Presented by Stibniati Atmadja (CIFOR-ICRAF) at "IFSA Spring Course 2024: The future of forest labour and the carbon neutrality projection" on 19 Mar 2024

1. By Dr. Stibniati Atmadja (s.atmadja@cifor-icraf.org)
Spring Course Day 1, 19 March 2024
“The Future of Forest Labour and the Carbon Neutrality
Projection”, International Forestry Students’ Association
The Role of Forests in Climate Change
Mitigation:
Introduction to REDD+ initiatives

2. REDD+ projects in the context of
climate change mitigation
Forest carbon in the context of climate change
- “Forest carbon” – Green house gas (GHG) sequestration and
storage by standing forests (removals), including peatlands
- There are many GHGs
- Accounted in terms of ‘tonnes carbon dioxide equivalent’
(tCO2eq)  Translates different GHGs into a uniform unit
- 1 tonne of CH4 = 25 tCO2eq
- 1 tonne of C =44/12 tCO2eq (ratio of molecular weight)
GWP = the amount of
warming a gas causes
over a given period of
time (normally 100
years)
(Source: Brander 2023)

3. REDD+ projects in the context of
climate change mitigation
Forest carbon in the context of climate change mitigation
- Forest loss and degradation: 15-20% of global GHG emissons
- Also a potent “natural climate solution”
- Mitigation
- Adaptation
Source: Griscom et al., 2017
“Forest pathways offer
over two thirds of cost-
effective NCS mitigation
needed to hold warming to
below 2 °C and about half
of low-cost mitigation
opportunities” (p. 11648)
“Natural climate solutions can
provide 37% of cost-effective
CO2 mitigation needed
through 2030 for a >66%
chance of holding warming to
below 2 °C.” (Abstract)

4. • Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation
• “+” conservation, sustainable management of forests and
enhancement of forest carbon stocks.
• Financed by carbon funds that also aim to do the same
• Includes activities that
• Avoid deforestation (e.g., changing land use of an area from
logging/forest converstion to forest protection)
• Reduce deforestation (e.g., take measures that reduce
deforestation pressure from direct or indirect drivers of
deforestation)
• Conserve existing forests
• Establish or Restore forests (Afforestation/reforestation)
• Manage plantations more sustainably (e.g., improving
techniques, extending harvest cycles).
REDD+ initiatives: Principle characteristics

5. REDD+ initiatives: Project and
Jurisdictional approaches
REDD+ Projects
• Limited to private/ communale/ state properties (e.g.,
privately-owned land, private concessions, natural
reserves).
• Process: Preparation  Certification (Validation –
Verification)  Credit issuance  Carbon transactions*
Jurisdictional REDD+ programs
• Follows a political boundary (e.g., country, province,
district, municipality)
• Can include projects (“nested”)
• Readiness  Implementation  Results Based Payment

6. REDD+ trends to monitor
 REDD+ Projects
• New projects – geographic expansion
• Quality of impact: Community’s role as decision-making &
benefit sharing; ‘Real’ reductions in forest-based emissions
• National systems to register REDD+ projects
 Jurisdictional programs
• Belief that projects are not ‘robust’
- Questions on additionality, leakage, political
sustainability, financial viability
• New financing (LEAF coalition, FCPF Carbon
Fund/BioCarbon Fund)
• New certification (VCS’s Jurisdictional and Nested
REDD+/JNR; ART’s The REDD+ Environmental Excellence
Standard/TREES)
 Links between REDD+ projects, programs and national
carbon markets

7. Keeping track REDD+ initiatives:
ID-RECCO
 ID-RECCO: International Database on
REDD+ Projects linking Economic, Carbon
and Communities data’
• Established in 2014, updated 2018, 2020,
2022
• 110+ variables: description, emission
reduction estimates, certification, carbon
credits, partners, community benefits
• Objective: provide uniform, global,
systematic, updated data on REDD+
projects in a format useful for research
• 2014: 410 projects
• 2018: 467 projects
• 2020: 624 projects/programs (416 active)
• 2022: 710 projects /programs (359
active)
www.reddprojects
database.org

8. REDD+ Initiatives: Financing
 How REDD+ is being financed –public vs. private funds
Public
Private,
projects
Source: Atmadja & Pham, 2022

9. REDD+ ODA Funding: Committed vs. Disbursed (2010-2021)
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
0
500
1000
1500
201020122014201620182020
Global
Commitment Disbursement
% Disbursed
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
0
10
20
30
40
50
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
RDC
Commitment Disbursement
% Disbursed
Global REDD+ ODA: 98% disbursed
USD 9b committed, 8.3b disbursed
RDC REDD+ ODA: 71% disbursed
USD 139m committed, 97m disbursed
Ave. $11,4m/year committed,
$8,11m/year disbursed
Increased funding in 2020-2021 (Global + DRC)
Source: OECD-CRS data, 2010-2021; REDD+ tagging methods
from: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2834/687514

