Skip to content
Menu
REDD-Monitor
  • Start here
  • About REDD-Monitor
  • REDD: An introduction
  • Contact
REDD-Monitor

So farewell then, UN-REDD

Posted on 17 November 201621 August 2017

Launched in 2008, the UN-REDD programme is slipping slowly into retirement. In May 2015, UN-REDD produced a “Strategic Framework 2016-20”. Few funders stepped forward.

On its website, UN-REDD lists the donors that funded the UN-REDD Programme’s 2008-2015 phase: Norway, the European Commission, Denmark, Japan, Luxembourg, and Spain. This is followed by the following forlorn note:

The Government of Switzerland joined the Programme’s group of supportive donors in 2016 with a contribution to the 2016-2020 phase of the UN-REDD Programme.

And below that is a subheading: “Become a Donor”.

UN-REDD was hoping for between US$200 and US$300 million for its 2016-2020 phase. In June 2016, UN-REDD admitted that it had only received US$15 million:

At this junction, (June 2016), the Fund has not been able to capitalize funding that would allow full deployment and operation of the Programme with its full‐fledged infrastructure for the delivery of both financial flows as well as technical assistance to countries. The future capitalization is estimated in the range of 65 Million US$ for 2017‐2020, out of which confirmation from Norway on 50 Million USD is still pending.

As a result of the reduced funding, the number of staff in the secretariat has shrunk.

UN-REDD was supposed to hold a new executive board meeting in July 2016. The meeting did not take place.

On its website, UN-REDD outlines its Theory of Change:

Theory of Change

So UN-REDD’s theory of change involves three massive, whopping “ifs”, with no mechanism for addressing illegal logging, corruption, expansion of mining, dam-building, industrial tree plantations, palm oil plantations, soy plantations, or cattle ranching. (The relevance of a photograph of two giraffes in a non-forested landscape next to the Theory of Change completely escapes me. Click on the image for the full version.)

The UN-REDD programme leaves behind a huge number of reports, more workshops than anyone cares to think about, and numerous Panglossian videos. After eight years, and US$280 million, UN-REDD has utterly failed to reduce deforestation.
 

3 thoughts on “So farewell then, UN-REDD”

  1. zambiawatch says:
    19 November 2016 at 12:32 pm

    Not only has UN-REDD ‘utterly failed to reduce deforestation’ it has fueled other destruction, doing nothing about shoring up the customary commons, in fact, the reverse.

  2. Chris Lang says:
    8 February 2017 at 10:33 am

    UN-REDD has updated its website. The slightly odd picture of the giraffes illustrating the “Theory of Change” has been replaced with a Coquerel’s Sifaka, an endangered lemur that lives in dry deciduous forests in the northwest of Madagascar.

    UN-REDD’s “Theory of Change” remains as it was.

  3. In says:
    18 June 2017 at 10:25 pm

    It’s a proofed of a massive global corrupted minds on forest conservation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

SUBSCRIBE!

Recent themes
30x30
Natural Climate Solutions
WWF's conservation scandals
Aviation and offsetting
Conservation Watch

Recent Comments

  • Ben on Response from Kurt Kaiser, Director of Compass Carbon: “Your article was of great concern to us”. And some questions for Kaiser from REDD-Monitor
  • James Mewa Kamaya on Papua New Guinea’s Forest Authority cancels Mayur Resources’ Kamula Doso REDD project
  • Benedikt von Butler on Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions
  • Chris Ibe on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow
  • Xindia on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow

Recent Posts

  • REDD-Monitor is moving to Substack
  • REDD Project in Brazil Nut concessions in Madre de Dios, Peru finally started paying communities a decade after the project started. “I’m still lacking money,” says one community member
  • REDD-Monitor’s top ten posts in 2022
  • The harsh reality of 30×30: The EU is keen to allow extractivism in the 30×30 target – but not Indigenous Peoples’ territories
  • Human rights abuses against Indigenous Peoples and the proposed “30×30” target

Recent Comments

  • Ben on Response from Kurt Kaiser, Director of Compass Carbon: “Your article was of great concern to us”. And some questions for Kaiser from REDD-Monitor
  • James Mewa Kamaya on Papua New Guinea’s Forest Authority cancels Mayur Resources’ Kamula Doso REDD project
  • Benedikt von Butler on Switzerland’s offsetting deal with Peru excludes REDD. It will still not reduce emissions
  • Chris Ibe on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow
  • Xindia on Bar Works: The return of Renwick Haddow

Issues and Organisations

30x30 AB 32 Andes Amazon Boiler rooms California Can REDD save ... ? Carbon accounting Carbon Credits Carbon Offsets CDM Conservation-Watch Conservation International COP21 Paris Cryptocurrency Deforestation EcoPlanet Bamboo Evictions FCPF Financing REDD Fossil fuels FSC Green Climate Fund Greenpeace Guest post Human rights ICAO Illegal logging Indigenous Peoples Natural Climate Solutions NGO statements Plantations R-M interview REDD and rights REDD in the news Risk RSPO-Watch Safeguards Sengwer The Nature Conservancy UN-REDD UNFCCC Verra World Bank WRM WWF

Countries

Australia Bolivia Brazil Cambodia Cameroon Canada China Colombia Congo Basin region Costa Rica DR Congo Ecuador El Salvador European Union France Gabon Germany Guyana Honduras India Indonesia Kenya Luxembourg Madagascar Malaysia Mexico Netherlands Nicaragua Norway Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Republic of Congo Sierra Leone Spain Sweden Tanzania Thailand Uganda UK Uncategorized United Arab Emirates USA West Papua
©2025 REDD-Monitor | Powered by SuperbThemes!