West, T.A.P., Alford-Jones, K., Delacote, P., Fearnside, P.M., Filewod, B., Groom, B., Kaupa, C., Kontoleon, A., L’Horty, T., Probst, B.S., Riva, F., Romero, C., Sills, E.O., Soares-Filho, B., Zhang, D., Wunder, S. and Putz, F.E. (2025) ‘Demystifying the romanticized narratives about carbon credits from voluntary forest conservation’, Global Change Biology, 31(10), e70527. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.70527
Abstract: Carbon offset projects aimed at avoiding deforestation and forest degradation, generally labelled REDD+, are frequently promoted as a pivotal tool for mitigating climate change, with additional co-benefits for biodiversity and local communities. Despite this optimism, most of the positive impacts claimed by these initiatives in the voluntary carbon market lack empirical support, resting instead on the hopeful narratives of stakeholders with clear conflicts of interest. This invited opinion critically examines the scientific theories, concepts and evidence behind REDD+ projects in the voluntary carbon market, highlighting limits on quantifying their purported benefits that are inherent to the current design of carbon markets. Independent studies consistently point to shortcomings in the rigour and credibility of crediting methodologies and other procedures, which market players have been slow or reluctant to address, and evidence is accumulating that projects’ climate and social impacts are often exaggerated. The authors aim to clarify widespread misconceptions about REDD+ projects and to help organisations and policymakers in their efforts to mitigate climate change meaningfully.
