Building trust in forest carbon payments (REDD+): Learning from the world of financial accounting

The paper identifies a lack of trust as a primary barrier to scaling REDD+ investment, stemming from system complexity, concerns over environmental and social robustness, and perceived implementation gaps. It proposes applying the International Accounting Standards Board's Conceptual framework for financial reporting to REDD+ accounting to address these issues. Key recommendations include tailoring reporting to end-users, standardising uncertainty analyses, requiring independent third-party verification, and creating a roadmap to harmonise reference levels and monitoring requirements across different global frameworks.

• A lack of trust among public and private stakeholders is a significant barrier to scaling REDD+ investment, driven by the system's inherent complexity, doubts about environmental and social robustness, and concerns regarding the capacity of governments and developers to implement projects.
• Current REDD+ accounting often lacks 'relevance' because it is tailored to specific donor requirements rather than the needs of the programme's implementation or the requirements of private sector investors who may value non-carbon sustainable development goals.
• To improve relevance and implementation, the paper recommends using 'wall-to-wall' monitoring in deforestation hotspots to inform enforcement, while maintaining sampling for other areas, and establishing near real-time monitoring systems.
• Faithful representation in REDD+ is hindered by a lack of standardised uncertainty analysis and inconsistent verification requirements across different frameworks like the UNFCCC, Green Climate Fund, VCS, and FCPF.
• The paper identifies risks to 'neutrality' in REDD+ accounting, noting that countries or developers may be incentivized to overestimate emissions reductions by selecting baseline years with particularly high deforestation rates to maximize payments.
• REDD+ accounting currently suffers from a lack of comparability because different organisations use varying requirements for reference levels, monitoring frequencies, and verification, which complicates the aggregation of results and the transfer of credits.
• The authors recommend the creation of a common rating system for REDD+ projects to allow external stakeholders to assess the relative reliability of information and the soundness of applied methodologies.
• To achieve global comparability, the paper suggests a roadmap to harmonise requirements for results-based payments, specifically regarding the validity of business-as-usual reference levels and the standardisation of uncertainty analysis.

APA

Iley, R., & Elvers, C. (2017). Building trust in forest carbon payments (REDD+): Learning from the world of financial accounting. Climate and Development Knowledge Network. https://cdkn.org/sites/default/files/files/REDD-Accounting_CDKN_Final_WEB.pdf

Chicago

Iley, Roberta, and Christina Elvers. Building trust in forest carbon payments (REDD+): Learning from the world of financial accounting. Climate and Development Knowledge Network, 2017. https://cdkn.org/sites/default/files/files/REDD-Accounting_CDKN_Final_WEB.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Iley |first1=Roberta |last2=Elvers |first2=Christina |title=Building trust in forest carbon payments (REDD+): Learning from the world of financial accounting |publisher=Climate and Development Knowledge Network |date=November 2017 |url=https://cdkn.org/sites/default/files/files/REDD-Accounting_CDKN_Final_WEB.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{iley2017building, author = {Iley, Roberta and Elvers, Christina}, title = {{Building trust in forest carbon payments (REDD+): Learning from the world of financial accounting}}, institution = {Climate and Development Knowledge Network}, year = {2017}, month = nov, url = {https://cdkn.org/sites/default/files/files/REDD-Accounting_CDKN_Final_WEB.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }