The forest frontier of climate policy: Evaluating REDD+ outcomes in the Brazilian Amazon

Résumé fourni par la source

The REDD+ mechanism was introduced as a strategy to tackle land-use changes and reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. Under this scheme, project proponents receive payments through a carbon market for emissions avoided. Despite some studies indicating benefits for forest conservation, there have been criticisms concerning the real impacts of this implementation. This study aims to contribute to the discussion about the impact of certified REDD+ in reducing deforestation in the world’s largest tropical rainforest. We analyzed the occurrence of deforestation in 83 REDD+ projects registered in the Verified Carbon Standard database between 2008 and 2023. Using PRODES data and Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques, we compared deforestation trends within REDD+ project areas to those of the entire Amazon biome and their respective states. In addition, MapBiomas LULC data were used to analyze subsequent land use changes in 1 and 4-year deforested areas. Results revealed that Brazil's accumulated deforestation rate across the entire Amazon biome was approximately 2.94% from 2008 to 2023, while in the REDD+ Projects, the rate was three times lower (∼0.94%). In 2023, deforestation rates in REDD+ project areas surpassed the biome-wide average with a 0.21% average, which is about 13% higher than that of the Amazon biome (0.19%). This raises concerns about the effectiveness of REDD+ projects in achieving their primary goal of reducing deforestation. Policy shifts, economic pressures, and illegal activities may disproportionately affect REDD+ areas. Land use change analysis shows that more than 90% of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is primarily driven by the increase of pasture, emphasizing the need for integrated policies that enhance enforcement and consider broader socioecological dynamics.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.