Modest Gains, Major Lessons: What a Global Review Reveals about REDD+’s Impact

Redacción HC
24/09/2025

Efforts to curb deforestation and forest degradation through performance-based payments—known as REDD+ initiatives—have long been promoted as a cost-effective tool to fight climate change. Fifteen years after their global launch, the big question remains: have these projects delivered meaningful and lasting benefits for forests and local communities?

Understanding the REDD+ Promise

REDD+—short for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation—was designed to reward countries and communities financially for preserving forests. By preventing deforestation, these programs aim to keep massive amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere, while also supporting sustainable livelihoods for local populations.

The concept attracted broad international support from climate funds, donor governments and carbon markets. Yet after more than a decade, questions about its effectiveness persist. Are the financial incentives strong enough? Are the benefits reaching the people on the ground?

Rigorous Global Review of Evidence

The new study, led by Sven Wunder and colleagues, applied a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate REDD+ impacts worldwide. Using a combination of Web of Knowledge searches and machine-learning tools, the team sifted through hundreds of empirical studies and selected 32 that provided robust, quantitative estimates.

These studies offered 26 measurable forest-related outcomes and 12 socio-economic outcomes. To synthesize such diverse data, the researchers employed a correlated hierarchical effects model—a type of random-effects meta-analysis that accounts for correlations among effect sizes. They also tested moderators such as intervention type, geographic region and scale (local projects versus jurisdictional programs).

The authors acknowledge some limitations: spatial selection bias (many projects are located in low-threat areas), inconsistent outcome variables across studies, and gaps in coverage in parts of Asia and Africa.

Forest Protection: Real but Limited

On average, REDD+ programs showed a small but statistically significant impact on forest conservation. The mean effect size was 0.08 (95% confidence interval: 0.04–0.11), indicating modest improvements in forest cover relative to what would have occurred without REDD+.

However, results vary widely. Some large-scale jurisdictional programs, such as national agreements in Guyana and initiatives backed by Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative (NICFI) in Indonesia and the Brazilian Amazon, achieved noticeable reductions in deforestation. Yet many projects showed only minor gains.

Notably, evidence of REDD+ reducing forest degradation or directly increasing carbon stocks is weaker, partly because most evaluations measure only forest cover—a simpler but less precise indicator of carbon benefits.

Temporary Impacts Raise Long-Term Concerns

The study warns that many REDD+ benefits fade once interventions end. In numerous cases, deforestation rates rebounded to pre-intervention levels when funding or monitoring ceased. This raises critical concerns about the durability of climate benefits if continuous financing and governance mechanisms are not secured.

To ensure permanence, the authors argue, REDD+ must be paired with stable long-term funding and stronger institutions capable of maintaining oversight beyond project lifespans.

Human Welfare: Neutral to Slightly Positive

REDD+ was also designed to improve local livelihoods by providing financial incentives and alternative economic opportunities. The meta-analysis found neutral to mildly positive effects on material welfare indicators such as income, consumption and household assets.

However, subjective well-being—people’s self-reported satisfaction—showed no significant change. Limited carbon-market funding and weak enforcement of conditional payments likely constrained the scale of socio-economic benefits.

When compared to other conservation approaches, REDD+ performed similarly in magnitude but did not clearly outperform established tools such as protected areas or community forest management.

Policy Lessons for Scaling Up

For policymakers and donors, these findings are both sobering and instructive. The authors highlight four key lessons to enhance REDD+ effectiveness:

1. Avoid low-threat areas. Concentrating efforts where deforestation risk is minimal reduces additional climate benefits.
2. Mobilize more stable financing. Reliance on limited donor funds or volatile carbon markets threatens long-term sustainability.
3. Strengthen conditionality and verification. Payments must be strictly tied to measurable, additional results.
4. Integrate with local governance and livelihoods. Combining REDD+ with community-based monitoring and economic alternatives can improve both environmental and social outcomes.

These insights are particularly relevant as many countries shift from small, fragmented projects to jurisdictional approaches, which cover entire states or provinces. Early results from such large-scale strategies are promising but still require stronger financial and institutional support.

Rights and Equity Remain Central

The authors caution that REDD+ must also address equity and indigenous rights. Evidence of inclusive governance is mixed, and long-standing concerns about participation and land tenure remain. Ensuring that indigenous peoples and local communities share decision-making power and benefits is essential for both legitimacy and long-term success.

A Path Forward

REDD+ has shown that paying for forest protection can work, but its climate and social benefits remain modest without deeper reforms. Strengthening financial commitments, governance, and safeguards for local rights could transform REDD+ from a promising experiment into a powerful global climate strategy.

For governments, donors, and conservationists, the message is clear: to unlock REDD+’s full potential, ambition and accountability must rise together.

Topics of interest