REDD+

Topic: Environment and Sustainable Development · NCERT: Beyond NCERT

Meaning

REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, plus conservation, sustainable forest management and enhancing forest carbon stocks) is a framework under the UN climate convention (UNFCCC). It rewards developing countries for keeping their forests standing and for growing more forest carbon.

• Why it matters: cutting or damaging forests releases carbon into the air. REDD+ gives a standing forest a money value, so a country can earn from protecting it and not only from clearing it.
• It is also a main example of results-based payment: money comes only after proven results.

Explanation

What the letters and the "+" cover

• RED: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation. Deforestation means forest land is fully cleared and used for something else, such as farms or mines.
• D: Reducing emissions from forest Degradation. The land stays forest, but it gets thinner and poorer, for example through too much fuelwood cutting or grazing.
• "+" (the added activities):
• Conservation of forest carbon stocks. A carbon stock is the carbon already stored in trees and soil.
• Sustainable management of forests, which means using forests without running them down.

• Enhancement of forest carbon stocks, which means growing more trees on degraded land.

• Exam point: without the "+", only cutting loss is rewarded. With the "+", protecting and adding forest carbon also counts.

The rulebook: Warsaw Framework

• The Warsaw Framework for REDD+ was adopted at COP19, Warsaw, in December 2013 [4].
• It gives the full guidance on method and finance for REDD+ [4]:
• how a country measures its forest carbon
• how it reports the results
• how it gets paid.

How the money flows: results-based payments

• Step by step:
• The country lowers its emissions from deforestation.
• It measures and reports the cut. This is called MRV (measurement, reporting and verification).

• It gets paid only after it proves the cut [5].

• Reporting route: countries submit this data voluntarily, as a technical annex to their biennial update reports (national climate reports sent to the UNFCCC every two years) [5].

• Flexibility: LDCs (least developed countries) and small island states get flexibility in how they follow these rules [5].
• Why pay after results: it stops money going to promises that never happen. The payment rewards verified outcomes, not plans.

How big it is (worked example)

• 21 countries have submitted verified REDD+ results to the Lima REDD+ Information Hub [5].
• The World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) supported 47 countries [5].
• The FCPF signed 15 Emission Reductions Payment Agreements worth USD 721 million, and has paid out over USD 234 million [5].
• Worked example: how much of the promised money has been paid?
• Paid ÷ promised = 234 ÷ 721 ≈ 0.32
• So roughly one-third of the agreed money has reached countries so far.
• Lesson: under results-based payment, money arrives slowly, because each payment must wait for verified results.

In India

• National REDD+ Strategy, 2018: this is India's plan for taking part in REDD+.
• Why India fits: India is a developing country with large forest-dependent populations, so it can receive results-based rewards for protecting and growing forest carbon.
• Link to domestic tools: REDD+ belongs to the same "put a price on the forest" family as India's own tools:
• NPV and CAMPA: a user agency that diverts forest pays the money value of lost ecosystem services (NPV, from the T.N. Godavarman case). This goes on top of compensatory afforestation, into CAMPA under the CAF Act 2016.
• Green Credit Programme: credits for voluntary planting, notified 12 October 2023 under the EP Act 1986, with ICFRE as administrator [1].

• MISHTI (mangroves, about 540 sq km over 2023-2028, expected carbon sink of 4.5 million tonnes) is a nature-based solution that adds to carbon stocks, the same goal as REDD+ "enhancement" [3].

• Local example of why it matters: in Uttara Kannada, a paper mill used up all the bamboo in about 12 years. The soil washed away and streams dried up. REDD+ tries to make keeping such forests standing worth more than clearing them.

Don't confuse with

• Compensatory afforestation / CAMPA: a domestic Indian rule. The user agency that diverts forest pays for it. In REDD+, the country is paid for protecting forest.
• Green credit: India's domestic, voluntary scheme for individuals and firms, run by ICFRE (Green Credit Rules, 2023) [1]. REDD+ is an international UNFCCC framework that pays countries.
• Biodiversity offset / credit: these measure biodiversity gains or losses. REDD+ measures forest carbon and emissions.
• Warsaw Framework vs Lima REDD+ Information Hub: Warsaw (COP19, 2013) is the rulebook [4]. The Lima Hub is where countries post verified results (21 countries so far) [5].

Prelims Hooks

• REDD+ = Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation. The "+" adds conservation, sustainable forest management and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
• Warsaw Framework for REDD+ = COP19, Warsaw, December 2013 [4]. India's National REDD+ Strategy = 2018.
• Payments are results-based: made after verified emission cuts, with data sent voluntarily as an annex to biennial update reports [5].
• Verified results go to the Lima REDD+ Information Hub (21 countries) [5].
• FCPF is run by the World Bank, not UNEP or GCF. It supported 47 countries and signed 15 ERPAs worth USD 721 million, with over USD 234 million paid [5].
• Trap: REDD+ rewards developing countries. It is not a domestic Indian scheme like green credits or CAMPA.

Mains Points

• Can money save a forest? REDD+ gives standing forests a cash value, which pushes back against the "clear it for industry" logic seen in Uttara Kannada and Chipko. But only about one-third of FCPF agreed money has been paid (USD 234 million of USD 721 million), so the reward may be too small or too slow compared with income from mining or farming [5].
• Rights of forest people: if REDD+ money goes only to governments, communities who depend on forests for fuelwood, fodder and food may be fenced out. Chipko and Appiko show that local consent and benefit-sharing must be built in, or protection will fail on the ground.
• Verified outcomes vs greenwashing: results-based payment and MRV make sure only real, measured cuts are rewarded [5]. This is the same safeguard logic as the green credit rule of 5 years of work and ≥40% canopy density [2]. It links to SDG 15 (Life on Land) and India's climate goals.

Related concepts

• Chipko and Appiko movements
• Development-induced displacement
• Environmental impact assessment
• Compensatory afforestation
• Net present value of forests
• Green credit
• Biodiversity offset
• Biodiversity credits
• Nature-based solutions
• Polluter pays principle

Read more

• Forests, people and projects: movements, clearances and legal principles