Uma proporção justa do mercado voluntário de carbono? Como a ausência de regras padronizadas sobre os acordos de partilha de benefícios prejudica as comunidades locais e os povos indígenas

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

The document reports on a study by the Öko-Institut commissioned by Carbon Market Watch, which found that benefit-sharing arrangements (BSAs) in the voluntary carbon market are largely insufficient and lack transparency. Analysis of five carbon standards and 47 projects revealed that most standards do not require BSAs, and very few projects provide evidence of distributing benefits beyond simple performance-based payments. The brief argues that performance payments (like salaries) should not be conflated with benefit-sharing and calls for the Integrity Council for Voluntary Carbon Markets (ICVCM) to mandate standardized, transparent BSA rules.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • Most carbon standards lack formal requirements for benefit-sharing arrangements. Of the five standards analyzed, only two (American Carbon Registry and Plan Vivo) mention "benefit sharing arrangements" in their regulatory documents, and Plan Vivo is the only one that explicitly requires a "benefit sharing mechanism."
  • Evidence of benefit-sharing implementation is extremely low across projects. Out of 47 projects analyzed, only 15 mentioned BSAs in their design documents, and of those, only four provided evidence of sharing benefits with stakeholders other than the project implementers.
  • There is a critical failure to distinguish between benefit-sharing and performance-based payments. Most projects use payments for environmental services (PES), which the report characterizes as similar to wages or remuneration for work, rather than a true share of the commercial benefits from carbon credit sales.
  • Major carbon standards have resisted mandatory BSA rules. The Climate Action Reserve (CAR), American Carbon Registry (ACR), and Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) rejected mandatory BSAs, citing concerns over confidential information and a lack of capacity to manage such arrangements.
  • The lack of a standardized definition for BSAs leads to poor implementation and confusion between 'benefits' and 'co-benefits'. Co-benefits are generally sustainable development results from project implementation, whereas BSAs should relate to the monetary or non-monetary benefits from the sale of carbon credits.

Cite the original document

APA
Otis, L., & Dufrasne, G. (2023). Uma proporção justa do mercado voluntário de carbono? Como a ausência de regras padronizadas sobre os acordos de partilha de benefícios prejudica as comunidades locais e os povos indígenas. Carbon Market Watch. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CMW_policy_briefing_benefit_sharing_2023_11_por-PT.pdf
Chicago
Otis, Lindsay, and Gilles Dufrasne. Uma proporção justa do mercado voluntário de carbono? Como a ausência de regras padronizadas sobre os acordos de partilha de benefícios prejudica as comunidades locais e os povos indígenas. Carbon Market Watch, 2023. https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CMW_policy_briefing_benefit_sharing_2023_11_por-PT.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Otis |first1=Lindsay |last2=Dufrasne |first2=Gilles |title=Uma proporção justa do mercado voluntário de carbono? Como a ausência de regras padronizadas sobre os acordos de partilha de benefícios prejudica as comunidades locais e os povos indígenas |publisher=Carbon Market Watch |date=November 2023 |url=https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CMW_policy_briefing_benefit_sharing_2023_11_por-PT.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{otis2023uma, author = {Otis, Lindsay and Dufrasne, Gilles}, title = {{Uma proporção justa do mercado voluntário de carbono? Como a ausência de regras padronizadas sobre os acordos de partilha de benefícios prejudica as comunidades locais e os povos indígenas}}, institution = {Carbon Market Watch}, year = {2023}, month = nov, url = {https://carbonmarketwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/CMW_policy_briefing_benefit_sharing_2023_11_por-PT.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated