ICVCM Clears Three REDD+ Methodologies for High-Integrity Carbon Label
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market approved three REDD+ carbon crediting methodologies, paving the way for CCP-labelled credits that reduce emissions from deforestation in developing countries. Credits from these methodologies are expected to enter the market with the CCP label from early 2025.
The ICVCM approved three REDD+ methodologies: ART's TREES v2.0, Verra's VM0048, and Verra's JNR Framework v4.1. Together these cover a large pipeline of credits in development — nine ART TREES jurisdictions have potential to issue 123 million credits, while 21 projects under VM0048 could issue around 300 million credits in their first crediting period. Under the reformed VM0048 standard, project baselines are now set by Verra using jurisdictional deforestation data rather than by developers themselves.
The approval addresses longstanding integrity concerns about REDD+ credits, which previously relied on developer-set baselines that critics argued enabled over-crediting. The ICVCM Governing Board concluded that the three approved methodologies substantially reduce this risk through stricter baseline-setting, improved permanence requirements, and stronger social safeguards including protections for Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Verra's older methodologies, which account for the majority of existing REDD+ credits, will not be eligible for the CCP label.
Projects using Verra's older REDD+ methodologies must transition to VM0048 and undergo a requantification to align with new baseline and monitoring requirements. ICVCM CEO Amy Merrill noted the decisions would unlock much-needed investment in nature-based solutions, particularly in tropical forest nations across Africa, Asia and Latin America. Two further TREES v2.0 crediting levels remain under assessment alongside cookstove methodologies, with decisions expected before year-end.
Key figure — 123 million credits in pipeline across 9 ART TREES jurisdictions
This content is AI-assisted and reviewed by the ESG Broadcast editorial team. It is for informational purposes only and is not investment or ESG-rating advice. See our Technology & Transparency policy.
← Back to ESG Broadcast