Non-carbon benefits of REDD+ implementation and sustainable emission reductions – a review

ABSTRACT

REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) is a potentially powerful policy instrument for climate change, considering the continued loss of tropical forests. While emissions reductions are the primary aim, the Warsaw Framework for REDD+ recognizes the significance of non-carbon benefits to countries in the Global South. We here attempt to provide a balanced assessment of the achievements over the first decade of this policy instrument, paying special attention to whether non-carbon benefits to tropical countries are materialising. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses principles, 136 studies were identified and screened for evidence. We observe that, while forest governance structures have been strengthened, delivery of environmental and socio-economic non-carbon benefits to forest communities appears to be unsystematic, partly due to the absence of formally agreed guidance on how they could be provided. As REDD+ programmes often impinge directly on the livelihoods of local communities, non-timber forest products are sometimes promoted as alternatives to forestry commodities, even if they provide scant compensation. Except for Ghana’s cocoa program, commodity-driven value chains tend to be neglected. As more funds are expected to finance REDD+ programmes, there could be opportunities for innovation in the delivery of non-carbon benefits.

KEYWORDS:

• REDD+
• non-carbon benefits
• forest governance
• livelihoods
• result-based payments
• environmental benefit

1. Introduction

The global focus on pursuing nature-based solutions to the climate crisis and the emergence of result-based carbon sequestration payments to address deforestation have reinvigorated interest in tropical forests. These developments offer potential for a significant flow of funds to countries in the Global South, with the aim of reducing the rate of deforestation while strengthening forest governance systems, improving the livelihoods of forest users, and building ecosystem resilience (Wunder et al. 2018; UNDP 2021; Woroniecki et al. 2023).

Among the most important policy instruments is ‘Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in developing countries, plus the sustainable management of forests, and the conservation and enhancement of forest carbon stocks’ (REDD+) (UNFCCC 2014; Duchelle et al. 2018). The REDD+ mechanism was created by the UNFCCC and uses carbon market and aid-based payment mechanism to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation from forest and mangrove ecosystems in the Global South by valuing their carbon sequestration and storage, as well as other social and environmental benefits (Granziera et al. 2022). REDD+ is implemented in three phases: the readiness, implementation, and result-based payment phases. In terms of project types, there are the Avoided Planned Deforestation, which aims to prevent large-scale conversion of primary forest by commercial agents and Avoided Unplanned Deforestation, which also seeks to protect forests from localized agents of deforestation (Sylvera 2023)

The significance of REDD+ in addressing tropical deforestation is underscored by the contribution by Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) sectors of a net 11% to global greenhouse gas emissions (2024) and by their key role in the protection of biodiversity (Jaureguiberry et al. 2022). Currently, about 56 countries have incorporated REDD+ programmes into their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement (UNDP 2021). It has been estimated that REDD+ can deliver emissions reduction and removal at low cost compared to many other mitigation measures (Andoh and Lee 2018), making it a potentially attractive future vehicle for international transfer of mitigation outcomes under article 6 of the Paris rulebook, as well as for voluntary carbon markets. There are also significant opportunities for REDD+ transactions under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA).

However, to the countries designated to host REDD+ projects, the opportunities for additional non-carbon benefits are often equally as important as the emission reductions per se. ‘Non-carbon benefits (NCBs) from REDD+’ is a term referring to factors and contributions going beyond greenhouse gas reduction or removal per se, and these are understood to comprise positive socio-economic, environmental and forest governance outcomes of REDD+ activities (Hvalkof and Krøijer 2013; Katerere et al. 2015; Dunlop and Corbera 2016). 1

The significance of NCBs to successful uptake and implementation of REDD+ projects was acknowledged early on in the global REDD+ negotiations and formally recognized by a decision at COP19 in Warsaw in 2013 (Katerere et al. 2015). Already at COP16 in Cancun 2010, a set of safeguard clauses to REDD+ was agreed to ensure that the inflow of financing in forest protection would not violate the rights of indigenous people and local communities in forest landscapes, and that forest governance in host countries would be strengthened (McDermott et al. 2012; Barletti and Larson 2020). As such, NCBs are sometimes described as outcomes from the safeguard clauses. Yet, there is no formally agreed guidance from the global climate negotiations on how NCBs should or could be incentivised. This shortfall is due to disagreements even among countries in the Global South, with some calling for direct payments to NCBs in support of REDD+, while others prefer schemes to be adapted to national circumstances and priorities for ways of enhancing NCBs with REDD+ funding (Katerere et al. 2015). Nevertheless, there is broad consensus that NCBs can facilitate processes that will lead to emissions reduction and removal and are playing a key role in successful implementation of REDD+. A demonstrated commitment to generate NCBs with REDD+ programmes is required to obtain finance from the World Bank and is compulsory with the UN’s Green Climate Fund.

