Carbon credits—intended to represent greenhouse gas reductions or removals—have become a prominent tool in the global response to the climate crisis. However, concerns persist over whether all credits represent genuine, long-term benefits to people and nature.
Some carbon offset projects have been accused of overestimating their climate impact, while others have failed to uphold and respect the rights of forest-dependent Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPs and LCs). Although IPs and LCs are increasingly taking part in carbon initiatives and mechanisms to share benefits and responsibilities are improving, too little attention is paid to their rights to self-determination and decision-making. In response to these challenges, the concept of “high integrity carbon credits” (HICCs) has gained traction. HICCs are credits that should meet rigorous environmental and social standards to contribute meaningfully to global climate efforts.
A recent literature review, drawing on publications and statements from HICC proponents, to explore how “high integrity” is defined, its potential and its limitations. The findings highlight gaps in current definitions and underscore the need to rethink what constitutes high integrity.
Indigenous Peoples, local communities and high integrity
Carbon markets are controversial within the movements and communities of IPs and LCs. There is a wide range of responses—from pioneering initiatives such as Peru’s Indigenous Jurisdictional REDD+ Programme, to the outright rejection of carbon markets and the very concept of carbon as a tradable value. There are also numerous reports and media investigations documenting rights transgressions associated with carbon projects.
Our review shows how IPs and LCs are paying close attention to equity and justice considerations in carbon programmes, with clear demands in several forums. These include the recognition, respect and empowerment of Indigenous and local community governance systems; the valuing and integration of ancestral and traditional knowledge and practices; a shift in safeguard systems from a ‘do no harm’ approach to a proactive ‘do better’; the scaling up of direct financing mechanisms; and the establishment of independent grievance mechanisms, among others.
Redefining high-integrity forest carbon
We found a strong consensus on the criteria for high ecological integrity credits. Most definitions agree that HICCs should be additional—meaning removals would not occur without the program—permanent (they last over time); free from leakage (where stopping deforestation or degradation in one area does not simply shift it to another); and verified through evidence-based methods and third-party verification.
Social integrity, however, tends to receive less political and financial attention, despite being equally critical. Definitions and approaches to social integrity vary widely; even when free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) or the importance of IP and LC rights are explicitly mentioned, they often revert to minimal safeguards standards of “doing no harm” or remain vague about implementation. Without a clear ambition to “do better,” it is difficult to establish practices that truly support high social integrity credits.
Based on our review, we define HICCs as emission reduction or removal units supplied by programmes that combine high quality and high ambition in both ecological and social dimensions. While the definitions we examined have helped raise the profile of social standards, few achieve the level of ambition we propose: the active promotion of participation, equity and justice.
Pathways for change
Achieving this ambition requires actionable guidelines that match the rigour of the tools and methodologies used to ensure high ecological integrity—backed by equivalent financial, political and technical support.
These safeguards must be grounded in the recognition and respect for the rights enshrined in international agreements, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, International Labour Organization 169 (ILO 169) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.
If “doing better” is the goal, progress must be measured against specific, co-developed indicators to assess progress, designed and monitored by IPs and LCs themselves. This will demand approaches that go beyond the legal and policy frameworks of most countries implementing forest carbon programmes.
Our review identifies five key reforms linked to the rights of IPs and LCs that any carbon programme claiming high integrity should adopt:
-
Recognize and respect Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) – FPIC must be an ongoing process, not a one-time meeting. Guided by ILO 169, it must include women and youth and function as a respectful, continuous dialogue between equal partners from project inception to completion.
-
Carbon programmes must go beyond being gender-sensitive or gender-responsive and work towards transformative approaches. Programmes must promote gender equality at their core, addressing the root causes of inequality, from land rights to decision-making and participation in the benefits of carbon credit sales.
-
Respect for the land and resource rights of IPs and LCs should be strictly monitored and a precondition for the sale of carbon credits. To avoid worsening already volatile political contexts, programs must map and respect customary rights, including gender inequalities in access to land, and prevent any community displacement.
-
Ensure equitable sharing of benefits and burdens – these must not only be tied to ownership of land or carbon, which can be undefined, unclear, or tend to be assigned to men. Fair benefit-sharing mechanisms should be designed by, or co-designed with, IP and LC men and women, and based on a complete understanding of the burdens involved.
-
Establish culturally relevant grievance and monitoring systems – Carbon standards must include independent, accessible and transparent grievance and redress mechanisms as well as mechanisms to monitor safeguard compliance. These systems should be understood as part of an adaptive management approach that is culturally relevant, accessible, transparent and understood as an evaluation for programme implementation.
High integrity carbon credits can be part of the solution to the climate crisis—if they are implemented with equal weight on ecological soundness and social justice. Integrity is not achieved through accounting alone; it requires respecting rights, addressing inequities and embracing transformative change. Without this balance, programmes risk reinforcing the very inequalities they claim to address, while missing the opportunity to deliver truly just and lasting climate solutions.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this study was provided by the Climate and Land Use Alliance (CLUA). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of CIFOR-ICRAF or CLUA.
The post Not all carbon credits are created equal appeared first on CIFOR-ICRAF Forests News.
