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

As the transition towards jurisdictional REDD+ baselines and JREDD+ programs gains momentum, a critical but often overlooked problem threatens the integrity of the market: data misalignment between REDD+ activities at different scales.

The issue is complex, technical, and largely invisible when viewing individual projects in isolation. As the market evolves toward jurisdictional baselines and 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:

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

This results in various datasets, baselines and estimation of REDD+ results that are increasingly combined for carbon credit issuance—and that's where problems begin.

The core issues:

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

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. This data is often used for national and subnational JREDD+ programs that operate under various frameworks like the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) Carbon Fund or independent carbon standards like ART TREES and Verra's VCS JNR framework. 

Individual projects, historically collecting their own data to define their discrete baselines and estimate REDD+ results, are now increasingly adopting jurisdictional baselines. This shift is driven by new or updated methodologies, such as Verra's VM0048, Cercarbono’s M/UT-REDD+, and the upcoming Equitable Earth’s M002. While it is a step towards harmonization across activities at different scales, each follows a different approach to setting baselines which at the same time differ from the approaches set by JREDD+ methodologies.

The problem emerges when JREDD+ programs (both for RBPs or carbon finance) and individual REDD+  projects co-exist and overlap and their results must be reconciled.

Each uses different:

• Activity data
• 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 REDD+ activities now coexist.

The challenge intensifies as jurisdictions register JREDD+ programs under independent standards for the purpose of issuing carbon credits. Questions arise about how REDD+ activities at different scales can work together, pushing governments towards thinking about how to best reconcile results accounting and how to define their "nesting" approaches.

But this introduces a critical problem: significant risk of double-issuance.

To prevent double-counting, most JREDD+ programs currently subtract credits issued by overlapping (in terms of location, activities in scope and vintage) individual projects . This practice, while seemingly straightforward, is problematic because the baselines are fundamentally different.

Trying to subtract a project's credits from a jurisdictional program's total is like trying to subtract apples from oranges—the underlying calculations are simply incompatible. This lack of a shared mathematical foundation makes the task of avoiding double-counting a major hurdle.

The integrity impact: Under-crediting vs over-crediting

This data misalignment can result in two serious problems for projects and programs at their individual level but also for the combined net outcome, undermining the market's effectiveness as a tool for forest protection and climate action:

Under-crediting scenarios:

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

Over-crediting scenarios:

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

Moving toward solutions

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 Sylvera’s Jurisdictional Intel can help

At Sylvera, we've developed comprehensive tools to help navigate this complex transition towards JREDD+ and identify risks or opportunities arising from this evolution.

Our Jurisditional Intel provides:

Country Assessment

• Risk and readiness scores for 33 actively engaged jurisdictions
• Evaluation of policy frameworks and implementation capacity
• Identification of overlaps of REDD+ activities at different scales

Methodology Comparison

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

Programs Tracker

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

‍

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 activity data and emission factors 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 biomass 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 data for their baselines, reducing divergence from the start.

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

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

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.

Navigating methodology complexity

Sylvera's Methodology Profiles provide essential guidance for navigating this fragmented landscape of REDD+ approaches. By conducting detailed analyses of project methodologies, such as Verra's VM0048, we evaluate the specific risks tied to each approach's baseline setting, monitoring, and data requirements. 

This enables buyers and investors to understand which methodologies are more susceptible to the data alignment challenges described above, helping them identify approaches that minimize risks as markets transition toward jurisdictional programs. 

And, at the individual project level, our Ratings evaluate how well projects implement their chosen methodology against our internal data sources and calculation methods. This assessment reveals where project-specific implementation might create future challenges with jurisdictional programs. 

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 accounted for or integrated.

For carbon standard: methodologies and required datasets should be increasingly harmonized across different scales of activity to ensure the calculations are sound.

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 market-leading data and tools can help you navigate this complex market - book your demo here.