To investigate the significance of NCBs in facilitating and sustaining emissions reduction and removal, we conduct a literature review of REDD+ studies. While substantial research on REDD+ has been undertaken over the past decade, this study aims to augment knowledge by bridging the numerous case studies of projects and country experiences, to produce a synthesized assessment of how REDD+ funds have been generated and utilized with respect to NCBs, seeking to advance our understanding of the NCBs of forest governance, and socio-economic and environmental host country outcomes.

Hence, our research question addresses the broader impacts of NCBs and aims to offer insights into forest management and the well-being of forest communities. As such, it will contribute to the ongoing debate surrounding NCBs and the policy paradigms emerging with operationalisation of key aspects of Article 6 of the Paris rulebook.

2. Materials and methods

The steps we followed are outlined below.

2.1. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework

The ‘PICO’ framework is a tool used in systematic reviews to determine eligible elements to be analyzed in a study (Cumpston et al. 2021). In this study, we use the PICO framework to pre-specify populations as forest communities, interventions as REDD+ NCBs, comparison as NCBs generated in countries with REDD+ programmes, and outcome as effectiveness of NCBs in improving forest governance and well-being of forest communities. We present the PICO table in Table 1.

Table 1. PICO table.

Population (P)	Intervention (I)	Comparison (C)	Outcome (O)
Forest communities in tropical countries	Implementation of REDD+ programs to generate non-carbon benefits to sustain emission reductions.	Identification and categorization of NCBs as generated from REDD+ country programs.	Effectiveness of REDD+ in improving forest governance, livelihood, and social benefits to forest communities.

2.2. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA)

The PRISMA statement is an evidence-based checklist, designed to set a minimum number of items to be included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses to enhance the quality of reporting (Moher et al. 2010, 2016). PRISMA was used to visualize, and make transparent, the number of references found, those excluded and included (Abas et al. 2022). In conjunction with the PICO framework, we established the criteria to include or exclude studies in this review. Details of the inclusion and exclusion criteria are presented below.

2.3. Systematic search

To identify studies published in the English language, we developed search strings to extract information relevant to the research questions. These search strings were applied in the Web of Science and Google Scholar databases to primarily target studies on REDD+ programmes with a focus on NCBs within the recent decade. The search in Google Scholar was aided by ‘Publish or Perish’ – a software application that retrieves and analyses academic citations from various sources, including Scopus (Harzing 2010). The chosen timescale (2010–2020) is meant to examine trends in the generation of NCBs pre- and post- the Paris Agreement.

The search strings used were ‘REDD (+)’, ‘non-carbon benefits’, ‘REDD+ and livelihoods’, ‘REDD+ and governance’, ‘REDD+ funds’, ‘REDD+ or nature-based solutions’, and ‘REDD+ and environmental benefits. The search strings and the syntax ‘OR’ and ‘AND’ were used to query the databases, refine, limit, and select relevant studies for the review.

2.4. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

We used the PICO framework and the PRISMA as guides to set inclusion and exclusion criteria for this study. To be included in the review, studies must examine REDD+ programmes generating NCBs, regardless of whether they are ongoing or completed. Out of the 794 studies generated from the systematic search of the databases, 106 duplicates were removed using Mendeley. Further, 449 studies were excluded from the selection because they were conference records, working papers, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, or were published before 2010 or after 2020. Studies were also omitted if they were not accessible or lacked methodological rigor. A rapid quality check (e.g., checking for key words in the study) was carried out of the remaining 239 studies’ content. Through the quality check, the studies were categorized into three relevance tiers: high, moderate, and low. We selected studies from the high (98) and moderate (38) tiers because they represent investigations on NCB outcomes. After reviewing the abstracts of the 136 ranked studies (122 peer-reviewed and 14 grey literature studies), we read them in full. In Figure 1, we present a PRISMA flow diagram of the number of studies and how they were selected.

Figure 1. Flow diagram for the selection of studies (PRISMA).

