Abstract
Background: REDD+ is being questioned by the particular status of High Forest/Low Deforestation countries. Indeed, the formulation of reference levels is made difficult by the confrontation of low historical deforestation records with the forest transition theory on the one hand. On the other hand, those countries might formulate incred‑ibly high deforestation scenarios to ensure large payments even in case of inaction. Results: Using a wide range of scenarios within the Guiana Shield, from methods involving basic assumptions made from past deforestation, to explicit modelling of deforestation using relevant socio‑economic variables at the regional scale, we show that the most common methodologies predict huge increases in deforestation, unlikely to happen given the existing socio‑economic situation. More importantly, it is unlikely that funds provided under most of these scenarios could compensate for the total cost of avoided deforestation in the region, including social and economic costs. Conclusion: This study suggests that a useful and efficient international mechanism should really focus on removing the underlying political and socio‑economic forces of deforestation rather than on hypothetical result‑based pay‑ments estimated from very questionable reference levels.