Abstract:As efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions ramp up under net zero emissions commitments and other voluntary and regulated climate efforts, debate is intensifying over what constitute legitimate GHG reduction credits or 'offsets' [1, 2]. Interest and skepticism over offsets are both soaring. Standards that can differentiate credible reductions while harnessing the benefits of market approaches will be pivotal to the success of global climate efforts. To build consensus around high-integrity approaches and resolve misconceptions over the relative merits of fossil versus terrestrial emissions reductions [3, 4], policy makers need to recognize that robustness of net CO2 reductions critically depends on scale of actions and policies.The next Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in November 2021 will again take up the contentious issues of developing rules on international emissions transfers under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, including around the potential transition of approaches from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the carbon offsetting system developed under the Kyoto Protocol. What types of emission reduction credits are acceptable is central to these negotiations. Such criteria are also essential for regulated market systems such as the program to cap emissions for international aviation known as CORSIA, California's cap-and-trade program, and China's national carbon market launched this year; as well as for an increasing number of private companies and individuals pursuing voluntary climate goals.An effective emission reduction crediting system rewards either reductions in the flows of carbon and other GHGs to the atmosphere and/or increases in removals (negative emissions) through enhancement of carbon stocks. Both fossil and terrestrial carbon mitigation can either reduce flows (e.g. from fuel combustion or deforestation) or enhance stocks (e.g. via direct air capture or forest restoration). Rewarding fossil and terrestrial mitigation through carbon credits or other finance may appear different but raise analogous estimation and certification challenges.Various carbon crediting standards are in use across voluntary and compliance carbon markets [5]. These standards seek to ensure climate benefits by addressing issues of monitoring, reporting and verification, 'leakage' (whether emissions reductions in one place cause increases in another), 'additionality' (whether reductions would have happened even without a particular project or program) and 'permanence' (whether a reduction at one point in time is reversed at another). Until recently, these approaches have neglected a central determinant of the environmental integrity of emissions reductions—the scale at which reductions are achieved and quantified.In the first instance, 'scale' refers to whether emissions reductions are managed and results quantified according to the boundaries of a large political jurisdiction with administrative ability to formulate and effect climate policy, rather than at the level of a stand-alone project. 'Jurisdictional' emissions reduction crediting approaches quantify emissions reductions relative to a baseline for an entire economy or economic sector across a political jurisdiction, such as nation, state, or province. Any crediting for smaller-scale activities or projects—e.g. on specific areas of land, industrial facilities, or smaller administrative units—is integrated or 'nested' within the larger jurisdictional accounting. Jurisdictional approaches have emerged for programs to reduce emissions from deforestation, stemming from long-standing concerns with the integrity of reductions from land-based activities [3]. In the second instance, 'scale' refers to how long emission reductions are managed for.Historically most emissions reduction credits have been generated through stand-alone projects, particularly under the CDM. While the CDM excluded efforts to reduce deforestation, the Paris Agreement, adopted by 196 countries in 2015, reaffirmed support for public and private finance for reducing and reversing forest loss at jurisdictional scales, under the framework known as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). Standards for compliance markets and public sector results-based payments for reducing deforestation have adopted this jurisdictional approach. In November 2020, the governing council of the International Civil Aviation Organization approved two jurisdictional tropical forest protection standards for use within CORSIA—the first time such standards have been adopted under an internationa -Abstract Truncated-

Who Owns REDD+? Carbon Markets, Carbon Rights and Entitlements to REDD+ Finance

REDD+ at risk: Emerging ten questions that REDD+ must answer

Is there an ideal REDD+ program? An analysis of policy trade-offs at the local level

Interactions of Reduced Deforestation and the Carbon Market: The Role of Market Regulations and Future Commitments

Generating carbon finance through avoided deforestation and its potential to create climatic, conservation and human development benefits

What drives policy change for REDD+? A qualitative comparative analysis of the interplay between institutional and policy arena factors

REDD+: analysis of its components through a systematic review of scientific literature from Brazil and Indonesia

Global analysis of the proposed benefits from REDD+ projects

Social capital from carbon property: creating equity for indigenous people

Contesting Moral Capital in the Economy of Expectations of an Extractive Frontier

Ecological and Economic Impacts of REDD+ Implementation in Developing Countries

Forest governance and REDD+ in Central Africa: towards a participatory model to increase stakeholder involvement in carbon markets

Uncovering REDD Plus in Brazil

A study of legal attributes of carbon emission rights in carbon trading

Environmental integrity of emissions reductions depends on scale and systemic changes, not sector of origin

Designing a carbon market that protects forests in developing countries

Livelihood Impacts of Forest Carbon Protection in the Context of Redd+ in Cross River State, Southeast Nigeria

Opportunities and Challenges for Ecological Restoration within REDD+

Responding to climate change and the global land crisis: REDD+, market transformation and low-emissions rural development

Opportunity costs of carbon sequestration in a forest concession in central Africa

Actor Perceptions of the Governance Framework and Non-Carbon Benefits from the Ghana Cocoa Forest REDD+ Program: An Extended Q-Study of the Juabuso-Bia Hotspot Intervention Area