What is ‘REDD+’?

REDD+ is a United Nations-backed framework that aims to curb climate change by

stopping the destruction of forests. REDD stands for "Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and forest Degradation”; the “+” signifies the role of conservation,
sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.

Because forests are good for the climate, correct?

Exactly: Forests release carbon into their atmosphere when they are cut down, and
protecting forests represents at least 30 percent  of the action needed to keep global
average temperature rise at or below 2 degrees Celsius.

So how does REDD+ work?

REDD+ helps countries value the carbon and ecosystem services their forests
provide, and create financial incentives to reduce deforestation (when forests are
converted to other uses, such as agriculture); reduce degradation (when forests lose
their ability to provide ecosystems services); and promote sustainable management
(ensuring social, ecological and economic benefits for future generations).

Put simply, REDD+ is the framework through which countries, the private sector,
multilateral funds and others can pay countries to not cut down their forests. This
can take the form of direct payments or can be in exchange for “carbon credits,”
which represent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to compensate for emissions
made somewhere else.

As countries are trying to meet their Paris Agreement targets, or nationally

determined contributions, REDD+ can help countries get there.

Wait, their nationally determined what?

Nationally determined contributions, or NDCs. Under the Paris Agreement, starting

in 2020, all countries have agreed to reduce their emissions according to the national
targets they’ve set for themselves.

I’ve heard of the Paris Agreement. How does REDD+ fit in?

Let’s bring in an expert to explain.

“As countries work to meet the NDCs they agreed upon under the Paris Agreement,
they can use REDD+ to do that — it delivers emissions reductions while protecting
their forests,” says Maggie Comstock, senior director of climate policy at
Conservation International. “The Paris Agreement also recognizes that some
countries will want to transfer and trade in order to meet those NDCs (but they’re
still figuring out some additional rules).”

It sounds like REDD+ could be pretty useful, then. Is it just countries that
can use it?
As a matter of fact, no. For example, it could be used by the world’s airlines — a
sector responsible for significant greenhouse gas emissions — as a way to offset those
emissions. REDD+ could be an option for the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) , the UN body that governs airlines and which is currently
working out a plan to cut emissions across the sector

So who pays for REDD+?

At the moment, money for REDD+ comes from other countries, multilateral finance
institutions, the private sector and other actors.

So there’s a real incentive for countries with a lot of forests to get in on

this.

Absolutely. Increasingly, countries are seeing the value of REDD+ — and it boils
down to the many benefits referred to earlier. “That, I think, is one of the things that
can help differentiate REDD+ as an investment compared to other emission
reductions, because we do have demonstrated social and environmental benefits,”
says Comstock. It’s not just about protecting wildlife and ecosystems — it’s also about
how you support communities.”

So is REDD+ working?

Yes, says Comstock, but much more needs to be done. “One factor that could provide
major incentives for scaling up forest protection is a global price on carbon, including
through carbon markets.”

“This is an exciting time for markets,” says Comstock. “Right now, the current lack of
a market discourages investments, which in turn inhibits the development of a
market, and so on, but this is changing.”

Countries working on REDD+ must prepare a national strategy, set up a national

forest monitoring system and measure the current level of carbon in their forests to
gauge change over time. They also need to demonstrate that their REDD+ actions
don’t have any unintended negative consequences and instead help improve
livelihoods. These steps can be tricky to set up and execute, which is why financial
support is so important.

Let’s circle back to those airlines: How are they going to use REDD+,
exactly?

Let’s take a step back. Imagine a ruler: At the top of that ruler, we’ve got current
emissions levels, and at the bottom, we’ve got where we’d like emissions levels to be
at. All that space in between is the work we need to do to drastically cut our
emissions and stop the apocalypse of climate change. Countries’ Paris Agreement
targets get us a closer to the bottom, sure, but there is still plenty of empty space
between where we’re at now and where we need to be.

The airline sector could help fill up some of that space.

Go on.

Airlines collectively decided to cap their emissions at 2020 levels. Anything above
those levels will require them to make efficiency and operational improvements (hey
planes, maybe don’t sit on the runway forever, burning through fuel). That still
probably won’t get them all the way there. So the industry will need tools to offset
emissions above 2020 levels, and that’s where REDD+ comes in: it’s a way to offset
those emissions.

Comstock explains what makes the aviation sector’s involvement with REDD+ really
exciting: “The Environmental Defense fund has run some numbers, and we could be
looking at 7.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide over 20 years in terms of demand for
offsets just from aviation.”

That’s a lot of trees.

Exactly. If you, too, would like to save some trees, start here : First, find out what
your carbon footprint is. Next, reduce it by purchasing one (or more!) of those
carbon credits we talked about earlier. One leafy beneficiary of these offsets is a
forest-protection project in Kenya’s Chyulu Hills that will prevent approximately 18
million tons of carbon dioxide from being emitted over the next 30 years.

