Strong rhetoric on social benefits of REDD+ projects Vs. Documents rarely refer to payments and revenue sharing from the sale of carbon credits Mentions of local communities as a potential beneficiary of carbon credit revenue was identified in 60 of 366 projects Cannot assume carbon trading benefits local communities Lack of data to confirm local benefits, payment or otherwise Certification increase mentions, but what is the mechanism to verify with the beneficiary? What if local communities participate in MRV of social benefits? The need for proper engagement, promote equitable benefit sharing and monitoring and evaluation Public data in ID-RECCO essential for tracking mentions/plans www.reddprojectsdatabase.org

1. Stibniati Atmadja (s.atmadja@cgiar.org), Mella Komalasari, Lia Sartika, Pham Thu Thuy
12 November 2022, Global Landscape Forum - Climate 2022
Session: Knowledge for action to protect tropical forests and enhance rights
Hybrid event alongside COP 27
Toward equitable distribution of REDD+
finance

2. How do communities benefit from REDD+ projects?
• How do REDD+ projects say they will benefit local
communities?
• Payments? Share of carbon credit revenue?
• Other benefits are mentioned (e.g., infrastructure,
employment) but not discussed here due to time
constraints
• Data from ID-RECCO v.4.3 (2020). Version 5.0 will be
released 2023
• Content analysis of public project documents
• www.reddprojectsdatabase.org

3. REDD+ projects – Overview
Mostly private
buyers
In the energy and
finance sectors
From the Switzerland, USA, Germany,
Netherlands, France
MISSING DATA on buyers and prices
Global voluntary carbon markets
≈143 million tCO2e (≈USD 0.95 billion*) traded by 162 projects until Sep 2020, registered on Verra, Gold
Standard, Plan Vivo, Mata Viva, CDM. Figures do not include jurisdictional programs.
* Source: ID-RECCO v.4.1 dataset, analyzed by S.Atmadja.
Missing price data replaced with USD 10/tCO2eq
Private
38.6%
No
Data
57.8%
Public
private
1.9%
Public
1.6%
Other
0.1%
Energy
25.8%
No Data
58.2%
Finance
3.5%
Leisure/
Entertain't
2.8%
Other
9.6%
% of total ≈ USD 0.95 billion*
No Data
61%
Switzerland
15%
USA
6%
Germany
3%
Netherland
s
3%
France
3%
39 others
9%

4. Mentions of payments to communities
N=366 ongoing projects by 2020
Majority: mentions of payment to
communities living in the project area not
identified
Of those that mentioned, the most common are conditional cash
payment (e.g., performance-based, carbon credits) and non-
conditional
Source: ID-RECCO, v4.1 with updates
Note: One project may mention multiple kinds of payments
Were mentions of payments to
communities identified in the project
document?

5. Certification effect
Among certified projects, more likely that mention of payments to local communities
was identified
How are payments verified on the ground? Other variables (e.g., year established,
country, AD/AR project) may also affect this.
Source: ID-RECCO, v4.1
with updates
Were mentions of payments to communities identified in the project document?

6. Geographical distribution of REDD+ projects and carbon credit sales
Tropics
Source: DeSy, based ongoing REDD+ projects in ID-RECCO database, location from ID-RECCO
and various sources, and underlying map of net forest GHG flux (tCO2e/ha) between 2001
and 2019 from Harris et al., 2021, includes 324 ongoing projects with location data
Brazil
27%
Colombia
22%
Indonesia
9%
Kenya
8%
Zimbabwe
8%
Peru
6%
DRC
4%
Uganda
3%
35 others
13%
REDD+ projects
% of total carbon credits in
VCM ≈ USD 0.95 billion*
Source: ID-RECCO
Source: ID-RECCO, v4.1
with updates

7. Sharing carbon credit revenues with communities
• 60 of 150 projects mentioning communities will
receive payments mention sharing carbon
sales revenue – Median share: 60% (n=24)
10%
20%
30%
50%
60%
70%
100%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
#
Projects
Share of carbon revenues for
communities (N=24)
Mentions not more likely identified among
certified projects
Source: ID-RECCO, v4.1
with updates
Was mention of sharing carbon credit
revenue with communities identified in
the project document?

8. Who are mentioned as recipients of revenues from carbon credits?
Mostly landholders/farmers, and communities
 May vary greatly by country, due to legal rights
over forest and carbon
Note: One project may mention multiple recipients
Source: ID-RECCO, v4.1
with updates

9. How ‘big’ is the community’s (mentioned) share?
Communities are mentioned as
recipient of carbon credits in:
• 22% of projects
• Covering 6% total REDD+ areas
• Trading 16% of traded carbon
credits
Note: Only carbon credits traded on known registries (e.g.,
Verra, Markit (Plan Vivo), Gold Standard) are included.
Source: ID-RECCO, v4.1
with updates

10. Key messages
• Strong rhetoric on social benefits of REDD+ projects Vs. Documents rarely refer to payments
and revenue sharing from sale of carbon credits
• Mentions of local communities as potential beneficiary of carbon credit revenue was identified
in 60 of 366 projects
• Cannot assume carbon trading benefits local communities
• Lack of data to confirm local benefits, payment or otherwise
• Certification increase mentions, but what is the mechanism to verify with beneficiary?
• What if local communities participate in MRV of social benefits?
• The need for proper engagement, promote equitable benefit sharing and monitoring and
evaluation
• Public data in ID-RECCO essential for tracking mentions/plans
www.reddprojectsdatabase.org

11. Thank you
foreststreesagroforestry.org | globallandscapesforum.org | resilientlandscapes.org
cifor.org | worldagroforestry.org
The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and World Agroforestry (ICRAF) envision a more equitable world where forestry
and landscapes enhance the environment and well-being for all. CIFOR-ICRAF are CGIAR Research Centers.

12. • This research is part of CIFOR’s Global Comparative Study on REDD+ (www.cifor.org/gcs) with funding
support from the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad), Norway’s International Climate
and Forest Initiative (NICFI), and the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry (CRP-
FTA), with financial support from the donors contributing to the CGIAR Fund.
Acknowledgments
• Atmadja, S.; Selviana, V.; Komalasari, M., 2021, "Replication Data for: International dataset on REDD+
projects 2020 with supplementary data on carbon accounting", Center for International Forestry Research
(CIFOR), V1. https://doi.org/10.17528/CIFOR/DATA.00272.
• Harris, N.L., Gibbs, D.A., Baccini, A., Birdsey, R.A., De Bruin, S., Farina, M., Fatoyinbo, L., Hansen, M.C.,
Herold, M., Houghton, R.A. and Potapov, P.V., 2021. Global maps of twenty-first century forest carbon
fluxes. Nature Climate Change, 11(3), pp.234-240. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00976-6
• ID-RECCO V.4.1 dataset: Simonet G., Atmadja, S., Agrawal A., Bénédet F., Cromberg M., de Perthuis C.,
Haggard D., Jansen N., Karsenty A., Liang W., Morel, A., Newton P., Sales A-M, Satwika, A., Schaap B.,
Seyller C., Selviana, V., Vaillant G., (2020) ID-RECCO, International Database on REDD+ projects and
programs: Linking Economics, Carbon and Communities. version 4.1
https://www.reddprojectsdatabase.org
References