REDD+ initiative within the framework of the climate change regime and its role in protecting forests and reducing greenhouse gases

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Ph.D. Student in International Law, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh Branch, Maragheh, Iran

2 Associate Prof., Nuclear Science and Technology Research Institute (NSTRI), Tehran, Iran. E-mail: srezaei@aeoi.org.ir

3 Associate Prof., Department of Law, Shahid Madani University of Azerbaijan, Tabriz, Iran

10.22092/ijfrpr.2025.369764.1677

Abstract

Background and Objective: Forests absorb considerable amounts of excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through the process of photosynthesis and, by carbon sequestration, play a key role in mitigating climate change, reducing global warming, and improving air quality. However, when degraded or mismanaged, they themselves turn into a source of greenhouse gas emissions. For this reason, in the decisions and outcome documents of the Conferences of the Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, from COP 11 in Montreal (2005) to COP 29 in Baku (2024), the mechanism of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) has been emphasized as an initiative for forest protection and greenhouse gas reduction. Examining the role of this initiative in forest conservation and greenhouse gas mitigation is the main purpose of the present study. Accordingly, the central question is: what role does REDD+ play within the framework of the climate change regime in conserving forests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions? This research is based on the hypothesis that REDD+ is an incentive-based mechanism founded on the principle of payment for ecosystem services, where developing countries refrain from deforestation in return for financial support from developed countries. In this regard, developed countries, unwilling for developing nations to repeat their past forest-dependent development path, agree to compensate them for this “missed opportunity.”
Methodology: This study employs a descriptive–analytical approach, relying on international legal documents including climate treaties, COP decisions, and international case law to examine the nature, status, importance, financing methods, criteria, requirements, and procedures for implementing the REDD+ mechanism. The methodological framework combines legal dogmatism (description of the existing legal system) with the systemic method (criticism of adequacy, utility, and effectiveness of the current rules). Although field research plays a limited role in this approach, the use of legal analysis and interpretation makes it possible to identify a desired legal system. Moreover, a secondary analysis has been applied at the national level to assess the prospects and challenges of implementing REDD+ in Iran for forest protection.
Results: Ensuring the sustainability of environmental projects and achieving effective outcomes requires the formulation of laws, executive procedures, and enforcement guarantees. The criteria, requirements, and procedures for REDD+ have been gradually developed through COP decisions under the Framework Convention. While REDD+ enjoys significant normative support, the findings reveal that international climate documents merely emphasize the need for safeguards and delegate the monitoring of their observance to national strategies. Given that safeguards—such as protection of indigenous peoples’ rights—are critical to the success of REDD+, it is essential that international documents clearly define mechanisms for compliance and monitoring.
Conclusion: The results show that REDD+ has undergone conceptual, functional, and goal-oriented transformations within the climate change regime. It has evolved from a single-dimensional management mechanism (decarbonization) into a multi-dimensional tool for achieving a broad range of sustainable development goals, including greenhouse gas mitigation, climate change adaptation, biodiversity conservation, sustainable forest use and management, respect for indigenous rights, environmental participation, improved local livelihoods, and food security. Despite these advantages, REDD+ implementation faces challenges, notably its state-centered approach. International instruments consider governments as the primary executive and supervisory bodies, but limited state capacities often hinder prioritization of the initiative. The findings further demonstrate that Iran, despite possessing significant capacities in defining, designing, registering, validating, monitoring, and approving related projects, holds no prominent position among countries in terms of REDD+ implementation. The projects carried out in Iran so far have been pilot studies and modeling exercises designed to evaluate and analyze various scenarios for forest protection, pollution reduction, and climate change mitigation.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  • Abdenur, A. E., 2022. The Glasgow Leaders' Declaration on Forests: Déja Vu or Solid Restart?. New York: United Nations University,
  • Adnan, A., Liu, Q.J., Nizami, S.M, Mannan, A. and Saeed, S., 2018. Carbon emission from deforest ation, forest degradation and wood harvest in the temperate region of Hindukush Himalaya, Pakistan between 1994 and 2016. Land Use Policy, 78 (1): 781-790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.009
  • Agrawal, A., Nepstad, D. and Chhatre, A., 2011. Reducing emissions from deforest ation and forest degradation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36(1): 373-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-042009-094508
  • Albers Heidi, J., Robinson Elizabeth, J.Z. and Rushlow, J., 2025. Economics of reducing emissions from deforest ation and forest degradation (REDD+). Encyclopedia of Energy, 2(1): 48-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91013-2.00028-9
  • Anaya, S. J., 2004. Indigenous Peoples in International Law. (2d ed.), Oxford University Press; 2nd Edition, 267p.
