akar.earthART TREES HFLD Crediting for High-Forest, Low-Deforestation Jurisdictions
HFLD crediting under ART TREES explained: how high-forest, low-deforestation jurisdictions earn credits, ICVCM remedial actions and Indonesian relevance.
HFLD crediting is the part of ART TREES that rewards high-forest, low-deforestation (HFLD) jurisdictions for keeping forests intact, by setting a crediting level above their low historical emissions. It is the most contested part of jurisdictional REDD+: ICVCM has found that the TREES 2.0 HFLD crediting level needs remedial actions, so HFLD credits do not currently carry the CCP label.
The problem HFLD tries to solve
Standard REDD+ accounting compares actual emissions with a historical baseline. A jurisdiction that has lost little forest has a low baseline, so it earns few credits even though its forests are large and valuable. That creates a perverse signal: places that protected forests get less finance than places that cleared them.
HFLD approaches respond by adjusting the crediting level upward for jurisdictions that meet high-forest and low-deforestation criteria. The jurisdiction then earns credits for staying below that adjusted level. See the HFLD glossary entry for a short definition.
How HFLD works under ART TREES
Under TREES 2.0, ART offered HFLD crediting as a separate crediting level alongside the standard approach. In outline:
- Eligibility is set by a score combining forest cover and deforestation rate. Only jurisdictions above the threshold qualify.
- The HFLD crediting level is calculated from the jurisdiction’s historical emissions plus an adjustment linked to its forest carbon stock.
- Credits are issued for results below the crediting level, after uncertainty, leakage and buffer deductions, like other TREES credits.
- Safeguards and MRV follow the same jurisdiction-wide rules as other TREES programs.
Guyana became the best-known HFLD issuer under TREES 2.0. ART released TREES 3.0 on 25 June 2026. We have not confirmed exactly how 3.0 changes HFLD eligibility or crediting, so read the TREES 3.0 text before relying on 2.0 formulas.
What ICVCM decided
ICVCM assessed TREES 2.0 crediting levels separately:
| TREES 2.0 element | ICVCM outcome |
|---|---|
| Program (ART TREES) | CCP-Eligible |
| HFLD crediting level | Remedial actions required |
| Removals crediting level | Remedial actions required |
ICVCM stated that 58.4 million credits have been issued under the TREES 2.0 HFLD crediting level and none are eligible for CCP labels. No credits had yet been issued under the removals crediting level. For an element with remedial actions to become CCP-Approved, the Governing Board must take a further decision confirming the actions are complete.
The integrity debate is about additionality. Critics argue that paying for forest that faces little near-term threat risks crediting protection that would happen anyway. Supporters argue HFLD jurisdictions face future pressure and deserve finance before deforestation rises. Buyers should decide which claim they are making; read our CCP label and avoiding greenwashing pages.
How it applies in Indonesia and Southeast Asia
Indonesia as a whole is not a low-deforestation country in historical terms, but forest cover and loss vary widely by province. Some heavily forested provinces in eastern Indonesia have historically had lower loss rates than Sumatra or Kalimantan. Whether any province would meet the HFLD criteria depends on the current formula and data, so no Indonesian province should be described as HFLD-eligible without a formal test.
Three Indonesian constraints apply on top of TREES:
- Sovereign approval. Only authorised government entities can register as ART program developers. A province needs national alignment under Perpres 110/2025.
- NDC accounting. Indonesia’s FOLU Net Sink 2030 target counts forest protection toward the NDC. Selling credits abroad raises corresponding adjustment questions.
- Community rights. Permenhut 6/2026 names social forestry, customary forests and communities as legitimate participants. Jurisdiction-wide programs must design benefit sharing to reflect this.
Questions buyers should ask
Before buying or financing HFLD credits, ask:
- Which TREES version and crediting level issued the credits, and has ICVCM confirmed any remedial actions?
- Does the host country authorise the credits for international use, with a corresponding adjustment?
- How is revenue shared with communities and Indigenous peoples in the jurisdiction?
- What claim will the buyer make: offsetting, contribution, or results-based finance support?
Common pitfalls
- Selling HFLD as CCP-labelled. It is not, until ICVCM confirms remedial actions.
- Applying TREES 2.0 formulas to TREES 3.0 programs. Check the current version.
- Confusing HFLD with project REDD+. HFLD is jurisdictional only; projects cannot claim it.
- Ignoring buyer claim rules. Some buyers can use HFLD units for contribution claims but not for offsetting claims under their policy.
Next steps
Read the main ART TREES page, compare project vs jurisdictional REDD+, or go to the REDD+ hub and standards hub. For a portfolio-level view, our due diligence service screens credit types against buyer policies.
Frequently asked questions
What is HFLD crediting?
HFLD crediting pays jurisdictions with high forest cover and historically low deforestation for keeping forests standing. A historical baseline would give them few or no credits, so HFLD methods adjust the crediting level to reward continued protection.
Are ART TREES HFLD credits CCP-labelled?
No, not at present. ICVCM found the TREES 2.0 HFLD crediting level requires remedial actions, and stated that none of the 58.4 million HFLD credits issued to date are eligible for CCP labels.
Could an Indonesian province qualify for HFLD crediting?
Some heavily forested Indonesian provinces with low historical loss may look like HFLD candidates, but eligibility depends on the formula in the current TREES version and on national approval. Check TREES 3.0 directly.