akar.earthProject-Level vs Jurisdictional REDD+
Project-level vs jurisdictional REDD+ in Indonesia: baselines, leakage, who gets paid, standards, nesting and how buyers and developers should choose.
Project-level REDD+ suits a developer, concession holder or community that controls a defined forest area, can act on the drivers of deforestation there and wants to sell credits directly. Jurisdictional REDD+ suits governments that want to reward reduced deforestation across a whole province or country under one reference level, with lower leakage risk and stronger alignment to national targets. In Indonesia both coexist, and the practical question for developers is how a project will nest within jurisdictional and national accounting.
Side-by-side comparison
| Attribute | Project-level REDD+ | Jurisdictional REDD+ |
|---|---|---|
| Area | A defined project area (concession, licence, community forest) | A whole province, district or country |
| Proponent | Company, NGO, community group | Government |
| Main standards | Verra VCS with VM0048 | ART TREES, Verra JNR, World Bank programs |
| Baseline | Now allocated from jurisdictional data under VM0048 | One reference level for the jurisdiction |
| Leakage | Must be estimated and deducted; activity can shift nearby | Largely internalised within the jurisdiction |
| Speed to credits | Faster for a motivated proponent | Slower; needs government systems |
| Who gets paid | Proponent, then via contracts to communities | Government, then via benefit-sharing plans |
| Buyer types | Corporate voluntary buyers | Governments, compliance-oriented and high-integrity corporate buyers |
| Policy alignment | Must align with national rules and accounts | Built around national or subnational accounts |
| Indonesia status | Most of Indonesia’s NbS issuance to date | Provincial programs, e.g. East Kalimantan under FCPF |
Key differences
Baselines. Project-level REDD+ was historically criticised for project-chosen baselines that overstated the threat. Verra’s VM0048 now allocates baselines from jurisdiction-level data, narrowing this gap. Jurisdictional programs set one reference level for the whole area, usually tied to national forest reference levels. See the REDD+ baseline controversy.
Leakage. When a project stops clearing inside its boundary, clearing may move next door. Projects must estimate and deduct this. Across a whole province, much of that movement is captured in the same accounts. See leakage accounting.
Control. A project proponent can act directly: patrols, alternative livelihoods, fire prevention. A jurisdiction acts through policy, spatial planning and enforcement, and must distribute benefits widely.
Nesting. The two can connect. A province can recognise projects within its accounting, allocate a share of its reference level to each, and avoid double counting. Verra’s JNR framework has explicit nesting scenarios; ART TREES leaves this to the jurisdiction. See nesting projects in jurisdictions and ART TREES vs Verra JNR.
When each fits in Indonesia and Southeast Asia
Indonesia contributed 59.3% of Southeast Asian NbS issuance under VCS and Gold Standard to April 2025, mostly from project-level REDD+. Cambodia added 37.0%, also mainly REDD+.
- Concession or PBPH restoration licence holders with a clear threat and the means to address it: project-level REDD+ under VM0048, with early checks on Indonesian rules. See PBPH licences.
- Social forestry and customary forest groups: project-level or community-scale REDD+, now explicitly supported by Permenhut 6/2026’s framing of communities as legitimate, equal participants.
- Provincial governments with strong data and political will: jurisdictional programs, building on experience such as East Kalimantan’s FCPF program.
- Buyers: project credits give a direct link to a place and community story; jurisdictional credits give scale and policy alignment. Diligence differs; see due diligence for buyers.
Cost and effort considerations
We do not quote costs. Drivers:
- Project-level: baseline and leakage analysis, patrols, community programs, validation and verification, buffer contributions under the AFOLU non-permanence risk tool.
- Jurisdictional: province-wide monitoring, safeguards information systems, benefit-sharing design and inter-agency coordination.
- Nesting: reconciliation between project and jurisdiction data, and legal agreements on who claims what.
Our due diligence service reviews REDD+ projects for nesting and baseline risk.
Questions to ask before you choose
- Does your province have, or plan, a jurisdictional program? If yes, design the project to nest from the start.
- Can you control the drivers of deforestation? If the drivers lie outside your area or authority, project-level REDD+ will struggle.
- Who must consent? Communities, customary groups and licence holders inside the area all need a clear role and benefit share.
- How will credits be authorised? Domestic recording and any international transfer depend on government decisions.
Common misconceptions
- “Jurisdictional REDD+ will replace projects.” Both continue; nesting connects them.
- “Project REDD+ is always overcredited.” Newer methodologies and ratings separate stronger projects; BeZero’s 11 rated ex-post Indonesian projects average ‘A’.
- “Jurisdictional credits need no community involvement.” Safeguards and benefit-sharing are core requirements.
- “A province can sell credits without national approval.” Subnational programs must fit national accounting and authorisation rules.
More in the REDD+ hub.
Frequently asked questions
What is jurisdictional REDD+?
Jurisdictional REDD+ measures and credits reduced deforestation and degradation across a whole national or subnational territory, such as a province, against one reference level, rather than for an individual project area.
Is jurisdictional REDD+ higher quality than project REDD+?
It reduces some risks, especially leakage within the jurisdiction and baseline inflation, because one consistent reference level covers the whole area. Quality still depends on data, safeguards and benefit-sharing.
Can project-level REDD+ continue in Indonesia?
Yes. Project-level REDD+ continues under standards such as VCS, now using VM0048's jurisdiction-allocated baselines. Projects must also follow Indonesian rules, including Permenhut 6/2026 for forestry carbon.
What does nesting mean?
Nesting places a project inside a jurisdictional accounting system, so the project's baseline and credits are consistent with the jurisdiction's reference level and there is no double counting.