UPDATE STUDY Assessing the effectiveness of Voluntary Carbon Market Grievance Mechanisms

The 2024 update study by Perspectives Climate Group finds that while CAR, Verra, and ACR have improved their grievance processes since 2023, significant shortcomings persist across all analysed VCM programmes. Key issues include limited accessibility, lack of independent review guardrails, and a general absence of detailed potential remedies. The report specifically highlights the case of the Amerindian Peoples’ Association (APA) in Guyana under the ART mechanism, which was dismissed on formal grounds, illustrating the risks of ad hoc procedural changes and biased reviewer appointments. The study concludes that most VCM mechanisms remain insufficient in providing a fair, predictable, and independent path to redress for affected stakeholders.

• CAR, Verra, and ACR have implemented improvements since 2023, including the introduction of more detailed processes and the removal of submission fees by Verra.
• Significant gaps remain across all analysed programmes regarding the independence of reviewers and the composition of appeals committees, which often consist of internal representatives who may be biased toward the programme's interests.
• There is a systemic lack of detail across all analysed VCM grievance mechanisms regarding the specific types of remedies available to complainants.
• Verra's mechanism contains high eligibility thresholds and subjective criteria that may restrict access and reduce predictability.
• ACR and ART policies include restrictive conditions that may block grievances older than one year or those previously raised during public comment periods, potentially limiting redress for vulnerable stakeholders.
• The case study of the Amerindian Peoples’ Association (APA) in Guyana demonstrates how a lack of clear guidance and the use of ad hoc, legalistic Terms of Reference can lead to the dismissal of grievances on formal grounds without addressing substantive issues.
• The ART case study reveals a failure in ensuring reviewer impartiality, as the independent reviewer appointed was a former high-ranking officer of the managing entity, Winrock International.
• There is a general lack of coordination and defined interaction between programme-level grievance mechanisms and the mechanisms that project developers are required to establish.

APA

Dalfiume, S., & Michaelowa, A. (2024). UPDATE STUDY Assessing the effectiveness of Voluntary Carbon Market Grievance Mechanisms. Carbon Market Watch. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Assessing-the-effectiveness-of-Voluntary-Carbon-Market-Grievance-Mechanisms-27.06-2.pdf

Chicago

Dalfiume, Sandra, and Axel Michaelowa. UPDATE STUDY Assessing the effectiveness of Voluntary Carbon Market Grievance Mechanisms. Carbon Market Watch, 2024. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Assessing-the-effectiveness-of-Voluntary-Carbon-Market-Grievance-Mechanisms-27.06-2.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Dalfiume |first1=Sandra |last2=Michaelowa |first2=Axel |title=UPDATE STUDY Assessing the effectiveness of Voluntary Carbon Market Grievance Mechanisms |publisher=Carbon Market Watch |date=21 June 2024 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Assessing-the-effectiveness-of-Voluntary-Carbon-Market-Grievance-Mechanisms-27.06-2.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{dalfiume2024update, author = {Dalfiume, Sandra and Michaelowa, Axel}, title = {{UPDATE STUDY Assessing the effectiveness of Voluntary Carbon Market Grievance Mechanisms}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2024}, month = jun, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Assessing-the-effectiveness-of-Voluntary-Carbon-Market-Grievance-Mechanisms-27.06-2.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }