Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

Strong transparency required for carbon credit mechanisms

Nature Sustainability (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

The credibility of carbon offset mechanisms is threatened by many issues related to their true effectiveness. We advocate that these issues cannot be effectively addressed without a dramatic improvement in transparency across the entire value chain of carbon offsetting, a crucial step for achieving a reduction in carbon emissions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Issuances by reduction/removal over time.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. So, I. S., Haya, B. K. & Elias, M. Voluntary Registry Offsets Database (Berkeley Carbon Trading Project, 2023).

  2. The Voluntary Carbon Market: 2022 Insights and Trends (BCG and Shell, 2023); https://www.shell.com/shellenergy/othersolutions/carbonmarketreports.html

  3. Final Report (Taskforce on Scaling Voluntary Carbon Markets, 2021); https://www.iif.com/Portals/1/Files/TSVCM_Report.pdf

  4. Blake, H. The great cash-for-carbon hustle. The New Yorker (16 October 2023); https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/23/the-great-cash-for-carbon-hustle

  5. Greenfield, P. Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest certifier are worthless, analysis shows. The Guardian (18 January 2023).

  6. Long-Term Carbon Offsets Outlook 2023 (Bloomberg, 2023); https://spotlight.bloomberg.com/story/longtermcarbonoffsetsoutlook2023/

  7. CBL, an Xpansiv Market (Xpansive, 2023); https://xpansiv.com/cbl/

  8. The Art of Integrity SOVCM 2022 Q3 (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2023); https://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/carbon-markets/

  9. Childs, M. & de Zyla, P. A Dangerous Distraction—The Offsetting Con (Friends of the Earth, 2021); https://policy.friendsoftheearth.uk/download/dangerous-distraction-offsetting-con

  10. Martins, D. Carbon Markets are a Threat to the Amazon (Greenpeace, 2023); https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/61342/carbon-markets-are-a-threat-to-the-amazon/

  11. Balmford, A. et al. Credit credibility threatens forests. Science 380, 466–467 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Krishnan, R., Hidalgo, S. J. & Fuchs, M. The problem with carbon offsets. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev. 21, 38–44 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Trouwloon, D., Streck, C., Chagas, T. & Martinus, G. Understanding the use of carbon credits by companies: a review of the defining elements of corporate climate claims. Glob. Chall. 7, 2200158 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Michaelowa, A., Hermwille, L., Obergassel, W. & Butzengeiger, S. Additionality revisited: guarding the integrity of market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement. Clim. Policy 19, 1211–1224 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Michaelowa, A. et al. International carbon markets for carbon dioxide removal. PLoS Clim. 2, e0000118 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wunder, S. Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 117, 234–243 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Probst, B., Toetzke, M., Anadon, L. D., Kontoleon, A. & Hoffmann, V. Systematic review of the actual emissions reductions of carbon offset projects across all major sectors. Preprint at Research Square https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3149652/v1 (2023).

  18. Delacote, P., Le Velly, G. & Simonet, G. Revisiting the location bias and additionality of REDD+ projects: the role of project proponents status and certification. Res. Energy Econ. 67, 101277 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guizar-Coutiño, A., Jones, J. P. G., Balmford, A., Carmenta, R. & Coomes, D. A. A global evaluation of the effectiveness of voluntary REDD+ projects at reducing deforestation and degradation in the moist tropics. Conserv. Biol. 36, e13970 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. West, T. A. P., Börner, J., Sills, E. O. & Kontoleon, A. Overstated carbon emission reductions from voluntary REDD+ projects in the Brazilian Amazon. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 24188–24194 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. West, T. A. P. et al. Action needed to make carbon offsets from forest conservation work for climate change mitigation. Science 381, 873–877 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Groom, B., Palmer, C. & Sileci, L. Carbon emissions reductions from Indonesia’s REDD+ moratorium are cost-effective yet contribute little to Paris commitments. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2102613119 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Badgley, G. et al. California’s forest carbon offsets buffer pool is severely undercapitalized. Front. For. Glob. Change 5, 154 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gill-Wiehl, A., Kammen, D. M. & Haya, B. K. Pervasive over-crediting from cookstove offset methodologies. Nat. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01259-6 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dutschke, M. & Angelsen, A. in Moving Ahead with REDD: Issues, Options and Implications (ed. Angelsen, A.) 77–86 (CIFOR, 2008).

