|
REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) is one of the most prominent mechanisms linking forest conservation to global climate mitigation. Centered on incentivizing developing nations to protect and sustainably manage forests, REDD+ has attracted billions in funding and international attention. This article critically examines REDD+'s effectiveness in reducing tropical deforestation, conserving biodiversity, and supporting local and Indigenous communities. Drawing on recent studies and project examples, it argues that while REDD+ holds potential, its impacts are mixed and highly context-dependent. Greater emphasis on equity, governance, and ecological alignment is required for REDD+ to achieve lasting success.
|
|
Introduction
Tropical forests are among the planet's most vital ecosystems, storing vast amounts of carbon, supporting exceptional biodiversity, and sustaining the livelihoods of millions. Yet they are being lost at alarming rates. In response, REDD+ was introduced under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as a mechanism to create financial value for the carbon stored in forests by offering performance-based payments to countries and communities that reduce deforestation and forest degradation.
The core idea is simple: keep forests standing, get paid for the carbon not emitted. But the execution has been far more complex. More than a decade after its inception, REDD+ remains controversial. While some projects demonstrate measurable reductions in forest loss and emissions, others struggle with flawed baselines, leakage, weak governance, or social conflict. This article explores the current scientific evidence surrounding REDD+, focusing on its impact on tropical conservation, biodiversity protection, and socio-ecological resilience.
REDD+ Effectiveness in Reducing Deforestation
Promising Results in Targeted Contexts
Recent studies suggest that REDD+ can be effective when implemented in areas with high deforestation pressure and strong governance. A 2022 meta-analysis of 40 voluntary REDD+ projects certified under the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) found that deforestation rates were 47% lower and degradation rates 58% lower in REDD+ areas compared to carefully matched control sites over the first five years of implementation. Notably, the effects were most pronounced in high-risk regions and where monitoring and community involvement were strong.
Similarly, a REDD+ pilot program in the Brazilian Amazon that offered conditional payments to smallholder farmers led to a ~50% reduction in deforestation over a three-year period. On average, each participant avoided clearing four hectares of forest, demonstrating that economic incentives can shift behavior when aligned with local needs and priorities.
Uneven or Disappointing Outcomes Elsewhere
However, success is far from universal. A critical evaluation of multiple voluntary REDD+ initiatives in Brazil found that most did not produce statistically significant reductions in deforestation—and in some cases, project areas experienced higher deforestation than control sites. These discrepancies are often tied to poor site selection, unrealistic baselines, or limited enforcement.
A global analysis published in 2023 warned that many REDD+ projects systematically overestimate the carbon they save by setting inflated baseline deforestation scenarios. This practice undermines the environmental integrity of carbon markets and raises serious ethical questions about double-counting and crediting for emissions reductions that may never have occurred.
Tropical forests are among the planet's most vital ecosystems, storing vast amounts of carbon, supporting exceptional biodiversity, and sustaining the livelihoods of millions. Yet they are being lost at alarming rates. In response, REDD+ was introduced under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as a mechanism to create financial value for the carbon stored in forests by offering performance-based payments to countries and communities that reduce deforestation and forest degradation.
The core idea is simple: keep forests standing, get paid for the carbon not emitted. But the execution has been far more complex. More than a decade after its inception, REDD+ remains controversial. While some projects demonstrate measurable reductions in forest loss and emissions, others struggle with flawed baselines, leakage, weak governance, or social conflict. This article explores the current scientific evidence surrounding REDD+, focusing on its impact on tropical conservation, biodiversity protection, and socio-ecological resilience.
REDD+ Effectiveness in Reducing Deforestation
Promising Results in Targeted Contexts
Recent studies suggest that REDD+ can be effective when implemented in areas with high deforestation pressure and strong governance. A 2022 meta-analysis of 40 voluntary REDD+ projects certified under the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) found that deforestation rates were 47% lower and degradation rates 58% lower in REDD+ areas compared to carefully matched control sites over the first five years of implementation. Notably, the effects were most pronounced in high-risk regions and where monitoring and community involvement were strong.
Similarly, a REDD+ pilot program in the Brazilian Amazon that offered conditional payments to smallholder farmers led to a ~50% reduction in deforestation over a three-year period. On average, each participant avoided clearing four hectares of forest, demonstrating that economic incentives can shift behavior when aligned with local needs and priorities.
Uneven or Disappointing Outcomes Elsewhere
However, success is far from universal. A critical evaluation of multiple voluntary REDD+ initiatives in Brazil found that most did not produce statistically significant reductions in deforestation—and in some cases, project areas experienced higher deforestation than control sites. These discrepancies are often tied to poor site selection, unrealistic baselines, or limited enforcement.