2.5. Data extraction and analysis

We utilized aspects of the Warsaw Framework to identify, extract, and categorize information on NCBs from the selected studies; this framework provides methodological guidance for REDD+ implementation (Voigt and Ferreira 2015). We qualitatively and quantitatively extracted NCB information from the selected studies that relate to Decision 9/CP.19 (result-based financing and NCB incentivisation), Decision 12/CP.19 and 17/CP.21 (rights, inclusion and participation of forest communities and women), and Decision 18/CP.21 (regulatory framework, policy development, and livelihoods) of the Warsaw Framework (UNFCCC 2023). Extracted information on NCBs was analyzed and categorized under these themes: REDD+ geographical spread and funding; activity areas for NCBs generation; policies and institutional governance; gender; benefit sharing; and livelihoods. In Figure 2, we present the framework underpinning our study, as derived from the Warsaw Framework.

Figure 2. Framework underpinning the study based on the Warsaw framework of REDD+.

3. Results

We identified 169 REDD+ projects in 77 countries from the 136 studies selected for analysis. They make up a sizable share of the total of 624 programmes recently identified by Atmadja et al. (2023). Our analysis of REDD+ studies revealed that Indonesia (37), Brazil (29), and Tanzania (26) were the most prominent country cases within each world region during the period considered, although overall most projects studied have been implemented in southern and central America (see Supplementary Material). As a stepping stone in synthesizing the role of NCBs, we briefly recap the main lines of REDD+ funding and implementation.

The major source of REDD+ funding is multilateral financial support from the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Fund Facility, the UN’s Green Climate Fund, bilateral support from individual countries (e.g., Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative), and Brazil’s Amazon Fund, the largest dedicated REDD+ fund. Between 2010 and 2019 these institutions contributed a total of $19 billion in REDD+ funding. In the same period, the private sector invested $3 billion in REDD+ related activities, including for result-based actions, conservation, governance and sustainable use of forests (NYDF Assessment Partners 2019). The private sector therefore contributed about 16% of overall REDD+ funding.

Several host countries have established National Forest Funds or REDD+ Funds to complement donor support with domestic financing (Aquino and Guay 2013; Brown 2017), e.g., with regular budgetary allocations and revenue flows from forest bonds, recreational fees, and fines (Kissinger et al. 2019). In Costa Rica, the Forest Fund is sustained by a 3.5% fuel tax for long-term investments in the forest sector (Kim et al. 2016).

To meet the formal requirements of REDD+, funds are disbursed in three phases: readiness, implementation, and results-based payments. Funds for the first phase are mostly used to develop forest policies and strengthen institutions. In the second phase, implementation of national policies is supported, while in the third phase the focus shifts to results-based payments (Peskett et al. 2011; Schroeder et al. 2020).

3.1. Forest governance NCBs

Novel institutional frameworks for forest governance are needed in the readiness phase to prepare the ground for REDD+ implementation. It is clear from our review that REDD+ often has facilitated important developments of forest governance institutions in host countries and has helped breed new policy instruments to target activities and sectors that drive deforestation and forest degradation. Examples include the forest laws and policies in Laos (Chokkalingam and Phanvilay 2015), and the Indigenous Integrated Development Associations in Costa Rica (Wallbott and Rosendal 2018).

Nevertheless, one of the key impediments to REDD+ projects is the limited clarity of property rights for land and forest use across the Global South, and only a few land tenure reforms are reported in the reviewed studies. Improvement in land title registration is needed to facilitate decision-making in forest communities (Jagger and Rana 2017; Saeed et al. 2017), but such reforms have mostly been slow and limited (Dunlop and Corbera 2016). Moreover, unclear land and tree tenure arrangements will often have equity implications for the distributional allocation of REDD+ NCBs (Saito-Jensen et al. 2015; Saeed et al. 2017). Weak land and tree tenure, coupled with economic deprivation, limits the influence and participation in REDD+ projects of women in general and vulnerable indigenous groups in particular (Larson et al. 2018; Barletti and Larson 2020).

The slow pace of legislative reforms has at times stalled implementation. Indonesia’s REDD+ program was hampered by low willingness to reform due to concerns about potential losses in palm oil revenue, even if Norway had pledged funding (Angelsen 2016). Moeliono et al. (2020) show that REDD+ is yet to bring transformational change in Indonesia’s forest governance. However, forest governance is at times positively affected by reforms in other sectors; for instance, the withdrawal of agricultural subsidies in Brazil, with associated behavioural changes in land use, slowed down the rates and patterns of deforestation (Kissinger et al. 2019).

