Why a project-based approach to REDD+ is inappropriate
It is certainly inappropriate to respond to the apparently slow pace of UNFCCC deliberations by proposing old-fashioned solutions that have been shown to be inadequate. For example, project-based approaches to forest problems have been demonstrated to be ineffective many times over. A decade ago, the GEF concluded that a project-based approach to biodiversity conservation was fundamentally flawed. Yet we frequently come across proposals for a project-based approach to REDD+.
Project-based approaches are not only ineffective locally, but they are also unable to address the underlying causes of GHG emissions from forests, which require systemic solutions. Project-based approaches also face serious challenges dealing with leakage (i.e. displacing drivers of deforestation and forest degradation to other locations outside the project site). For full implementation of REDD+, experience from many sources, including the GEF, as mentioned above, indicates that a national approach is the only viable option to deal with underlying causes of deforestation and forest degradation and for overcoming problems of leakage. It also allows countries to implement practical measures at scale, through programmatic approaches.
These considerations are also reflected in the development of the “Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+” (JNR) approach by the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS). Their web-site notes that “… [REDD+ has] operated on two separate, yet largely mutually exclusive tracks. On the ground, an increasing number of projects are being developed; while at a macro level, governments have been establishing new policies and programs for generating forest carbon benefits across entire states, provinces and countries.”
Please click here to read the original news item.