The REDD+ and JREDD+ Data Misalignment: When Forest Data Doesn't Add Up

As jurisdictional REDD+ programs gain momentum, a critical but often overlooked problem threatens the integrity of the market: data misalignment between REDD+ and JREDD+.

The issue is complex, technical, and largely invisible when viewing individual projects in isolation. But as the market evolves toward government-led programs, understanding this challenge has become crucial for the integrity of the market.

Need more info on jurisdictional REDD+? Read our introduction to JREDD+ blog here.

The forestry data landscape

Forest sector emissions are monitored with three distinct purposes in mind, each using different methods and creating separate datasets:

• GHG emissions reporting - To meet international and domestic obligations
• Results-Based Payments (RBPs) - To access payments for REDD+ results
• Carbon finance - To issue credits for REDD+ projects or programs

Historically, these datasets operated independently. But today, they're increasingly combined for carbon credit issuance—and that's where problems begin.

The core issues:

• Inefficiency: Multiple players are collecting the same data.
• Bad math: arising from:
  
  • differences in the datasets (both in activity data and emission factors), and 
  • differences in the methodologies to establish baselines and activity results. 

‍

When combined,  the calculations can be flawed, leading to inaccurate credit accounting. 

The data landscape: A complex blend of standards

The REDD+ data ecosystem spans multiple scales, frameworks, and methodologies. At the national level, governments use their own monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems for GHG reporting. Subnational programs operate under frameworks like the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) or standards like ART TREES and Verra's VCS JNR framework.

Individual projects add another layer of complexity, using methodologies like:

• Verra's VM0048 for REDD projects
• Cercarbono's M/UT-REDD+ methodology
• Equitable Earth's M002 approach

The problem emerges when these different approaches must be reconciled.

Each uses different:

• Activity data sources
• Emission factors
• Baseline methodologies
• Monitoring approaches

The impact on carbon markets

Individual REDD+ projects expanded rapidly while governments were simultaneously developing jurisdictional REDD+ expertise. This parallel development created a complex landscape where different scales of activity must now coexist.

The challenge intensifies as jurisdictions register JREDD+ programs under independent standards. Questions arise about how REDD+ activities at different scales can work together, pushing governments toward "nesting" approaches that theoretically integrate project and jurisdictional activities.

But here's the critical problem: the transition introduces significant double-issuance risk.

To prevent double-counting, jurisdictional REDD+ programs must subtract credits issued by individual projects within their boundaries. This sounds straightforward in principle but proves nearly impossible in practice, because the baselines are fundamentally different.

Individual projects often establish baselines using:

• Limited reference areas
• Project-specific datasets
• Different time periods
• Varying methodological approaches

Meanwhile, jurisdictional programs use:

• Jurisdiction-wide historical data
• Government MRV systems
• International reporting standards
• Different calculation methods

The result: Attempting to subtract one from the other is like trying to subtract apples from oranges. The mathematical foundation is incompatible.

The integrity impact: Under-crediting vs over-crediting

This data misalignment creates two serious problems:

Under-crediting scenarios:

• Projects fail to receive full credit for legitimate emission reductions
• Reduced financial incentives discourage forest protection activities
• Communities and governments lose out on deserved revenue

Over-crediting scenarios:

• Credits issued exceed actual emission reductions achieved
• Market integrity suffers from inflated credit volumes
• Buyers unknowingly purchase credits with questionable environmental value

Both outcomes undermine the market's effectiveness as a tool for forest protection and climate action.

Standards evolution: Moving toward solutions

Recognizing these challenges, standards bodies are adapting. Verra is moving toward jurisdictional baselines for its REDD+ methodologies. Other standards are developing frameworks that better align project and jurisdictional approaches.

But the fundamental problem persists: even jurisdictional baselines are constructed differently across programs, making accurate reconciliation challenging.

Consider the variety in jurisdictional approaches:

• ART TREES: Uses jurisdiction's MRV with TREES 2.0 methodology
• Verra JNR: Combines jurisdiction's MRV with VCS JNR framework
• National approaches: Vary widely based on country-specific systems

The solution requires acknowledging that we're in a transition period where perfection isn't realistic—but recognition of the problem is essential.

