Skip to main content Skip to page footer

The Framework of REDD+ through the lens of CBD Natural Ecosystem Values

Niels Hoek

elni Review 2022, pp. 10-17. https://doi.org/10.46850/elni.2022.002

REDD+ is a legal instrument which aims to address emissions associated with deforestation and forest degradation in developing nations. Whilst REDD+ sets out to sequester carbon in a sustainable manner on paper, the framework has been subject to a wide range of critiques. This paper highlights the REDD+ regime from the perspective of biodiversity conservation, as it is often presumed that the framework comes with an automatic package of biodiversity co-benefits. Contrary to this statement, this paper finds that REDD+ breaches natural eco­system values in key areas. The latter is a direct result of the inherent focus on forest ecosystems – which excludes other biodiverse habitat types such as peat­lands or shrubs. Moreover, this paper finds a lacune within REDD+ with regard to rewilding policies. Additionally, pressing concerns are raised due to the wide State discretion and weak procedural obligations - which lead to the overstate­ment of biodiversity co-benefits of REDD+ projects. In turn, an amendment of the framework is required if monoculture plantations are to be permanently excluded under REDD+. A case study of the Juma Reserve in Brazil, and Central Kalimantan in Indonesia further highlight these complications.

Access full article

References

  1. Andres, J. and others, (2020): Does REDD+ Have a Chance? Implication from Pemba, Tanzania. ORYX., 1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605319001376.
  2. Angelsen, Arild and others (2018): Transforming REDD+: Lessons and New Directions, CIFOR, 1-303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/007045.
  3. Angelsen, Arild, (2015): REDD+: What Should Come Next?, Vox EU, 1-17. https://voxeu.org/sites/default/files/file/angelsen.pdf.
  4. Angelsen, Arild, Brockhaus, Maria, (2012): Seeing REDD+ Through 4ls: A Political Economy Framework, CIFOR, 1-18. DOI: https://www.cifor.org/knowledge/publication/3816/.
  5. Bakkegaard, Riyong Kim, Wunder Sven (2014): REDD+ on the Ground: Bolsa Floresta, Brazil CIFOR. DOI: https://www2.cifor.org/redd-case-book/case-reports/brazil/bolsa-floresta-brazil.
  6. Batjes N.H. (1998): Mitigation of Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations by Increased Carbon Sequestration in the Soil, SPRINGER 234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s003740050425.
  7. Bayrak, Mucahid, Marafa, Lawal, (2016): Ten Years of REDD+: A Critical Review of the Impact of REDD+ on Forest-Dependent Communities, Sustainability 4-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su8070620.
  8. CBD INTERNATIONAL (2021). COP 5 Decision V/6: Ecosystem Approach. Accessible under https://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7148 (last access 18 February 2021).
  9. CBD INTERNATIONAL, (2021). REDD+ and Biodiversity Benefits: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and the Role of Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests and Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks in Developing Countries. Accessible under https://www.cbd.int/forest/redd-plus/#:~:text=It%20became%20clear%20that%20a,and%20preserve%20globally%20significant%20biodiversity (last access 25 March 2021).
  10. Cisneros, Elías (2019): Impacts of Conservation Incentives in Protected Areas: The Case of Bolsa Floresta, Brazil, PES 1-30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/33077.
  11. Denier, Lousia and others (2014): The Little Book of Legal Frameworks for REDD+: How Policy and Legislation can Create an Enabling Environment for REDD+, 1-94. Accessible under https://globalcanopy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/LittleBookofLegalFrameworksforREDD_EN.pdf (last access 24 March 2021).
  12. Duchelle, Amy, (2018):  What is REDD+ Achieving on the Ground? ELSEVIER 134-140.  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.07.001.
  13. EMP (2015). Norway, Germany and the UK pledge 5 billion to combat tropical deforestation. https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/norway-germany-uk-pledge-5-billion-to-combat-tropical-deforestation/ (last access 1 March 2021).
  14. Fernanda, Maria, (2013): Importance of Local Participation in Achieving Equity in Benefit sharing Mechanisms for REDD+: A Case Study from the Juma Sustainable Development Reserve. International Journal of the Commons, 7(2), 473-497. DOI: http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.301.
  15. FPR, (2011). Central Kalimantan: REDD+ and the Kalimantan Forest Carbon Partnership. Accessible under https://www.forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/publication/2011/1/central-kalimantan-briefing-2.pdf (last access 08 March 2021).
  16. Gebara, Maria Fernanda (2018)
  17. Godoy, Luis Fuentes, (2015): Complexities in REDD+ Safeguard Development and Implementation, NZ Journal of Environmental law, 136.
  18. Gupta , Aarti, (2018). Governance of REDD+: Policy and Governance of REDD WUR. Accessible under https://www.wur.nl/en/Value-Creation-Cooperation/REDD-research-network-for-science-policy-and-services/Expertise/Governance-of-REDD.htm (last access 25 March 2021).
  19. Global Witness (2021). COP26 Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use risks being a reiteration of previous failed commitments on deforestation. Accessible under https://www.globalwitness.org/en/press-releases/cop26-glasgow-leaders-declaration-on-forests-and-land-use-risks-being-a-reiteration-of-previous-failed-commitments-on-deforestation/ (last access January 2022).
