This book provides a critical, evidence-based analysis of REDD+ implementation so far, without losing sight of the urgent need to reduce forest-based emissions to prevent catastrophic climate change. REDD+ as envisioned has not been tested at scale. Results-based payment, the novel feature of REDD+, has gone untested.

REDD+—which stands for 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—debuted on the global stage more than a decade ago.

How much do poor rural households rely on environmental extraction from natural ecosystems? And how does climate variability impact their livelihoods? This paper sheds light on these two questions with household income data from the Poverty and Environment Network pantropical data set, combined with climate data for the past three decades.

The report provides an analysis of actual REDD+ design and early implementation, based on a large research project – the Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (GCS), undertaken by CIFOR and partners.

REDD (reducing emissions from deforestation and forest
degradation) is based on a simple idea: pay developing countries
to reduce CO2 emissions from the forest sector. Nevertheless,
design and implementation of a REDD system raise many hard
questions: How are emissions reductions monitored, reported
and verified? How should REDD be financed? Should payments