Carbon offset projects aimed at avoiding deforestation and forest degradation, generally labeled “REDD+,” are frequently promoted as a pivotal tool to mitigate climate change, promising to offer additional co-benefits for biodiversity and local communities. Despite this optimism, most positive impacts claimed by these initiatives in the voluntary carbon market (VCM) lack empirical support and are instead based on the hopeful narratives of stakeholders with clear conflicts of interest. We critically examine the scientific theories, concepts, and evidence regarding VCM's REDD+ projects, highlighting limitations on the quantification of their purported benefits that are inherent to the current design of carbon markets. Independent studies consistently point to shortcomings in the rigor and credibility of crediting methodologies and other procedures, which market players have been slow or reluctant to address. There is accumulating evidence that projects' climate and social impacts are often exaggerated due to a range of technical and practical shortcomings. We hope this work clarifies widespread misconceptions associated with REDD+ projects in the VCM and assists organizations and policymakers in their efforts to meaningfully mitigate climate change.
This work is licensed under © John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved.
This work is licensed under © John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.70527Score Altmetric:
Dimensions Nombre de citations:
Exporter la citation:
RIS (.ris)
TI - Demystifying the Romanticized Narratives About Carbon Credits From Voluntary Forest Conservation
AU - West, T.A.P.
AU - Alford-Jones, K.
AU - Delacote, P.
AU - Fearnside, P.M.
AU - Filewod, B.
AU - Groom, B.
AU - Kaupa, C.
AU - Kontoleon, A.
AU - L'Horty, T.
AU - Probst, B.S.
AU - Riva, F.
AU - Romero, C.
AU - Sills, E.O.
AU - Soares-Filho, B.
AU - Zhang, D.
AU - Wunder, S.
AU - Putz, F.E.
AB - Carbon offset projects aimed at avoiding deforestation and forest degradation, generally labeled “REDD+,” are frequently promoted as a pivotal tool to mitigate climate change, promising to offer additional co-benefits for biodiversity and local communities. Despite this optimism, most positive impacts claimed by these initiatives in the voluntary carbon market (VCM) lack empirical support and are instead based on the hopeful narratives of stakeholders with clear conflicts of interest. We critically examine the scientific theories, concepts, and evidence regarding VCM's REDD+ projects, highlighting limitations on the quantification of their purported benefits that are inherent to the current design of carbon markets. Independent studies consistently point to shortcomings in the rigor and credibility of crediting methodologies and other procedures, which market players have been slow or reluctant to address. There is accumulating evidence that projects' climate and social impacts are often exaggerated due to a range of technical and practical shortcomings. We hope this work clarifies widespread misconceptions associated with REDD+ projects in the VCM and assists organizations and policymakers in their efforts to meaningfully mitigate climate change.
PY - 2025
UR - https://www.cifor-icraf.org/knowledge/publication/46310/
DO - https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.70527
KW - biodiversity, carbon, climate change, deforestation, economics, environmental degradation, environmental protection, forest management, forests, pollution tax, procedures, voluntary approach
ER -Endnote (.ciw)
%T Demystifying the Romanticized Narratives About Carbon Credits From Voluntary Forest Conservation
%A West, T.A.P.
%A Alford-Jones, K.
%A Delacote, P.
%A Fearnside, P.M.
%A Filewod, B.
%A Groom, B.
%A Kaupa, C.
%A Kontoleon, A.
%A L'Horty, T.
%A Probst, B.S.
%A Riva, F.
%A Romero, C.
%A Sills, E.O.
%A Soares-Filho, B.
%A Zhang, D.
%A Wunder, S.
%A Putz, F.E.
%D 2025
%U https://www.cifor-icraf.org/knowledge/publication/46310/
%R https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.70527
%X Carbon offset projects aimed at avoiding deforestation and forest degradation, generally labeled “REDD+,” are frequently promoted as a pivotal tool to mitigate climate change, promising to offer additional co-benefits for biodiversity and local communities. Despite this optimism, most positive impacts claimed by these initiatives in the voluntary carbon market (VCM) lack empirical support and are instead based on the hopeful narratives of stakeholders with clear conflicts of interest. We critically examine the scientific theories, concepts, and evidence regarding VCM's REDD+ projects, highlighting limitations on the quantification of their purported benefits that are inherent to the current design of carbon markets. Independent studies consistently point to shortcomings in the rigor and credibility of crediting methodologies and other procedures, which market players have been slow or reluctant to address. There is accumulating evidence that projects' climate and social impacts are often exaggerated due to a range of technical and practical shortcomings. We hope this work clarifies widespread misconceptions associated with REDD+ projects in the VCM and assists organizations and policymakers in their efforts to meaningfully mitigate climate change.
%K biodiversity
%K carbon
%K climate change
%K deforestation
%K economics
%K environmental degradation
%K environmental protection
%K forest management
%K forests
%K pollution tax
%K procedures
%K voluntary approach
Année de publication
2025
ISSN
1354-1013
Auteurs
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.; Putz, F.E.
Langue
English
Mots clés
biodiversity, carbon, climate change, deforestation, economics, environmental degradation, environmental protection, forest management, forests, pollution tax, procedures, voluntary approach
Source
Global Change Biology. 31(10): e70527