  20. Holl, KD Brancalion, P.H.S. (2020): Tree planting is not a simple solution.580-581. DOI: https://doi: 10.1126/science.aba8232.
  21. Howard, Jennifer and others (2017): Clarifying the Role of Coastal and Marine Systems in Climate Mitigation, ESA, 42-50.DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1451.
  22. IPBES (2019). Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Accessible under https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/inline/files/ipbes_global_assessment_report_summary_for_policymakers.pdf (last access January 2022).
  23. Jagger, Rana, Pushpendra (2017): Using Publicly Available Social and Spatial Data to Evaluate Progress on REDD+ Social Safeguards in Indonesia, ELSEVIER 59-69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.06.006.
  24. Leifeld & L. Menichetti (2018): The Underappreciated Potential of Peatlands in Global Change Mitigation Strategies, Nature Communications, 1-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03406-6.
  25. Lestari, Nanik, (2019): Factors Causing Failure of REDD+ Program Implementation in Central Kalimantan 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7226/jtfm.25.1.28.
  26. Lima, Mairon and others (2017): The Sustainable Development Goals and REDD+: Assessing Institutional Interactions and the pursuit of Synergie’, Springer 589-606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9366-9.
  27. Marsipatin, Nur, (2018): ‘Indonesia: Third National Communication: Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’ 4-280.
  28. Matsumoto, Mitsuo, (2019): What is Required for Advancing REDD+, Journal of Agricultural Science 1-9. DOI: http://doi.org/10.17503/agrivita.v41i1.2008.
  29. Matthews, Robin and others (2014): Implementing REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation): Evidence on Governance, Evaluation and Impacts from the REDD-ALERT Project, MASGC 907-924. DOI: https://doi.10.1007/s11027-014-9578-z.
  30. MCC (2021). That’s How Fast the Carbon Clock is Ticking. Accessible under https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/research/co2-budget.html (last access 21 February 2021).
  31. Mongabay (2019). Brazil to receive first ever results based REDD payment. Accessible under https://news.mongabay.com/2019/03/brazil-to-receive-first-ever-results-based-redd-payment-but-concerns-remain/ (last access 10 March 2021).
  32. Morgera, Elisa, Tsioumani, Elsa (2012): Nature Conservation: Natural Lands and Biological Diversity: B.. Convention on biological Diversity (CBD), 295-304. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/yiel/yvt020.
  33. O’ Sills, Erin and others (2014): REDD+ On the Ground: A Case Book of Subnational Initiatives Across the Globe, CIFOR, 67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/005202.
  34. Panfil Steven, Harvey Celia  (2015): REDD+ and Biodiversity Conversation: A Review of the Biodiversity Goals, Monitoring Methods, and Impacts of 80 REDD+ Projects’, CL, 143-150. DOI: https://doi: 10.1111/conl.12188.
  35. Pearson, Timothy and others (2017): Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Tropical Forest Degradation: An Underestimated Source, CBM 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-017-0072-2.
  36. Perino, Andrea and others, (2019): Rewilding Complex Ecosystems, SCIENCE 367. DOI: https://doi.10.1126/science.aav5570
  37. Potts, Matthew and others (2013): ‘Maximizing Biodiversity Co-Benefits Under REDD+ A Decoupled Approach Environ. Res. Lett. 1-6. DOI: https://doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024019.
  38. Prip, Christian (2018): The Convention on Biological Diversity as a Legal Framework for Safeguarding Ecosystem Services, ELSEVIER 200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.015.
  39. RECOFTC (2011). Forests and Climate Change after Cancun: An Asia-Pacific Perspective 1-28. Accessible under https://www.uncclearn.org/wp-content/uploads/library/fao133.pdf (last access 17 March 2021).
  40. Rival, Laura (2013): From Carbon Projects to Better Land-Use Planning: Three Latin American Initiatives, Ecology and Society. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05563-180317.
  41. The Economist (2019). Climate Change: The Trouble with Trees. Accessible under https://www.economist.com/films/2019/09/18/climate-change-the-trouble-with-trees?utm_source=YouTube&utm_medium=Economist_Films&utm_campaign=Link_Description&utm_term=Social_Issues&utm_content=TruthAbout&linkId=100000008031533 (last access 03 March 2021).
  42. UNFCCC (2016). Key Decisions Relevant for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in Developing countries, UNFCCC Decision 15/CP.16, UNFCCC Decision 19/CP.19 , UNFCCC Decision 17/COP21. Accessible under https://unfccc.int/files/land_use_and_climate_change/redd/application/pdf/compilation_redd_decision_booklet_v1.2.pdf (last access 10 March 2021).
  43. UNFCC (2021). Declaration on Forests and Land Use. Accessible under https://ukcop26.org/glasgow-leaders-declaration-on-forests-and-land-use/ (last access 12 January 2022).
  44. Verschuuren, Jonathan (2020). Regime Interlinkages: Examining the Connection between Transnational Climate Change and Biodiversity Law, in: Veerle Heyvaert and Leslie-Anne Duvic-Paoli (eds.), Research Handbook on Transnational Environmental Law, Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788119634.00021.
  45. Yanai, Aurora Miho and others (2012): Avoided Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: Simulating the Effect of the Juma Sustainable Development Reserve, ELSEVIER 78-91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.06.029.
  46. Yuanyuan and others (2018): Species-Rich Forests Store Twice as Much Carbon as Monocultures SD, 80-83. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aat6405.