Moreover, the body of evidence from the studies reviewed indicates an appreciable knowledge gap among stakeholders involved in or affected by REDD+ implementation (Mcgregor et al. 2014; Massarella et al. 2018). Several studies suggest that, in particular, market-based mechanisms and the commodification of nature appear to be not well-understood by forest communities, and efforts to bridge the knowledge gap have often been inadequate (Errico 2016; Airey and Krause 2017). These circumstances are reinforced by tendencies to marginalize local expertise in REDD+ projects, as documented in Nigeria and Ghana (Asiyanbi et al. 2017).

REDD+ projects frequently engage foreign experts despite their higher cost (Asiyanbi et al. 2017; Gizachew et al. 2017). However, Newton et al. (2015) found that data collected by local communities in Nepal were of equal quality to data collected by foreign experts. Other studies also document how participatory and collaborative learning processes built into REDD+ projects can reduce costs, facilitate skills transfer, and empower communities to build more resilient landscapes. For example, in Panama and Paraguay, through South-South Exchange, local technicians were trained on geographic information systems and the use of drones to monitor forests, logging, and mining activities, which helped to build local capacity (Ruix-Jaen et al. 2020). REDD+ host countries can also give mutual support, as evidenced when Africa’s first national forest monitoring system was developed in the Democratic Republic of Congo with support from the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research (Fobissie et al. 2014).

Due to its importance to the readiness phase, approximately 56% of global REDD+ funding has been used to support activities related to improving forest governance (European Commission 2018). A study of three pioneering REDD+ countries by Pham et al. (2021) suggests that the key challenges to effective forest governance include ‘lack of knowledge on REDD+ by relevant actors; ineffective coordination between state agencies, the private sector and civil society; unclear tenure rights; ineffectively addressing the main deforestation drivers; low law enforcement capacity; and unclear benefit-sharing mechanisms.’

3.2. Socio-economic NCBs

REDD+ NCBs to forest communities can be both direct and indirect, as well as monetary and non-monetary (Newton et al. 2015, Nantongo et al. 2019). The balance of evidence from the reviewed studies suggests, not surprisingly, that forest communities, particularly land rights holders and households, favour direct payments to individuals. Local authorities, on the other hand, favour improvements in local service delivery and infrastructure to result from REDD+ projects. In Panama, 72% of community members indicated that they were attracted to REDD+ programmes by the monetary benefits, while merely 13% stated that they were motivated by enhanced ecosystem services (Holmes et al. 2017). Potential benefits for forest communities include increased incomes, tenure security, and increased social capital (Pelletier et al. 2018; Awung and Marchant 2020).

REDD+ livelihood interventions can be classified as ‘moving up’ (intensification or investment within the same livelihood), ‘stepping out’ (engagement in multiple livelihood activities), or ‘moving out’ (adoption of a new livelihood) (Catley and Aklilu 2012; Abebe et al. 2016). Most livelihood NCBs are directly related to agriculture and forestry, with also a few in the service sectors. Socio-economic NCBs are frequently built around non-timber forest products, food production, agroforestry, beekeeping, grasscutter rearing, and the production of seedlings. Through these activities, communities obtain food, income, and employment. Some REDD+ programmes have incorporated organic and Fairtrade certification schemes into their livelihood interventions to increase income and enhance sustainable production (Hajjar et al. 2017). Ken et al. (2020) demonstrated how REDD+ projects improve livelihood assets in Cambodia.

Despite these efforts, a major drawback of REDD+ projects can be the restrictions placed on forest communities’ exploitation of forests in the conventional way, e.g., for timber or land clearing. In fact, REDD+ implementation has frequently restricted, displaced, and deprived forest communities of their livelihoods (Asiyanbi 2016). These restrictions can potentially prevent forest communities from cultivating their preferred crops, grazing livestock, or collecting firewood (Poudel et al. 2015; Isyaku et al. 2017)

REDD+ by design is an incentive mechanism, but not all programmes have achieved the level of performance necessary to generate socio-economic NCBs which could benefit forest communities. Sunderlin et al. (2017) found that REDD+ did not contribute significantly to the income sufficiency of stakeholders in Tanzania. Moreover, REDD+ negatively impacted on the subjective well-being of participants due to the predominance of disincentives (Duchelle et al. 2017). In the case of women, their well-being is worse compared to men because insufficient attention is paid to gender equality (Larson et al. 2018). There is also not much transparency in sharing mechanisms for forest revenue and benefits (Awung and Marchant 2020). Pham et al. (2014) found that REDD+ benefits tended to favour elites and people with power or connections to the sources of power, potentially exacerbating wealth inequalities in REDD+ sites (Andersson et al. 2018).

