A green leaf tree with a parrot in it.

Matching your jurisdiction to REDD+ Standards

Welcome to the Compatibility Assessment!

You will be asked questions ranging from social issues such as safeguards to carbon accounting, to provide you with a general indication of how well your jurisdiction adheres to specific REDD+ standards. This survey assesses compatibility with REDD+ standards, but is meant to serve as a guide and not as a recommendation.


The Compatibility Assessment is based on a limited set of questions that refer to a limited set of requirements in the REDD+ standards. It is, therefore, not comprehensive and the final results only provide an indication of which standards might be more suitable for a jurisdiction. However, the Compatibility Assessment should not be a substitute for a detailed assessment of particular REDD+ standards and their feasibility according to the jurisdiction’s specific circumstances.


Need help? Please feel free to contact us here.

Supported by

  • International REDD+ Standards Tool
  • International REDD+ Standards Tool
  • International REDD+ Standards Tool


Term "Standards" #1: We use the term "standards" as an umbrella concept encompassing methodological frameworks, guidance and/or requirements, as well as REDD+ programs or frameworks. We acknowledge that the term "standard" is often used to refer to rules or methodological requirements leading to the generation of carbon credits for market purposes. Our definition of "standard" is much broader and generally indicates any set of rules defined by REDD+ programs, initiatives or frameworks that leads to the estimation, review, and verification of GHG emission reductions, removals, as well as additional accounting rules, safeguards and other programatic elements.

UNFCCC REDD+ Framework #2: COP decisions for REDD+ outline the rules and requirements for the voluntary participation of developing countries for obtaining result-based payments without the need to transfer title, i.e. rights to the REDD+ results achieved. We assume, in all cases, that the UNFCCC REDD+ Framework sets out a non-market framework for REDD+, exclusively. For this purpose, we refer to paragraph 66, in decision 9/CP.19, which states that the COP "Considers that, in the light of the experience gained from current and future demonstration activities, appropriate market-based approaches could be developed by the Conference of the Parties to support the results-based actions by developing country Parties referred to in decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 73, ensuring that environmental integrity is preserved, that the provisions of decision 1/CP.16, appendices I and II, are fully respected, and should be consistent with the relevant provisions of decisions 1/CP.16 and 12/CP.17 and any future decision by the Conference of the Parties on these matters;".

General Disclaimer #3: The international REDD+ Standards Tool was designed to facilitate access to general information included in REDD+ Standards. It is not the aim of the tool to be prescriptive or to indicate which standards is better, as this depends on the specific circumstances of jurisdictions which go beyond the scope of the tool

General Disclaimer #4: The International REDD+ Standards Tool was designed to facilitate access to general information included in REDD+ Standards, however, some of the Programs (e.g. FCPF, JCM, Verra) include additional requirements in associated program documents such as templates, associated tools, and others. Users are encouraged to review these additional sources of information.