Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Tropical Forestry Handbook

Abstract

Emissions caused from deforestation and forest degradation are a major source of global anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG). Economic analysis suggests that reducing emissions from the forest sector offers a comparatively cost-effective opportunity to cut GHG, providing an incentive for forest-rich countries in the tropics to get “REDD-ready”. This chapter provides an overview of the REDD mechanism. First, we introduce what lies at the heart of this economic instrument: forest carbon pools. Subsequently, central REDD building blocks will be described, including policy and strategy considerations; measurement, reporting and verification (MRV); baseline construction; and benefit-sharing arrangements. Finally, multilateral actors as well as the voluntary carbon market will be introduced, demonstrating that REDD implementation is advancing on the ground.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The UNFCCC (1992, p. 7) defines in Art. 9 a “source” as “any process or activity which releases a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.”

  2. 2.

    A “sink” is defined as “any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere” (UNFCCC 1992, p. 7).

  3. 3.

    Recent estimates indicate that emissions from the LULUCF sector account for approx. 11 %. Official IPCC data are expected in autumn 2014.

  4. 4.

    The term REDD+ includes additional activities: the conservation and sustainable management of forests and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries. In the following, REDD will be used.

  5. 5.

    A description of the safeguards term will be given in building block Safeguards of this section.

  6. 6.

    A description of MRV will be given in building block Measuring, Reporting and Verificationof this section.

  7. 7.

    Whereas around 84 % of carbon is stored in the soil in boreal forests, tropical forests store only around 50 % of carbon in the soil (WBGU 1998).

  8. 8.

    Note that also other GHGs occur while biomass is burned, such as nitrous oxides and methane. Furthermore, additional emission can result depending on the subsequent land use (e.g., methane due to cattle ranching, nitrous oxide from fertilizers). With conversion to cropland after deforestation, it is assumed that around 25–30 % of soil carbon is released within the first meter as cultivation oxidizes the organic matter in the soil (Cortez and Stephen 2009). However, values depend largely on climatic conditions, land-use practices, and soil conditions.

  9. 9.

    Data on the magnitude of human activity resulting in emissions or removals taking place during a given period of time (IPCC 2003). Area change data are typically expressed in hectares per year.

  10. 10.

    Data on GHG emissions or removals per unit area, e.g., tonnes of CO2 emitted per hectare of deforestation (Angelsen et al. 2011).

  11. 11.

    Useful guidance for monitoring and carbon stock assessment is provided by GOFC-GOLD (2013) and MacDicken (1997).

  12. 12.

    The “National Forest Inventory Field Manual” prepared by FAO (2004) gives useful guidance.

  13. 13.

    An overview of numerous available satellite data can be found in WWF (2013), Table 1, p. 57.

  14. 14.

    Cloud coverage is important for optical sensors, as radar penetrates clouds.

  15. 15.

    Focusing on deforestation only if forest degradation is also significant could lead to perverse incentives towards degradation. In such a scenario, a combined approach should be pursued.

  16. 16.

    These can include efforts to clarify land tenure rights, build local capacities, enhance participative decision-making, provide additional employment opportunities, or open up livelihood alternatives (FCPF 2013a).

  17. 17.

    Such as OP 4.10 which defines conditions for the interaction with indigenous peoples or OP 4.01 requiring an environmental assessment to ensure that interventions are environmentally sound and sustainable

  18. 18.

    REDD+ SES consist of principles, criteria, and indicators which define the necessary conditions to achieve high social and environmental performance and support, through a country-led approach, the design, implementation, and evaluation of government-led REDD programmes.

  19. 19.

    The tool provides a series of questions under each of the 7 principles and 24 criteria of the SEPC.

  20. 20.

    For more information, refer to IISD’s policy paper “Designing Effective REDD+ Safeguard Information Systems: Building on existing systems and country experiences” (2012).

  21. 21.

    In this regard, also the ILO Convention No. 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries is of particular importance.

  22. 22.

    The International Finance Cooperation (IFC) provides useful guidance on designing such a grievance mechanism in its good practice note “Addressing Grievances from Project-Affected Communities.”

  23. 23.

