New Research Places Social Equity at Core of Carbon Market Quality

The criteria for what defines a truly high-quality carbon credit are expanding—and at the forefront of this evolution is social integrity. A recent report by the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) and World Agroforestry underscores the growing consensus that robust social safeguards are just as essential as environmental performance.

Local community members joyfully picking coffee cherries on a plantation in Africa. Ai generated picture.

While the environmental side of carbon credit standards has seen increasing alignment, the report finds that social protections—especially those concerning Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs)—remain unevenly addressed. The paper argues that a simple ‘do no harm’ approach is no longer enough.

‘Do no harm should be considered as a minimum requirement that does not rise to the high ambition expected for high integrity’, the report states, pointing to the need for more proactive and inclusive engagement.

The report introduces the concept of ‘high integrity carbon’ (HIC) credits—units that not only ensure genuine emissions reductions or removals but also create measurable, long-term social value. It highlights existing programmes that already meet this dual standard and calls for more investment in tools and frameworks to replicate their success at scale.

To strengthen the social dimension of carbon markets, CIFOR outlines five key recommendations:

• Ensure free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) is maintained throughout the entire project lifecycle.
  
  
• Address systemic causes of gender inequality rather than relying on surface-level sensitivity.
  
  
• Treat IPLC land and resource rights as a foundational requirement for carbon crediting.
  
  
• Avoid tying benefit-sharing exclusively to land or carbon ownership, which may exclude key stakeholders.
  
  
• Implement grievance and redress mechanisms that are transparent, accessible, and culturally appropriate.

The report also warns that meaningful implementation depends on moving beyond a top-down mindset. Carbon markets, it says, should not be imposed as external solutions but shaped collaboratively with IPLCs from the outset.

‘The implementation of these recommendations will also be challenged by governments treating jurisdictional programmes as if they were projects; programmes need to be fully integrated into jurisdictional governance’, the authors note.

As expectations rise across the sector, projects that balance ecological outcomes with social excellence are quickly becoming the benchmark for credibility and long-term impact.