It brings together an interdisciplinary team of political and natural ecologists and ecosystem modelers and aims to comprehensively assess the quality of REDD+ carbon credits when it comes to reducing deforestation, generating high-quality carbon credits and protecting forest communities.
REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) is the project type with the most credits on the voluntary carbon market, accounting for about a quarter of all credits to date. The study focuses on five key programme elements: baselines, leakage, forest carbon accounting, durability and safeguards.
The researchers found that estimates of emissions reductions were exaggerated across all quantification factors they reviewed when compared to the published literature and an independent quantitative project assessment. They say: “As a result, current REDD+ methodologies likely generate credits that represent a small fraction of their claimed climate benefit. Safeguard policies, presented as ensuring “no net harm” to forest communities, in practice have been treated as voluntary guidance.”
While many studies have documented poor carbon offset quality, the new analysis goes a step further in exploring the underlying reasons credit quality is poor. In some cases, the researchers say the methodologies did not align with good practice. Moreover, when the requirements were vague or flexible, they found that developers commonly made methodological choices that led to more credits and the auditors commonly did not enforce conservativeness, accuracy and “even reasonableness”.
Their overall conclusion is that REDD+ is ill-suited to the generation of carbon credits for use as offsets. They suggest a number of other actions that private actors can take or support that together can help to reduce tropical deforestation.
*Photo credit: James Shook of Ulva Island, New Zealand, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
Efforts to slow the climate crisis have long sought to harness nature, often through carbon “offsets”, aimed at bolstering forests, wetlands and agriculture, but have generally had only marginal success […]
Three Gates Cambridge Scholars debated whether gender equality is going backwards in the seventh episode of the current series of the ‘So Now What’ podcast. Reetika Subramanian [2019], William McInerney […]
When it comes to impact on society, Gates Cambridge Scholars have been improving the lives of others in many different ways, from work on social inclusion and social enterprise and […]
What helps birds adapt to human-modified environments and can they be trained to do so? While experts have talked about the importance of behavioural flexibility for some time, as expressed […]
