What to know about REDD+: Forest conservation projects and their indispensable role in impactful climate action
By Marisa Kunze, Co-Head of Nature-Based Solutions at First Climate
2024 has been nothing less than a catastrophe for the world’s largest forest. In just the first four months of the year, 12,000km2 of the Amazon forest burned. To put that number into perspective, that’s an area larger than the size of Qatar. The severe drought affecting the region has only exasperated the problem, and the fires have continued to burn, reaching a 14-year high for August with tens of thousands of fires raging and destroying vast areas. In September, Bolivia declared a national emergency.
Living in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil, I have been an indirect witness to the devastating fires: Over the past few weeks, the air quality has been very poor, and the sun has illuminated the sky red due to the smoke. Despite my years of experience working in the field of climate change and grappling with its implications on a daily basis, the devastation caused by catastrophes like these still deeply impact me.
It is clear to me that the state of our forests is cause for alarm. The FAO found a staggering loss of 420 million hectares of forest since 1990. And scientists are warning that the Amazon forest system could entirely collapse sooner than originally anticipated.
These are not “natural” disasters—deforestation is man-made, driven by human activities such as agriculture, cattle ranching, logging, mining, and infrastructure development. This large-scale clearing of forests contributes to habitat loss, biodiversity decline, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. While natural factors like wildfires and droughts can exacerbate deforestation, the root cause is overwhelmingly human intervention. One thing is for sure: We cannot hope to mitigate climate change if we don’t succeed in protecting our forests. And it’s not only for the sake of the climate but also for biodiversity, human society and health.
Why REDD was founded and why we need it.
Organizing, managing, and financing forest conservation, however, is no small feat and demands significant resources. Which is why REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) was established in 2013 as a solution to channel carbon finance toward forest conservation. The + was added later on to represent additional project activities that could further enhance forest carbon stocks.
The idea behind REDD+ was to give standing forests a monetary value—companies, countries or other entities could voluntarily contribute to forest conservation by purchasing emissions reductions certificates, also known as carbon credits. These carbon credits represent the avoidance of carbon emissions that would have occurred due to deforestation or forest degradation without the implementation of the project activities.
Voluntary Carbon Standards, such as Verra, developed quantification methodologies and independent validation and verification processes for REDD+ projects with the aim of ensuring that the emission reductions or removals are real, measurable, additional, and permanent.
Are REDD+ Baselines a Red Flag?
Of course, it’s not that simple in practice. One aspect that’s relevant for REDD projects is the question of accurate calculation of what’s known as the “project baseline”. This refers to determining the deforestation rates that would have been expected without the implementation of the project. Carbon credits are then generated based on the difference between the deforestation that would have happened in the baseline scenario and the actual deforestation observed under the project's activities.
Baselines are calculated differently for the two project types that fall under REDD+:
Avoided Planned Deforestation (APD)
APD involves planned deforestation caused by legal and authorized activities such as infrastructure projects or large-scale agriculture. Credits for APD projects are generated based on the carbon amounts saved by preventing or altering these planned activities. Because this type addresses planned deforestation, it is less complex and far easier to define a baseline for than their counterpart, AUD.
Avoided Unplanned Deforestation (AUD)
In the past for a REDD+ AUD project, project developers were responsible for selecting a reference region, which were intended to resemble the project area under similar biophysical conditions. As some critiques have pointed out, this was sometimes done in a way that could introduce bias: sometimes reference areas with a higher deforestation risk than in the actual project area were selected, potentially inflating baseline emissions and leading to inaccurate carbon credit issuances. Concerns were also raised about the project’s additionality as a result of these baselines, questioning whether these forest conservation measures could have taken place regardless, even without any direct project action. To be clear, this was certainly not the case for all projects, but enough to raise red flags when it came to REDD+ baselines, and potentially also the additionality of these projects.
Verra responded by moving away from the reference regions approach in their update to their REDD+ baseline methodologies in 2023. Now baselines are established by expert working groups to source deforestation data proportionate to the total deforestation within the relevant jurisdiction, with the aim of increasing consistency and accuracy.
From my perspective, the new methodology provides a clearer distinction between emissions reductions that genuinely result from project activities and those that would have occurred otherwise. This is a step forward for REDD+ projects and forest conservation in general. While the REDD+ concept may not be perfect, it is currently not possible to protect our native forests from deforestation at the scale needed without funds generated from REDD+ projects. Giving up on REDD+ would mean to abandon our forests in crisis. Instead, we can choose to improve and develop projects with high integrity.
Companies can now be more confident that when they invest in a REDD+ project, the carbon credits they purchase will accurately reflect the actual carbon emission reductions achieved. That being said, not all REDD+ projects are made the same with regard to quality. There are still differences to project development approaches, and not all are as effective as others. As project developers at First Climate, we take comprehensive measures and apply strict processes to ensure our projects are of the highest quality. This includes having a detailed project design, understanding core deforestation drivers, implementing robust monitoring systems, managing risks effectively, engaging directly with affected communities and other local stakeholders, and promoting sustainable development.
Addressing the Deforestation Drivers for a REDD+ Project
The drivers of deforestation are diverse and vary by location, including the conversion of forests into agricultural lands through burning, livestock breeding, illegal mining, urban expansion, or the need for firewood. Addressing these drivers with REDD+ projects involve implementing strategies that target the root causes of deforestation and supporting alternative livelihoods for local communities.