  • Andrews, J., and Mulder, M.B., 2024. The value of failure: the effect of an expired REDD+ conservation program on residents’ willingness for future participation. Ecological Economics, 220(2):1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108155.
  • Angelsen, A., 2009. Realising Redd+: National strategy and policy options paperback- January 1. Center for International Forest ry Research, 362p. ttps://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/002871
  • Antkowiak Thomas, M., 2014. Rights, Resources, and Rhetoric: Indigenous Peoples and the Inter-American Court.University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 35(1): 187-113.
  • Aquino, , and Bruno Guay, B., 2013. Implementing REDD + in the Democratic Republic of Congo: an analysis of the emerging national REDD + governance structure. Forest Policy and Economics, 36(1): 71-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/.forpol.2013.04.003
  • Arekhi, S., Kour, H. A. and Emadaddian, S. 2025. Modeling and forecasting the risk of forest degradation on the emitting amount of carbon dioxide gas using the REDD model (Case study: Cities of Chalus and Nowshahr). Journal of Spatial Analysis Environmental Hazards, 12(46): 795 (In Persian).
  • Asner, G.P., Broadbent, E.N., Oliveira, P.J.C., Keller, M., Knapp, D.E. and Silva, J.N.M., 2006. Condition and fate of logged forest s in the Brazilian Amazon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 103(1): 12947-12950.
  • Atela, J.O., Quinn, C.H., and Minang, P.A., 2014. Are REDD projects pro-poor in their spatial targeting? Evidence from Kenya. Applied Geography, 52(1):14-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.04.009
  • Atmadja, S.S., Arwida, S., Martius C., and Pham, T.T., 2018. Financing REDD+: A transaction among equals, or an uneven playing field?. In: Angelsen, A., Martius, C., De Sy, V. and Duchelle, AE. (Eds.). Larson AM and Pham TT, Transforming REDD+: Lessons and new directions. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR, p. 29-39. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac5669
  • Atmadja, S.S., Amy E Duchelle, A.E., De Sy, V., Selviana, V., Komalasari,, Sills E.O. and Angelsen, A., 2022. How do REDD+ projects contribute to the goals of the Paris agreement?. Environmental Research Letters, 17(1): 1-17. https://doi.org/10.14207/ejsd.2020.v9n2p224
  • Bamwesigye, D., Doli, A. and Hlavackova, P., 2020. REDD+: An analysis of initiatives in East Africa amidst increasing deforestation, European Journal of Sustainable Development, 9(2): 224-23.
  • Barlow, J., Gardner, T.A., Araujo, I.S., Avila-Pires, T.C., Bonaldo, A.B., Costa, J.E., Esposito, M.C., Ferreira, L.V., Hawes, J., Hernandez, M.M., Hoogmoed, M.S. and Leite, R.N., 2007. Quantifying the biodiversity value of Tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(1): 18555-18560. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.070333310
  • Bodansky, D., Brunnée, J. and Rajamani, L., 2017. International Climate Change Law Get Access Arrow. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 400p.
  • Blom, B., Sunderland, T., and Murdiyarso, D., 2010. Getting REDD to work locally: Lessons learned from integrated conservation and development projects. Environmental Science and Policy, 13(2): 164-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.01.002
  • Bluffstone, R., Robinson, E. and Guthiga, P., 2013. REDD+and community-controlled forests in low-income countries: Any hope for a linkageauthor links open overlay panel. Ecological Economics, 87(1): 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.00
  • CBD, 1992. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Adopted 5 June 1992, in force 29 December 1993. Definitions. https://www.cbd.int/forest/definitions.shtml.
  • CC and DA, 2023. National REDD+ Development Guidelines. Published by the Climate Change and Development Authority. BOROKO, National Capital District, Climate Change and Development Authority, Papua New Guinea, 82p.
