Global Actions for Rainforest Protection: CITES and REDD

Why rainforest protection needs global action

Tropical rainforests provide habitats for many species and store carbon. Their loss therefore affects both biodiversity and the global climate. Protecting them also helps preserve goods and services for future generations.

Some pressures on rainforests cross national borders. Wild animals, plants and timber can be traded internationally, while the benefits of reducing carbon emissions are shared worldwide. International cooperation can therefore support protection within individual countries.

Two important global actions work in different ways. CITES controls international trade in species, while REDD gives financial incentives to protect forests.

CITES: reducing pressure from international trade

CITES stands for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Its aim is to ensure that international trade in wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival. It restricts trade in listed species, including endangered wildlife and certain timber species; it is not a ban on all wildlife trade.

The connection to rainforest protection is straightforward. If international trade in a threatened animal or tree species is restricted, there is less opportunity to profit legally from taking it from the forest. This can reduce pressure on its population and help protect rainforest biodiversity.

CITES has wide international membership and covers tens of thousands of plant and animal species. Cooperation between countries matters because protection in an exporting country is more effective when importing countries also control trade. Successes associated with CITES include reductions in ivory trading and recovery of vicuña populations. These demonstrate its wider conservation potential, rather than being examples of rainforest-area protection.

However, an agreement only works if countries enforce it. Monitoring trade across many countries is difficult, and illegal trade can continue despite restrictions. Not every threatened animal is protected by CITES. Sanctions against countries that fail to comply are not always applied, and countries can withdraw from the agreement.

CITES also targets a particular pressure: international trade. It does not, by itself, prevent rainforest habitat being cleared for other uses. Its strength is species protection through trade controls, rather than comprehensive protection of whole forest areas.

REDD: making forest protection financially worthwhile

REDD stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation. Deforestation removes forest cover; degradation damages a forest even where some trees remain. REDD aims to reduce both by encouraging protection and sustainable management.

Its central approach is to offer financial incentives, such as cash payments or carbon credits, for protecting forests. Funding can come from developed countries and companies seeking to offset their emissions. The incentive gives governments and other participants a financial reason to keep forests standing rather than gain income from activities that damage or remove them.

This connects forest conservation with action on climate change. Protecting forests helps retain their carbon stores and reduce emissions associated with forest loss. It can also protect habitats across a whole forest area, rather than focusing only on individual traded species. Involving local communities is another advantage: people living near forests can participate in their protection.

Why REDD can be difficult to deliver

Financial incentives create opportunities, but also practical problems. Corruption and fraud can divert money or undermine confidence that payments are supporting genuine protection.

Forest ownership is not always clear. If several groups claim the same area, deciding who should receive payments can be difficult. This can cause disputes and weaken local support for protection.

Definitions of what counts as a forest can also be unclear. This complicates decisions about which areas qualify for protection and what changes should be counted as forest loss or damage. REDD therefore needs clear rules, trustworthy administration and clarity over ownership if its incentives are to work effectively.

Judging the two approaches together

CITES and REDD are complementary rather than interchangeable. CITES tackles international trade that threatens species, but depends on enforcement and cannot stop every cause of habitat loss. REDD can encourage protection of larger forest areas while addressing climate change, but its success depends on reliable funding and fair, effective administration.

Overall, both can contribute to rainforest protection. Their potential is greatest when international commitments are translated into effective action within countries: trade restrictions must be enforced, and conservation payments must reach the people responsible for protecting forests.