This can be quite a complex challenge, however : For instance, deforestation in the Amazon is often driven by agricultural practices using slash-and-burn techniques. However, because the soil in these areas is acidic and poorly suited for sustained agriculture, the converted lands fail to provide the desired level of agricultural productivity after one or two years. As a result, communities often abandon these plots and move to new areas of the forest in search of more fertile soil. While a project may prohibit slash-and-burn practices in the protected area, this alone may not address the core issue. Without offering sustainable alternatives, these deforestation activities can simply shift to unprotected areas. This phenomenon, known as "leakage," diminishes the project's overall effectiveness and can mislead stakeholders about its actual contribution to emissions reductions.
To prevent this, it is critical for project developers to implement strategies that tackle these root causes. For example, to combat slash-and-burn agriculture, some forest projects establish agroforestry systems on the degraded agricultural land to improve farming practices and extend land productivity. Planting appropriate tree species can help maintain soil fertility, provide shade and enhance crop productivity, and also learning proper integrated pest management practices. Agroforestry systems not only store more carbon and are more resilient than subsistence agriculture, but they also reduce the need to clear new forest areas, thereby protecting mature forests.
Addressing leakage is a complex challenge in developing effective REDD+ projects. Engaging stakeholders in the project planning and implementation process is crucial for identifying and mitigating local drivers of deforestation. Robust monitoring systems also play a key role in tracking land use changes and ensuring the effectiveness of conservation measures.
Risk Management in REDD+
In general, a project should always go through a comprehensive risk assessment for validation and verification. For example, this should include evaluations of the socio-economic factors driving deforestation, project management structures, the project’s financial stability, potential national or regional policy changes, potential conflicts, fires, floods, and other risks.
As project developers, we can conduct stakeholder consultations and continuously engage with communities to understand and address their needs and concerns, develop robust project management structures with clear roles and responsibilities; develop a financial sustainability plan that includes risk reserves and contingency funds; develop fire risk mapping, early warning systems, prevention and management education, firebreaks, monitor climate change impacts and adjust project strategies accordingly to enhance resilience.
However, in a natural environment there are also certain risks that are beyond the control of the project’s stakeholders. To cover the so-called reversal risks through for example forest fires, all forest protection projects across the globe that are registered under the same standard are required to contribute some of their credits to a non-permanence risk-buffer pool. This reserve of credits acts as a safety net, ensuring that even if some carbon is lost due to unforeseen events, the overall integrity of the project’s carbon emissions reductions remains intact.
REDD+ plays an indispensable role in impactful climate action
Forests are one of the planet’s most significant carbon sinks and take decades, even centuries, to grow, and it’s vital that we protect the ones we have now. REDD+ projects play a crucial role in mitigating climate change by protecting them, while contributing significantly with biodiversity preservation and the socio-economic development of local communities where they are implemented. New technologies are making these projects easier to monitor by offering more accurate, efficient, and real-time data on forest conditions and deforestation activities. The new jurisdictional baseline approaches further strengthen monitoring by establishing more consistent and comprehensive baselines at regional levels, improve accounting for deforestation reduction and better align conservation efforts with broader regional strategies.
While there can never be a 100% guarantee of perfection within a forest conservation project, protecting our forests remains one of the most important tasks of this century. While forest projects can be complex and carry risks, they can also incorporate safeguards and risk mitigation plans to ensure long-term protection. Looking beyond the carbon, these projects also deliver many co-benefits that support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as protecting biodiversity, providing employment and sustainable livelihoods, or developing infrastructure. As project developers, First Climate is committed to consistently delivering high-integrity projects that benefit the climate and promote sustainable development.
Protecting our forests is a responsibility that lies at the heart of meaningful climate action. It is encouraging to see companies stepping in to protect forests with carbon credits. The future of our planet depends on the actions we take today. Together, we can protect these irreplaceable ecosystems.
About the authors
Marisa Kunze is the Co-Head of Nature-Based Solutions at First Climate, with almost five years of experience as a project developer in the voluntary carbon market, specializing in reforestation, afforestation, mangrove restoration, and sustainable agriculture. She holds a Bachelor's degree in International Business and a Master's degree in Natural Resources Management from the Cologne University of Applied Sciences in Germany, equipping her with a strong foundation in business and environmental management. Currently, her team is actively engaged in reforestation initiatives in Madagascar, Ethiopia, and Brazil, mangrove restoration efforts in Indonesia, Kenya, and Brazil, and regenerative agriculture projects in Germany, Kenya, and Colombia.
Carlos Gameros works as a Senior Project Manager in the Nature-Based Solutions team at First Climate, developing climate change mitigation projects for the voluntary market. He holds a master's in tropical and international forestry from the Technische Universität Dresden and a bachelor's in Agroforestry Engineering from the Universidad Científica del Sur in Lima. Carlos specializes in commercial and technical due diligence, risk mapping, and development of early-stage greenhouse gas emission reduction and/or removal projects for the voluntary carbon market. Before joining First Climate, Carlos developed REDD and ARR projects specially in Latin America and African countries.
