Does the Limited Integration of Local Forest Communities in Global Environmental Policies Like REDD+ Undermine their Equity, Effectiveness, and Long-Term Sustainability?
Author: Julia Ricketts
The below article is one of a series of blogs based on a Policy Brief shortlisted as a finalist for the 2025 Chronos Sustainability Prizes
Tackling deforestation and forest degradation is central to addressing the climate crisis. Countries established the ‘REDD+’ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) framework to protect forests as part of the Paris Agreement. Under the REDD+ framework, developing countries can receive results-based payments for emission reductions when they reduce deforestation.
While REDD+ leverages important financial resources to support efforts aimed at mitigating climate change, its design means that it tends to prioritise technical fixes over the complex social, economic, and ecological realities of forest-dependent communities. The consequence is that, despite its ambition, REDD+ predominantly privileges top-down, technical approaches that fail to reflect the lived realities of forest-dependent communities. Many REDD+ initiatives fail to account for local social dynamics, customary land rights, and the complex, often external, drivers of deforestation. As a result, the communities most directly impacted by these policies are frequently marginalised in their design and implementation.
Local communities are essential partners in sustainable forest management. For global environmental policies like REDD+ to deliver equitable, effective, and sustainable outcomes, they should integrate the knowledge, rights, and priorities of those who live in and depend on forests.
My research examined the implications of limited community integration within REDD+ initiatives through the interconnected lenses of equity, effectiveness, and long-term sustainability. It highlighted several key challenges:
Lack of land tenure security: Many forest communities do not have legally recognised land rights. This leaves them vulnerable to land grabs by external actors or local elites, undermines trust, and limits their ability to participate meaningfully in, or benefit significantly from, REDD+ initiatives.
One-size-fits-all approaches: REDD+ safeguards often fail to account for the diversity within and between communities. As a result, women, ethnic minorities, and the most forest-dependent groups are routinely excluded from decision-making and benefit-sharing processes.
Misplaced accountability: REDD+ policy documents tend to frame local communities as the main drivers of deforestation, ignoring more significant structural causes such as industrial agriculture and global trade. This reinforces a top-down model in which communities are seen as targets for behavioural change, rather than as co-governors of forest resources.
Limited use of local knowledge in monitoring: While REDD+ relies on Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) systems to track progress, these systems often depend on remote sensing and external expertise. Local knowledge, which can offer vital context and improve data accuracy, remains underused and undervalued.
To ensure REDD+ achieves its climate and development goals, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) – which supports REDD+ readiness and implementation by providing technical and financial assistance to participating countries - and other international partners should focus on three key actions:
Securing the legal recognition of land tenure rights before implementation: Legally recognised land rights are a foundational requirement for equitable REDD+ engagement. Without clear and secure land tenure, communities lack the ability to exercise decision-making power or claim REDD+ benefits. To incentivise sustainable forest management, participatory mapping and legal reform should be prioritised at the outset of any REDD+ project.
Fostering inclusive forest governance through structured participation and co-management: Global environmental policies like REDD+ need to move beyond tokenistic consultations to embed meaningful participation in forest governance. Representation should reflect forest user dependency, not just demographic quotas. This means addressing barriers like language and literacy, and ensuring that marginalised groups can participate in decision-making processes. Legally binding forest co-management agreements can formalise shared governance, support equitable benefit distribution, and strengthen climate and biodiversity outcomes.
Institutionalising Community-Based Monitoring (CBM) in national MRV systems: To fully leverage local knowledge, CBM should be systematically integrated into national MRV frameworks. This requires targeted investment in training, digital tools and long-term financing, supported by climate finance mechanisms and public-private partnerships. When adequately resourced and effectively implemented, CBM not only fills critical data gaps but also strengthens community ownership, improves the credibility of monitoring efforts, and enhances transparency and accountability across REDD+ initiatives.
Notes:
Julia Ricketts’ policy brief, “Does the Limited Integration of Local Forest Communities in Global Environmental Policies Like REDD+ Undermine their Equity, Effectiveness, and Long-Term Sustainability?” won the Chronos Sustainability Prize 2025. You can read the full brief here. Julia is completing an MSc in Environmental Policy and Regulation at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). She previously worked on environmental issues including circular economy and supply chain due diligence in the fashion and textile industry.