    For useful insights into benefit-sharing arrangements, consult PROFOR’s “Making benefit sharing arrangements work for forest dependent communities: Overview of Insights for REDD+ Initiatives” (2012) or USAID’s “Institutional Assessment Tool for Benefit Sharing under REDD +” (2012).

  24. 24.

    Note that the Cancún Safeguards count leakage as well as (Permanence) to the safeguard concept.

  25. 25.

    See Henders and Ostwald (2012) for more information on forest carbon leakage quantification methods.

  26. 26.

    At the end of 2013, the United Kingdom announced supporting the fund with additional US$ 60–70 million for the inclusion of another country in the Carbon Fund. The formal commitment will depend on the development of the portfolio in 2014.

  27. 27.

    These include the Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and International Finance Corporation.

  28. 28.

    The UN-REDD Programme’s multiple-partner trust fund gateway can be found at http://mptf.undp.org/factsheet/fund/CCF00.

  29. 29.

    The Gold Standard is also used as a standard for creating emission reduction projects under Kyoto’s flexible mechanisms CDM and JI.

  30. 30.

    CARE, Conservation International, the Nature Conservancy, Rainforest Alliance, and the Wildlife Conservation Society

  31. 31.

    For example, Climate Action Reserve (CAR), California Carbon Offset (CCO), and Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI)

References

  • Anderson P (2011) Free, prior, and informed consent in REDD+: principles and approaches for policy and project development. Available at the Center for People and Forests (ECOFTC) and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). http://www.recoftc.org/site/resources/Free-Prior-and-Informed-Consent-in-REDD-.php. Accessed 28 Nov 2013

  • Angelsen A, Boucher D, Brown S, Merckx V, Streck C, Zarin D (2011) Guidelines for REDD+ reference levels: principles and recommendations. Meridian Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • BNDES (2012) Amazon fund – Rio + 20 brochure. Editorial management of the BNDES, BNDES, Brasilia

    Google Scholar 

  • BNDES (2013) Amazon Portfolio Report 31.12.2013. Amazon Fund’s Management Department, BNDES, Brasilia

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle J, Murphy D (2012) Designing effective REDD+ safeguard information systems: building on existing systems and country experiences. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), London

    Google Scholar 

  • Chagas T, Costenbader J, Streck S, Roe S (2013) Reference levels: concepts, functions, and application in REDD+ and forest carbon standards. Climate Focus, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekharan Behr D (2012) Making benefit sharing arrangements work for forest-dependent communities, overview of insights for REDD+ initiatives. Program on Forests (PROFOR), Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortez R, Stephen P (2009) Introductory course on “Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD)”: a participant resource manual. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington

    Google Scholar 

  • European Forest Institute (EFI), Proforest (2014). Introduction to REDD+, briefing EU REDD facility. Available at Proforest. http://www.proforest.net/publication-objects/2.-introduction-to-redd. Accessed 17 March 2014

  • Eliasch J (2008) Climate change: financing global forests: the Eliasch review. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2004) National forest inventory field manual. In: Forest Resource Assessment Programme, Working Paper 94/E. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • FCPF (2013a) FCPF Carbon fund methodological framework discussion paper #9: benefit sharing. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • FCPF (2013b) FCPF carbon fund methodological framework discussion paper #5: displacement (Leakage). Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • FCPF (2013c) FCPF readiness fund, improving readiness implementation and disbursements in FCPF countries (FMT Note 2013–6). Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Gitz V, Ciais P (2003) Amplifying effects of land-use change on future atmospheric CO2 levels. Global Biogeochem Cycle 17(1):1024–1038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GOFC-GOLD (2010) A sourcebook of methods and procedures for monitoring and reporting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and removals caused by deforestation, gains and losses of carbon stocks in forests remaining forests, and forestation, version COP16-1. GOFC-GOLD Project Office, hosted by Natural Resources Canada, Alberta

    Google Scholar 

  • GOFC-GOLD (2013) A sourcebook of methods and procedures for monitoring and reporting anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and removals associated with deforestation, gains and losses of carbon stocks in forests remaining forests, and forestation, version COP19-1. GOFC-GOLD Project Office, hosted by Natural Resources Canada, Alberta

