Taking Stock of Key Integrity Debates—A Summary

The first quarter of Conversations on Integrity offers a clear snapshot of our current position on greenhouse gas accounting, safeguards, and financing for nature-based carbon. I read the three pieces with optimism. While there is still room for improvement, the overall trajectory reflects strengthening integrity and a clearer understanding of what is required—progress that would have been far less evident a decade ago. Although real-world implementation remains essential for continued learning, the most encouraging sign is the growing commitment to higher integrity across suppliers, buyers, and oversight bodies.

On the technical front, David Shoch (Terracarbon) and I trace the evolution of greenhouse gas accounting, where challenges have been identified over time and addressed through improved methodologies. While progress has not always been as swift as needed, the direction has remained consistent, and it is clear that the integrity of nature-based carbon today is stronger than ever.

The safeguards discussion underscored that awareness and understanding of safeguard requirements have grown. However, safeguards are still too often treated as a procedural checkbox rather than an ongoing, central risk that requires continuous management throughout a project’s lifecycle, write Linda Rivera Macedo (Calyx Global), Jennifer Laughlin (UNDP Climate), Daniela Rey (Calyx Global), Antonio La Viña (Manila Observatory and Klima Center, and Pablo Mis (Julian Cho Society and UN Voluntary Fund for Indigenous Peoples).

The discussion on finance presented a different dynamic. Tripurari Prasad (Climate Asset Management) and Edit Kiss (Capital Continuum Management) point out that the profile of buyers and financiers in nature-based carbon has shifted over time, driven largely by market pressures and economics rather than integrity. These changes have led to larger deal sizes and return expectations that often exclude smaller, environmentally focused projects from much-needed finance, even as forward revenue (long a source of quasi project finance) has become less predictable as integrity standards have tightened. This creates a risk for future market development for which we need new solutions. 

The three conversations demonstrate strong understanding of both the intended and unintended consequences of current practices, as well as clear pathways for improvement at the project and system levels. This quarter leaves me optimistic: we know where we need to go, how to get there, and—importantly—we have the collective commitment to pursue high-integrity carbon.

We welcome feedback on this first quarter’s conversations, as well as suggestions for future topics. Please join our discussion group on LinkedIn. 

In quarter two, we examine how carbon portfolios should be built—blending nature-based and engineered approaches over time to manage durability, cost, and delivery risk. Jen Stebbing will edit the series. Look out for the first article in April.