Carbon certification had a conflict-of-interest problem, so we addressed it.

Equitable Earth exists to support projects that deliver lasting outcomes for the climate, ecosystems and livelihoods, creating a credible pathway for more finance to flow towards protecting and restoring nature at scale.

Delivering on that mission requires robust methodologies, informed by diverse perspectives and the best available science and technology. But that’s only part of the answer.

The voluntary carbon market recently went through a period of intense scrutiny, which raised fundamental questions about credit quality, baseline setting, verification and accountability.

That scrutiny and those questions informed how we designed the Equitable Earth Programme.

Looking beyond individual controversies, we examined the structural incentives and allocation of responsibilities behind them. Who benefits when more credits are issued? Who produces the calculations that determine issuance? Who appoints the auditor responsible for checking them?

In legacy systems, individual organisations are expected to manage tensions between their own responsibilities and commercial incentives.

Our model was designed to address those tensions at their source, removing three clear conflicts of interest from the operating model.

Here’s how we approached each one.
‍

01 - Breaking the link between revenue and credit issuance

Per-credit issuance fees directly link a standards body's revenue to the volume of credits it issues. That creates a structural tension: the body responsible for controlling issuance earns more as issuance increases, like paying an examiner based on how many candidates they pass.

From the beginning, we knew we needed to charge on a per-hectare, per-year basis, not per credit issued. Our revenue does not increase because a project receives a higher baseline or generates more credits. We grow and earn revenue by supporting more hectares of credible conservation and restoration across the globe.
‍

02 - Carbon accounting that is both consistent and independent

Carbon accounting determines how many credits a project can issue and, therefore, how much revenue it will generate. Yet in many conventional models, the project developer or a consultant it appoints produces the calculations on which that issuance depends.

Equitable Earth separates carbon accounting from project development.

We calculate project baselines and issuance volumes centrally using a standardised approach, and an independent validation and verification body then assesses those calculations. This reduces project-level discretion, improves consistency between projects and places clear responsibility for the carbon claim with the standards body.

No longer responsible for complex biomass change calculations, project developers can focus on implementation.
‍

03 - Changing who appoints the auditor

In many legacy models, project developers select and contract their own auditor. This means the organisation seeking approval also controls the appointment, and potentially future business, of the organisation assessing it.

That relationship can create an incentive to satisfy the client whose project is under review. Even when an audit is rigorous, it can raise questions about the independence of the outcome.

Under our model, Equitable Earth selects, appoints and contracts the validation and verification body, matching its expertise to the project's requirements. The developer reimburses the audit cost, but does not control the appointment.
‍

Conclusion

While conflicts of interest remain embedded in many of the market's crediting models, we’re committed to raising the bar. That required more than writing new rules. It meant changing who applies them, who verifies the results, and the incentives underpinning the system.

Carbon certification had a conflict-of-interest problem, so we built a model that addressed it.

‍