Forests & land use

High Forest, Low Deforestation (HFLD)

Countries or jurisdictions with high forest cover and historically low deforestation rates, seeking recognition and finance within REDD+ for keeping forests standing.

Established · Version 0.1

Definition

High forest, low deforestation describes countries or jurisdictions that retain large shares of their original forest cover — commonly operationalised as more than 50 per cent forest cover with annual deforestation below about 0.22 per cent — and therefore have little historical deforestation on which to base traditional REDD+ credits. Roughly three dozen countries, including Suriname, Guyana, and Gabon, meet the definition and collectively hold a major share of remaining tropical forest carbon.

References

Overview

What it means

HFLD countries face a paradox: REDD+ was designed to reward reductions against a deforestation baseline, but HFLD jurisdictions have almost no baseline to reduce — so conservation success goes unrewarded while the economic logic of clearing forests intensifies. Crediting approaches such as ART-TREES's HFLD module attempt to fix this by scoring jurisdictions on maintained forest cover, not just avoided emissions.

How it is used

The category shapes forest-finance negotiations, jurisdictional REDD+ crediting, and Article 6 discussions on rewarding standing forests.

Why it matters

The last large intact forests are the hardest to protect precisely because current finance only pays for stopping destruction already underway. **Note:** 1352 HFLD aliases to this entry.

Review

Public comments appear only after editor acceptance. Draft comments stay in the review queue.

0
How people contribute

Reviewers choose the definition or an overview paragraph, leave a comment or replacement, and attach evidence or a source link.

How comments are used

Editors compare reviewer cards side by side. AI may help find agreement, conflicts, unsupported claims and possible source issues.

What gets published

Only an editor-accepted synthesis changes the public page. Reviewer identities are shown only with consent and an editorial decision to attribute them.

No editor-accepted reviews yet

Submitted reviews stay private until an editor decides whether to accept and attribute them.

Contribute to this entry

Help improve this definition

Your contribution is private while it is checked. Nothing changes on this page unless an editor accepts it.

How review works

Loading verified endorsements… Endorsements are not votes and never determine publication.

Endorse this definition

Endorse the exact version shown here. This is not a vote, and publication remains an editorial decision.

v0.1

Sign-in supplies your email for necessary follow-up; it is not displayed publicly. We do not ask you to enter it again.

Sign in to your account before submitting.

Review board

Comment on a specific line. Each reviewer stays separate until an editor accepts a merged draft.

1Separate reviewer cards

Each person comments on the definition or overview in their own draft card, with role, evidence and suggested wording kept together.

2AI comparison

AI can compare comments against the current text, flag conflicting claims, surface missing evidence and identify where reviewers agree.

3Editor synthesis

An editor merges compatible suggestions into a draft change, checks sources, records disagreements and decides what can be published.

Text to reviewChoose the exact definition or overview paragraph.
Reviewer commentDraft only. Not public until editor accepted.
Definition
Reviewer identityYour signed-in account identifies the submission. We use its email only for verification and necessary follow-up, and never display it publicly.
Before you submit

This proposal follows the editorial and AI-assistance rules. The live definition will not change until an editor accepts it.

  • Add the proposed wording or note.
  • Explain why the change is needed.
  • Ready
  • Ready

Sign in to your account before submitting.

You can still save a draft, but completing these items makes editorial review faster. Multiple reviewers can suggest changes on the same text. Editors compare, merge, accept or decline them before any public change.