A global analysis published in 2023 warned that many REDD+ projects systematically overestimate the carbon they save by setting inflated baseline deforestation scenarios. This practice undermines the environmental integrity of carbon markets and raises serious ethical questions about double-counting and crediting for emissions reductions that may never have occurred.
|
Biodiversity Conservation and REDD+
REDD+ was initially conceived as a climate mechanism, but it carries the potential to deliver significant co-benefits for biodiversity. If forests are protected or restored, species habitats are preserved—at least in theory. One challenge is that carbon-rich areas are not always the most biologically diverse, and vice versa. A study in Indonesia found that REDD+ projects tended to be located in areas with higher species richness than unprotected forest but lower carbon density than other conservation zones. Furthermore, many were not situated in regions facing acute deforestation pressure, meaning their potential to mitigate biodiversity loss was limited by design. |
|
Nonetheless, modeling studies suggest that well-funded REDD+ programs—particularly those strategically located in biodiversity hotspots—could substantially reduce species extinctions from habitat loss. But this requires a deliberate shift in site selection criteria, prioritizing ecological as well as carbon values.
Legal Vulnerability of Protected Areas
REDD+ projects also face external legal threats. Protected areas across tropical regions are increasingly undermined by PADDD events—the downgrading, downsizing, or degazettement of conservation areas. In countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Malaysia, and Peru, forests affected by PADDD events have experienced significantly higher deforestation rates and carbon emissions. Unless REDD+ is embedded in a robust legal and policy framework, its gains remain vulnerable to political shifts.
Social and Governance Impacts
Perhaps the most contentious dimension of REDD+ lies in its social outcomes. Proponents argue that REDD+ can bring sustainable income to forest communities. Critics contend that it often exacerbates inequalities, excludes Indigenous peoples, and restricts access to land and resources.
A 2016 review of REDD+ projects worldwide revealed a troubling pattern: while many projects improved forest monitoring and governance, they also tended to reduce livelihood diversity, disrupt traditional land use systems, and disproportionately benefit elites. Inflexible project rules, such as bans on certain farming practices, sometimes left communities more vulnerable, not less.
Nevertheless, there are notable exceptions. In Zanzibar, a REDD+ readiness initiative (HIMA) supported forest zoning, tenure clarification, and capacity-building at the community level. The program improved trust in local governance and strengthened conservation outcomes, though momentum waned once external funding ended—highlighting the challenge of long-term sustainability.
A broader study on REDD+ and social resilience found mixed results: while projects increased stakeholder engagement and rule enforcement, they often failed to enhance community flexibility or livelihood options. In short, stronger institutions are not always enough if they do not address economic vulnerability.
Indigenous Exclusion
Despite occupying and managing some of the most biodiverse regions in the tropics, Indigenous peoples remain underrepresented in REDD+ planning and benefit-sharing. A 2024 study found that REDD+ projects often treat Indigenous groups as stakeholders to be consulted, rather than rights-holders and co-managers. Without formal recognition of land rights, many communities cannot fully benefit from or control the conservation of their territories.
Case Study: The Rimba Raya Project, Indonesia
The Rimba Raya Biodiversity Reserve in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, exemplifies both the promise and complexity of REDD+. Protecting over 60,000 hectares of peat swamp forest, it was designed to prevent the expansion of oil palm plantations and conserve the habitat of the critically endangered Bornean orangutan.
Rimba Raya combines carbon revenue with community development—providing clean water, healthcare, education, and alternative livelihoods. Its innovative approach has been lauded as a model of private-sector engagement in REDD+. However, critics argue that scaling such models is difficult due to high transaction costs, the need for specialized expertise, and dependence on voluntary carbon markets.
Case Study: Madre de Dios, Peru. REDD+ Meets Enforcement—A Dual Approach
In the lush Peruvian Amazon’s Madre de Dios, REDD+ was implemented alongside traditional law enforcement strategies to curb deforestation. The initiative targeted Brazil nut concessionaires, blending carbon-based incentives with field inspections.
A rigorous difference-in-differences (DiD) and matching study revealed that while law enforcement effectively reduced forest loss, REDD+ itself did not result in significant reductions in deforestation or degradation. Alarmingly, households participating in REDD+ reported lower perceived well-being compared to non-participants, suggesting unmet expectations or unfulfilled benefits. Frontiers
This case illustrates that incentives alone—without robust enforcement or delivered promises—may be insufficient to drive conservation outcomes or sustain local trust.