  • Costenbader, J., 2009. Legal Frameworks for REDD, IUCN Environmental Policy and Law, Paper No. 77, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland in Collaboration with the IUCN Environmental Law Centre, Bonn, Germany, 214p.
  • De Sassi, C., Joseph, S., Bos, A. B., Duchelle, A.E., Ravikumar, A. and Herold, M., 2015. Towards integrated monitoring of +REDD. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14(1): 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.04.003
  • Delabre, I., Boyd, E. and Brockhaus, M., 2020. Unearthing the myths of global sustainable forest governance, glob. Sustain, 3(1): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.11.
  • Department of Environment of Iran, 2017. Iran. National Communication (NC). NC 3, Department of Environment, National Climate Change Office, No. 152, Environmental Research Center, Pardisan Eco-park, Hakim Expressway, Tehran, Iran (In Persian).
  • Dumenu, W.K., Derkyi, M., Samar, S., Oduro, K.A., Mensah, J.K., Pentsil, S., Nutakor, E., Foli, E.G and Obeng, E.A., 2014. Benefit Sharing Mechanism for REDD+ implementation in Ghana. Consultancy Report. Forestry Commission, Accra, Ghana.
  • Dutschke, M., 2013. Key Issues In REDD+ Verification: Study Commissioned by CIFOR. Center for International Forestry Research All rights reserved Occasional Paper 88, CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.
  • Ebrahimnia, V., Rasouli, M. and Zandieh, S. 2009. Land Use Allocation Methods and Models. Armanshahr Architecture and Urban Development, 2(2): 9-22 (In Persian).
  • Eckert, S., Ratsimba, H.R., Rakotondrasoa, L.O., Rajoelison, L.G. and Ehrensperger, A., 2011. Deforestation and forest degradation monitoring and assessment of biomass and carbon stock of lowland rainforest in the analanjirofo region madagascar. Forest Ecology and Management, 262(11): 1996-2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2011.08.041
  • Eliasch J., 2008. Climate Change: Financing Global Forests: The Eliasch Review, UK Government of Fice of Climate Change, London, 250p.
  • Eteat, J., and Valizadeh, B., 1403. The role and function of the government in the field of environment, Case study: Forest resources in Iran. Modern Research in Geographical Policy, 1(1): 45-28 (In Persian).
  • FAO, 1948. Forest Resources of the World. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/x5345e/x5345e03.htm#some%20definitions.
  • FAO, 2022. The State of the World’s Forest s 2022. Forest Pathways for Green Recovery and Building Inclusive, Resilient and Sustainable Economies. Rome, FAO, 45p.
  • FAO, 2024. The State of the World’s Forest s 2024, Forest -Sector Innovations Towards a More Sustainable Future, 122 p.
  • FCPF, 2008. Report of the Indigenous Peoples’ Global Dialogue with the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility, Report Writer: Mara Stankowitch, Report No.PIDC16663, Prepared by TEBTEBBA, Doha, Qatar.78p.
  • GDFLU, 2021. Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land Use, United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 26), Fact Sheet, The Group of Eight (G8) Industrialized Nations, Published by United Kingdom. https://www.germanwatch.org.
  • Geist, H. and Lambin, E., 2002. Proximate Causes and Underlying Driving Forces of Tropical deforestation. BioScience 52: 143-150. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568
  • Gibbs, H.K., Brown, J.O. Niles. and Foley, J.A., 2007. Monitoring and estimating tropical forest Carbon stocks: Making REDD a Reality. Environmental Research Letters, 2(4): 45023.
  • Godoy, F.L.O. and Rojas, E.H.M., 2013. Modeling Deforestation to REDD+ project: Case Study in Alto Mayo protected Forest, San Martin region, Peru. Proceeding of Simposio Brasileiro De Sensoriamento Remoto, Foz Do Iguacu, 1(1): 7233-7240.
