Exposing the methodological failures of REDD+ forestry projects

The report identifies critical methodological failures in REDD+ forestry projects certified by Verra, specifically regarding baselines, leakage, carbon accounting, permanence, and safeguards. It argues that project developers exploit methodological flexibility to inflate emission reductions, resulting in low-quality carbon credits that do not represent real climate benefits. The document concludes that REDD+ credits are not equivalent to emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions.

• Project baselines are significantly overestimated because developers can 'cherry pick' methodologies, reference areas, and risk models. Research showed that the lowest baseline for a project could be 14 times lower than the highest baseline when recreating them under the same methodological requirements.
• Leakage is systematically underestimated, with projects using methodological flexibilities to downplay the risk of deforestation shifting to other areas. While literature-supported deduction rates range from 10% to 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%-30% higher than researchers' mean estimates. This is driven by overestimates in aboveground carbon (15% on average) and belowground carbon (61% on average).
• The risk of carbon reversal due to natural phenomena, such as fires or pests, is underestimated by a factor of 10. Additionally, nearly 75% of projects report no external risks, which the report deems implausible for projects in countries with high political risk.
• Verra's safeguards are described as weak and less stringent than international standards like the IFC or GCF, failing to explicitly recognize indigenous rights. Validation and verification bodies (VVBs) are accused of 'rubber stamping' projects and ignoring negative impacts.
• The voluntary carbon market for REDD+ is highly opaque; for 19 analyzed projects, the identity of intermediaries was disclosed for only 1.3% of the credits used, meaning 98.7% were traded anonymously or without intermediaries.

APA

Wyburd, I., & Dufrasne, G. (2023). Exposing the methodological failures of REDD+ forestry projects. Carbon Market Watch. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Error-log-Exposing-the-methodological-failures-of-REDD-forestry-projects.pdf

Chicago

Wyburd, Inigo, and Gilles Dufrasne. Exposing the methodological failures of REDD+ forestry projects. Carbon Market Watch, 2023. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Error-log-Exposing-the-methodological-failures-of-REDD-forestry-projects.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Wyburd |first1=Inigo |last2=Dufrasne |first2=Gilles |title=Exposing the methodological failures of REDD+ forestry projects |publisher=Carbon Market Watch |date=15 September 2023 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Error-log-Exposing-the-methodological-failures-of-REDD-forestry-projects.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{wyburd2023exposing, author = {Wyburd, Inigo and Dufrasne, Gilles}, title = {{Exposing the methodological failures of REDD+ forestry projects}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2023}, month = sep, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Error-log-Exposing-the-methodological-failures-of-REDD-forestry-projects.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }