What is Required for Advancing REDD+? (Progress to Date and Challenges Ahead)

Mitsuo Matsumoto


To facilitate international discussion and research on the REDD+ framework and associated programs, I present an overview of the historical background, major rules, and challenges of implementing REDD+. The framework of REDD+ is illustrated using examples from scientific literature and the agreements adopted by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The institutional challenges related to REDD+ are discussed in the context of how to promote and implement REDD+ activities. Key issues for advancing REDD+ in the future include the establishment of a financial framework, the transferability of results, the risk of double counting, the timing of payments, and the domestic distribution of funds. Because agreements related to REDD+ do not mention transfers or trade of results from REDD+ activities, the transfer of results might give disincentives to developing countries; thus, allowing transfers or trade may actually limit REDD+ activities. Therefore, it seems preferable that the results of reduced emissions and increased removals through REDD+ activities, through publicly financed programs under the UNFCCC and Green Climate Fund (GCF), should be non-transferable. The transferability of results through REDD+ activities is important to consider, especially for different schemes such as the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) and the Joint Crediting Mechanism (JCM), because double counting can occur between countries and between schemes. Although I support advance performance-based payments for the planning and implementation of REDD+ activities, which is a similar concept to that discussed by the GCF, appropriate indicators and transparent methods for monitoring and evaluating performance will be required.


Deforestation; Developing country; Emission reduction; REDD+; UNFCCC

Full Text:



Barney, G. O. (1980). The global 2000 report to the President: Entering the twenty-first century (Vol. 1–3). Arlington, VA: US Government Printing Office. crossref

Brockhaus, M., & Angelsen, A. (2012). Seeing REDD+ through 4Is: A political economy framework. In A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, W. D. Sunderlin, & L. V. Verchot (Eds.), Analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices (pp. 15–30). Bogor, ID: CIFOR. Retrieved from pdf

Brockhaus, M., Obidzinski, K., Dermawan, A., Laumonier, Y., & Luttrell, C. (2012). An overview of forest and land allocation policies in Indonesia: Is the current framework sufficient to meet the needs of REDD+? Forest Policy and Economics, 18, 30–37. crossref

Denman, K., Brasseur, G., Chidthaisong, A., Ciais, P., Cox, P., Dickinson, R., … Zhang, X. (2007). Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry. In S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Averyt, … H. L. Miller (Eds.), Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 (pp. 499–587). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from website

Eichler, R. (2006). Can ‘‘pay for performance’’ increase utilization by the poor and improve the quality of health services?. Discussion paper for the first meeting of the Working Group on Performance Based Incentives. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.

Eldridge, C., & Palmer, N. (2009). Performance-based payment: some reflections on the discourse, evidence and unanswered questions. Health Policy and Planning, 24(3), 160–166. crossref

FAO. (2006). Extent of forest resources. In Global forest resources assessment 2005 (FAO Forest, pp. 11–36). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from website

FAO. (2017). From reference levels to results reporting: REDD+ under the UNFCCC. Forests and Climate Change Working Paper 15. Rome, IT: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from pdf

FCPF. (2013). FCPF carbon fund methodological framework. Retrieved from pdf

FCPF. (2016). 2016 Annual report. Retrieved from pdf

GCF. (2016a). Decisions of the Board – fourteenth meeting of the Board, 12-14 October 2016 (GCF/B.14/17). Retrieved from website

GCF. (2016b). Support for REDD - plus (GCF/B.14/03). Retrieved from website

Hamrick, K., & Gallant, M. (2017). Unlocking potential state of the voluntary carbon markets 2017. Washington, DC. Retrieved from pdf

JCM. (2016). The joint crediting mechanism. Retrieved from website

Nabuurs, G. J., Masera, O., Andrasko, K., Benitez-Ponce, P., Boer, R., Dutschke, M., … Zhang, X. (2007). Forestry. In B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 541–584). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from website

Rakatama, A., Pandit, R., Ma, C., & Iftekhar, S. (2017). The costs and benefits of REDD+: A review of the literature. Forest Policy and Economics, 75, 103–111. crossref

REDD+ Social and Environmental Standards. (2017). REDD+ safeguards. Retrieved from website

Stern, N. (2007). Identifying the costs of mitigation. In N. Stern (Ed.), The economics of climate change: The stern review (pp. 238–266). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. crossref

Streck, C. (2016). Mobilizing finance for redd+ after Paris. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 13(2), 146-166. crossref

UNFCCC. (2007). Decision 2/CP.13, FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1. Retrieved from website

UNFCCC. (2009a). Decision 2/CP.15, FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1, 4-7. Retrieved from website

UNFCCC. (2009b). Decision 4/CP.15, FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1, 11-12. Retrieved from website

UNFCCC. (2010). III-C, Decision 1/ CP.16, FCCC/CP/20010/7/Add.1, 12-14. Retrieved from website

UNFCCC. (2011). Decision 12/CP.17, FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.2, 16-18. Retrieved from website

UNFCCC. (2013). Decision 9-16/CP.19, FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add.1. Retrieved from website

UNFCCC. (2015). Decision 1/CP.21, FCCC/CP/2015/L.9. 4-31. Retrieved from website

United Nations. (1992). United Nations framework convention on climate change. Retrieved from pdf

United Nations. (1998). Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate change. Retrieved from pdf

United Nations. (2015). Paris agreement. Retrieved from pdf

Well, M., & Carrapatoso, A. (2017). REDD+ finance: Policy making in the context of fragmented institutions. Climate Policy, 17(6), 687–707. crossref

Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., & McNeill, D. (2012). Performance indicators and REDD+ implementation. In A. Angelsen, M. Brockhaus, W. D. Sunderlin, & L. V. Verchot (Eds.), Analysing REDD+ challenges and choices (pp. 233–246). Bogor, ID: CIFOR. Retrieved from pdf

Wong, G. (2014). The experience of conditional cash transfers: Lessons for REDD+ benefit sharing. CIFOR Infobrief no. 97. Bogor, ID: CIFOR. crossref

Wong, G., Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Carmenta, R., Duchelle, A., Leonard, S., … Wunder, S. (2016). Results-based payments for REDD+: Lessons on finance, performance, and non-carbon benefits. Brief Info, (138), 1–8. crossref

DOI: http://doi.org/10.17503/agrivita.v41i1.2008

Copyright (c) 2019 Universitas Brawijaya

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.