  • Gordeeva, Y.M., 2021. Evolution of the international forest regulation. Kutafin Law Review, 8(2): 156-198. https://doi.org/10.17803/2313-5395
  • Grima, N., Singh, S.J., Smetschka, B., and Ringhofer, L., 2016. Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Latin America: Analysing the performance of 40 case studies. Ecosystem Services, 17(1): 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.010
  • Gueiros, C., Jodoin, S. and McDermott, C.L., 2023. Jurisdictional approaches to reducing emissions from deforest ation and forest degradation in brazil: why do states adopt jurisdictional policies?. Land Use Policy, 127(1): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106582
  • Hoando, T. and Noordwijk, M.V., 2023. Accelerating subnational deforest ation and forest degradation reduction efforts (REDD+): Need for recognition of instrumental and relational value interactions author links open overlay panel. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 64(2): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101330
  • Hodgson, P.E., 2017. Energy, Environment and Climate Change, Publisher, World Scientific, 2010. ISBN, 1848164173, 9781848164178. Length, 224 p.
  • Hosseini, S.T., Jahani Shakib, F. and Asadollahi, Z., 2013. A Review of the effects of REDD project policies on reducing forest degradation in Iran and the world. Fourth International Conference and Seventh National Conference on Protection of Natural Resources and Environment along with the Fifth National Conference on Forests of Iran, Ardabil, https://civilica.com/doc/1956732.
  • HRC, 2013. Report of the Independent Expert on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Relating to The Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment, John H. Knox, A/HRC/25/53, 27p.
  • HRC, 2016. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Issue of Human Rights Obligations Relating to The Enjoyment of a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment, A/HRC/31/52, 22p.
  • IACtHR, 2005a. Moiwana Community v. Suriname, Judgment of 15 June, IACtHR Series C, No. 124, 2, para.3.
  • IACtHR, 2005b. Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Judgment of 17 June 2005.IACtHR Series C, No. 125.
  • IACtHR, 2006. Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Judgment of 29 March, Series C,146.
  • IPCC, 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning,, Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M. and Miller, H.L. (Eds.). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 467p.
  • IPCC, 2019. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land management, Food security, and Greenhouse gas fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems. In: Shukla, P.R. Skea, J. Calvo Buendia, E. Masson-Delmotte, V. Pörtner, H.O. Roberts, D. C. Zhai, P. Slade, R. Connors, S. van Diemen, R. Ferrat, M. Haughey, E. Luz, S. Neogi, S. Pathak, M. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, J. Vyas, P. Huntley, E. Kissick, K. Belkacemi, M. Malley, J. (Eds.). In press, 858p.
  • Kamanga, P., Vedeld, P. and Sjaastad, E., 2009. Forest incomes and rural livelihoods in Chiradzulu district, Malawi. Ecological Economics, 68(3): 613-624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.018.
  • Kamelarczyk, K.B.F. and Smith-Hall, C., 2014. REDD Herring: Epistemic community control of the production, circulation and application of deforestation knowledge in Zambia. Forest Policy and Economics, 46(1): 19-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.05.006
  • Kamyab, H.R. and Asadollahi, Z., 2020. Modeling and sensitivity analysis of REDD project in aiming at reducing carbon dioxide emissions (Case study: Hyrcanian forests of Golestan province). Natural Environment Journal, 74(1): 111-124 (In Persian).
  • Kanowski, P.J., McDermott C.L. and Cashore., B.W., 2011. Environmental science & policy implementing REDD+: lessons from analysis of forest governance. Environmental Science and Policy, 14(2): 111-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.007
  • Karanth, K.K. and DeFries, R., 2010. Conservation and management in human-dominated landscapes: Case studies from India. Biological Conservation, 143(12): 2865-2869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.002
  • Karousakis, K., 2009. Promoting Biodiversity Co-benefits in REDD. OECD Environment Working Papers, 11. OECD Publishing, Paris.
  • Khuc, V.K., Tran, B.Q., Meyfroidt, P. and Paschke, M.W., 2018. Drivers of de forestation and forest degradation in vietnam: An exploratory analysis at the national level. Forest Policy and Economics, 90(1): 128-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.02.004.
  • Kibii, C.J., 2022. Significance of REDD+ in Africa: Challenges and probable solutions. STG Policy Papers, Policy Brief, 20(1): 1-10. https://doi.org/10.2870/465572
  • Kishwan, J., 2023. REDD+ and its implementation in the Himalayan region: Policy issues, vulnerability and resilience of biodiversity and forest ecosystems. Climate Change in the Himalayas, 1(1): 121-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-19415-3.00006-2
  • Kopenawa, D. and Albert, B., 2013. The Falling Sky: Words of a Yanomami Shaman. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 648p.