3.3. Environmental NCBs

Environmental NCBs identified from the review relate to biodiversity, water management, land degradation, climate adaptation and tourism. The quality of biodiversity NCBs obtained is frequently contingent on preexisting species distribution, habitat loss and hunting pressures (Visseren-Hamakers et al. 2012). Potential synergies and spatial relationships seem evident between forest carbon storage and improvements in biodiversity; however, in Indonesia the focal ecosystems for REDD+ interventions to reduce emissions did not relate geographically to areas supporting the most species-rich communities or the highest concentration of threatened species (Paoli et al. 2010). Mandal et al. (2013) found no strong spatial relationship between carbon stocks and biodiversity in Nepal’s REDD+ areas, apparently because economic pressures reduce overlaps (Siikamäki and Newbold 2012).

Only a few, and not very recent, studies have focused on environmental NCBs, and it appears this aspect of NCBs was highlighted more prior to the Paris Agreement. These studies mostly present qualitative assessments of environmental NCBs, possibly as a result of their intangible nature (Panfil and Harvey 2016) and the lack of standardized common metrics for measuring their impact (Gillerot et al. 2021). Nevertheless, environmental NCBs help internalize conservation values among forest communities by addressing deforestation and securing water supply sources (Setyowati 2020). Environmental NCBs facilitated the conservation and restoration of Khasi’s ancestral forests in India, despite challenges posed by national governments, certifiers, and carbon markets (Poffenberger 2015). Improvement in tree forest cover was observed in Guyana’s REDD+ program (Roopsind et al. 2019), while in the Brazilian Amazon, REDD+ implementation decreased the rate of deforestation (Simonet et al. 2019). In Tanzania, REDD+ reduced deforestation and improved habitat conditions for chimpanzees (Dickson et al. 2020). A study by Ojea et al. (2016) comprehensively evaluated water management, food and fibre, biodiversity, recreation and tourism in REDD+ countries.

Environmental NCBs have the potential to help mitigate the severity of drought periods. Participating communities in Nepal’s and Tanzania’s REDD+ programmes report improvements in water management, with higher natural regeneration in previously degraded areas and less frequent wildfires, besides increased wildlife populations due to reduced encroachment by farmers (Dulal et al. 2012; Bluffstone et al. 2013). REDD+ programmes also succeeded in reducing forest disturbance from soil erosion (Sharma et al. 2020), indicating reduced extraction pressures. Similarly, in China, environmental NCBs could be observed in terms of improved conservation of soil and water, resulting from the mitigation of forest fragmentation (Lua et al. 2015)

4. Discussion

4.1. Insights from the review

The Cancun safeguards set minimum standards to protect people (do no harm), involved in REDD+ programs and to promote and enhance (do good) social, environmental and governance benefits (2024). Some aspects of the NCBs e.g., livelihood and cultural identity predate REDD+ and for many years, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) have demanded such benefits from governments (Monjane et al. 2022). Yet NCBs interventions and outcomes do not appear to satisfy IPLCs. This could be attributed to poor policy framing and analysis. For example, while two of the Cancun safeguards directly relate to IPLCs i.e., respect for IPLCs knowledge and rights, and participation in REDD+, there appears to be lacking guidelines on what can be described as ‘respect’ or ‘effective’ participation (Morveli et al. 2023). This could lead to unsustainable emission reductions.