 UN-REDD Programme UNDP, UNEP and FAO jointly established the UN-REDD

Programme in 2007, a partnership aimed at assisting developing countries in addressing
certain measures needed in order to effectively participate in the REDD+ mechanism. These
measures include capacity development, governance, engagement of Indigenous Peoples
and technical needs.
 Forest Carbon Partnership Facility The World Bank plays an important role in the
development of REDD+ activities since its inception. The Forest Carbon Partnership
Facility (FCPF) was presented to the international community at COP-13 

Decision 1/CP 16 requests all developing countries aiming to undertake REDD+ to develop the
following elements[12]:
(a) A national strategy or action plan;
(b) A national forest reference emission level and/or forest reference level or, if appropriate, as
an interim measure, subnational forest reference emission levels and/or forest reference levels
(c) A robust and transparent national forest monitoring system for the monitoring and reporting
on REDD+ activities (see below), with, if appropriate, subnational monitoring and reporting as an
interim measure
(d) A system for providing information on how the social and environmental safeguards (included
in an appendix to the decision) are being addressed and respected throughout the
implementation of REDD+
The decisions on REDD+ enumerate five "eligible activities" that developing countries may
implement to reduce emissions and enhance removals of greenhouse gases:
"(a) Reducing emissions from deforestation.
(b) Reducing emissions from forest degradation.
(c) Conservation of forest carbon stocks.
(d) Sustainable management of forests.
(e) Enhancement of forest carbon stocks".

Additional issues[edit]
The REDD+ mechanism is currently still under discussion by the UNFCCC. All pertinent issues
that comprise REDD+ are exclusively those that are included in the decisions of the COP, as
indicated in the above sections. There is, however, a large variety of concepts and approaches
that are labelled (as being part of) REDD+ by their proponents, either being a substitute for
UNFCCC decisions or complementary to those decisions. Below follows a – no doubt incomplete
– list of such concepts and approaches.

 Project-based REDD+, voluntary market REDD+. As the concept of REDD+ was being
defined, many organizations began to promote REDD+ projects at the scale of a forest area
(e.g. large concession, National Park), analogous to AR-CDM projects under the Kyoto
Protocol, with reduction of emissions or enhancement of removals vetted by an external
organization using a standard established by some party (e.g. CCBA, VCS) and with carbon
credits traded on the international voluntary carbon market. However, under the UNFCCC
REDD+ is defined as national (Decisions 4/CP.15 and 1/CP.16 consistently refer to national
strategies and action plans and national monitoring, with sub-national coverage allowed as
an interim measure only[10][12]).
 Benefit distribution. The UNFCCC decisions on REDD+ are silent on the issue of
rewarding countries and participants for their verified net emission reductions or enhanced
removals of greenhouse gases. It is not very likely that specific requirements for sub-national
implementation of the distribution of benefits will be adopted, as this will be perceived to be
an issue of national sovereignty. Generic guidance may be provided, using language similar
to that of the safeguards, such as "result-based finance has to accrue to local stakeholders"
without being specific on percentages retention for management, identification of
stakeholders, type of benefit or means of distribution. Countries may decide to channel any
benefits through an existing program on rural development, for instance, provide additional
services (e.g. extension, better market access, training, seedlings) or pay local stakeholders
directly. Many financial entities do have specific requirement on the design of a system to
use funds received, and reporting on the use of these funds.
 FPIC. Free, prior and informed consent is included in the U.N. Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples. The REDD+ decisions under the UNFCCC do not have this as an
explicit requirement; however, although the safeguard on respect for the knowledge and
rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities notes "that the United
Nations General Assembly has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples" (UNDRIP).[12] Article 19 of UNDRIP requires that "States shall consult
and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own
representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before
adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them". This
article is interpreted by many organizations engaged in REDD+, for example in the UN-
REDD "Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent," to mean that every, or at least
many, communities need to provide their consent before any REDD+ activities can take
place.[21]
 Leakage. Leakage is a term that is often used in project-based REDD+. The term
originates from Afforestation/Reforestation projects under the CDM of the Kyoto Protocol
where it is assessed to quantify effects of the project outside of the project area. Leakage is
less of an issue when REDD+ is implemented at a national or subnational level, as there can
be no domestic leakage once full national coverage is achieved. However, there can still be
international leakage if activities are displaced across international borders, or "displacement
of emissions" between sectors, such as replacing wood fires with kerosene stoves (AFOLU
to energy) or construction with wood for construction with concrete, cement and bricks
(AFOLU to industry). Many initiatives require leakage be taken into account in program
design, so that potential leakage of emissions, including across borders, can be minimized.