A fair share of the voluntary carbon market?

The briefing reveals a systemic lack of rules and enforcement regarding benefit sharing arrangements (BSAs) in the voluntary carbon market. An analysis by Öko-Institut found that only two of five assessed carbon standards referenced BSAs, and only four of 47 reviewed projects provided clear evidence of benefit sharing with stakeholders beyond project implementers. The document argues that payments for results (such as payments for ecosystem services) are often incorrectly conflated with benefit sharing, which should instead be a distribution of revenues. It further notes that major standards like CAR, ACR, and VCS have opposed mandatory BSA rules from the ICVCM, citing confidentiality and capacity constraints.

• There is a significant lack of formal rules regarding benefit sharing arrangements (BSAs) across major carbon standards; only two of the five selected standards—American Carbon Registry (ACR) and Plan Vivo—referenced BSAs in their documentation.
• Plan Vivo is the only assessed standard that mandates a benefit sharing mechanism, requiring that 60% of revenues from credit sales benefit local stakeholders or project participants.
• Evidence of actual benefit sharing implementation is extremely low: of 47 projects reviewed, only 15 mentioned BSAs, and only four of those showed evidence of sharing benefits with stakeholders other than the project implementers.
• The study identifies a failure to distinguish between 'benefit sharing' and 'payments for results' (such as payments for ecosystem services), with the latter being more akin to wages for work performed rather than a share of project benefits.
• Major voluntary carbon market programs, including CAR, ACR, and VCS, have opposed proposed ICVCM rules that would mandate the implementation of BSAs, arguing that such requirements infringe on confidential information and exceed their management capacity.
• The absence of a universal definition for BSAs leads to confusion between 'benefit sharing' (revenues from credit sales) and 'co-benefits' (sustainable development benefits from project implementation), potentially harming indigenous peoples and local communities.

APA

Otis, L., & Dufrasne, G. (2023). A fair share of the voluntary carbon market? Carbon Market Watch. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CMW_policy_briefing_benefit_sharing_2023_11.pdf

Chicago

Otis, Lindsay, and Gilles Dufrasne. A fair share of the voluntary carbon market? Carbon Market Watch, 2023. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CMW_policy_briefing_benefit_sharing_2023_11.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Otis |first1=Lindsay |last2=Dufrasne |first2=Gilles |title=A fair share of the voluntary carbon market? |publisher=Carbon Market Watch |date=November 2023 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CMW_policy_briefing_benefit_sharing_2023_11.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{otis2023fair, author = {Otis, Lindsay and Dufrasne, Gilles}, title = {{A fair share of the voluntary carbon market?}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2023}, month = nov, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CMW_policy_briefing_benefit_sharing_2023_11.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }