It's good that the forest is being protected, but it shouldnt be counted as a sequestration project.
The net of not getting rid of the forest means it's starting at carbon neutral for the world as a whole.
Slash and burn would make it carbon positive for a bit, and regrowing it carbon negative for a bit, but all our base measurements include that forest already.
If you trade keeping the forest as it is against burning a bunch of oil, your still carbon positive by that amount of oil
If the forest would be otherwise cut down, you are offsetting from that alternative status quo. Or you could do sustainable logging and use wood for durable construction that keeps carbon locked in. I agree that preserving and regrowing forests will not offset current level of emissions, but it's a low hanging fruit to address first, please forests have other benefits for environment and humans.
The net of not getting rid of the forest means it's starting at carbon neutral for the world as a whole.
Slash and burn would make it carbon positive for a bit, and regrowing it carbon negative for a bit, but all our base measurements include that forest already.
If you trade keeping the forest as it is against burning a bunch of oil, your still carbon positive by that amount of oil