The Truth About REDD+ for Forest Conservation: A Pioneer's Perspective on Why the Market is the Only Way Forward

In a recent episode of "This Week In Carbon," Mike Korchinsky, the visionary founder of Wildlife Works, offered a candid and often provocative look at the origins of carbon credits for financing forest conservation and the turbulent journey of the REDD+ market. His insights challenge conventional wisdom and underscore a deep commitment to pragmatic solutions for wildlife, forests, and the communities that depend on them.

The Radical Idea: Wildlife as an Economic Asset

Korchinsky's journey began in 1995 Kenya, where he observed the intense human-wildlife conflict. His "aha moment" came from realizing that the "threat" to beautiful wildlife areas wasn't external, but rather the very people who lived there and needed to survive. This sparked the foundational concept for Wildlife Works in 1997: to find new economic models for communities that drive value based on the presence of wildlife and wilderness.

His conviction was clear: "It has to be the market because it's the only place that has enough money and it's currently engaged in trashing the planet. And if we can't figure out how to redirect that funding to support the planet then we're never going to have enough philanthropy to fix it."

This sets the stage for his core belief: market-based solutions are not just an option, but the most pragmatic,  scalable path for conservation.

Learn more about the Wildlife Works origin story:

Pioneering the Carbon Market: A Decade of Unprofitability and "Making It Up"

While Wildlife Works started in 1997, the carbon market wasn't an immediate solution. The Kyoto Protocol initially excluded natural forest protection, leading to a decade of "extremely unprofitable" operations. It wasn't until REDD+ developed around 2005, and Verra announced support for avoided deforestation in 2008, that the path became clear.

Wildlife Works played a catalytic role, writing one of the first methodologies under the Verra system for avoided deforestation. Korchinsky describes these early days as "making it up as we went along,"  with forging rigorous processes for Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)  because the existing "consultation" models were insufficient for community land projects. His commitment to genuine community consent was revolutionary: "how is this going to work without them consenting to it? We're not going to come in and just do it."

Unpacking Market Meltdown: Ideology, Inaction, and the "Claim" Crisis

Korchinsky pulls no punches when discussing the recent downturn in the REDD+ market:

Mike was "shocked" by the "virulence of the attacks by the sort of anti-market crowd that were ideologically"  opposed to the very existence of REDD+ projects, going beyond legitimate criticism of quality. For Korchinsky, these attacks are impractical and unproductive.

He argues the most significant damage came from the market's own inability to function in response to the attacks. A key standard body effectively stalled investment by stopping the ability for projects to calculate baselines for years due to a new, unissued methodology. Without a baseline, project economics cannot be determined, leaving investors stranded.

 Meanwhile, the attack on corporate claims of "carbon neutrality" was the straw on the camel’s back. Good actors voluntarily investing in conservation were "singled out" and criticized, while companies doing nothing were left unscathed.  Korchinsky emphasizes that the market has yet to find a "safe harbor" claim that is both valuable for corporates and true.

The Birth of Equitable Earth: A Response to Imbalance and Monopoly

Witnessing these systemic issues, Wildlife Works co-founded Equitable Earth. The motivations were clear; Korchinsky saw the existing standard as a "monopoly," which wasn't "healthy" or "forcing good decisions.” He felt the market tilted risk enormously towards buyers, diminishing communities' ability to benefit. Equitable Earth aimed for a more balanced approach to include communities in vital decisions  that centers on three core beliefs:

1. Standards Must Stand  behind the quality of every project and credit, rejecting the prior philosophy where standards publicly disclaimed responsibility for quality.

2. Modernizing Methodology:  It sought to include forest degradation (not just deforestation) in calculations and allow projects to benefit from increased carbon stock as forests restore themselves.

3. Equity for communities: Communities bear the risk and do the work, they deserve to share fairly in both the value and the decisions.

   
   

From the beginning, Wildlife Works knew Equitable Earth needed a permanent, independent home. After engaging with various platforms and registries, it ultimately aligned with Ecosystem Restoration Standard (ERS). 

"ERS shared our philosophy. They were nature-based, community-first, and willing to own their methodologies. That mattered."

It wasn’t just about operations, it was about leadership. Wildlife Works saw in ERS a group of custodians capable of carrying Equitable Earth forward without compromise. The fact that ERS rebranded under the Equitable Earth name only underscored their alignment.

Mike reflected, “Passing the torch to ERS was more than a transition. It was a statement. That integrity matters. That competition is healthy. And that the Global South deserves institutions designed for its success.”

The "Fabricated Conflict": Why Jurisdictional and Project-Based Approaches Must Coexist

Korchinsky also weighed in on one of the most seemingly contentious debates in the market, the shift toward jurisdictional approaches. He vehemently opposes the "either/or" mentality regarding jurisdictional (country-scale) and project-based approaches to REDD+. He argued three key points:

1. Government Limitations:  Governments excel at policy and enforcement but are "not good at the last mile" – engaging directly with specific communities to address unique local challenges.

2. Incentive Design Flaws:  Jurisdiction-only solutions, which reward countries based on net national emissions, are "terrible incentive mechanisms." Bad actors can nullify the efforts of good actors, as their emissions count against the overall national number, deterring investment.

3. Project-Level Control:  Project-based approaches allow for direct incentives and rewards when communities perform actions within their control, making the mechanism "undisrupted" by bad actors elsewhere.

   
   

"It should be both. It should never be an either-or. It should be a collaboration,"  he asserted, emphasizing that this is already happening in many countries where projects and governments work together.

Optimism Amidst Challenges: The Unavoidable Path Forward

Despite the market's hurdles, Korchinsky remains optimistic, largely due to "the absence of a viable alternative."  He finds immense hope in:

• Communities' Rapid Shift:  Global communities, particularly Indigenous ones, have quickly moved from viewing climate action as a threat to seeing it as a path to "achieve their future." They understand climate change's physical impacts and are eager to help.

• Corporate Return:  He believes corporates will eventually return to the market because carbon credits are uniquely positioned to help them meet not only climate ambitions but also other ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) goals.

• UN Progress:  While slow, the United Nation's work on Article 6 of the Paris Agreement is having a positive effect.

In his concluding remarks, Korchinsky passionately stated, "There’s already not enough of us working to solve these huge issues—so let’s start working together." His message is a powerful call for collaboration, pragmatic solutions, and an unwavering commitment to protect our planet's natural assets. The market, in his view, is still the best tool for saving our planet’s imperiled forests.

Listen to the full conversation here.