It is now well accepted that deforestation is a key source of greenhouse gas emissions and of climate change, with forests representing major sinks for carbon. As a result, public and private initiatives for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) have been widely endorsed by policy-makers. A key issue is the feasibility of carbon trading or other incentives to encourage land-owners and indigenous people, particularly in developing tropical countries, to conserve forests, rather than to cut them down for agricultural or other development purposes. This book presents a major critique of the aims and policies of REDD as currently structured, particularly in terms of their social feasibility. It is shown how the claims to be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as enhance people's livelihoods and biodiversity conservation are unrealistic. There is a naive assumption that technical or economic fixes are sufficient for success. However, the social and governance aspects of REDD, and its enhanced version known as REDD+, are shown to be implausible. Instead to enhance REDD's prospects, the author provides a roadmap for developing a new social contract that puts people first.

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) attempts to address climate change from one angle – by paying developing countries to slow or stop deforestation and forest degradation. Trumpeted as a way to both mitigate climate change and assist countries with development, REDD was presented as a win-win solution. However, there have been few attempts to understand and analyse the overall framework. Why REDD Will Fail argues that the important goals will not be met under the existing REDD regime unless the actual drivers of deforestation and forest degradation are diminished. The book delves into the problematic details of the regime, ranging from; national capacity to monitor results, the funding mechanism, the definition of a forest, leakage, and the impetus behind the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. As the international community rallies around REDD and developed countries and companies are willing to commit substantial amounts to implement the scheme, this books seeks to address whether REDD has the potential to achieve its purported goals. This is an important resource for academics and students interested in the policy and management aspects of mitigating climate change, environmental policy, international relations and development studies as well as policy makers involved in the REDD process.

REDD+ (Reducing Emissions of greenhouse gases from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) is an important tool under the UNFCCC for incentivizing developing countries to adopt and scale up climate mitigation actions in the forest sector and for capturing and channeling the financial resources to do so. This Handbook eloquently examines the methodological guidance and emerging governance arrangements for REDD+, analysing how and to what extent it is embedded in the international legal framework. Organized coherently into five parts, contributions from legal experts, international relations scholars, climate change negotiators and activists explore the history and design of REDD+ in the UN climate regime, as well as linkages between REDD+ and other international agreements. The book also considers global governance for REDD+, its financial dimensions including markets and investment and future developments and legal challenges. Detailed analysis from a range of angles illustrates the interplay of international norms and institutions and maps out a legal research agenda for identifying best practice solutions. Shedding light on one of the most vibrant and fast-moving fields in international law, this comprehensive Handbook is essential reading for scholars of international law and international relations, policy makers in the area of climate change, REDD+ and land sector experts and NGOs.

An international mechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation using carbon payments (REDD) can be leveraged to make payments for forests' biodiversity as well. Paradoxically, under conditions consistent with emerging REDD programs, money spent on a mixture of carbon payments and biodiversity payments has the potential to incentivize the provision of greater climate benefits than an equal amount of money spent only on carbon payments. This paradoxical result arises when diversifying payments across multiple services allows a funding agency to spend less on additional rents to existing suppliers of avoided deforestation and more on incentivizing the participation of new suppliers.