  • KuruKolasuriya, L. and Robinson, N., 2011. Fundamentals of International Environmental Law. Translated by Seyyed Mohammad Mehdi Hosseini, Tehran: Miran, 944p.
  • Lang, C., 2010. The Cancun Agreement on REDD: Four questions and four answers. Redd-monitor. org.
  • https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143509.
  • Larson, A.M., 2010. Forest tenure reform in the age of climate change: Lessons for REDD+. Global Environmental Change, 21(2): 540-549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.11.008
  • Laudari, H.K., Aryal, K., Bhusal, S., Maraseni, T., 2021. What lessons do the first Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) formulation process and implementation outcome provide to the enhanced/updated NDC?, A reality check from Nepal. Science of The Total Environment, 759(2): Article 143509
  • Lederer, M., 2011. From CDM to REDD+ what do we know for setting up effective and legitimate Carbon governance?. Ecological Economics, 70(11): 1900-1907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.003
  • Lenton, T.M., Held, H., Kriegler, E., Hall, J.W., Lucht, W., Rahmstorf, S. and Schellnhuber, H.J., 2008. Tipping elements in the earth’s climate system. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences, 105(6): 1786-1793. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705414105
  • Lewis, S.L., Wheeler, C.E., Mitchard, E.T.A. and Koch, A., 2019. Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric Carbon. Nature, 568(1): 25-28. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01026-8
  • Lindhjem, H., Bråten K.G., Gleinsvik A. and Aronsen, I., 2009. Experiences with Benefit Sharing: Issues and Options For REDD-plus, Preliminary Version For discussion, COP 15, The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Copenhagen, 114p.
  • Long, S., Roberts, E. and Dehm, J., 2010. Climate justice inside and outside the UNFCCC: The example of REDD. The Journal of Australian Political Economy, 1(66): 222-234.
  • Lord, E.J., 2025. Fragmenting forest governance: Land tenure and the REDD+ paradox in Kigoma pilot project, Tanzania. Political Geography, 116(1): 103-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2024.103234
  • Lund, J.F., Sungusia, E., Mabele, M.B. and Scheba, A., 2017. Promising change, delivering continuity: REDD+ as conservation fad. World Development, 89(2): 124-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.08.005
  • Luttrell, C., LOf, L., Gebara, M.F., Kweka, D., Brockhaus, M., Angelsen, A. and Sunderlin, W.D., 2013. Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and realities. Ecology and Society, 18(4): 52-64. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05834-180452
  • Maguire, R., 2013. Global Forest Governance, Legal Concepts and Policy Trends. ISBN: 0857936069.
  • Malik, Z.A., Pandey R. and Bhat A.B., 2016. Anthropogenic disturbances and the impact on vegetation in western Himalaya. India. Journal of Mountain Science, 13(1): 69-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11629-015-3533-7
  • Maraseni, T. N., Laudari, H. K. and Aryal, K., 2020. a postmortem of forest policy dynamics of Nepal. Land Use Policy, 91(1): Article 104338. https://doi.org/1016/j.landusepol.2019.104338
  • Massarella, K., Sallu, S.M., Ensor, J.E., & Marchant, R., 2018. REDD+, hype, hope and disappointment: The dynamics of expectations in conservation and development pilot projects. World Development, 109(1): 375-385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.006.
  • MCC, 2018. REDD+ Pakistan, Ministry of Climate Change, Government of Pakistan, National REDD+ Strategy & Implementation Framework, Ministry of Climate Change, 74p.
  • Melick, D., 2010. Credibility Of REDD+ and experiences from Papua New Guinea. Conservation Biology, 4)2): 359-361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010.01471.x
  • Miles, L. and Kapos, V., 2008. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation: Global land-use implications. Science, 320(5882): 1454-1455. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1155358.
  • Mohan, P.S., 2022. National REDD+ initiatives in caribbean sids to enhance NDC implementation. Forest Policy and Economics, 144(1): 102844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102844.
  • Morita, K., and Matsumoto, K., 2023. Challenges and lessons learned for REDD+ finance and its governance. Carbon Balance and Management, 18(8): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-023-00228-y.
  • Müller, B., 2018. How to operationalize accounting under article 6 market mechanisms of the Paris Agreement. Climate Policy, 7(1): 812-9. http://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1599803
  • Nabi Bidhendi, G., Mohammadnejad, S. and Ebadati, F., 2007. Concepts and Consequences of Climate Change with a Review of the Considerations of the Kyoto Protocol, Tehran, University of Tehran (In Persian).