    Google Scholar 

  • Henders S, Ostwald M (2012) Forest carbon leakage quantification methods and their suitability for assessing leakage in REDD. Forests 3(1):33–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houghton R (2005) Tropical deforestation as a source of greenhouse gas emissions. In: Moutinho P, Schartzman S (eds) Tropical deforestation and climate change. Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM) and Environmental Defense, Belém, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • IBRD/WB (2012) Lessons learned for REDD+ from PES and conservation incentive programs, examples from Costa Rica, Mexico, and Ecuador. Available at FONAFIFO, CONAFOR and Ministry of Environment Ecuador. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2012/03/17634356/lessons-learned-redd-pes-conservation-incentive-programs-examples-costa-rica-mexico-ecuador. Accessed 03 Feb 2014

  • IFC (2009) Addressing grievances from project-affected communities. Available at the IFC. http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/ifc+sustainability/publications/publications_gpn_grievances. Accessed 14 Feb 2014

  • IPCC (2003) IPCC good practice guidance for land use, land-use change and forestry. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2006) Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories, vol. 4, agriculture, forestry and other land use. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. In: Pachauri R, Reisinger A (eds) Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDicken K (1997) A guide to monitoring carbon storage in forestry and agroforestry projects. Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, Little Rock

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss N, Nussbaum R, Muchemi J, Halverson E (2011) A review of three REDD+ safeguard initiatives. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility and UN-REDD, Geneva, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy D (2011) Safeguards and multiple benefits in a REDD+ mechanism. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), London

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray B, Galik C, Mitchell S, Cottle P (2012) Alternative approaches to addressing the risk of non-permanence in afforestation and reforestation projects under the clean development mechanism. Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters-Stanley M, Yin D (2013) Maneuvering the mosaic. State of the voluntary carbon markets 2013. Forest trends’ ecosystem marketplace and Bloomberg new Energy Finance, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • RECOFTC/GIZ (2011) Free, prior, and informed consent in REDD+: principles and approaches for policy and project development. Available at RECOFTC. http://www.recoftc.org/site/resources/Free-Prior-and-Informed-Consent-in-REDD-.php. Accessed 28 Jan 2014

  • Stern N (2006) The Stern review: the economics of climate change. Her Majesty’s Treasury, London

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) (2010) Global forest resource assessment. United Nations

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (1992) Text of the convention. Available at UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/key_documents/the_convention/items/2853.php. Accessed 30 Jan 2014F

  • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2009) Decision 4/CP.15 decisions adopted by the conference of the parties. United Nations

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2010) Decision 1/CP.16 The Cancún agreements: outcome of the work of the ad hoc working group on long-term cooperative action under the convention. United Nations

    Google Scholar 

  • USAID (2012) Institutional assessment tool for benefit sharing under REDD+. Available at USAID. http://usaidlandtenure.net/sites/default/files/USAID_Land_Tenure_Institutional_Assessment_Tool.pdf. Accessed 13 Feb 2014

  • Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen (WBGU) (1998) Die Anrechnung biologischer Quellen und Senken im Kyoto-Protokoll: Fortschritt oder Rückschlag für den globalen Umweltschutz. Available at WBGU. http://www.wbgu.de/sondergutachten/sg-1998-kioto. Accessed 06 Dec 2013

  • WWF (2013) WWF guide to building REDD+ strategies: a toolkit for REDD+ practitioners around the globe. WWF, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Postfach 5180, 65760, Eschborn, Germany

    Julian Michel, Kay Kallweit & Evy von Pfeil

Authors
  1. Julian Michel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kay Kallweit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Evy von Pfeil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian Michel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Inst. Weltforstwirtschaft, Bundesforschungsanstalt für Forst- und Holzwirtschaft, Hamburg, Germany

    Michael Köhl

  2. Programa Regional REDD, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale, Antiguo Cuscatlán, El Salvador

    Laslo Pancel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this entry

Cite this entry

Michel, J., Kallweit, K., von Pfeil, E. (2015). Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). In: Köhl, M., Pancel, L. (eds) Tropical Forestry Handbook. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41554-8_235-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41554-8_235-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-41554-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Biomedicine and Life SciencesReference Module Biomedical and Life Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation