Cited by 110Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementForest Management and PolicyClimate Change Policy and Economics

Evidence that a national REDD+ program reduces tree cover loss and carbon emissions in a high forest cover, low deforestation country

Open access
Roopsind, Anand, Sohngen, Brent, Brandt, Jodi·2019·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) is a climate change mitigation policy in which rich countries provide payments to developing countries for protecting their forests. In 2009, the countries of Norway and Guyana entered into one of the first bilateral REDD+ programs, with Norway offering to pay US$250 million to Guyana if annual deforestation rates remained below 0.056% from 2010 to 2015. To quantify the impact of this national REDD+ program, we construct a counterfactual times-series trajectory of annual tree cover loss using synthetic matching. This analytical approach allows us to quantify tree cover loss that would have occurred in the absence of the Norway-Guyana REDD+ program. We found that the Norway-Guyana REDD+ program reduced tree cover loss by 35% during the implementation period (2010 to 2015), equivalent to 12.8 million tons of avoided CO 2 emissions. Our analysis indicates that national REDD+ payments attenuated the effect of increases in gold prices, an internationally traded commodity that is the primary deforestation driver in Guyana. Overall, we found strong evidence that the program met the additionality criteria of REDD+. However, we found that tree cover loss increased after the payments ended, and therefore, our results suggest that without continued payments, forest protection is not guaranteed. On the issue of leakage, which is complex and difficult to quantify, a multinational REDD+ program for a region could address leakage that results from differences in forest policies between neighboring countries.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1904027116

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In Brazil, twelve REDD+ projects across the entire Brazilian Amazon focused on agriculturally-driven deforestation did not provide additionality in 2008-2018.

    “In Brazil, twelve REDD+ projects across the entire Brazilian Amazon focused on 502 agriculturally-driven deforestation did not provide additionality (outcomes beyond business as usual) 503 in 2008-2018 [137].”

    From A systematic comparison of deforestation drivers and policy effectiveness across the Amazon biome (2023) · cites this paper as [137]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [44]Y. le Polain de Waroux, R. D. Garrett, R. Heilmayr, E. F. Lambin, Land-use policies and corporate investments in agriculture in the Gran Chaco and Chiquitano. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113 , 4021 -4026 (2016).
  2. [56]A. Martius et al ., ' Pathway to Impact: Is REDD + a Viable Theory of Change? ' in Transforming REDD + : Lessons and New Directions , A. Angelsen et al ., Eds. (Center for International Forestry Research, 2018), pp. 17 -28.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roopsind, A., Sohngen, B., & Brandt, J.
Affiliations
  • Boise State University (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2019-11-18
Volume
116
Issue
49
Pages
24492-24499
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2990180051
Cited by
110
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12
FWCI
4.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarWorks (Boise State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (OIA: 18226801)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
Keywords
REDD+, deforestation, tree cover loss, CO2 emissions, gold prices, additionality, leakage, synthetic control method, climate change mitigation, forest policy
MeSH terms
Conservation of Natural Resources, Guyana, International Cooperation, Models, Theoretical, Norway, Trees, Environmental Policy, Forests

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review