Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Carbon credits · Peru · 2012–2024

Alto Mayo REDD+ project (Peru)

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 4 none on record · 3 insufficient · 1 not measured · 1 disputed See the gaps

A forest-carbon project in Peru's Alto Mayo, run by Conservation International and certified by Verra, supplied credits to Disney and others. A 2023 analysis estimated that it received about ten times the credits it justified and reported home demolitions in the project area in 2021; Conservation International said it was not involved.

7.5m vs about 720k estimateCredits issued vs credits an analysis estimated were justified
Estimate: SourceMaterial analysis, which put the over-crediting at about ten times.

Status As of July 2024: a review commissioned by Conservation International found it not involved in nor responsible for the 2021 demolitions; no court case or penalty was found.

What?
An analysis reported that the Alto Mayo REDD+ project received about ten times the carbon credits it justified, and that homes in the project area were demolished in 2021. SourceMaterial (with The Guardian and Die Zeit)
Where?
Alto Mayo protected area, Peru (location approximate). SourceMaterial (with The Guardian and Die Zeit)
When?
Credit purchases from 2012 to 2020; demolitions January–May 2021; analysis published 20 January 2023; CI-commissioned review 1 July 2024. SourceMaterial (with The Guardian and Die Zeit)
Who?
Gained
Lost
Harmed
None on record
Why?
CI said it was told the structures were vacant and abandoned; SERNANP has described such operations since 2019 as extrajudicial recovery of state-owned properties. Conservation International
How?
SourceMaterial compared credits issued (7.5 million) with its estimate of credits justified (about 720,000). SourceMaterial (with The Guardian and Die Zeit)
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

The Alto Mayo REDD+ project in Peru is run by Conservation International (CI) and certified by Verra. Buyers included Disney, Gucci, BHP and the band Pearl Jam. Disney took about 40% of the project's offsets in 2012–2020, more than 2 million credits; in March 2013 it bought 437,000 credits for US$3.5 million.

In an article published on 20 January 2023, SourceMaterial, working with The Guardian and Die Zeit, reported that armed men and police had demolished homes in the project area between January and May 2021, with up to 50 homes alleged. It also estimated that the project had received about ten times too many credits: 7.5 million issued against about 720,000 justified. the sources reviewed give that Peru's protected-areas agency, SERNANP, has described such operations since 2019 as "extrajudicial recovery of state-owned properties".

CI said it had been told that the structures "were vacant and abandoned". A review commissioned by CI and released on 1 July 2024 found that CI was "not involved in nor responsible" for the demolitions. the sources reviewed give no court case and no penalty for the Alto Mayo project.

  1. 2012Start of the period in which Disney took about 40% of the project's offsets (2012–2020)
  2. 2013March: Disney buys 437,000 credits for US$3.5 million
  3. 2019SERNANP begins describing such operations as extrajudicial recovery of state-owned properties
  4. 2021January–May: armed men and police alleged to have demolished homes, up to 50 homes alleged
  5. 202320 January: SourceMaterial, The Guardian and Die Zeit report the demolitions and estimate about ten times too many credits
  6. 20241 July: review commissioned by CI finds CI not involved in nor responsible

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

“were vacant and abandoned”

Conservation International, on what it was told about the structures · Not dated in the sources reviewed · Conservation International

“not involved in nor responsible”

“extrajudicial recovery of state-owned properties”

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

Were homes in the project area demolished, and was Conservation International responsible?
Press and investigations
SourceMaterial (with The Guardian and Die Zeit)

Armed men and police demolished homes in the project area between January and May 2021; up to 50 homes alleged.

SourceMaterial (with The Guardian and Die Zeit)
Government and regulators
SERNANP

Has described such operations since 2019 as "extrajudicial recovery of state-owned properties".

SourceMaterial (with The Guardian and Die Zeit)
Company or project
Conservation International

Said it was told the structures "were vacant and abandoned"; a review it commissioned found it "not involved in nor responsible".

Conservation International

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

Recorded

Who gained

Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.

Reached nature or the ground

Not published
No figure published.

Gained elsewhere

Not totalled
Currency: USD · Window: March 2013. All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.

Responses on record

  • conservation-international (2023–2024; review 1 July 2024): Said it was told the structures "were vacant and abandoned"; a review it commissioned, dated 1 July 2024, found CI "not involved in nor responsible". · Conservation International
  • sernanp (Since 2019): Has described such operations since 2019 as "extrajudicial recovery of state-owned properties". · SourceMaterial (with The Guardian and Die Zeit)

In court and with insurers

Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

Lawsuits and rulings

No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

Insurers

No insurer decision on record.

What nature saw

Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

Credits issued vs estimated justified
7.5m vs about 720k
SourceMaterial analysis; about ten times
Share of Disney's offsets from the project, 2012–2020
About 40%
More than 2 million credits
Homes demolished in the project area, 2021
Up to 50
Alleged; January–May 2021

What we don't know

Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
No court caseDisplacement reported

Nature

  • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

Court

Figures

Accounts

  • Disputed Were homes in the project area demolished, and was Conservation International responsible?

Record

  • None on record No court case was found for the Alto Mayo project, and no penalty is recorded.
  • None on record The number of homes demolished is an allegation (up to 50); the sources reviewed give no confirmed count.
  • None on record The 7.5 million versus 720,000 credit comparison is the SourceMaterial analysis's own estimate; no independent check is recorded.
  • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: that CI criticised the method of the 2023 investigation.
  • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: forced evictions of families by park staff, as alleged by The Guardian in 2023.

Did the harm stop?

the sources reviewed give no court case, penalty or change to the project after the 2023 analysis and the 2024 review.

Who paid?

the sources reviewed alleges that up to 50 homes in the project area were demolished in 2021; it records no compensation.

Sources

Voices on record: ✓ Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers

Company or project

Press and investigations

  1. Analysis of the Alto Mayo REDD+ project (title not on record)
    SourceMaterial (with The Guardian and Die Zeit) · 2023-01-20

Connected cases

Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
Terms used on this page

Carbon and conservation finance

Buffer pool
A reserve of credits held back from sale by a carbon programme to cover future losses, such as forest burned or logged after credits were issued. It works as the programme's own insurance.
Carbon credit
A certificate representing one tonne of carbon dioxide (or equivalent) that a project says it reduced, avoided or removed. Buyers use credits to balance their own emissions in climate claims.
Offset
Using carbon credits to balance emissions released elsewhere, so that a buyer can claim lower or zero net emissions.
REDD+
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation. A UN framework under which forest projects earn carbon credits for deforestation they say they prevented, measured against a projected baseline.
Standard-setter and registry
An organisation that writes the rules for carbon credits, approves projects, and records when credits are issued and retired. Such bodies typically charge fees per credit.

Places and local terms

Renova Foundation
The foundation set up after the 2015 Mariana dam collapse to carry out repairs and compensation on behalf of Samarco and its owners.