Case Study: Peru (Ucayali & Madre de Dios): "Do No Harm"—Forest Revenue Impacts
Two REDD+ initiatives in Peru’s Ucayali and Madre de Dios regions focused on sustainable forest-based livelihoods, including reduced-impact logging, Brazil nut management, and FSC certification. Researchers used a before-after control-intervention (BACI) study design with matching to analyze effects on household revenues from forest products.
Results indicated a decline in overall forest income during the study period. Crucially, this downturn was not attributable to REDD+ participation—meaning that, in terms of forest revenues, REDD+ interventions did not harm the livelihoods of participating households. Frontiers
While not transformative, this finding highlights REDD+'s potential to avoid unintended negative socioeconomic consequences when integrated carefully.
Case Study: Tanzania’s Ngitili Landscape: Community-Based REDD+ in Miombo WoodlandsIn Tanzania’s Shinyanga region, the NGO TaTEDO experimented with community-based REDD+ tied to ngitili—traditional miombo woodland fallows that offer vital ecosystem services. The initiative pooled ngitili units to create economically meaningful collective carbon offsets, underpinned by locally tailored by-laws and benefit-sharing schemes. www2.cifor.orgPMC
Despite its innovation, the project encountered substantial challenges:
Conclusion
REDD+ is not a silver bullet—but neither is it a failure. It is a complex tool whose effectiveness varies dramatically by context, design, and implementation. The best REDD+ projects reduce emissions, support local livelihoods, and protect biodiversity. The worst ones greenwash deforestation or displace Indigenous communities.
If REDD+ is to fulfill its potential, it must evolve:
Literature cited
Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W. D., & Verchot, L. V. (Eds.). (2012). Analyzing REDD+: Challenges and choices. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
https://www.cifor.org/knowledge/publication/3834/
Baylis, K., Honey-Rosés, J., Börner, J., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Ferraro, P. J., ... & Wunder, S. (2016). Mainstreaming impact evaluation in nature conservation. Conservation Letters, 9(1), 58–64.
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12180
Bos, A. B., Buntaine, M. T., & Hamilton, S. E. (2022). REDD+ and forest carbon: Evidence from Brazil, Peru, and Tanzania. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5, 870450.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2022.870450/full
Börner, J., Schulz, D., Wunder, S., & Pfaff, A. (2020). The effectiveness of forest conservation policies and programs. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 12, 45–64.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-110119-025531
Duchelle, A. E., Simonet, G., Sunderlin, W. D., & Wunder, S. (2018). What is REDD+ achieving on the ground? Current status and key challenges. World Resources Institute.
https://www.wri.org/research/what-redd-achieving-ground
Duchelle, A. E., Veit, P., & Korwin, S. (2024, October 11). REDD+ doesn’t work without Indigenous peoples—but fails to engage them. Mongabay.
https://news.mongabay.com/2024/10/study-redd-doesnt-work-without-indigenous-peoples-but-fails-to-engage-them/
Furumo, P. R., & Lambin, E. F. (2020). Scaling up zero-deforestation initiatives through public–private partnerships: A look inside post-conflict Colombia. Environmental Research Letters, 15(12), 125005.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd7ac
Jagger, P., Lawlor, K., Brockhaus, M., Gebara, M. F., Sonwa, D. J., & Resosudarmo, I. A. P. (2014). REDD+ safeguards in national policy discourse and pilot projects. Forests, 5(9), 2405–2422.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f5092405
Mertz, O., Müller, D., Sikor, T., Hett, C., Heinimann, A., Castella, J. C., ... & Dressler, W. (2012). The forgotten D: Challenges of addressing forest degradation in complex mosaic landscapes under REDD+. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 112(1), 63–76.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2012.709678
Rantala, S., Vihemäki, H., Swallow, B., & Jambiya, G. (2013). Who benefits from REDD+? Evidence from local communities in Tanzania. International Forestry Review, 15(1), 39–52.
https://doi.org/10.1505/146554813805927246
Ravikumar, A., Larjavaara, M., Larson, A. M., & Kanninen, M. (2015). Community forestry in climate-change mitigation: What's in it for communities? Forest Policy and Economics, 56, 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.03.002
Sills, E. O., Atmadja, S., de Sassi, C., Duchelle, A. E., Kweka, D. L., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., & Sunderlin, W. D. (Eds.). (2014). REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe. CIFOR.
