REDD+ is contentious for two reasons:

  • Some people and organizations do not believe that a market-based mechanism should be used to conserve rainforests. These organizations include Greenpeace and REDD+ Monitor. However, these organizations do not put forward alternative solutions. With the urgency of the climate crisis, we believe that a well-designed, performance-based, market-based approach with high environmental integrity and safeguards is the best solution we have.
  • The purpose of REDD+ was to support national efforts to slow, stop, and reverse tropical deforestation under UNFCCC. While the term REDD+ is enshrined in Article 5.2 of the Paris Agreement, it was never patented by UNFCCC. That means that any forestry carbon project can use the name REDD+ without any methodological or legal connection to the Paris Agreement and UNFCCC. Since the 2000’s, the voluntary carbon markets, which operate outside the Paris Agreement, have monopolized the use of the term REDD+ and tarnished its reputation with a significant number of scandals.