Forest protection credits are among the most traded and most debated in the voluntary market. They fund the protection of forests that store large amounts of carbon, but counting how much deforestation a project really stopped is hard. This page explains how REDD+ works, what the research found, how the rules have changed and what to check before you buy. It is part of our guide to carbon credit project types.
How REDD+ projects work
REDD+ stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries. The ICVCM describes it as a United Nations-backed framework, with the “+” covering conservation, sustainable forest management and enhancement of forest carbon stocksSource 3. It uses results-based finance: countries and businesses pay countries and communities not to cut down their forests, in exchange for carbon creditsSource 3.
A project, or a whole jurisdiction, estimates how much forest would be lost without intervention. This is the baseline. It then monitors actual forest loss. The difference, converted to tonnes of CO₂e and checked by an auditor, becomes credits.
The stakes are large. The ICVCM notes that forests store about 861 gigatonnes of carbon, and that forest protection and restoration could contribute at least 30% of the mitigation needed to meet the Paris Agreement’s goalsSource 3.
Matched shop
Buy forest protection credits
- Registry serial numbers
- Retirement certificate
- Project documentation
Avoidance, not removal
REDD+ credits are avoidance credits. The Oxford Offsetting Principles class avoided ecosystem loss and degradation as emission reduction from the biosphere, separate from carbon removalSource 13. Ecosystem Marketplace notes that some REDD+ projects also produce credits that represent both reductions and removalsSource 12.
The Oxford Principles say avoidance credits can play a key role in the short and medium term to protect carbon stored in vulnerable ecosystems, but that buyers should shift toward removals over timeSource 13. They also argue that ecosystem protection and restoration must be rapidly scaled up and valued for wider benefits, including resilience and biodiversity, with rigorous social and environmental safeguards and free, prior and informed consentSource 13. See removal vs avoidance credits.
What did the research find?
The main concern is over-crediting through inflated baselines.
- West and colleagues examined 26 avoided-deforestation project sites in six countries. They found most had not significantly reduced deforestation, and where they had, the reductions were substantially lower than claimed. The gap came from the difference between project baselines and what happened in comparable control areasSource 7.
- Probst and colleagues’ review of crediting projects estimated that 25% of avoided-deforestation credits represented real emission reductionsSource 8.
- Verra published a technical review calling earlier versions of this research “patently unreliable”, arguing that it compared projects with areas under little threat and used unsuitable dataSource 9.
Our page do carbon offsets work? covers the debate in more depth.
Watch for self-set baselines
The older approach let developers pick their own reference areas to project future deforestation. Prefer credits issued under newer methodologies where baselines are set at jurisdiction level, and check the methodology code on the registry record.
How the rules changed
In November 2024 the ICVCM approved three REDD+ methodologies against its Core Carbon PrinciplesSource 4:
Scrolls sideways to show every column.
| Methodology | ICVCM status |
|---|---|
| ART TREES v2.0 (TREES Crediting Level) | Approved, November 2024 |
| Verra VM0048 v1.0 | Approved, November 2024 |
| Verra Jurisdictional and Nested REDD+ Framework v4.1 | Approved, November 2024 |
| Verra’s older REDD+ methodologies | Not able to receive the CCP label |
| ART TREES v2.0 HFLD and Removals Crediting Levels | Remedial actions required, May 2026 |
As of Oct 2026
Standards named in this table
Verra
Logos identify the organisations named; no endorsement is implied.
The November 2024 decision is from the ICVCMSource 4, and the May 2026 decision on ART’s high-forest, low-deforestation (HFLD) and removals crediting levels from its later announcementSource 5. Under VM0048, developers no longer set their own baselines from self-selected reference areasSource 4. Verra’s page shows that only the unplanned-deforestation module is available so far, with modules for forest degradation and planned deforestation under development, and that CCP labels apply only to projects using that moduleSource 6.
Approval doesn’t mean supply. Ecosystem Marketplace reported that CCP-approved REDD+ credits were not yet available on the market in 2024Source 12.
Permanence and reversal risk
Protected forests can still burn, be logged or be cleared later. The IPCC notes that carbon stored in vegetation and soils can be reversed by human or natural disturbances and is prone to climate change impactsSource 14.
Standards deal with this through buffers. The ICVCM’s Core Carbon Principles require that where there is a risk of reversal, measures are in place to address those risks and compensate reversalsSource 11. Verra’s AFOLU Non-Permanence Risk Tool assesses potential carbon losses over 100 years and sets how many credits each project must place in a shared bufferSource 10.
What do REDD+ credits cost?
Scrolls sideways to show every column.
| Year | Average price (USD per tCO₂e) | Volume traded (MtCO₂e) |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 7.87 | 28.2 |
| 2024 | 6.03 | 13.6 |
As of Oct 2026
These are Ecosystem Marketplace’s averages: REDD+ volume fell 52% and its price 23% in 2024Source 12.
Prices have since recovered for highly rated credits. Sylvera’s data on credits retired shows REDD+ credits it rates BBB or higher rising 58% in a year, and the gap between the best- and worst-rated credits nearly doublingSource 15:
Scrolls sideways to show every column.
| Quarter | Rated BBB or higher (USD per tCO₂e) | Rated BB or lower (USD per tCO₂e) |
|---|---|---|
| Q3 2025 | 4.90 | 2.70 |
| Q3 2026 | 7.75 | 3.56 |
As of Sept 2026 · Source: [15] Sylvera, Carbon Market Data Snapshot: Q3 2026
If you buy REDD+, the rating matters as much as the project type. See carbon credit prices for the wider market and carbon credit ratings for how the agencies score credits.
Buying REDD+ credits
- Check the methodology on the registry record: VM0048, ART TREES or an older one.
- Prefer jurisdictional or nested programmes, where baselines are set above project level.
- Look for community benefits and safeguards, and how the project shares revenue.
- Verify retirement in your name; see how to verify carbon credits.
Want carbon taken back out of the air instead? Compare reforestation and blue carbon, or blend types with a portfolio approach.