Q&A with experts on forest finance, JREDD+ and Brazil’s climate strategies
Callie Stinson, Deputy Director, Nature Campaigning, We Mean Business Coalition
As momentum builds toward COP30, host country Brazil is seeking to mobilize additional finance for forests and nature as an outcome of the summit. Stakeholders across the climate and forest finance ecosystem are asking critical questions about the future of carbon markets and the role of jurisdictional REDD+ programs — designed to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD), and to incorporate sustainable forest management, conservation, and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks (+).
To address some of these questions, WMBC recently hosted a webinar to explore the pivotal role of forests and JREDD+ in advancing global climate goals, ensuring environmental integrity, scaling impact through evolving market standards, and guiding investors ahead of COP30.
Our expert speakers—featuring Dr. Joanna Macrae from the UK Government, Roselyn Fosuah ADJEI from the Forest Commission of Ghana, Keith Tuffley and Carolina Gueiros from Race to Belém, Abyd Karmali from Bank of America, Jason Funk from Conservation International, Frances Seymour from Woodwell Climate Research Center, and Lorna Ritchie from The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, reflected on some of the questions raised during the discussion:
🌳 REDD+ vs. JREDD+: What’s the difference?
REDD+ will be familiar to many businesses as it’s been around since Bali, but JREDD+ may be less familiar. In short: REDD+ is JREDD+, as defined under the UNFCCC’s Warsaw Framework (2013) and enshrined in the Paris Agreement. While “REDD+” is often used broadly, the formal, negotiated REDD+ framework calls for national-scale implementation, with subnational programs implemented on an interim basis.
Key points to clarify the distinction and evolution of these terms:
- Origins: REDD+ began with the 2007 Bali Roadmap, which called for “demonstration activities” (interpreted at the time as project-level activities) to generate early lessons for the design and implementation of the eventual negotiated outcome.
- Scale and structure: Under the Warsaw Framework, REDD+ is meant to operate at the jurisdictional (national or subnational) level, requiring emissions accounting across entire territories rather than individual projects.
- Project integration: One challenge is that existing project-level activities must now be “nested” within jurisdictional programs, aligning their baselines and accounting with broader government-led systems.
- Equity and governance: Nesting requires the negotiation of credit/revenue allocation that is perceived as fair among governments, project developers, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities.
- Terminology in practice: “JREDD+” is now often used to describe REDD+ programs implemented at jurisdictional scale, distinguishing them from legacy, stand-alone project-based approaches.
🏛️ What is the role of governments in scaling JREDD+?
Governments play an essential role in enabling successful jurisdictional crediting. Through its partnership with Silvania, the state of Tocantins, for example, is taking concrete steps to:
- Enhance enforcement and fire prevention to tackle deforestation and degradation.
- Strengthen government capacity to prevent and respond effectively to forest fires.
- Develop a benefit-sharing plan through public consultation to ensure it supports sustainable livelihoods.
- Ensure equitable distribution of economic and social benefits among all stakeholders.
- Establish robust institutional frameworks for forest monitoring and safeguards.
This illustrates why jurisdictional-scale REDD+ (JREDD+) is vital—it incentivizes the kind of systemic change only governments can deliver.
💼 How can corporate buy-in for carbon credits move beyond goodwill? Is merging voluntary and compliance markets a solution?
Even with Net Zero targets set as early as 2040, many companies remain hesitant to allocate real investment budgets toward carbon credits—especially when returns are primarily reputational. The business case must go beyond goodwill to secure internal buy-in.
Many experts believe a convergence between voluntary and compliance markets is inevitable and desirable as more emissions fall under national and subnational carbon pricing systems. Today, we’re already seeing convergence:
- Companies are using compliance-approved credits in jurisdictions like Colombia and California for both voluntary and regulatory purposes
- Voluntary standards like ICVCM are influencing compliance mechanisms such as ICAO-CORSIA and Article 6.2
Governments are also taking note -and leadership – including through the recently launched, government-led Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets, which aims to rapidly boost demand for high-quality credits by fostering intergovernmental coordination and shared ambition.
However, in some countries, mandatory compliance policies are not on the near horizon, so government signals to corporations encouraging participation in voluntary carbon markets and articulating “what good looks like” in terms of high-integrity demand and high-integrity supply, are essential interim measures.
One nuance to keep in mind on this topic:
Under the Warsaw Framework on REDD+, all formal forest-related climate commitments by developing countries must follow its rules—and these are reflected in their NDCs under the Paris Agreement. That means countries can’t include VCM activities into their national climate goals unless they align with the REDD+ framework.
This makes the Warsaw Framework the bridge between voluntary market actions and their recognition in compliance systems like Article 6 — ensuring safeguards and accountability are upheld.
🔗 Is Brazil’s Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) complimentary to or in competition with JREDD+ when it comes to scaling forest preservation?
Brazil has clearly positioned the TFFF as complementary to JREDD+. That complementarity spans three key areas:
What’s rewarded:
- JREDD+: Positive changes in forest-based CO2 emissions and removals.
- TFFF: Area of standing forest as a proxy for broader ecosystem services (not just carbon) provided by standing forests.
Finance type and duration:
- JREDD+: Time-limited, credit-based purchases by public and private sector entities seeking to compensate for unabated emissions.
- TFFF: Long-term payment for ecosystem services (PES) from global financial markets leveraged via sovereign loans and guarantees.
Institutional infrastructure:
- TFFF can leverage JREDD+ infrastructure (e.g., jurisdictional-scale systems for forest monitoring, safeguards, and revenue management) for monitoring and governance.
🔭 What are the landmarks toward Belém?
A key moment on the road to Belém will come in September during the UN General Assembly and New York Climate Week. Public events and private engagements will be crucial for aligning stakeholders around core outcomes for COP—especially on the roles of forest finance and carbon markets. Positive signals from New York would include:
- A unified narrative around how forest finance instruments work together.
- Government prioritization of forest finance and carbon market outcomes at COP.
- Private sector commitments to purchase a significant volume of high-integrity JREDD+ credits at prices commensurate with their value.