The industry needs movement toward:

• Common understanding of forestry data standards
• Harmonized approaches to baseline setting
• Transparent accounting for methodological differences
• Effective mechanisms for cross-scale reconciliation

While still accounting for:

• National differences in MRV capabilities
• Varying policy contexts and priorities
• Different stages of REDD+ program development
• Diverse stakeholder needs and rights

This balance is key to ensuring countries and programs can be compared and integrated effectively without losing the flexibility needed for diverse national contexts.

How Jurisdictional Intel addresses these challenges

At Sylvera, we've developed comprehensive tools to help navigate this complex landscape and identify where data misalignment creates risks or opportunities.

Our Jurisditional Intel feature provides:

Country Assessment

• Risk and readiness scores for 33 actively engaged jurisdictions
• Analysis of MRV system maturity and data quality
• Evaluation of policy frameworks and implementation capacity

Methodology Comparison

• Side-by-side analysis of ART TREES, VCS JNR, and national frameworks
• Assessment of baseline setting approaches and their compatibility
• Identification of methodological strengths and limitations across different standards

Programs Tracker

• Real-time monitoring of upcoming JREDD+ program issuances
• Analysis of supply pipeline and market dynamics
• Tracking of buyer interest and sales activity across jurisdictions

Project-Level Integration 

And, at the individual project level, our Ratings evaluate methodology implementation against our frameworks, helping identify where project and jurisdictional accounting may conflict.

Biomass measurement and creating a common foundation

Underlying all these methodological differences is a more fundamental issue: the forest carbon data itself. Whether at project or jurisdictional scale, REDD+ activities ultimately depend on accurately measuring how much carbon is stored in forests and how those carbon stocks change over time.

When individual projects use one set of carbon estimates and jurisdictional programs use another - both potentially inaccurate - attempting to reconcile them becomes not just methodologically challenging but scientifically questionable.

Sylvera's biomass data addresses this foundational problem by providing standardized, high-accuracy forest carbon data that can serve both individual projects and jurisdictional programs. Using technology that's 6x more accurate than traditional methods, our approach delivers annual forest carbon estimates across the world's most important forest regions.

This creates possibilities for more aligned REDD+ accounting because:

Consistent baselines: Both project and jurisdictional programs can reference the same underlying carbon stock data, reducing methodological divergence from the start.

Standardized monitoring: Rather than using different activity data sources, programs can track forest changes using the same scientific foundation, making reconciliation mathematically feasible.

Transparent verification: Independent, ground-truth data allows for objective assessment of emission reduction claims across different scales and methodologies.

Historical consistency: Time series data enables programs to establish baselines using consistent methodology regardless of when projects started or jurisdictional programs launched.

The value of this approach is not in replacing existing REDD+ methodologies, but in providing the accurate forest carbon data that any methodology requires to function credibly. Whether a project uses VM0048, a jurisdiction implements ART TREES, or a government develops its national MRV system, all can benefit from more accurate underlying forest carbon measurement.

How to ensure integrity across the market

Whether you're a project developer, investor, end buyer, or government entity, understanding these data alignment challenges is crucial for making informed decisions in the evolving market.

For buyers: Due diligence must now include assessment of how project or program accounting aligns with broader jurisdictional systems.

For investors: Investment decisions should factor in the risk of future accounting reconciliation challenges as markets mature.

For governments: JREDD+ program design should consider how existing project activities will be integrated or transitioned.

For developers: Project development must increasingly align with jurisdictional frameworks and data systems.

The forest carbon market's integrity depends on addressing these technical but fundamental challenges. By acknowledging the complexity, investing in better data harmonization, and using tools that can navigate the current landscape, we can work toward a more robust and trustworthy market for REDD+ and JREDD+.

‍

Explore how our Jurisdictional Intel and biomass data can provide the insights you need to navigate this complex market - book your demo here.