https://www2.cifor.org/redd-case-book/
West, T. A. P., Börner, J., Sills, E. O., & Kontoleon, A. (2020). Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(39), 24188–24194.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004334117
Wunder, S., Börner, J., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Feder, S., & Pagiola, S. (2020). Payments for environmental services: Past performance and pending potentials. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 12, 209–234.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-093827
Legal Vulnerability of Protected Areas
REDD+ projects also face external legal threats. Protected areas across tropical regions are increasingly undermined by PADDD events—the downgrading, downsizing, or degazettement of conservation areas. In countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo, Malaysia, and Peru, forests affected by PADDD events have experienced significantly higher deforestation rates and carbon emissions. Unless REDD+ is embedded in a robust legal and policy framework, its gains remain vulnerable to political shifts.
Social and Governance Impacts
Perhaps the most contentious dimension of REDD+ lies in its social outcomes. Proponents argue that REDD+ can bring sustainable income to forest communities. Critics contend that it often exacerbates inequalities, excludes Indigenous peoples, and restricts access to land and resources.
A 2016 review of REDD+ projects worldwide revealed a troubling pattern: while many projects improved forest monitoring and governance, they also tended to reduce livelihood diversity, disrupt traditional land use systems, and disproportionately benefit elites. Inflexible project rules, such as bans on certain farming practices, sometimes left communities more vulnerable, not less.
Nevertheless, there are notable exceptions. In Zanzibar, a REDD+ readiness initiative (HIMA) supported forest zoning, tenure clarification, and capacity-building at the community level. The program improved trust in local governance and strengthened conservation outcomes, though momentum waned once external funding ended—highlighting the challenge of long-term sustainability.
A broader study on REDD+ and social resilience found mixed results: while projects increased stakeholder engagement and rule enforcement, they often failed to enhance community flexibility or livelihood options. In short, stronger institutions are not always enough if they do not address economic vulnerability.
Indigenous Exclusion
Despite occupying and managing some of the most biodiverse regions in the tropics, Indigenous peoples remain underrepresented in REDD+ planning and benefit-sharing. A 2024 study found that REDD+ projects often treat Indigenous groups as stakeholders to be consulted, rather than rights-holders and co-managers. Without formal recognition of land rights, many communities cannot fully benefit from or control the conservation of their territories.
Case Study: The Rimba Raya Project, Indonesia
The Rimba Raya Biodiversity Reserve in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia, exemplifies both the promise and complexity of REDD+. Protecting over 60,000 hectares of peat swamp forest, it was designed to prevent the expansion of oil palm plantations and conserve the habitat of the critically endangered Bornean orangutan.
Rimba Raya combines carbon revenue with community development—providing clean water, healthcare, education, and alternative livelihoods. Its innovative approach has been lauded as a model of private-sector engagement in REDD+. However, critics argue that scaling such models is difficult due to high transaction costs, the need for specialized expertise, and dependence on voluntary carbon markets.
Case Study: Madre de Dios, Peru. REDD+ Meets Enforcement—A Dual Approach
In the lush Peruvian Amazon’s Madre de Dios, REDD+ was implemented alongside traditional law enforcement strategies to curb deforestation. The initiative targeted Brazil nut concessionaires, blending carbon-based incentives with field inspections.
A rigorous difference-in-differences (DiD) and matching study revealed that while law enforcement effectively reduced forest loss, REDD+ itself did not result in significant reductions in deforestation or degradation. Alarmingly, households participating in REDD+ reported lower perceived well-being compared to non-participants, suggesting unmet expectations or unfulfilled benefits. Frontiers
This case illustrates that incentives alone—without robust enforcement or delivered promises—may be insufficient to drive conservation outcomes or sustain local trust.
Case Study: Peru (Ucayali & Madre de Dios): "Do No Harm"—Forest Revenue Impacts
Two REDD+ initiatives in Peru’s Ucayali and Madre de Dios regions focused on sustainable forest-based livelihoods, including reduced-impact logging, Brazil nut management, and FSC certification. Researchers used a before-after control-intervention (BACI) study design with matching to analyze effects on household revenues from forest products.
Results indicated a decline in overall forest income during the study period. Crucially, this downturn was not attributable to REDD+ participation—meaning that, in terms of forest revenues, REDD+ interventions did not harm the livelihoods of participating households. Frontiers
While not transformative, this finding highlights REDD+'s potential to avoid unintended negative socioeconomic consequences when integrated carefully.