Most financial resources to fund NCBs are contributions from countries of the Global North which are channelled through aids and the carbon credit markets. While the financial contribution from the Global North is seen as part of the ‘common but differentiated responsibility’ in climate change discourse, Neuteleers (2022) notes that it is akin to buying the rights to increase greenhouse gases. Such ‘rights to pollute’ could have negative consequences for communities in the Global South. Carbon markets are trading systems in which carbon credits are sold and bought. Broadly, two types of carbon market exist: compliance and voluntary. The compliance market is an emission-trading platform where governments and companies account for or offset their greenhouse gas emissions through policy and legislation. Voluntary carbon markets refer to the issuance, buying and selling of carbon credits, on a voluntary basis (Granziera et al. 2022; UNDP 2022). Approximately 400 million carbon credits have been issued by REDD+ programs (South America 156 million, sub-Sahara Africa 115 million, Asia-Pacific 117 million and Central America 8 million) (Sylvera 2023). However, there are concerns about the quality of credits being generated and the failure of REDD+ to fully utilize the market-based mechanisms (West et al. 2020; GRAIN 2023; Guardian 2023).

NCBs are integrated into REDD+ programmes through a variety of mechanisms. These include early incorporation during the readiness and implementation stages of REDD+; the use of NCBs as a condition for result-based payments; the use of NCBs to create additional value for credits; and the use of certification or payment for ecosystem services to pay for NCBs generated (Katerere et al. 2015). However, the wide range of potential NCBs, coupled with the geographical specificity of countries’ REDD+ programmes, poses numerous challenges. While the geographic specificity of NCBs could help increase participation of forest communities to yield better outcomes and facilitate constructive engagement, as envisaged by the Warsaw Framework, this aspect is often lacking in actual implementation.

4.1.1. The challenges of pluralistic tree and property regimes

According to the intervention theory of the Warsaw Framework underlying REDD+, it is essential to broaden the scope of participation in decision-making in order to avoid marginalising indigenous people, women, and vulnerable groups, whose participation is necessary to integrate landscape management and to ensure fairness in benefit sharing (McDermott et al. 2022).

One of the key barriers to effective participation, equitable benefit sharing, and access to livelihood opportunities is the lack of clarity in land and tree regimes. Forest governance as a regulator of natural resource management is inextricably linked to land and tree tenure, and the associated bundle of rights. While there is a relatively significant body of research on land tenure in relation to REDD+, there is far less research on trees.

The limited attention to rights over trees, which, in countries with pluralistic tenure and property regimes, can be separated from land ownership, appears to have contributed to the uncertainty regarding rights to forest carbon sinks. The conventional focus on title registrations over customary land tenure may therefore exclude vulnerable groups holding such complementary rights. Forest governance reforms clarifying land and tree tenure are often needed to allow both individual and collective rights, so as to improve equity and fairness (Karsenty et al. 2014). For instance, reforms of state institutions in Tanzania to improve tenure security and address deforestation were designed to be consistent with cultural practices (Mulder et al. 2021). Conversely, tenure insecurity increased in Vietnam due to delays in governmental allocation of land to potential REDD+ beneficiaries (Duchelle et al. 2017).

4.1.2. Frequent contractions in livelihood opportunities

According to the intervention theory of the Warsaw Framework that underlies REDD+, monetary incentives could improve participation in REDD+ programmes. Livelihood opportunities are arguably the most anticipated NCBs of REDD+ implementation, as REDD+ programmes tend to restrict forest users’ access to conventional livelihood sources. Deforestation is driven first and foremost by livelihood pressures, which REDD+ is expected to ameliorate by providing economic NCBs. Nevertheless, Isyaku (2021) contends that it is rather connectedness to the landscape and existing social norms that will motivate communities to participate in REDD+ programmes.

Generally, REDD+ livelihood interventions appear limited in scope, linked closely to the programmes’ lifespan, and with poor long-term sustainability plans. Livelihood interventions are not gender neutral, as women and vulnerable groups are limited in their participation due to gendered norms and insecurity of tenure. There is concern that REDD+ implementation adds stress to the already fragile state of indigenous land rights and potentially restricts local subsistence activities in forests (Villhauer and Sylvester 2021). Additionally, common livelihood interventions, such as honey and soap making, are insufficient to provide forest communities with a living income and do not appear to provide the necessary incentives to address deforestation. These are among the reasons Massarella et al. (2018) suggest that expectations of economic NCBs are rarely fulfilled. Duker et al. (2019) submit that REDD+ programmes tend not to sufficiently compensate for the contraction in livelihood opportunities that communities previously derived from agriculture, due to shortfalls in funding and benefit-sharing. [ICROA] International Carbon Reduction and Offset Alliance (2016) illustrates this shortfall, estimating that a ton of CO₂ emissions removed from the atmosphere through a carbon offset program generates only about US$3.50 in local economic benefits, service jobs and skills.

