A University of Cambridge study of 44 early REDD+ projects reveals a massive gap between claimed and actual carbon savings. The research indicates that some projects issued 10.7 times more credits than independent analysis supports, largely due to biased baseline measurements and optimistic predictive models. While many projects did successfully slow deforestation, the findings highlight a systemic issue in how avoided emissions are calculated. Experts suggest moving toward ex post accounting, where credits are issued based on measured results rather than predictions, to restore trust in the voluntary carbon market.