Case Study: Tanzania’s Ngitili Landscape: Community-Based REDD+ in Miombo WoodlandsIn Tanzania’s Shinyanga region, the NGO TaTEDO experimented with community-based REDD+ tied to ngitili—traditional miombo woodland fallows that offer vital ecosystem services. The initiative pooled ngitili units to create economically meaningful collective carbon offsets, underpinned by locally tailored by-laws and benefit-sharing schemes. www2.cifor.orgPMC
Despite its innovation, the project encountered substantial challenges:
- Low carbon density in miombo ecosystems limited the potential carbon revenue.
- Technical and financial constraints posed significant barriers to establishing baselines, monitoring systems, and carbon credit sales.
- Local mistrust arose from unclear land tenure and unfamiliarity with REDD+ mechanisms.
Conclusion
REDD+ is not a silver bullet—but neither is it a failure. It is a complex tool whose effectiveness varies dramatically by context, design, and implementation. The best REDD+ projects reduce emissions, support local livelihoods, and protect biodiversity. The worst ones greenwash deforestation or displace Indigenous communities.
If REDD+ is to fulfill its potential, it must evolve:
- Site selection must balance ecological value and deforestation risk.
- Monitoring and baselines must be scientifically rigorous and transparent.
- Indigenous rights must be recognized and respected.
- Projects must deliver tangible, lasting benefits to local people.
Literature cited
Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W. D., & Verchot, L. V. (Eds.). (2012). Analyzing REDD+: Challenges and choices. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).
https://www.cifor.org/knowledge/publication/3834/
Baylis, K., Honey-Rosés, J., Börner, J., Corbera, E., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Ferraro, P. J., ... & Wunder, S. (2016). Mainstreaming impact evaluation in nature conservation. Conservation Letters, 9(1), 58–64.
https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12180
Bos, A. B., Buntaine, M. T., & Hamilton, S. E. (2022). REDD+ and forest carbon: Evidence from Brazil, Peru, and Tanzania. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 5, 870450.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2022.870450/full
Börner, J., Schulz, D., Wunder, S., & Pfaff, A. (2020). The effectiveness of forest conservation policies and programs. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 12, 45–64.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-110119-025531
Duchelle, A. E., Simonet, G., Sunderlin, W. D., & Wunder, S. (2018). What is REDD+ achieving on the ground? Current status and key challenges. World Resources Institute.
https://www.wri.org/research/what-redd-achieving-ground
Duchelle, A. E., Veit, P., & Korwin, S. (2024, October 11). REDD+ doesn’t work without Indigenous peoples—but fails to engage them. Mongabay.
https://news.mongabay.com/2024/10/study-redd-doesnt-work-without-indigenous-peoples-but-fails-to-engage-them/
Furumo, P. R., & Lambin, E. F. (2020). Scaling up zero-deforestation initiatives through public–private partnerships: A look inside post-conflict Colombia. Environmental Research Letters, 15(12), 125005.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd7ac
Jagger, P., Lawlor, K., Brockhaus, M., Gebara, M. F., Sonwa, D. J., & Resosudarmo, I. A. P. (2014). REDD+ safeguards in national policy discourse and pilot projects. Forests, 5(9), 2405–2422.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f5092405
Mertz, O., Müller, D., Sikor, T., Hett, C., Heinimann, A., Castella, J. C., ... & Dressler, W. (2012). The forgotten D: Challenges of addressing forest degradation in complex mosaic landscapes under REDD+. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography, 112(1), 63–76.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00167223.2012.709678
Rantala, S., Vihemäki, H., Swallow, B., & Jambiya, G. (2013). Who benefits from REDD+? Evidence from local communities in Tanzania. International Forestry Review, 15(1), 39–52.
https://doi.org/10.1505/146554813805927246
Ravikumar, A., Larjavaara, M., Larson, A. M., & Kanninen, M. (2015). Community forestry in climate-change mitigation: What's in it for communities? Forest Policy and Economics, 56, 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2015.03.002
Sills, E. O., Atmadja, S., de Sassi, C., Duchelle, A. E., Kweka, D. L., Resosudarmo, I. A. P., & Sunderlin, W. D. (Eds.). (2014). REDD+ on the ground: A case book of subnational initiatives across the globe. CIFOR.
https://www2.cifor.org/redd-case-book/
West, T. A. P., Börner, J., Sills, E. O., & Kontoleon, A. (2020). Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(39), 24188–24194.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004334117
Wunder, S., Börner, J., Ezzine-de-Blas, D., Feder, S., & Pagiola, S. (2020). Payments for environmental services: Past performance and pending potentials. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 12, 209–234.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-100518-093827
Citation: Helenbrook W. (2025). Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). Tropical Conservation Review.