  • Nagendra, H. and Ostrom, E., 2012. Polycentric governance of multifunctional forest ed landscapes. International Journal of the Commons, 6 (2): 104-133.
  • Nakhaei, S., 2019. Climate Change: Causes, Consequences, Solutions, Global Conventions, Tehran: Naghshe Mana Publications, p.3 (In Persian).
  • Narloch, U., 2014. The Potential Economic Values of the Multiple Benefits from REDD+ in Panama: A Synthesis of Existing Valuation Studies. Technical Report. Prepared on behalf of the UNREDD Programme. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK.
  • Nayak, B.P., 2013. Evolution of REDD+: From Kyoto to Doha, In: Sustainable Forest Management and REDD+ in India, The Energy and Resources Institute, TERI Press, India: New Delhi-110 003, 90p.
  • Nesar, A. and Marion G., 2016. Coastal aquaculture, mangrove deforestation and blue carbon emissions: Is REDD+a solution?. Marine Policy, 66(1): 58-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.01.011
  • Nhem, S., Jin Lee, Y. and Phin, S., 2017. Sustainable management of forest in view of media attention to REDD+ policy, opportunity and impact in Cambodia. Forest Policy and Economics, 85(1): 10-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.08.011
  • Norman, M. and Nakhooda, S., 2015. The state of REDD+ Finance, CGD Climate and Forest Paper Series, JEL Codes: F35, Q23, Q54. Working Paper, 378(5): 1-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2622743.
  • O’Connor, B., Secades, C., Penner, J., Sonnenschein, R., Skidmore, A., Burgess, N.D. and Hutton J.M., 2015. Earth observation as a tool for tracking progress towards the AICHI biodiversity targets. Remote Sensing in Ecology and Conservation, 1(1): 19-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rse2.4
  • Ostrom, E., 2010. Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3): 641-672. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.641.
  • Pagiola, S., 2008. Payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. Ecological Economics, 65(4): 712-724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.07.033
  • Panahi, M. and Kazemi Moyed, H., Jalali, S., and Eslamian, M., 2013. Implementation of the REDD program in Iran and its effect on reducing the degradation of Hyrcanian forest resources, First National Conference on Environment, Industry and Economy, Tehran (In Persian). https://civilica.com/doc/252212.
  • Parker, C., Mitchell, A., Trivedi, M. and Mardas, N., 2009. The Little REDD. Book (2ed.), Global Canopy Programme, Oxford, 145p.
  • Parkinson, P. and Wardell, A., 2010. Legal Frameworks to Support REDD Pro-Poor Outcomes. Sustainable Development Law on Climate change Legal Working Paper Series (09), Rome, Italy: International Development Law Organization (IDLO) and Montreal, Canada: the Centre for International Sustainable Development Law (CISDL).
  • Parsamehr, K., and Gholamalifard, M., 2016. Applied Introduction of Modeling of REDD Projects: A Strategy for Reduce the Impacts of Climate Change. Environmental Research, 7(13): 183-202 (In Persian).
  • Parsamehr, K., 2015. Practical introduction to modeling REDD projects: a solution to reduce the consequences of climate change, Environmental Research, 13 (7): 183-202 (In Persian).
  • Parsamehr, K.; Gholamalifard, M.; Kooch, Y., 2019. Comparing three transition potential modeling for identifying suitable sites for REDD+ projects. Spatial Information Research, 1-13 (In Persian).
  • Pelletier, J. and S. J. Goetz., 2015. Baseline data on forest loss and associated uncertainty: Advances in national forest monitoring. Environmental Research Letters, 10(2): 21001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/2/021001
  • Pisopati, B., 2015. The Future of International Environmental Law, translated by Mohammadi, Mehrdad, first edition, Tehran: Shahrdanesh,
  • Røttereng, J.K.S., 2018. When climate policy meets foreign policy: Pioneering and national interest in Norway’s mitigation strategy. Energy Research & Social Science, 39(1): 216-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.024
  • Rutt, R.L., 2012. Social Protection in REDD+ Initiatives A Review, Supporting Resilient Forest Livelihoods through Local Representation, Responsive Forest Governance Initiative (RFGI), RFGI Working Paper No.3, BP 3304 Dakar, CP 18524, Senegal.
