The REDD+ Baseline Debate and What Changed

Updated 2026-11-02 · 4 min read · By the akar.earth specialist team

REDD baseline overcrediting explained: why project baselines were criticised, how VM0048 and jurisdictional allocation respond, and Indonesian impacts.

The REDD+ baseline debate centred on project developers setting their own deforestation baselines, which several studies found were often higher than the deforestation observed in comparable areas, leading to overcrediting. The market’s response was to move baseline-setting out of developers’ hands: Verra’s VM0048 allocates baselines from jurisdiction-level data, and jurisdictional standards such as ART TREES credit whole provinces or countries.

Why baselines are the crux

Avoided deforestation credits pay for emissions that did not happen. The number credited equals baseline emissions (what would have happened) minus actual emissions, minus leakage and buffer. Actual emissions can be measured. The baseline cannot: it is a counterfactual. If it is set too high, credits do not represent real reductions.

Older project methodologies, such as VM0007, let projects pick reference regions and model future deforestation from historical trends and drivers. Choices about reference regions, periods and models could change the baseline a lot, and developers had an incentive to choose high ones.

What the critics found

From around 2020, peer-reviewed studies compared REDD+ project areas with synthetic control areas built from similar forests. Several found that deforestation in controls was lower than the projects’ baselines assumed, implying many credits did not reflect real avoided loss. In early 2023, a widely read media investigation drew on this research and put REDD+ under intense public scrutiny. The studies themselves have been debated on method; the core lesson, that self-selected baselines are fragile, has been broadly accepted.

What changed

The result is a shift from “project as its own accountant” to “project as a share of a jurisdictional total”. See VM0048 vs VM0007.

What it means for Indonesian projects

Indonesia hosts many of Southeast Asia’s REDD+ credits; the region issued 129 million NbS credits under VCS and Gold Standard to April 2025, and Indonesia accounted for 59.3% of regional issuance, mostly REDD+. Indonesian projects have also rated well: BeZero’s 11 rated ex-post Indonesian projects average ‘A’, against ‘B’ as the most common rating for NbS elsewhere. Ratings matter, as prices rise about 40% per band.

Practical implications:

1. Legacy projects must transition to current methodologies under Verra’s timelines. Check Verra for deadlines that apply to your methodology.
2. Baselines will tie to jurisdictional data. A project’s share depends on the deforestation risk map, not its own modelling.
3. Nesting with Indonesia’s national and provincial programmes becomes central. See nesting projects in jurisdictions.
4. Domestic rules on authorisation, registration in SRUK and corresponding adjustments affect what can be sold abroad.

What buyers ask now

Corporate buyers and their advisers now ask sharper questions before purchasing REDD+ credits:

• Which methodology and version issued these credits, and will future vintages move to VM0048?
• Who set the baseline, and how does it compare with observed deforestation in similar areas?
• Is the project nested or registered nationally, and is a corresponding adjustment relevant?
• What do ratings agencies say, and why?
• How is leakage measured?

Projects that answer these clearly and publish the evidence face fewer discounts. Our view is that transparent baselines are now a commercial asset, not just a compliance step.

Avoided emissions vs removals

The debate also pushed some buyers toward removal credits. Both have roles: avoided deforestation protects existing carbon and biodiversity, while removals add new carbon. See removals vs avoidance.

Common mistakes

• Marketing older vintages as if they met current standards.
• Assuming a project’s historical baseline will carry over under VM0048.
• Ignoring leakage, which critics also flagged.
• Treating all REDD+ as equal; buyers now distinguish by method, vintage and rating.

What good evidence looks like

Buyers and raters look for: the methodology and version; how the baseline was set and by whom; comparison of baseline with observed deforestation; leakage approach; monitoring data with independent alerts; and safeguards. Transparent reporting of how the project would fare under a jurisdictional allocation strengthens trust.

For causes of deforestation that baselines must reflect, see drivers of deforestation in Indonesia. Our due diligence service reviews REDD+ projects for buyers. More on the REDD+ hub.