10. REDD+ ODA Funding Sources - Disbursements
New major donor:
Bezos Earth Fund
(USD 279,4m in 2021)
Global
Norway
Germany
GCF
UK
Bezos
US
Canada
Others
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
USD
million
disbursed
Source: OECD-CRS data, 2010-2021; REDD+ tagging methods
from: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2834/687514

11. REDD+ projects: Global trends
REDD+ trends to look out for in our update
 Unclear if more money = more projects
• Supply issues: declining new projects, ‘good’ locations
taken?
(Source: Atmadja et al., 2022)

12. REDD+ projects: Global trends
The role of certification in REDD+
 Increasingly important
• Verra (VCS, CCB, JNR) – industry leader
• Others: Plan Vivo, Gold Standard
 Turns forest ‘action’ to forest ‘carbon’  tradable commodity
• System to certify a project meets a set of standards
• REDD+ carbon credits becomes a commodity (e.g., traded
in stock exchanges)
• Increasing scrutiny over integrity (social + biodiversity)
vs. cost (using RS and models to quantify impact)
• Certification is the only way buyers gauge quality
 Getting certified is half the battle
• Half of VCS certified REDD+ projects can transact by 2020
(Atmadja et al., 2022)

13. Final thoughts
 Financing for REDD+ is increasing
• Tries to‘compensate’ for not deforesting, and for funding
the people and institutions needed to monitor, protect
forests and develop/implement projects/ programs
• Creates new commodity – but who benefits from this?
 REDD+ projects
• Private actors (companies, NGOs) lead implementation
and financing – benefit sharing and decision-making roles
of local community and local government not consistent
 REDD+ jurisdictional programs
• Public actors (governments) lead implementation and
financing – benefit sharing plan and safeguards required at
the start; effectiveness difficult to judge
 Complementary approaches – need to communicate and
harmonize methods and activities

14. Thank you!
www.reddprojectsdatabase.org
s.atmadja@cifor-icraf.org

15. Acknowledgents
This research is part of CIFOR's global comparative study on REDD+
(www.cifor.org/gcs) with financial support from Norwegian Agency for
Development Cooperation (Norad), Norway's International Climate and
Forest Initiative (NICFI), and the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees
and Agroforestry (CRP-FTA), with financial support from donors
contributing to the CGIAR Fund.

16. References
s.atmadja@cifor-icraf.org
Atmadja, S., Pham, T.T., 2022. “REDD+ Financing – More Money More Benefits?”. Presented at “Leveraging the
Glasgow Leader’s Declaration on Forests and Land Use to accelerate climate actions”, Bonn/Online, 14 June
2022.
Atmadja, S. S., A. E. Duchelle, V. De Sy, V. Selviana, M. Komalasari, E. O. Sills, and A. Angelsen. 2022. How do REDD+
projects contribute to the goals of the Paris Agreement? Environmental Research Letters 17(4):044038.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac5669, Accessed 20 March 2024
Atmadja, S.; Komalasari, M.; Alusiola, R.; Barboza, I.; Sartika; L.; Theresia, V.; Simonet; G. 2023. The International
Database on REDD+ projects and programs Linking Economics, Carbon and Communities (ID-RECCO) - Project
tables, V.5.0. URL: https://www.reddprojectsdatabase.org
Brander, M. 2023. “Greenhouse Gases, CO2, CO2e, and Carbon: What Do All These Terms Mean?. Econometrica.
https://ecometrica.com/assets/GHGs-CO2-CO2e-and-Carbon-What-Do-These-Mean-v2.1.pdf, Accessed 20
March 2024
European Commission, Directorate-General for Climate Action, Study on EU financing of REDD+ related activities,
and results-based payments pre and post 2020 – Sources, cost-effectiveness and fair allocation of incentives,
Publications Office, 2018, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2834/687514
Griscom, B. W., J. Adams, P. W. Ellis, R. A. Houghton, G. Lomax, D. A. Miteva, W. H. Schlesinger, D. Shoch, J. V.
Siikamäki, P. Smith, P. Woodbury, C. Zganjar, A. Blackman, J. Campari, R. T. Conant, C. Delgado, P. Elias, T.
Gopalakrishna, M. R. Hamsik, M. Herrero, J. Kiesecker, E. Landis, L. Laestadius, S. M. Leavitt, S. Minnemeyer, S.
Polasky, P. Potapov, F. E. Putz, J. Sanderman, M. Silvius, E. Wollenberg, and J. Fargione. 2017. Natural climate
solutions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(44):11645–11650.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710465114, Accessed 20 March 2024
OECD, 2022. Creditor Reporting System, 2010-2021. https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=crs1, Accessed
30 November 2022