A University of Cambridge study published in Nature Communications reveals that while 80% of REDD+ projects successfully reduced deforestation, the market issued nearly eleven times more carbon credits than warranted. This over-crediting stems from flawed reference regions used to predict deforestation risks. To restore market integrity, researchers recommend using more representative reference forests and integrating independent satellite data. These reforms aim to fix the systemic biases that led to a significant collapse in voluntary carbon market confidence.
