funding be redirected toward direct support for Indigenous land rights instead? How can we ensure that climate solutions address root causes rather than allowing major polluters to continue business as usual through offset schemes?

References

1. https://unfccc.int/topics/land-use/workstreams/reddplus
2. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46952
3. https://www.fao.org/redd/en
4. https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.13970
5. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01541-1
6. https://www.ceezer.earth/insights/looking-back-and-into-the-future-of-redd
7. https://features.propublica.org/brazil-carbon-offsets/inconvenient-truth-carbon-credits-dont-work-deforestation-redd-acre-cambodia/
8. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe
9. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/02/28/cambodia-carbon-offsetting-project-violates-indigenous-groups-rights
10. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-024-03774-7
11. https://globalforestcoalition.org/redd-climate-illusion
12. https://www.somo.nl/carbon-offsets-often-disenfranchise-communities
13. https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/climate-action/what-we-do/redd
14. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/publications/quality-assessment-of-redd-carbon-credit-projects