Climate & Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Avoided deforestation
Preventing forest loss that would otherwise have occurred, generating emission reductions measurable against a reference level — the core logic of REDD+ and many forest carbon credits.
Definition
Emission reductions achieved when deforestation that would have happened under a business-as-usual scenario does not occur, quantified against a forest reference (emission) level. Under the UNFCCC's REDD+ framework, developing countries can receive results-based payments for verified emission reductions from reduced deforestation and forest degradation, plus conservation, sustainable management and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (the "+").
References
REDD+ definition and results-based payments; Warsaw Framework and Paris Article 5; 1.7 billion ha coverage; 24 countries reporting 14+ GtCO₂ reductions.
Overview
What it means
Avoided deforestation is inherently counterfactual: the credit depends on the reference level chosen, making baseline-setting the central integrity question — inflated baselines manufacture credits without real climate benefit. REDD+ submissions to the UNFCCC now cover about 1. 7 billion hectares of forest; 24 countries have reported over 14 billion tonnes of CO₂ in reductions.
How it is used
Nationally through REDD+ results-based finance (anchored in the Warsaw Framework and Paris Agreement Article 5), and at project level in voluntary carbon markets, where avoided-deforestation methodologies face particular scrutiny over additionality, leakage and permanence. Corporate "no-deforestation" commitments address the same problem through supply chains rather than credits.
Why it matters
Halting deforestation is among the cheapest large-scale mitigation options, but its value rests on credible baselines: the difference between genuine avoidance and paper reductions is measurement discipline. This is why avoided-deforestation credits are both heavily used and heavily contested.
Review
Public comments appear only after editor acceptance. Draft comments stay in the review queue.
Reviewers choose the definition or an overview paragraph, leave a comment or replacement, and attach evidence or a source link.
Editors compare reviewer cards side by side. AI may help find agreement, conflicts, unsupported claims and possible source issues.
Only an editor-accepted synthesis changes the public page. Reviewer identities are shown only with consent and an editorial decision to attribute them.
Submitted reviews stay private until an editor decides whether to accept and attribute them.
Contribute to this entry
Help improve this definition
Your contribution is private while it is checked. Nothing changes on this page unless an editor accepts it.
Loading verified endorsements… Endorsements are not votes and never determine publication.
Endorse this definition
Endorse the exact version shown here. This is not a vote, and publication remains an editorial decision.
Review board
Comment on a specific line. Each reviewer stays separate until an editor accepts a merged draft.
Each person comments on the definition or overview in their own draft card, with role, evidence and suggested wording kept together.
AI can compare comments against the current text, flag conflicting claims, surface missing evidence and identify where reviewers agree.
An editor merges compatible suggestions into a draft change, checks sources, records disagreements and decides what can be published.