Balance sheet in the REDD +: Are global estimates measuring the wrong costs?

This article challenges some of the assumptions underpinning the UN programme to Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD +) in developing countries. Firstly, it argues that the cost-effectiveness of REDD + may have been exaggerated as current estimates ignore some cost categories as well as the evolution of drivers. Whilst REDD + remains a 'low-hanging fruit' for climate mitigation, if all costs were included estimates would be at the high end of the currently accepted range. Secondly, the article highlights that REDD + will be affected by a large funding gap at least until the entry into force of a new climate protocol in 2020. This gap is due as much to the poor status of public finances in donor countries as to the languishing state of carbon markets, and it calls for a revision of the assumptions regarding the design of the programme. Finally, it is advocated that, in order to contribute to the development of the programme, economic research on REDD + should consider different policy options, assessing their efficiency and identifying measures that increase their cost-effectiveness.