  • Saha, S., and Gayen, A., 2018. Deforestation Probable area Predicted by Logistic Regression in Pathro River Basin: a Tributary of Ajay River, Spatial Information Research, 26(4): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41324-017-0151-1
  • Seymour, F., & Angelsen, A., 2010. Summary and conclusions: REDD wine in old wineskins? In: Angelsen, A., (Eds.). Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia, 303p.
  • Shakhashiri, B.Z. and Bell, J.A. 2014. Climate change and our responsibilities as chemists. Arabian Journal of Chemistry. 7(1): 5-9.
  • Shooshtari, S.J. and Gholamalifard, M., 2015. Scenario-based land cover change modeling and its implications for landscape pattern analysis in the Neka watershed, Iran. Remote Sensing Applications: Society and Environment, 1(1): 1-19 (In Persian).
  • Skutsch, M.M. and McCall, M.K., 2010. Reassessing REDD: Governance, markets and the hype cycle. Clim Change, 100(4): 395-375.
  • Somerville, S. and Albers, H.J., 2019. The Economics of REDD Through an incidence of burdens and benefits lens. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 13(1-2): 165-202.
  • Strassburg, B.B.N., Kelly, A., Balmford, A., Davies, R.G., Gibbs, H.K., Lovett A., Miles, L., Orme, C.D.L, Price, J., Turner, R.K. and Rodrigues, A.S.L., 2010. Global congruence of Carbon storage and biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems. Conservation Letters, 3(1): 98-105.
  • Sunderlin, W.D., Atmadja, S.S. and Chervier C., 2024. Can REDD+ succeed? Occurrence and influence of various combinations of interventions in subnational initiatives. Global Environmental Change, 84(1): 102-777.
  • Sunderlin, W.D., de Sassi, C., Sills, E.O., Duchelle, A.E., Larson, A.M., Resosudarmo, I.A.P., Awono, A., Kweka, D.L. and Huynh, T.B., 2018. Creating an appropriate tenure foundation for REDD+: The record to date and prospects for the future. World Development, 106 (1): 376-392.
  • Tacconi, L. and Williams, D.A., 2020. Corruption and anti-corruption in environmental and resource management annual. Review of Environment and Resources, 45(2): 305-329.
  • Topical Forest Group, 2023. REDD+ and The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): Justification and Recommendations for a New REDD+ Mechanism. Tropical Forest Group submission to UNFCCC on the Cancun Agreements, Viewable at: http://tropicalforestgroup.org/pdf/UNFCCCREDD2023.pdf.
  • Travis, W.R., 2013. Design of a severe climate change early warning system. Weather and Climate Extremes, 2(1): 31-38.
  • Ty, S., Sasaki, N., Ahmad, A.H., & Zainal, A. Z., 2011. REDD Development in Cambodia-potential Carbon emission reductions in a REDD project. FORMATH Research Society, 10: 1-23.
  • Ullah, S., Wu, Y. and Khan, A.I., 2023. Evaluating the socio-economic factors on deforest ation in nor the rn Pakistan: a study on existing economic incentive tools for reducing deforest ation. Sustainability, 15(7): 1-22.
  • UNFCCCa, 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, FCCC/INFORMAL/84. GE.05-62220 (E) 200705.25p.
  • UNFCC, 2007. Bali Action Plan, Report of the Conference of The Parties on its Thirteenth Session, held in Bali FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1, Decision 1/CP.13, 33p.
  • UNFCCC, 2003. Modalities and Procedures for Afforest Ation and ReForest Ation Project Activities Under the Clean Development Mechanism in The First Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol, FCCC/CP/2003/6/Add.2, Decision 19/CP.9.40p.
  • UNFCCC, 2008. Reducing Emissions from Deforest Ation in Developing Countries: Approaches to Stimulate Action, FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1, 2/CP.13, 33p.
  • UNFCCC, 2009a. Copenhagen Accord, Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Fifteenth Session, Held in Copenhagen FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1, 2/CP.15, 21p.
