Nature based carbon projects are facing an existential crisis. Demand for carbon credits is down and viable projects are on the brink of survival. With them go millions in revenue to communities in the global south, vital nature and biodiversity and any chance of reaching global net zero.
The Kasigau Corridor carbon project in Kenya is a beacon of what the Voluntary Carbon Market (VCM) can achieve. It has funded scholarships for 46,000 children, built 10 new schools, and delivered over 50 clean water projects. It employs hundreds of local people, protects three endangered species, and safeguards 200,000 hectares of forest, preventing an estimated 1.7 million tonnes of CO2 emissions annually.
Yet today, the project is one of many at risk, struggling to sell the carbon credits it generates.
The reason: a campaign by an NGO from the global north, that is ideologically opposed to carbon credits, who have found that targeting projects and their funders through sensationalist media stories is the most effective way to undermine the market.
It is not alone. There is a cohort of NGOs that have shut down demand for carbon credits and their aggressive public approach has quietened the communities that they impact. They won’t be won over by new carbon calculation methodologies, nor improvements in the ESG approach of these projects because their opposition is more fundamental.
Advocates of the VCM and the communities in the global south who benefit from the revenues it generates need to be stronger in its defence and call out the ideological motivations of its critics.
When scrutiny becomes sensationalism
From the start, the VCM has faced legitimate scrutiny over how emissions reductions are measured and verified and how communities are engaged. Issues such as overcrediting and human rights abuses have rightly been the focus of media attention and the market has responded to pressure by improving methodologies and measurement. Big strides have been made towards scientific measurement of emissions reductions, particularly using satellite technology. Methodologies for calculating and reporting emissions have been revised to ensure integrity and accuracy, and new rules have made it clear exactly how businesses can use them. The same is happening on community issues such as making sure the correct processes have been followed for obtaining free and prior informed consent.
However, alongside some legitimate scrutiny, a series of sensationalist media stories driven by NGOs with an anti-carbon market agenda has had a profound impact.
The falling carbon price – a result of eroded confidence in the market – has slashed revenues for nature-based projects, meaning fewer jobs, less funding for schools, healthcare, and other community initiatives.
The Kasigau Corridor project became the target of a report from SOMO, which labeled its community-led initiatives as “neo-colonial.” An unfortunate choice of language from a Dutch organisation involving itself in projects in Africa, and a description which the local communities in Kasigau vehemently dispute. Nonetheless, they have tarnished the project and made it very challenging to sell the credits that generate the incomes that the livelihoods of thousands depend upon.
Similar accusations were made about the Northern Kenya Rangelands (NKR) project, by the Oakland Institute and Survival International only to be refuted by an independent investigation by Dr. Kanyinke Sena—former chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Despite these rebuttals, the NGO claims have scared off investors and buyers using tactics that included writing directly to corporate buyers who were strong supporters of the projects. Now, a project that has captured 11 million tonnes of carbon and delivered $14.6 million USD in revenues to build school classrooms and boost regional tourism has had its income from carbon credits turned off.
In September, a US-based campaigning organisation, Corporate Accountability, published an attack on the entire carbon market that labelled most carbon credits as “worthless” and was splashed by The Guardian, but not made available for public scrutiny. At the time, Verra, the organisation responsible for quality assurance in the VCM, complained that they were given “little or no detailed analysis” to respond to the accusation. Months later and despite repeated requests, that analysis still remains behind a closed door.
In each case, despite credible and robust rebuttals, the mud thrown by the NGOs has stuck, damaging individual projects and the wider market.
Meanwhile, when West African nations sought to stand up for the Voluntary Carbon Market, writing to the SBTi advocating for its inclusion within guidance for companies, the Climate Action Network, another Northern Europe based NGO, attacked it through their ECO newsletter. Who is the real neo-colonialist here?
Rebalancing the narrative
There is an implicit assumption that NGOs act with objectivity and integrity – which is why their campaigns cut through with the media and public alike. Meanwhile, responses from the market are dismissed as “vested interests.”
However, NGOs have agendas too. They are campaigners, skilled at using the media to further their goals. And they are not immune to being motivated by ideology – or the whims of their funders.
Many carbon projects are, by their nature, hugely complex. They can cover vast areas that are home to tens of thousands of people and where the political and social context is often complicated. Great care is taken to consider the views and needs of local communities, the natural environment and the political nuances. Instead of seeking to understand these complexities, NGOs come with an agenda, pick projects over for problems, and then use whatever they can find to condemn them, disregarding all the good that is being done because the real driver is their fundamental opposition to carbon credits and market-based approaches to tackling climate change.
If we are serious about protecting nature, supporting communities, and addressing climate change, we must demand accountability – not just from carbon projects but from their critics.
The cost of inaction is clear: more emissions, more nature lost, and fewer opportunities for the communities who need them most. For projects like Kasigau and NKR, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
The ideologically motivated critics of the market will not be won over by improvements in carbon methodologies. Instead, we need to win the battle in the public arena – and the VCM sector must be bolder in defending itself and extolling its benefits. It also needs to get over its fear of speaking out publicly against certain NGOs and hold them to account for the negative consequences of their actions.
Projects like the Kasigau Corridor and NKR are proof that carbon credits deliver tangible benefits – not just for CO2 reduction, but for communities, livelihoods and education. We must work together to amplify their success stories, demonstrating their value to people and the planet.
Businesses, too, must stand firm and not be afraid of The Guardian effect, especially when it goes unchallenged. Recent UK government guidance underscores the role of carbon credits as part of the pathway to net zero. Companies cannot allow short-term controversies to derail long-term progress because they are increasingly paying the cost through disrupted business activities as a result of climate disasters.. Without investment in the VCM, achieving net zero targets – and addressing climate change – will remain impossible. The floods in Valencia and the wild fires in Los Angeles say it all.
Private, public and not for profit have to come together to work towards achieving this common goal.
