STATE OF THE RAINFOREST 2014
38
All these approaches currently go under the name of REDD+,
but their practices vary greatly. This makes it difficult to analyse
precisely what REDD+ is, and what it has achieved. A few trends can
nevertheless be distinguished.
56
First, while the underlying assumption for many REDD+ initiatives
has been that the money required to incentivize reduced
deforestation would be generated mainly through carbon markets,
most current REDD+ efforts are financed by public funds – generally
counted as official development assistance (ODA). In total, various
public sources are estimated to contribute around USD 3 billion
annually to REDD+ and related efforts, while the carbon market so
far contributes only some 140 million.
57
Second, while the idea of REDD+ is to pay for results in the form
of actual, measurable reductions in deforestation and forest
degradation, most of the finance so far has gone into the preparatory
phases: preparing strategies and plans for future results-based
payments, reforming laws, building systems for monitoring
deforestation, smaller-scale pilot projects, etc. Few countries have
moved to the phase where they are paid per tonne of CO
2
emissions
they actually reduce.
58
Third, much of this ‘readiness work’ has shown that the barriers
to reducing deforestation might not simply be a lack of economic
incentives, as implied by the original idea of REDD+.
59
It has become
clear that if REDD+ is to be successful, attention must be paid
to a wide range of social and political issues – including forest
governance, and recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and
local communities. This has led to discussion on whether REDD+
should support not only emissions reductions but also wider ‘non-
carbon’ benefits, such as strengthened land rights for indigenous
peoples, improved livelihoods for communities, and conservation
of biological diversity.
60
Experience on the ground indicates that where this broader
approach to REDD+ has been chosen, potentially significant
results have been achieved. In Indonesia, for example, the REDD+
process and the support pledged from the government of Norway
have resulted in concrete policy changes, including a moratorium
on new forest concessions in primary forest and peat lands and
strengthened government coordination on forest policy. In other
countries, among them the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
REDD+ processes have given civil society and indigenous peoples
a greater role in forest policymaking, opening the door for improved
policies to fight deforestation in the future.
Only carbon?
However, there is reason for concern, as other REDD+ initiatives are
still proceeding on the basis of a narrow focus on carbon emissions,
with insufficient attention to the broader political context of
deforestation. Some programmes, such as certain REDD+ initiatives
from the World Bank, seem to be rushing into results-based
payments for emissions reductions in a manner that sidesteps
inclusive consultation processes and fails to implement social and
environmental safeguards adequately.
61
With discussions now underway on a new international climate
change agreement for the period after 2020, it is not yet clear
whether REDD+ will move toward a narrow focus on greenhouse gas
emissions in order to attract future funding from carbon markets,
or whether lessons from previous ‘readiness work’, showing the
need for a broader approach, will be taken on board. As the bulk
of funding for REDD+ is likely to come from public sources in the
foreseeable future, policymakers would be well advised to accept
that if the protection of tropical forests is to be effective in the long
run, it must build on the rights of indigenous peoples and local
communities, and must recognize the full range of benefits (carbon
and non-carbon) that these forests provide.
