"For journalists, REDD+ is a tricky story to cover for a number of reasons. 1. Forest statistics are often unreliable or out of date. Figures need to be carefully checked, compared to other statistics and analysed for their real significance. Sources also need to be assessed. 2. REDD+’s final shape is unclear. For example, how it will function and be financed have not yet been agreed. 3. The wording of a forest agreement may be vague, open to interpretation or incomprehensible to your audience [...] 4. Forestry policies vary enormously around the world. Forestry specialists often disagree, for example, over how REDD+ schemes should be funded. 5. There are differences of interest between and within countries. Some governments may believe that a market approach to curbing deforestation will be most effective, while others argue in favour of state control over a natural resource. National governments may favour policies that indigenous peoples oppose, while social activists and logging companies may advocate completely different approaches. 6. Covering the negotiations is demanding. Very few people are directly engaged in the discussions. So it is difficult to obtain interviews that provide personal insight and quotes as well as accurate, up-to-date information on the progress of talks. 7. Talking to directly affected forest communities is difficult." (Page 6)

"This media pack is a 2010 update of ‘Reporting REDD’, that was prepared by Panos London in 2009 for CCMP, a partnership between Internews, Panos and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) to improve media coverage of climate change issues in developing countries." (Page 2)