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-

Effective forest‐based climate change mitigation requires our best science

Systematic over-crediting in California's forest carbon offsets program

Using remote sensing to quantify the additional climate benefits of California forest carbon offset projects

Grasslands may be more reliable carbon sinks than forests in California

Natural climate solutions provide robust carbon mitigation capacity under future climate change scenarios

Biophysical considerations in forestry for climate protection

A synthesis of current knowledge on forests and carbon storage in the United States

Net carbon accounting and reporting are a barrier to understanding the mitigation value of forest protection in developed countries

Land use strategies to mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests

Key challenges and approaches to addressing barriers in forest carbon offset projects

California air resources board forest carbon protocol invalidates offsets

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

Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation

Designing a carbon market that protects forests in developing countries

Climate‐Driven Limits to Future Carbon Storage in California's Wildland Ecosystems

We must re-evaluate assumptions about carbon trading for effective climate change mitigation

Creating Strategic Reserves to Protect Forest Carbon and Reduce Biodiversity Losses in the United States

Current forest carbon offset buffer pools do not adequately insure against disturbance-driven carbon losses

Canada’s Green Gold: Unveiling Challenges, Opportunities, and Pathways for Sustainable Forestry Offsets

Tropical Forest Protection, Uncertainty, and the Environmental Integrity of Carbon Mitigation Policies

Intact Forests in the United States: Proforestation Mitigates Climate Change and Serves the Greatest Good