{"query_echo":{"q":"","filters":{"analysis_type":["qualitative project analysis"]},"warnings":[{"code":"facet_value_not_in_vocabulary","message":"Value 'qualitative project analysis' for facet 'analysis_type' is not in the controlled vocabulary."}]},"total":{"value":1,"relation":"eq"},"page":1,"page_size":20,"self":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/api/v1/search?analysis_type=qualitative+project+analysis","stability":"beta","ai_marking":{"digital_source_type":{"uri":"http://cv.iptc.org/newscodes/digitalsourcetype/trainedAlgorithmicMedia","name":"Created using Generative AI"},"notice":"Summary and key insights are generated using artificial intelligence."},"results":[{"id":"cmw-000468","url":"https://climateinsightsdirectory.org/document/cmw-000468","title":"Assessing the transparency and integrity of benefit sharing arrangements related to voluntary carbon market projects","publisher":{"name":"Carbon Market Watch","organization":"carbon-market-watch"},"document_type":"report","language":"en","date_published":"2023-11","source_url":"https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Assessing-transparency-and-integrity-of-benefit-sharing-arrangements-related-to-voluntary-carbon-market-projects.pdf","generator":"Climate Insights Directory","generated_fields":["summary","key_insights","climate_tags","geography_discussed","analysis_type"],"summary":{"text":"The report finds that comprehensive requirements for benefit sharing arrangements are not common practice across major carbon crediting programmes. While some projects, particularly those under Plan Vivo, demonstrate best practices by providing detailed monitoring reports on monetary and non-monetary benefits, many others provide only procedural information or limited evidence of actual implementation. Major carbon crediting programmes like Verra (VCS), CAR, and ACR have largely resisted mandatory disclosure of benefit sharing terms, citing commercial confidentiality and a lack of institutional expertise to monitor downstream financial flows.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cmw-000468#summary","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},"key_insights":[{"text":"Comprehensive requirements for benefit sharing arrangements are not standard across the major carbon crediting programmes reviewed, including ACR, CAR, Gold Standard, and VCS.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cmw-000468#insight-1","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Plan Vivo is the only reviewed programme with a mandatory requirement for a benefit sharing mechanism, specifying that at least 60% of income from certificate sales must directly benefit project participants and local stakeholders.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cmw-000468#insight-2","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM) significantly reduced its requirements for benefit sharing in its final 2023 Assessment Framework following public consultation, moving from mandatory requirements to rules that only apply if a programme already requires such arrangements.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cmw-000468#insight-3","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Major carbon crediting programmes (ACR, CAR, and Verra) opposed mandatory disclosure of benefit sharing arrangements, arguing that such information is commercially confidential and that monitoring these arrangements is outside their role and expertise.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cmw-000468#insight-4","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"A qualitative review of 47 projects found that only 15 included claims of benefit sharing in their Project Design Documents (PDDs), with no such claims found in the sample of projects registered under Gold Standard or ACR.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cmw-000468#insight-5","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Best practice in benefit sharing was observed in some Plan Vivo projects, such as the Durian Rambun REDD+ project, which provided disaggregated data on how funds were spent, including specific outputs like the production of 12,000 packets of coffee via a women's group.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cmw-000468#insight-6","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"Many projects in the sample provided limited evidence of actual benefit sharing, with some reporting that no carbon credits had been issued yet or that activities were funded by third-party fundraising rather than carbon credit sales.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cmw-000468#insight-7","date_modified":"2026-10-23"},{"text":"There is a lack of transparency regarding the actual financial split between project coordinators and local communities, as carbon prices and operational costs are often not disclosed, making it impossible to verify claims like the 60:40 split.","ai_generated":true,"unit":"cmw-000468#insight-8","date_modified":"2026-10-23"}],"climate_tags":["carbon offset","nature-based solutions","Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation","afforestation","reforestation","climate finance","transparency","indigenous people"],"geography_discussed":["Fiji","Nicaragua","Mongolia","Indonesia","Vanuatu","Timor-Leste","Kenya","Colombia","Brazil","Ethiopia","Mexico","United States"],"frame_perspective":[],"analysis_type":["policy review","qualitative project analysis","transparency assessment"]}]}