The latest research is showing that nature-based REDD+ projects demonstrate real success in halting deforestation.
The latest research is showing REDD+ (reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation) projects demonstrate real success in halting deforestation. A major analysis led by the University of Cambridge reveals that while the voluntary carbon market has faced significant scrutiny over the over-issuance of credits, the underlying nature-based projects are largely working. The comprehensive study, published in Nature Communications, confirms that many REDD+ projects have achieved meaningful reductions in forest loss, offering tangible environmental benefits and proving that climate finance can effectively protect vital ecosystems.
The core finding: Four in five projects succeed.
Researchers synthesized six independent evaluations to measure the true, on-the-ground impact of these initiatives. The evaluations covered 44 REDD+ projects, representing nearly half of the projects producing credits by 2020.
The findings present a strong case for the efficacy of carbon-financed conservation: 36 out of 44 evaluated projects successfully reduced deforestation. Researchers emphasized that the prevalent narrative equating bad credits with bad projects is fundamentally flawed. The physical work of forest protection has been largely effective, even if the carbon accounting was not perfect.
“Many projects have successfully slowed deforestation, even if more credits were sold than are justified,” noted Professor Julia Jones, a co-author of the study. The impression that funding tropical forest conservation is inherently dubious is unhelpful, as forest conservation remains vital to tackling climate change.
Understanding the accounting gap.
The report highlights that only a few projects on the market were responsible for issuing approximately 10.7 times more credits than were justified by independent estimates. However, this discrepancy was not due to a failure in conservation efforts. Instead, it was driven by the methodological approaches used to set baseline deforestation scenarios.
Specifically, the reference or control areas chosen by crediting agencies to project what would have happened without the intervention were often more exposed to drivers of deforestation than the actual project areas. For instance, reference areas were frequently more accessible and less forested at the start of the evaluation periods, skewing the predicted risk higher. Additionally, the flexibility in ex-ante modeling allowed projects to select methodologies that produced higher estimates of avoided deforestation.
Crucially, the scale of over-crediting was not evenly distributed. The study revealed that just nine high-issuing REDD+ projects accounted for the vast majority of the over-crediting, skewing both market value and public perception. Excluding these top issuers, the average over-crediting ratio was much lower, pointing to a systemic accounting issue rather than widespread conservation failure.
The path forward for carbon buyers and project developers.
For sustainability professionals, buyers of hard-to-abate emission offsets, and project developers, the research underscores that the REDD+ carbon credit market should not be abandoned. With tropical forest conservation facing an estimated annual finance gap of US $216 billion, carbon markets remain one of the few viable mechanisms to drive substantial private investment into forest protection.
To ensure future credits represent truly additional reductions in deforestation, the carbon market is evolving. The report outlines several necessary shifts for the next generation of carbon finance:
Methodological overhauls. Moving away from project-selected reference areas and flexible ex-ante modeling toward jurisdictional approaches (JREDD+) driven by independent data providers.
Ex-post certification. Utilizing ex-post (after the fact) measurements against credible, quasi-experimental counterfactuals rather than relying on future predictions.
Pricing adjustments. Because future methodologies will likely issue far fewer credits per project, the price per credit must rise to reflect the genuine cost of verifiable mitigation and equitable project implementation.
Ultimately, the Cambridge study validates the core premise of REDD+: financing nature-based solutions successfully protects tropical forests. Bridging the global forest-finance gap will require the market to abandon expectations of low-cost offsets and instead pay the true cost of credible, high-integrity mitigation.
The positive successes of climate action and nature-based carbon projects can also be seen in the latest findings in the Global Forest Goals Report 2026. Launched by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) at the 21st session of the UN Forum on Forests, the report provides a comprehensive macro-level evaluation showing significant international progress in forest conservation. Assessing the six Global Forest Goals and 26 specific targets outlined in the UN Strategic Plan for Forests 2017–2030, the landmark report reveals that 24 out of 26 targets have been either fully met or partially achieved. This widespread progress indicates that global policy frameworks are successfully aligning with international conservation timelines, establishing a stable baseline for ongoing ecological interventions.
The report attributes the full achievement of seven specific targets directly to the scaled implementation of localized nature-based projects worldwide. These successful benchmarks have been driven by the formal expansion of protected forest areas, the widespread adoption of sustainable forest management practices, and targeted reforestation initiatives. By actively restoring degraded ecosystems and securing legal protections for critical biological corridors, these nature-based projects have successfully halted habitat fragmentation and enhanced local biodiversity, proving that structured, field-level conservation interventions yield measurable global results.
For the 17 targets categorized as partially achieved, the UN assessment highlights steady upward momentum, which is being largely sustained by ongoing nature-based carbon and conservation initiatives. These projects, which frequently integrate community-led agroforestry and legal land-tenure frameworks, are gradually reducing global deforestation rates while strengthening institutional capacity for data tracking and forest governance. However, the report emphasizes that accelerating these partially achieved targets into fully realized milestones before the 2030 deadline will depend heavily on rapidly replicating these nature-based models across vulnerable tropical and temperate forest biomes.
Despite these overall positive trends, the Global Forest Goals report identifies two critical areas currently lagging behind: Target 1.1, which mandates increasing global forest area by 3 percent, and Target 2.1, aimed at eradicating extreme poverty among forest-dependent populations. UN analysts emphasize that a persistent funding gap remains the primary obstacle to reversing these shortfalls, noting that public funding alone cannot achieve the necessary scale. To bridge this divide, the report underscores the vital role of private-sector climate finance and robust carbon market mechanisms to fund next-generation nature-based projects that can simultaneously drive large-scale afforestation and support local socio-economic development.
Invert Insights.
💡 Nature-based projects, including REDD+, have measurable and meaningful climate impact. But as with any carbon credit, project-level due diligence is important before making a purchase. High-integrity procurement requires a focus on carbon accounting, social impact, and regulatory alignment. Buyers should prioritize post-2020 vintages with independent ratings of BBB or higher, ensuring the project utilizes modern, conservative baselines (like Verra’s VM0048) to guarantee true additionality and leakage mitigation. Ethical integrity must be secured through verified Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) and transparent revenue-sharing frameworks that directly benefit indigenous communities. Finally, future-proofing purchases against greenwashing risks can be done by selecting credits that are nested within national jurisdictional frameworks and carry the ICVCM Core Carbon Principles (CCP) label.
💡 Forest degradation and land-use conversions are heavily concentrated in South America and Africa. Mobilizing resources directly to these primary tropical forest basins will yield the highest statistical impact on global forest retention. Similarly, we will see more positive gains shifting the focus from simple afforestation to the stricter protection of existing primary forests, which hold the most significant carbon stocks and biodiversity values.