  26. Honegger, M. et al. The ABC of governance principles for carbon dioxide removal policy. Front. Clim. 4, 884163 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Simonet, G., Subervie, J., Ezzine‐de‐Blas, D., Cromberg, M. & Duchelle, A. E. Effectiveness of a REDD+ project in reducing deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 101, 211–229 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Carrilho, C. D., Demarchi, G., Duchelle, A. E., Wunder, S. & Morsello, C. Permanence of avoided deforestation in a Transamazon REDD+ project (Pará, Brazil). Ecol. Econ. 201, 107568 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Delacote, P., Robinson, E. J. & Roussel, S. Deforestation, leakage and avoided deforestation policies: a spatial analysis. Res. Energy Econ. 45, 192–210 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Filewod, B. & McCarney, G. Avoiding carbon leakage from nature-based offsets by design. One Earth 6, 790–802 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Haya, B. K. et al. Quality Assessment of REDD+ Carbon Credit Projects (Berkeley Carbon Trading Project, 2023); https://gspp.berkeley.edu/research-and-impact/centers/cepp/projects/berkeley-carbon-trading-project/redd

  32. Murray, B. C., McCarl, B. A. & Lee, H. C. Estimating leakage from forest carbon sequestration programs. Land Econ. 80, 109–124 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Haya, B. K. et al. Comprehensive review of carbon quantification by improved forest management offset protocols. Front. For. Glob. Change 6, 958879 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Delbeke, J., Marro, E. & Vis, P. Towards an EU Policy Agenda for Voluntary Carbon Markets (European Univ. Institute, 2023).

  35. Lou, J., Hultman, N., Patwardhan, A. & Qiu, Y. L. Integrating sustainability into climate finance by quantifying the co-benefits and market impact of carbon projects. Commun. Earth Environ. 3, 137 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Simonet, G., Delacote, P. & Robert, N. On managing co-benefits in REDD+ projects. Int. J. Agric. Res. Gov. Ecol. 12, 170–188 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Asiyanbi, A. P. A political ecology of REDD+: property rights, militarised protectionism, and carbonised exclusion in cross river. Geoforum 77, 146–156 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ehrenstein, V. The friction of the mundane: on the problematic marketization of the carbon stored by trees in the tropics. J. Cult. Econ. 11, 404–419 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Greenfield, P., Hawkins, A. & Ganguly, M. BP and Spotify bought carbon credits at risk of link to forced Uyghur labor in China. The Guardian (13 November 2023).

  40. Nantongo, M., Vatn, A. & Soka, G. REDD+: he perfect marriage between conservation and development? A comparative study of the impacts of REDD+ on livelihoods and deforestation in Tanzania. World Dev. 173, 106432 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Schmalensee, R. & Stavins, R. N. The design of environmental markets: what have we learned from experience with cap and trade? Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 33, 572–588 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Bottega, L., Brécard, D. & Delacote, P. Advertising, ecolabeling and consumers’ beliefs: greenwashing or not? Econ. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2023.111513 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Secretive Intermediaries: Are Carbon Markets Really Financing Climate Action? (Carbon Market Watch, 2023); https://carbonmarketwatch.org/publications/

  44. Voluntary Carbon Markets Discussion Paper (IOSCO, 2022).

  45. Tedersoo, L. et al. Towards a co‐crediting system for carbon and biodiversity. Plants People Planet https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10405 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Dooley, K. et al. The Land Gap Report (Climate Resource, 2022); https://www.landgap.org/

  47. Akerlof, G. A. The market for ‘lemons’: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 84, 488–500 (1970).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Groom, B. & Venmans, F. The social value of offsets. Nature 619, 768–773 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Sills, E. O. et al. Building the evidence base for REDD+: study design and methods for evaluating the impacts of conservation interventions on local well-being. Glob. Environ. Change 43, 148–160 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Schneider, L. et al. Double counting and the Paris Agreement rulebook. Science 366, 180–183 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Marchant, G. E., Cooper, Z. & Gough-Stone, P. J. Bringing technological transparency to tenebrous markets: the case for using blockchain to validate carbon credit trading markets. Nat. Res. J. 62, 159 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kreibich, N. & Hermwille, L. Caught in between: credibility and feasibility of the voluntary carbon market post-2020. Clim. Policy 21, 939–957 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Wawrzynowicz, I., Krey, M. & Samaniego, X. Assessing and Comparing Carbon Credit Rating Agencies (Carbon Market Watch, 2023); https://carbonmarketwatch.org/publications/assessing-and-comparing-carbon-credit-rating-agencies/

  54. Bakhtary, H., Tierney, M., Galt, H. & Gill-Wiehl, A. More Than Just a Carbon Project: How Clean Cooking Projects Certified Under the Gold Standard Approach SDG Claims (Climate Focus and Modern Energy Cooking Services, 2023); www.mecs.org.uk

  55. Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition P9_TA(2023)0201 (European Parliament, 2023).

