Assessing Carbon Project Credibility and Complexity

Nature-based carbon markets have experienced a series of major setbacks that have undermined scientific credibility, & these same issues risk spilling into biodiversity markets. In our new paper in Nature Sustainability (led by Tom Swinfield & I), we outline our vision for truly scientifically-credible nature-based credit markets: https://rdcu.be/dP6P6. TLDR: in our view the key is to only sell credits *after they have been proven demonstrably additional using robust statistical techniques* for impact evaluation, so we know each credit represents real, additional gains. This could transform these markets. Imagine how investment might upscale if investors were truly confident that every 'unit' of carbon was on average real. Society has made huge policy commitments to upscale carbon & biodv offsetting. But, carbon credit markets have suffered serious hits to their credibility & nascent biodv markets risk inheriting shortcomings. Impact evaluations have shown that these markets have systematically underdelivered additionality. So: leverage the new generation of techniques for robust impact evaluation (comparing outcomes at project site with statistically-near identical counterfactual) to only sell nature-based credits after they’ve been shown to have delivered additional gains. This requires using trusted primary observations to track the impact of your project & counterfactuals (land cover for carbon), which is also relevant to some, but not all, biodiversity offsetting & biodiversity credit methods. This overcomes a systemic problem in credit markets, which is project proponents proposing own counterfactual, which opens up opportunities for gaming Currently, too much weight is placed on ex-ante forecasts of impact/additionality & these methods for forecasting are replete with perverse incentives We have methods to do this: eg what 4C: Cambridge Centre for Carbon Credits are operationalising – you can track additionality of the nature-based credit in near real time, with a transparent & statistically-derived counterfactual   IMO credit markets are at a crossroads. Either we can keep trying small improvements on flawed assessment processes; or fundamentally reform markets so we can be confident credits they deliver are robust. Whilst science has made big progress on additionality, we still haven’t established accepted methods for leakage, or impermanence. So to maintain scientific credibility, we also need to take the *lower bound estimate whenever there is uncertainty* These reforms could fundamentally change markets, incentivising investors/project devs to find sites most likely to deliver additionality, no leakage & permanence, in hope of beating the counterfactual & generating windfall gains This paper focuses on making credits credible, but there’s not space to talk about making them equitable and just, which we’re actively working on too. Wonderful collab between academics & investors Siddarth Shrikanth Joe W Bull Anil Madhavapeddy

I've now done research into #carbonmarkets, #carboncredits and #offsetting for almost 20 years. The evidence keeps piling up that carbon offsetting is ineffective, often misleading, and counter-productive, enabling business-as-usual to continue. Here is another report that has come out recently - published by an academic team based at Berkeley. This is the report in a nutshell: REDD+ plays a crucial role in voluntary carbon markets, aimed at reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. However, since its inception, this scheme has faced intense scrutiny for the effectiveness and integrity of its carbon crediting schemes. The report has revealed key concerns: - Over-Crediting: There's a significant gap between claimed climate benefits and actual outcomes, leading to questions about the real impact of these projects on carbon reduction efforts. In short: more carbon credits are being issued than carbon is sequestrated. - Many challenges in finding and verifying accurate methods to quantify real emission reductions. This is a complex science, yet often the methodologies used are simplistic. - Leakage: Projects must tackle unintended consequences where reductions in one area might lead to increases elsewhere. The report finds that leakage is frequently underestimated. Durability & sustainability of carbon stocks: Ensuring that the conserved or enhanced forests remain intact over the long term is essential for their credibility. Yet, durability is frequently overestimated (think frequent forest fires). Community rights and well-being: The effectiveness of REDD+ hinges on adequately protecting the rights and livelihoods of indigenous and local forest communities, ensuring they benefit from conservation efforts. Yet, there is often only lip service paid to such rights. Many communities are negatively affected. Hence, the report issues an urgent call for enhanced strategies to make REDD+ more transparent, accurate, and fair. Engaging in open dialogue among stakeholders is crucial to refining carbon crediting mechanisms, ensuring they genuinely contribute to combating climate change while supporting biodiversity and local communities. Many carbon offsetting projects fail on these fronts. https://lnkd.in/ebAe9cTJ Full report here: https://lnkd.in/e978kGJq

