Exponiendo los fallos metodológicos de los proyectos forestales REDD+

The report identifies systemic failures in Verra's REDD+ methodologies, specifically regarding baseline inflation, underestimated leakage, exaggerated carbon accounting, and underestimated reversal risks. It argues that these flaws allow project developers to maximize credit issuance through 'convenience' selections rather than scientific accuracy. The document concludes that REDD+ credits do not represent real emission reductions and should not be used to offset fossil fuel emissions, recommending a shift toward 'contribution' claims and stricter, independent oversight.

• Project baselines are significantly overestimated, leading to the creation of credits for 'imaginary' emission reductions. Research indicates that the highest calculated baseline for a given project can be 14 times higher than the lowest, providing developers excessive flexibility to choose scenarios that maximize credits.
• Deforestation leakage is systematically underestimated. While research literature suggests deduction rates between 10% and 70%, the average leakage rate deducted by the sampled REDD+ projects was only 4.4%. Furthermore, all four evaluated methodologies ignore international leakage.
• Carbon accounting for forest CO2 is often exaggerated, with project estimates being 23% to 30% higher than researcher estimates. This is driven by overestimations of above-ground CO2 (by 15%) and below-ground CO2 (by 61%), facilitated by the flexibility to choose favorable allometric equations.
• 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 fail to report any external risks, such as political or business instability, despite operating in high-risk countries.
• Verra's safeguards are described as weak and failing to protect local communities and indigenous peoples. Validation and Verification Bodies (VVBs) are accused of ignoring severe negative project impacts and treating the approval process as a 'tick-box' exercise.
• The report argues that using forest carbon sinks to offset fossil fuel emissions is scientifically unsound because it moves CO2 from stable geological reserves to unstable biological sinks. It recommends that companies move away from 'offsetting' claims toward 'contribution' claims.

APA

Wyburd, I., & Dufrasne, G. (2023). Exponiendo los fallos metodológicos de los proyectos forestales REDD+. Carbon Market Watch. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/External-REDD-Report_ES.pdf

Chicago

Wyburd, Inigo, and Gilles Dufrasne. Exponiendo los fallos metodológicos de los proyectos forestales REDD+. Carbon Market Watch, 2023. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/External-REDD-Report_ES.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Wyburd |first1=Inigo |last2=Dufrasne |first2=Gilles |title=Exponiendo los fallos metodológicos de los proyectos forestales REDD+ |publisher=Carbon Market Watch |date=15 September 2023 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/External-REDD-Report_ES.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{wyburd2023exponiendo, author = {Wyburd, Inigo and Dufrasne, Gilles}, title = {{Exponiendo los fallos metodológicos de los proyectos forestales REDD+}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2023}, month = sep, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/External-REDD-Report_ES.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }