By Kwami Kpondzo – Extractive Industries, Tourism and Infrastructure Campaign Coordinator at Global Forest Coalition.
Time is running out, yet countries continue to pursue solutions that ultimately fuel the climate crisis by allowing polluters to carry on with business as usual. These so-called solutions include, among others, REDD+ and carbon markets.
The three-day REDD+ Global Summit held in Nairobi from 19 to 21 May 2026 made it clear that REDD+ initiatives are primarily projects that facilitate the financialisation of nature. Countries are seeking opportunities to generate funding rather than addressing the root causes of the climate crisis.
The gathering in Nairobi gave more fuel to countries to get involved in REDD+ projects. For some countries present at the summit, such as Togo, Senegal, and Mali, they were trying to better understand the process in order to get involved. Countries want to get involved in REDD+ projects for benefit purposes only. This means multiplying danger for Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and women and youth who are the real guardians of forests.
From the presentations, mainly from the World Bank, VERRA, EMERGENT and Conservation International, it seemed clear that their approach was to draw countries’ attention to the benefits they will gain from REDD+ rather than putting emphasis on the social and environmental safeguards mechanisms under the Warsaw framework. The traditional and local knowledge were not at the centre of the discussion, even though it is a crucial issue in REDD+ projects.
The Warsaw Framework for REDD+, adopted at COP19 in 2013 and expanded at COP21 in 2015, includes measures on social and environmental safeguards. Decision 15/CP.19 addresses the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, while Decision 17/CP.21 provides further guidance on ensuring transparency, consistency, comprehensiveness, and effectiveness in reporting how all safeguards referenced in Decision 1/CP.16, Appendix I, are being addressed and respected. REDD+ is now firmly embedded in Article 5.2 of the UNFCCC Paris Agreement.
Environmental integrity is at the heart of the Warsaw Framework and is composed of three key concepts: Transparency, which requires countries to publish monitoring data such as satellite images and inventories; Verification, which involves monitoring compliance with social and environmental safeguards—including the rights of local communities, Indigenous peoples, and biodiversity—and obliges countries to involve an independent body to confirm the amount of CO₂ avoided; and Adjustments, which require the host country to record emission reductions in its registry and authorize a portion to be transferred as carbon credits to another country or company, while avoiding double counting. If adjustment measures are respected, carbon credits can then be used under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement or in voluntary markets.
This REDD+ summit was held to lend credibility to the REDD+ process and to provide opportunities for organisations such as VERRA, Conservation International, EMERGENT, etc. to share information on the tools that support the smooth running of the REDD+ process. These organisations are mainly into the voluntary Carbon Market, which operates outside the UNFCCC compliance framework”, said Kwami Kpondzo – Extractive Industries, Tourism and Infrastructure Campaign Coordinator at Global Forest Coalition.
Before the adoption of the Warsaw Framework and its additions, several REDD+ projects were implemented in different regions, and their assessments revealed similar negative consequences. The Mai Ndombe REDD+ project, which began in 2011, was carried out by two North American companies—Environmental Restoration Associates (ERA) and Wildlife Works Carbon (WWC). These projects resulted in the misappropriation of funds intended for REDD+ activities on the ground, preventing the equitable sharing of benefits. Project managers did not obtain free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) from communities before establishing the programme. Communities were not adequately informed about REDD+, and the project failed to consider customary land rights, preventing communities from claiming their rights to carbon. It also failed to honor commitments made in various protocols signed between project promoters and the communities involved.
The Guaraqueçaba Climate Action Project is a forest conservation initiative covering nearly 19,000 hectares in Paraná, Brazil. Launched in 2001 by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and SPVS, it is one of the world’s first carbon offset projects funded by major US companies—American Electric Power, Chevron, and General Motors—all historically among the largest greenhouse gas emitters. The project led to loss of livelihoods and forced displacement, as well as the erosion of traditional knowledge and connection to the land. It also resulted in increased militarization and police presence, with local and Indigenous communities facing restrictions on their traditional ways of life.
The implementation of REDD+ projects following the Warsaw Framework has resulted in the same negative impacts as earlier initiatives.
A 2018 review by the Centre for International Forestry Research found that REDD+ had failed to deliver tangible results on biodiversity conservation or on supporting the livelihoods and sustainable development of forest-dependent communities. The review noted that the real drivers of forest loss were often overlooked by powerful actors involved in REDD+ policies and projects. There was a lack of clarity about who benefited from REDD+ and the extent of those benefits, and there was limited meaningful participation for rights-holders in REDD+ projects. Too often, local needs were ignored, and the right to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent for Indigenous Peoples—as well as tenure and forest governance rights in general—were seldom properly respected. Furthermore, most REDD+ strategies were found to be gender-blind and insufficiently addressed the specific rights, roles, needs, and aspirations of women.
The concept and operationalisation of REDD+ remain unclear. As a result, the implementation of REDD+ projects often appears designed to confuse Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and even the countries where these projects take place.
The first UNFCCC REDD+ summit held in Nairobi in May 2026 highlighted diminishing possibilities for accessing funding to continue forest conservation and carbon offsetting projects in the future. This raises an important question: Why invest existing funds in projects that fail to solve the climate crisis, destroy the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities, and distract countries from taking real climate action?
Instead of halting deforestation and forest degradation, REDD+ has commodified forests and forest life as carbon, rather than recognising their intrinsic value. These projects even count monoculture tree plantations as forests, misleadingly presenting reduced deforestation figures while ignoring the destruction of primary forests and biodiversity. In reality, monoculture plantations are harmful, are not true forests, and do not store carbon as primary forests do. Where do the carbon credits to be sequestered, sold, and turned into profit actually come from?
It is clear that polluters want to continue emitting CO₂, which is why they support REDD+ processes and carbon trading schemes. Is REDD+ truly a solution to climate change? We are losing forests at an alarming rate despite the proliferation of REDD+ projects. Now is the time to consider alternative approaches.