Community based ARR carbon projects have been largely flying under the radar. We’ve gained a lot of experience where communities are part of a larger project on forest land, but what about the situation where communities “are the project” on land that they own and/or control? For those interested, the following are a few learnings from actual projects already under way in Indonesia: ·      Fundamentally these are great projects. I have been very pleasantly surprised at how appreciative poor rural farmers are of such programs. These projects can work, so kudos to those who have started already.  ·      For client confidentiality reasons I cannot provide specific details, but how you structure inputs and benefit sharing has a real impact on how communities will react to the program. In a nutshell, “keep it simple”. This is very important. ·      This should be obvious, but the experience and capacity of the implementing partner is critical. For example, the ability of NGOs to implement varies widely and this has significant flow on effects to project success. ·      Farmers have a greater appreciation of fruit trees compared to timber species. Fruit trees will generally have greater permanence for carbon sequestration also. ·      Farmers will prioritize their existing crops for planting and maintenance. Strong management is required to ensure that quality of the ARR program does not suffer as a result. ·      It is more challenging to obtain good quality seedlings than most people think. There needs to be someone with nursery management experience in the team. ·      It is very challenging to achieve consistency of planting against required standards. This can significantly impact both survival and growth. ·      Great care must be taken in permanently identifying planted trees for carbon measurements. It can be more challenging than you think to identify your trees a few years down the track.  ·      Farmers typically hold between 0.5 – 4.0 ha per family. They only agree to plant a portion of their land. To create scale, there will be a very large number of individual contracts and plots of land to manage. Given this complexity, there will be a natural maximum level that one project team can effectively manage before it becomes too overwhelming. Do not overload a single team. ·      Use a professional to develop your MRV program. It requires expert design so that carbon sequestration estimates meet the required limits of error. These community programs are much more complex compared to a forest situation. ·      If you are lucky enough to have your project on cultural land where control is through the community as a whole rather than individuals, then the administrative challenges reduce. Operational challenges will reduce also, but definitely don’t go away.  ·      When in the field, put a smile on your face and treat the farmers with respect and your sense of satisfaction will be exponentially increased. They genuinely appreciate the support.

Companies are buying their way to net-zero with a product no one can prove is real. The worst part? It's completely legal. A company just bought 100,000 carbon credits. They paid real money for them. They're counting on them to hit climate targets. But here's the question: did those credits actually remove any carbon? The carbon credit market is growing fast. Companies need offsets. Projects claim reductions. Money changes hands. But without verification, it's just promises on paper. A forest that was never going to be cut down gets sold as "saved". The same emission reduction gets sold to three different buyers. A project claims 1,000 tons removed but measured 300. Carbon credits only work if they represent real, verified emission reductions. That's where MRV comes in. Measurement, Reporting, and Verification. → Measurement: Quantify the amount of CO₂ reduced or removed using field data, sensors, and models → Reporting: Document and share the data in a transparent, standardized format → Verification: Independent third parties assess the data to confirm accuracy and compliance → Issuance: Upon successful verification, carbon credits are issued representing verified reductions MRV systems prevent double counting, carbon leakage, and overestimation. Without them, carbon markets collapse into speculation and greenwashing. But traditional MRV is expensive, complex, and slow. Field teams. Manual data collection. Months of verification. Small projects can't afford it. Large projects struggle with consistency across regions. That's changing. Three organizations are fixing MRV at different points in the system. Pachama leverages AI and satellite data to monitor and verify forest carbon projects, ensuring their credits meet global standards. Regrow Ag provides software solutions to enable farmers to adopt regenerative agriculture practices, improving soil health and reducing emissions by using MRV to verify practices Sylvera offers data-driven tools to assess the quality of carbon credit projects, helping investors make informed decisions. Digital MRV is emerging as the next evolution. Satellite imagery, AI, and IoT sensors can monitor projects in real time, cut verification costs, and improve accuracy across diverse regions. Standardization is helping too. Universal MRV protocols make it easier to compare projects, build trust, and scale carbon markets without sacrificing integrity. Carbon markets only work if credits are real. MRV is what makes them real. So here's my question to you: should carbon credits without independent third-party verification be allowed to be sold at all? And that's day 18, of Climtober - 31 days of demystifying climate solutions, one topic at a time. Come back tomorrow for Day 19 and by November 1st, you'll understand the landscape better than most people working in it. Looking to tell effective stories for GTM in Climate? Check the pinned comment.