  56. Comment informer les consommateurs des conditions de rémunération des producteurs agricoles? Rapport n°22042 (CGAAER, 2022).

  57. Jones, J. P. & Lewis, S. L. Forest carbon offsets are failing. Science 381, 830–831 (2023).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Skidmore, C. Mission Zero: Independent Review of Net Zero (UK Government, 2022); https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1128689/mission-zero-independent-review.pdf

  59. Natzler, B. et al. Voluntary Carbon Markets and Offsetting (Climate Change Committee, 2022); https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Voluntary-carbon-markets-and-offsetting-Final.pdf

  60. Proposal for a Regulation Establishing a Union Certification Framework for Carbon Removals COM (2022) 672 final (European Commission, 2022).

  61. Decreto-Lei n.º4/2024, de 5 de janeiro Diário da República, Série I, n.º 4/2024 (Presidência do Conselho de Ministros, Ambiente e Ação Climática, 2024).

  62. Voluntary Carbon Markets (IOSCO, 2022).

  63. 2022 ISDA Verified Carbon Credit Transactions Definitions (ISDA, 2022).

  64. CFTC Division of Enforcement Creates Two New Task Forces Press Release No. 8736-23: (CFTC, 2023).

  65. CFTC Whistleblower Office Issues Alert Seeking Tips Relating to Carbon Markets Misconduct Press Release No. 8723-23 (CFTC, 2023).

  66. The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors Rel. No. 33-11042; 34-94478 (proposal) (SEC, 2022).

  67. Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) Directive 2022/2464/EU (European Parliament. 2022).

  68. Voluntary Carbon Market Disclosures Bill No. 1305 (California Assembly, 2023).

  69. Green Guide on Environmentally Friendly Products (FTC, 2012).

  70. Advertising Guidance: Misleading Environmental Claims and Social Responsibility (ASA, 2023).

  71. Direction Générale de l’Energie et du Climat (DGEC) Étude comparée des standards de compensation existants (Ministère de la Transition énergétique and Icare, 2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The BETA contributes to the Labex ARBRE ANR-11- LABX-0002-01. This research is part of the Agriculture and Forestry research programme by the Climate Economics Chair. B.G. is funded by Dragon Capital and acknowledges the funding of the UKRI/NERC projects BIOADD (ref: NE/X002292/1), BIOESG (NE/X016560/1) and RENEW (NE/W004941/1).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AgroParisTech-INRAE, BETA, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France

    Philippe Delacote & Tara L’Horty

  2. Climate Economics Chair, Paris, France

    Philippe Delacote, Tara L’Horty & Anna Creti

  3. Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Andreas Kontoleon

  4. Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Thales A. P. West

  5. UMR LEDA, Université Paris Dauphine PSL Research University, Paris, France

    Anna Creti

  6. Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

    Ben Filewod

  7. CEE-M, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, INRAE, Institut Agro, Montpellier, France

    Gwenole LeVelly

  8. UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, UK

    Alejandro Guizar-Coutiño

  9. Land, Environment, Economics, and Policy Institute, Department of Economics, University of Exeter Business School, Exeter, UK

    Ben Groom

  10. Natural Capital Investments, Blue Forest Conservation, US Research Affiliate, Berkeley Carbon Trading Project, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA

    Micah Elias

Authors
  1. Philippe Delacote
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tara L’Horty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreas Kontoleon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thales A. P. West
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anna Creti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ben Filewod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gwenole LeVelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alejandro Guizar-Coutiño
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Ben Groom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Micah Elias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

P.D. proposed the initial concept and led the paper writing. T.L., A.K., T.A.P.W., A.C., B.F., G.L., A.G.-C., B.G. and M.E. contributed to paper development and revision in their specific areas of expertise.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philippe Delacote.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Sustainability thanks Axel Michaelowa, Aaron Strong, Malte Winkler and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Delacote, P., L’Horty, T., Kontoleon, A. et al. Strong transparency required for carbon credit mechanisms. Nat Sustain (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01310-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-024-01310-0

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing