Exposition des échecs méthodologiques des projets forestiers REDD+

The report identifies critical methodological failures in Verra's REDD+ carbon credit system, specifically regarding overestimated baselines, underestimated leakages, inflated carbon accounting, and ignored permanence risks. It concludes that these credits do not represent real emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, recommending a shift from 'offsetting' to 'contribution' funding for forest conservation.

• Project baselines are significantly overestimated, creating 'imaginary' emission reductions. Researchers found that the lowest baseline for a given project could be 14 times lower than the highest, demonstrating the extreme flexibility developers have in selecting methodologies and risk models to maximize credits.
• Leakage—the displacement of deforestation to other areas—is systematically underestimated. While research literature suggests deduction rates between 10% and 70%, the average leakage rate deducted by the studied REDD+ projects was only 4.4%.
• Forest carbon accounting is inflated, with project developers' estimates of carbon content being 23% to 30% higher than researcher estimates. This is driven by flexibility in choosing allometric equations, with some above-ground biomass estimates differing by 80% and below-ground biomass by 193%.
• Permanence risks are severely underestimated. Natural reversal risks (such as fires or pests) are underestimated by a factor of 10, and nearly 75% of projects report zero external risks, which the report deems implausible for countries with high political risk.
• Social and environmental safeguards are weak and poorly enforced. Validation and Verification Bodies (VVBs) are described as performing 'tick-box' exercises, often ignoring serious negative impacts on local communities and indigenous peoples to approve projects.
• The voluntary carbon market for REDD+ lacks transparency, with 98.7% of credits in the analyzed sample traded by anonymous intermediaries. Only 10% of intermediaries disclose their fees, which average 15%.

APA

Wyburd, I., & Dufrasne, G. (2023). Exposition des échecs méthodologiques des projets forestiers REDD+. Carbon Market Watch. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/CMW-Journal-des-erreurs-Exposition-des-echecs-methodologiques-des-projets-forestiers-REDD.pdf

Chicago

Wyburd, Inigo, and Gilles Dufrasne. Exposition des échecs méthodologiques des projets forestiers REDD+. Carbon Market Watch, 2023. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/CMW-Journal-des-erreurs-Exposition-des-echecs-methodologiques-des-projets-forestiers-REDD.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Wyburd |first1=Inigo |last2=Dufrasne |first2=Gilles |title=Exposition des échecs méthodologiques des projets forestiers REDD+ |publisher=Carbon Market Watch |date=15 September 2023 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/CMW-Journal-des-erreurs-Exposition-des-echecs-methodologiques-des-projets-forestiers-REDD.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{wyburd2023exposition, author = {Wyburd, Inigo and Dufrasne, Gilles}, title = {{Exposition des échecs méthodologiques des projets forestiers REDD+}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2023}, month = sep, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/CMW-Journal-des-erreurs-Exposition-des-echecs-methodologiques-des-projets-forestiers-REDD.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }