As forests are lost or degraded, they can become sources of harmful greenhouse gases (GHG) instead of fulfilling their important role as carbon sinks. Deforestation and forest degradation are the largest sources of carbon dioxide emissions after the combined emissions from all cars, trucks, trains, planes and ships in the world.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has developed a framework, known as REDD+, for providing incentives to developing countries to reduce GHG emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and conserve and enhance forest carbon stocks by improving forest management.

Jurisdictional REDD+ programmes work on sizeable, sub-national landscapes, nested within national level frameworks. They focus on building capacities to address the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, addressing and respecting safeguards, and engaging a wide range of stakeholders – for example local communities and Indigenous Peoples, businesses, and local and national governments – whose incidence at the landscape level is key to success in REDD+.

With this approach, REDD+ can be implemented and tested on a scale that is ecologically meaningful because it can contain intact ecosystems; socially meaningful because it allows for the participation of forest and indigenous communities in the safeguarding and protection of their lands; and politically meaningful because it aligns with recognized jurisdictions, such as government-designated provinces, departments or districts. Expanding jurisdictional REDD+ with existing sub-national administrations, within national development policies, could help counter threats in deforestation fronts while addressing issues related to poverty alleviation, land and community rights, sustainable development, and equitable resource governance.

Most recent blog posts on this solution

Protecting my ancestors’ forest

Forestry crucial to fighting climate change

Share WHY REDD+ is important and HOW it can be scaled up.


Evgeny Chuvasov 22-Mar-2016 04:04 GMT

I like the approach but there is one very bad scenario. And this statement: “could help counter threats in deforestation fronts while addressing issues related to poverty alleviation” is true only in the case when money doesn’t goes to the people directly.
As, we are talking about developing countries that have Malthusian economy model; the worst thing in this case is spreading money to local communities just for doing nothing. If there is poverty, which was main driver for deforestation, it may looks logically to provide to them another income source, which will reduce their intention for cutting this forest. However, if money will not be used for creation of independent (from REDD itself) income source the only thing this approach may lead to in future –is population growth. Moreover, there is appears new constraint to the approach: financing must be noninterruptible. Most likely when population will reach new limit, their intention to cut the forest will be even higher than before and the only option to conserve this forest will be to increase financing. However, eventually there will be point of time, when by some reason rest of the world stop financing, and we will have bigger population at the place and just the same amount of money they had prior REDD project. Which is literally makes people even poorer than they used to be and increases threats of deforestation. So this can only works if money used for investments but not for consumption.
I’m not an economist and for me it looks logical, but I may be wrong.

Kathleen Mcafee 22-Mar-2016 03:27 GMT

REDD does nothing at all to reduce the world's emission of greenhouse gasses. At best, it shifts the burden of mitigating climate change onto the people and places least responsible for it and least able to cope with it. It is a dangerous distraction from the need to stop the production of fossil fuels at the source.

Lisakhanya Ndovela 15-Mar-2016 13:07 GMT

I think with the whole situation of global warming and countries experiencing droughts that cloud seeding should be considered for arid lands.

Gervais Ludovic 15-Mar-2016 13:07 GMT

REDD+ could be the best solution to stop deforestation in COMIFAC countries.

Peter Umunay 15-Mar-2016 13:06 GMT

REDD+ seems to hold great promise for forests. However most developing countries have weak governance and low capacity to monitor forest. Investing in improving governance and building capacity of technical institutions is important.

Load more

Featured Posts