  • UNFCCC, 2009b. Ideas and Proposals on The Elements Contained in para. 1 of the Bali Action Plan: Submissions From Parties: Addendum: Corrigendum,FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/MISC.1/Add.4/Corr.1, 33p.UNFCCC, 2013. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its Nineteenth Session, held in Warsaw from 11 to 23 November 2013, FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add.1.
  • UNFCCC, 2014. Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Nineteenth Session, Held in Warsaw from 11 to 23 November 2013. Addendum. Part two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at its Nineteenth Session, FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add.1, FCCC/CP/2013/10, para.44, 53p.
  • UNFCCC, 2016. Guidance and Safeguards for policy Approaches and positive Incentives on Issues Relating to Reducing Emissions from deforestation and forest Degradation in Developing countries; and the Role of Conservation, Appendix I, FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1.  
  • UNFCCC, 2021. Glasgow Climate Pact, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, FCCC/PA/CMA/2021/L.16, Decision -/CP.26.8P.
  • UNFCCC, 2022. Report of the Green Climate Fund to the Conference of the Parties and Guidance to the Green Climate Fund, FCCC/CP/2022/10/Add.2, 16/CP.27.48P.
  • UNREDD, 2022. Linking REDD+, the Paris Agreement, Nationally Determined Contributions and the Sustainable Development Goals, Brief series, International Environment House, Chemin des Anémones, CH-1219 Châtelaine, Geneva, Switzerland, 16p.
  • Van der Hoff, R., Rajão R., and Leroy, P., 2015. Daan boezeman the parallel materialization of REDD + implementation discourses in Brazil. Forest Policy and Economics, 55(1): 37-45.
  • Varghese, P., 2009. An Overview of REDD, REDD plus and REDD Readiness. Presentation at the International Conference on Community Rights, Forests and Climate Change, August, New Delhi, India: The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI).
  • Verchot, L.V, Anitha, K., Romijn, E., Herold, M. and Hergoualc’h, K., 2012. Emissions factors: Converting land use Change to CO2 estimates analysing REDD+: Challenges and choices. In: Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Sunderlin, W.D., and Verchot, L.V. (Eds.). Center for International Forestry Research. 261p.
  • Verra, J. N. R., 2019. Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ (JNR) Program Guide. The Organization Verra, Washington, D.C., 11p.
  • Vijitharan, S., Tsusaka, T.W. and Sasaki N., 2024. Evaluating REDD+ progress and results-based incentives in Sri Lanka: A comparative analysis across southeast and south Asian countries. Trees, Forests and People, 16(1): 100-574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100574.
  • Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., McDermott, C. and Vijge M.J., 2012. Benjamin cashore Trade-of Fs, co-benefits and safeguards: Current debates on the breadth of +REDD. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(6): 646-653.
  • Voigt, C. and Ferreira F., 2015. The Warsaw Framework for REDD+: Implications for national implementation and access to results based finance. Carbon and Climate Law Review (CCLR), 2(2): 113-129.
  • Wong G., Pham T.T., Valencia I., Luttrell, C., Larson, A., Yang, A., Hassan, A., Kovacevic, M., Moeliono, M., Dwisatrio, B. and Sarmiento Barletti, J., 2022. Designing REDD+ benefit-sharing mechanisms: From policy to practice. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.Center for International Forestry Research, 94p.
  • Wong, G.Y., Luttrell, C., LOf t L., Yang, A., Pham, T.T., Naito, D., Mvondo, S.A. and Brockhaus, M., 2019. Narratives in REDD+ benefit sharing: Examining evidence within and beyond the forest sector. Climate Policy, 19(8): 1038-1051.
  • Young, M., 2017. REDD+ as International Legal Regime, From Part I-Climate Change Mitigation and Forest Carbon Sequestration, Published online by Cambridge University Press.
  • Zarandian, A., Badamfirouz, J., Musazadeh, R., Rahmati, A. and Azimi, S.B., 2018. Scenario modeling for spatial-temporal change detection of Carbon storage and sequestration in a forested landscape in northern Iran. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 190(8): 474 (In Persian).
  • Zhang J., Hu J., Lian J., Fan Z., Ouyang X. and Ye W., 2016. Seeing the forest from drones: Testing the potential of lightweight drones as a tool for long-term forest monitoring. Biological Conservation, 198(1): 60-69.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 08 June 2025
  • Revise Date: 28 August 2025
  • Accept Date: 14 September 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics