It is troubling that a report claiming to assess the voluntary carbon market (VCM) seems more focused on criticizing the past than meaningfully evaluating the present.
While the report purports to examine “the most recent performance of the VCM” it actually largely overlooks the most recent and significant developments within the market.
By analyzing projects with credits retired in 2024, assessing them only by reviewing ratings agency scores, the report fails to account for the nuance and complexity of how these projects function, particularly given that many were developed under methodologies that have since been updated. It’s like evaluating the iPhone 5 in 2024 and declaring the entire smartphone industry a failure because the iPhone 5 doesn’t perform like the iPhone 16.
More importantly, the methodology the report authors employed shows no evidence of actual engagement with carbon market players that are working hard to ensure good, solid project development. Nor does it show any understanding of the multi-faceted impact of the carbon market on communities.
The carbon market cannot be reduced to scores and spreadsheets; its complexity lies not just in carbon accounting, but in the real-world outcomes it delivers.
Where is the interview, for example, with the Global South community member that was able to send their children to school due to revenue generated through a carbon project?
The report also displays a poor understanding of what actually has delivered climate action over the period of climate negotiations it refers to. Which other policy, or instrument, under the UN process, has delivered carbon emissions reductions together with contributions to sustainable development goals? Let’s face it: only the VCM is getting climate finance to where it is needed most.
The report further claims that Verra’s “updating of methodologies and measures… may still be far from rectifying the systematic flaws and failures within its registry and the VCM more broadly,” yet omits a crucial fact: we have not yet registered any projects or issued credits under some of our most significant updated methodologies, including VM0048 (REDD) and VM0050 (clean cookstoves), that have already been approved under the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market’s (ICVCM) Core Carbon Principles, the highest global benchmark for quality and rigor.
We don’t claim perfection; after all, no market can. But we are reforming with urgency and purpose, and we are delivering.
Progress in carbon markets, like in any complex system, doesn’t unfold neatly in headlines or quarterly snapshots. It builds over time: through reform, iteration, and scientific scrutiny.
And that change is underway, methodology by methodology, project by project.
Rather than tearing down a system that is delivering impact and actively improving, why not engage constructively, collaborate, and offer meaningful recommendations for progress? Reports like this risk doing more harm than good; to both the environment and the communities they claim to represent. Speak to communities before speaking on their behalf.