What do the REDD+ methodologies cover?
REDD stands for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Where a planting methodology credits carbon that a project adds to a landscape, a REDD+ methodology credits carbon the project prevents from being lost. That difference drives everything else about it: the central question is not how much the forest grew, but how much of it would have been cleared had the project not existed.
This is why REDD+ baselines attract more scrutiny than removal baselines. A removal can be measured after the fact; an avoided loss is a claim about a future that did not happen, and it can only ever be estimated. Verra's consolidation of these methodologies is a direct response to criticism that older baselines over-credited.
How do the four methodologies differ?
The older three were written for particular deforestation patterns and project structures, and predate the consolidated approach. VM0048 replaces that specialisation with a single route built on jurisdictional-scale data.
| Methodology | Version | What distinguishes it |
|---|---|---|
| VM0048 | v1.0 | The consolidated REDD methodology; uses jurisdictional-scale baselines and an allocated deforestation risk map |
| VM0006 | v2.2 | Mosaic and landscape-scale REDD; allows avoided deforestation to be combined with forest management, planting and cookstove activities |
| VM0007 | v1.8 | A modular framework applied with separate modules and tools, spanning deforestation, degradation and wetland activities |
| VM0015 | v1.2 | Avoided unplanned deforestation, with a baseline built from historical land-use and land-cover change |
The practical distinction for a developer is narrower than the table suggests. For a new unplanned-deforestation project, the answer is VM0048. The older three matter mainly if a project is already registered under one of them, or if the activity falls outside what the transition covers — the transition applies to unplanned deforestation, not to degradation or planned-deforestation activities.
What triggers the transition to VM0048?
The transition is not a fixed calendar deadline. It is tied to data availability: Verra publishes allocated deforestation risk maps region by region, and a project's obligation begins once the map covering its region exists. Proponents are required to adopt VM0048 together with the module VMD0055 at the next verification after the risk map for their region has been available for six months, allowing for the grace period.
- Registered projects transition at their next verification once the six-month window for their region has passed.
- Projects that entered validation earlier may in defined circumstances complete under the older methodology, subject to Verra's stated timing conditions.
- Projects starting after the consolidated methodology took effect use VM0048 once the risk map for their region has been available for six months.
- The transition applies to unplanned deforestation activities; degradation and planned deforestation are treated separately.
The consequence worth planning around is that transitioning establishes a new baseline. A project moving to VM0048 is not simply refiling under a new document number — it is being re-baselined against jurisdictional data, and the credit volume it can expect may change materially.
What does this mean for a project being designed now?
A new avoided-deforestation project should be designed against VM0048. The more useful question is what evidence the project will need, because the consolidated approach leans on regional data the developer does not control, and the project's own evidence is what establishes that its area, its activity and its claimed outcomes are real.
That evidence layer is worth building before the methodology question is finally settled, because it is common to every route. Well-structured, location-bound observation keeps a project's options open; weak evidence constrains it under all four methodologies. See the full land-based methodology catalogue, forest carbon monitoring and what digital MRV is.