The current World Wide Challenging Redds definition of forest is too broad. It is not enough to include forests. In order to understand the forest in all its dimensions, we must also define it as a whole. The term forest refers to the entire system of plants and animals found in a forest. In addition to defining forest types, it is also important to recognize their importance.
This definition is overly broad and ambiguous. The term forest encompasses a range of species, habitats, and functions. It also includes areas that are not fully forested, such as deserts or semi-arid regions. Therefore, no single operational definition of a forest can encompass all its dimensions. It is essential to understand how forests work and how different policies affect them.
Critics claim that REDD+ is simply an extension of green capitalism. It subjects forests to new forms of enclosure. Carbon cowboys seek to purchase carbon rights in the rainforest in exchange for small-scale projects and on-sell them to investors. In Peru, an Australian businessman signed a 200-year contract with an indigenous tribe for the extraction of natural gas and coal. The businessman was granted a 50% share of the carbon resources.
Critics of the REDD+ program argue that the broader definition of forest is a continuation of green capitalism, and that it subjects forests to new forms of enclosure. They point to “carbon cowboys” attempting to acquire carbon rights in the rainforest for small-scale projects, and on-selling them to investors. For instance, in Peru, an Australian businessman signed a 200-year contract with an indigenous Yagua tribe for a mining project. The agreement included a 50% share of the carbon resources, despite the fact that many of the tribe members are illiterate and do not have any literacy.
In addition to a narrow definition, the REDD Agreement also encourages countries to recognize their own national circumstances in relation to their forests. This is important since it will affect how countries monitor and assess their forest resources. In addition, the broader definition may also encourage countries to incorporate the economic, social, and environmental priorities of many developing nations. This means that the REDD agreements must be customized to the needs of each country.
The overly broad definition of forest is a major obstacle to the implementation of REDD. As a result, many countries are not benefiting from REDD. The overly broad definition of forest makes it impossible to effectively measure the impact of deforestation. To date, the REDD agreement has only been negotiated in a few countries. The resulting document will be the basis for the negotiations.