🏆 How do you know if your carbon credits are actually doing what they claim? At CNaught , we believe real climate impact should be measurable, verifiable, and transparent. That’s why we’re now publicly sharing the same rigorous due diligence process we’ve used from day one to build our carbon credit portfolios. Our 7-step review process is built to align with scientific best practices like the SEI – Stockholm Environment Institute Offset Guide and University of Oxford Offsetting Principles. As a result, only ~15% of projects in the market make it into our portfolios. We evaluate: ✅ Full transparency and documentation ✅ Independent ratings against all four major agencies (BeZero Carbon Sylvera Calyx Global and Renoster) ✅ ESG and reputational risk ✅ A four-pillar quality screen: additionality, over-crediting, durability, and double counting If a project doesn’t pass every step, it won’t make it into our portfolios. You can be rest assured that every project that we sell is high-integrity, and we believe in our diligence process so much that we are the only provider to include a Guarantee with each purchase. We’re sharing this because the voluntary carbon market is changing quickly and buyers are increasingly prioritizing integrity. Making our due diligence public is part of our commitment to help raise the bar for the industry. Keep an eye out for our full white paper later this year with more detail on our approach and what buyers should be asking before they purchase. Reach out if you want to learn more about our diligence process or read more at our blogpost 👉 https://buff.ly/dXVQSV9

🌍 We often talk about scaling investment into NbS—but what does it actually take? It takes a village. I recently returned from a two-week field mission in Tanzania, where we worked directly with project and community partners advancing their NbS program, on behalf of INTEGRITY GLOBAL PARTNERS INC. Many of the most credible and impactful projects are struggling to access early-stage capital. This “valley of death” exists because there is little to no revenue in the early years—trees take time to grow, and carbon credits take time to issue. While developers often bring deep implementation expertise, they may not speak "finance". As a result, project finance is increasingly skewed toward developers who do—even when they lack meaningful on-the-ground experience or long-term community partnerships. The project we visited underscores this challenge: a complex, multi-component initiative spanning government, communal, and private lands, combining different carbon methodologies across a large and dynamic landscape. It is technically sophisticated, jurisdictionally layered, and logistically demanding—the bumpy dirt roads seem to go on forever! Yet with an incredibly smart and dedicated team behind it, the project holds exceptional potential for climate, biodiversity conservation, and livelihood impacts. To bridge the gap between investor expectations and project realities, we took a deeply collaborative approach: ���� Week 1: Field visits to assess risks—technical, financial, regulatory, executional—not by checking boxes, but by working hand-in-hand with partners to identify those risks and practical mitigation strategies. We can do this because we have deep expertise across these multi-disciplines. We were told repeatedly that it was a relief to be able to speak openly about challenges with a partner invested in solving them. 🔹 Week 2: A multi-day capacity-building workshop focused on carbon markets, and carbon and commercial finance. Our goal: equip partners with the knowledge and tools to evaluate options, financial terms, engage confidently with investors, and advocate for fair, aligned partnerships. We co-developed actionable risk mitigation plans so that, when investor conversations begin, the project enters with a credible strategy and a clear, well-supported voice. Yes, this takes time and effort. But if we’re serious about channeling capital into high-impact NbS projects, this is the kind of work that’s needed. We must move beyond transactional models—with investors and projects on either side of the table - and start showing up as true partners. #NatureBasedSolutions #ClimateFinance #CarbonMarkets #CarbonProjects #IGP