A new international review says many carbon credits fail to deliver emissions cuts or protect communities. Authors urge tougher rules that put Indigenous rights, equity and accountability at the centre.
As climate change intensifies and the global push toward net-zero emissions gathers pace, carbon credits are widely promoted as a key tool in tackling the climate crisis. But a new international analysis warns that many fall short of delivering real benefits for people and nature.
As carbon markets expand rapidly ahead of major global climate negotiations, questions are growing over whether all credits truly represent genuine and lasting emissions reductions. The analysis focuses on the emerging idea of high-integrity carbon credits and finds that while environmental standards are becoming clearer, social justice is often treated as an afterthought.
The analysis was authored by Anne M. Larson, Juan Pablo Sarmiento Barletti and Julia Naime Sanchez Henkel. The authors examine how current definitions of high-integrity carbon credits are applied in practice and where they fail to protect the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
Carbon credits are designed to represent greenhouse gas reductions or removals, often through forest conservation and restoration projects. However, a growing body of evidence shows that some offset projects have overstated their climate impact, while others have been linked to the exclusion of forest-dependent communities from decision-making processes.
The authors warn that integrity cannot be ensured through carbon accounting alone. Without strong social foundations, they argue, carbon markets risk reinforcing existing inequalities while undermining trust in climate solutions.
The concept of high-integrity carbon credits has gained traction as a response to these concerns. Most existing definitions agree on what constitutes high ecological integrity. Credits should be additional, meaning the emissions reductions would not have occurred without the project, permanent over time, free from leakage where deforestation is simply displaced elsewhere and verified through independent and evidence-based systems.
Social integrity, however, receives far less political and financial attention. Even where standards mention free, prior and informed consent or Indigenous rights, the analysis finds that these commitments are often vague, limited to minimum do-no-harm safeguards, or poorly implemented in practice.
Carbon markets remain deeply controversial among Indigenous Peoples and local communities. While some groups have developed community-led initiatives, such as Indigenous jurisdictional forest programmes in Latin America, others reject carbon markets altogether, arguing that nature should not be treated as a tradable commodity. Across these diverse perspectives, there is a shared concern over land rights, power imbalances and unequal benefit sharing.
The review highlights that Indigenous Peoples and local communities are not passive stakeholders but active political actors demanding a shift in how carbon programmes are designed and governed. Their demands include recognition of customary governance systems, respect for ancestral knowledge, direct access to finance and independent mechanisms to address grievances.
To close the gap between ecological and social standards, the authors propose a redefinition of what high integrity should mean in practice. They argue that truly high-integrity carbon credits must combine strong environmental performance with an explicit commitment to equity, justice and meaningful participation.
The analysis identifies five reforms that any carbon programme claiming high integrity should adopt. These include treating free, prior and informed consent as an ongoing process rather than a one-off consultation, adopting gender-transformative approaches, making respect for land and resource rights a precondition for selling credits, ensuring equitable and transparent benefit sharing and establishing independent and culturally relevant grievance and monitoring systems.
The authors stress that safeguards must be grounded in internationally recognised human rights frameworks, including the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ILO Convention 169 and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Progress, they argue, should be measured using indicators developed and monitored by Indigenous Peoples and local communities themselves, even if this goes beyond existing national legal frameworks.
High-integrity carbon credits, the analysis concludes, can play a role in addressing the climate crisis only if social justice is given equal weight to ecological soundness. Without firm social safeguards, the report warns, carbon markets risk becoming part of the problem rather than the solution.
Commenting on the findings, Sohanur Rahman, executive coordinator of YouthNet Global, said the debate around carbon credits must move beyond numbers and accounting. “Climate finance cannot be considered credible if it ignores justice on the ground. High integrity means communities are not just consulted but have real power over decisions, resources and the future of their land,” he said.
Sohanur also stressed that Indigenous Peoples and local communities should be recognised as rights holders, not project beneficiaries. “When carbon markets fail to respect land rights and self-determination, they risk repeating the same extractive patterns that created the climate crisis in the first place,” he added.