When economic NCBs do not meet the expectations of stakeholders, this could lead to conflicts and stall program implementation. In particular, this is true of direct cash payments to individuals and benefit sharing mechanisms that favour the elite and incentivise the activities of ‘carbon cowboys’ (Aguilar-Støen 2017). The odds of a conflict occurring after carbon programmes are implemented are often high, despite the existence of Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanisms, another REDD+ safeguard.

4.1.3. Aligning conservation goals with the multiple objectives of REDD+

Tropical forests are known to harbour some of the world’s richest biodiversity areas, and there is widely assumed to be synergy between carbon storage and environmental NCBs in support of biodiversity conservation (Visseren-Hamakers et al. 2012). Nevertheless, in some instances, forest landscapes that are rich in biodiversity have only low or modest potential for carbon sequestration (Buotte et al. 2020). It is likely that REDD+ would generate less in terms of biodiversity than a policy that specifically focused on biodiversity: to obtain stronger synergies between emission reductions and environmental NCBs, a more targeted approach is required to the design of REDD+ programmes.

Promoting NCBs carries inherent risks, as certain interventions may have counterproductive effects or inadvertently dilute the core objective of achieving emission reductions (Wong et al. 2019). For instance, in generating economic NCBs, there could be interventions in terms of intensification that would encourage a shift from subsistence to commercial agricultural practices, but this could have an impact on the generation of environmental NCBs.

In Brazil, 97% of targeted forest preservation was achieved, but agricultural activities dropped by 30%, underlining the trade-offs inherently involved in REDD+, and complicating a multi-objective NCB program (West et al. 2018). There are concerns that landscape diversity and structural heterogeneity could be disturbed by REDD+ programmes, e.g., through agricultural practices or introduction of non-traditional tree species for reforestation (Fischer et al. 2019). This could affect landscape resilience and livelihoods, and redirect environmental benefits away from local communities (Ingalls and Dwyer 2016).

Some argue that environmental benefits are best achieved where conservation goals and cultural values are aligned (Schneider 2018). The cultural values of forest communities can offer an opportunity to address issues of deforestation, biodiversity and climate change (O’Donnell 2023). In this context, NCBs can help internalize conservation values among forest communities, e.g., through training, changes in land-use practices, and communications on behavioural change (Panfil and Harvey 2016; Setyowati 2020).

4.2. Policy implications and prospects

Despite high initial expectations, recent REDD+ programmes have not achieved significant reductions in emissions and deforestation, even though REDD+ covers about 1.35 billion ha of forest territories in developing countries (UN-REDD 2023). In areas where notable reductions have been obtained, REDD+ often fails to deliver the expected livelihood, social, and economic benefits especially to forest communities (Aggarwal and Brockington 2020; Schmid 2022).

The current range of NCBs is not well defined, and this presents a challenge for identifying specific NCBs to be targeted and promoted in REDD+ programmes. The absence of a generally agreed practice on how to incentivise NCB in REDD+ programmes is unfortunate and has affected the quality and sustainability of NCBs. However, recent developments in the Paris Agreement – operationalisation of Articles 6.2 (internationally transferred mitigation outcomes), 6.4 (rules, modalities, and procedures) and 6.8 (non-market mechanism) – could facilitate increased REDD+ investment.

So far, most of the experience relates to aid-based REDD+ programmes, where countries receive payments without having to transfer carbon rights, as in the case of the Green Climate Fund (Granziera et al. 2022; Salway et al. 2022). Aid-based funding can absorb more risks associated with tackling complex social and governance challenges and aligns more easily with broader government policies and institutions. Funding via the compliance mechanisms of article 6 in the Paris Agreement can be expected to be more concerned with offsetting emission reductions than with generating NCBs to host countries. As such, it would share features with the voluntary offsetting funded privately and with domestic offsetting compliance mechanisms, such as in Columbia and South Africa.

The expanding scope of REDD+, combined with the complex carbon market environments and the Paris Agreement, necessitates a greater level of institutional and policy reform. Such reforms are essential to ensure that REDD+ is positioned to adequately respond to existing challenges and emerging opportunities in the carbon sector.

A new paradigm in REDD+ programmes is the gradual shift from securing protected areas to a concentration on the forest risk commodities that drive deforestation. An example is the Cocoa REDD+ program in Ghana, which has seen the entry of new actors, in terms of large multinational companies, who were previously on the fringes of REDD+ implementation (van der Haar et al. 2023). The Ghana Cocoa REDD+ program has established a multi-tiered sub-national governance system in the cocoa landscapes in terms of Hotspot Intervention Areas, a community driven ‘bridge organisation’. These areas are expected to enhance the participation of cocoa farmers as leaders in REDD+ implementation, while increasing their capacity to effectively engage with state agencies, NGOs and cocoa commodity companies involved in the program. Strengthening sub-governance structures to complement national governance systems, while facilitating the participation of community actors with a focus on hedging against the drivers of deforestation, has potential to facilitate local ownership and generate lasting NCBs.

The EU Deforestation Regulation (2023/1115), promoting consumption of deforestation-free products through strict requirements to importers, presents opportunities to strengthen REDD+ implementation. There are risks emerging, too; notably, from the rush for a bigger volume of carbon offsets arising from the demands expected in the CORSIA scheme for aviation. These developments may stimulate further decision-making on practices within REDD+ for generating NCBs in a changing forest landscape.

The first accepted carbon credits for use by airlines under the CORSIA mechanism have been issued by Guyana (ART] Architecture for REDD+ Transactions, 2024). The associated REDD+ program has apparently managed to engage local communities, while generating NCBs in the form of land titling registration, the creation of watermelon farms, transportation for children and farmers, and improved public sanitation (GOG 2024). It is also unusual in delivering credits from a jurisdiction classified as ‘High Forest, Low Deforestation’; REDD+ programmes have traditionally focused on jurisdictions with high deforestation rates.

5. Conclusion

Tropical forest landscapes continue to experience a high deforestation rate of about 10 million hectares per year (FAO 2020). With this literature review, we have investigated whether REDD+ has succeeded in generating non-carbon benefits (NCBs) to strengthen forest governance, improve the economic well-being of forest communities and deliver environmental improvements. Despite formal requirements under UNFCCC for delivery of NCBs to the host countries of REDD+ programmes, implementation suffers from a lack of formal guidance on how to incentivise them. It is therefore not surprising that our literature review unveils that NCBs are generally limited in scope and by no means assured as an outcome from REDD+ projects, despite being praised for their significance in facilitating and sustaining emission reductions from forests and paving the way for a just transition. Some might contend that the generation of NCBs has transitioned from a ‘peak of inflated expectations’ to a ‘trough of disillusionment’.

Despite the safeguarding clauses to REDD+ agreed in Cancun and the Warsaw Framework, indigenous and other vulnerable and deprived groups continue to have little influence on forest governance, while they are often the least equipped to face the risks associated with climate change. Empowering them through rights to land and the use of natural resources could help facilitate a more inclusive approach to the benefits flowing from carbon funds into tropical countries. For the implementation of REDD+ programmes, bridging organisations at local level are needed to ensure meaningful participation. Economic NCBs in the form of livelihoods are needed to address and hedge against the drivers of deforestation but are frequently not sufficient to secure living incomes and ‘do no harm’ to the well-being of forest communities.

Based on our review, covering the first decade since COP19 agreed the Warsaw Framework for REDD+ and instituted the delivery of NCBs as an indispensable part, we observe that the generation of NCBs in REDD+ remains fragmented, and is insufficient to successfully facilitate and sustain emission reductions in tropical forests.

REDD+ programmes have generally increased in numbers, but the annual rate of growth has declined in recent years (Atmadja et al. 2022). From the IDDRCO database, eight projects were recorded in 2017, five in 2019, one in 2020 and none in 2021. Further research is needed to clarify whether this fatigue reflects the failure of REDD+ implementation to generate adequate and effective NCBs, carbon credit inflation or whether funders are waiting for the full implementation of Article 6 before they make further investment. Further studies focused specifically on commodity-driven REDD+ programmes could also be helpful, to explore the linkages between actors at local and global levels, and how their interactions and the generation of NCBs could help improve landscape governance.

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge funding support from iClimate, New Nordic Ways to Green Growth (NOWAG) project, Novo Nordisk Foundation and Jim and Sue Hoggatt.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2024.2383737

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Novo Nordisk Fonden Department of Environmental Science, iClimate Indiscplinary Center for Climate Change, Jim and Sue Hoggatt.

Notes

1. To these three categories, adds positive biocultural outcomes.