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 · Global · 2009–2023

Rainforest credits investigation

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured. Disputed
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 2 none on record · 1 not measured · 1 disputed See the gaps
Accounts of the harm differ
Do rainforest offset credits stand for real emission cuts?
  • Press and investigations The Guardian, Die Zeit, SourceMaterial: More than 90% of the rainforest credits examined are likely “phantom credits”. SourceMaterial
  • Researchers Studies reviewed in the investigation: Only 8 of 29 projects reduced emissions; baselines were overstated by 406% on average. SourceMaterial
  • Standard-setters and registries Verra: Called the investigation and two of the three studies “patently unreliable”. Verra

A joint investigation found more than 90% of rainforest offset credits from the largest standard were likely "phantom credits". The standard-setter earns most of its income from per-credit fees.

8 of 29Projects where emissions fell
Studies reviewed in the investigation.
What?
In January 2023 The Guardian, Die Zeit and SourceMaterial reported that more than 90% of rainforest credits from Verra, the largest standard, were likely "phantom credits" with no matching cut in deforestation. Verra called the investigation "patently unreliable"; its CEO announced his departure four months later and it revised its methodology. SourceMaterial
Where?
Rainforest (REDD+) projects worldwide registered under Verra's standard. SourceMaterial
When?
Verra has issued credits since 2009; the investigation was published on 18 January 2023, Verra replied on 31 January 2023, the CEO's departure was announced on 22 May 2023, and a new REDD methodology followed on 27 November 2023. Verra
Who?
Gained
  • Verra — Revenue rose from $13.9m (2019) to $40.5m (2021) and averaged about $30m a year in 2022–2025, about 96% from per-credit registration fees. ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer
  • Companies named as credit buyers, including Disney, Shell, Gucci, Netflix, easyJet, Salesforce and BHP — Used rainforest credits toward their offset claims. SourceMaterial
Lost
None on record
Harmed
None on record
Why?
Verra says it is "absolutely committed to developing and enforcing the highest standards". The studies reviewed in the investigation found deforestation baselines overstated by 406% on average; Verra said they "drew incorrect conclusions". SourceMaterial
How?
Projects claim credits for deforestation avoided against a projected baseline, Verra charges a fee on each credit issued, and companies buy the credits to offset emissions. SourceMaterial
In proportion Only 8 of 29 projects studied reduced emissions. SourceMaterial
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

In January 2023, The Guardian, Die Zeit and SourceMaterial reported that more than 90% of Verra's rainforest credits were likely "phantom credits" with no matching cut in deforestation. Only 8 of 29 projects studied reduced emissions; baselines were overstated by 406% on average.

Verra, which has issued more than a billion credits since 2009, called the investigation "patently unreliable". Its CEO announced his departure four months later; the organisation revised its methodology.

Verra's revenue rose from $13.9 million (2019) to $40.5 million (2021). About 96% comes from per-credit registration fees.

  1. 2009Verra begins issuing credits
  2. 2021Revenue $40.5m
  3. 2023Investigation published (Jan); CEO departure announced (May)
  4. 2025New fee: $0.23 per tonne claimed

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

“Patently unreliable.”

Verra, on the investigation · 31 January 2023 · Verra

“We welcome academic scrutiny.”

Robin Rix, Verra · January 2023 · Verra

Where accounts differ

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

Do rainforest offset credits stand for real emission cuts?
Press and investigations
The Guardian, Die Zeit, SourceMaterial

More than 90% of the rainforest credits examined are likely “phantom credits”.

SourceMaterial
Researchers
Studies reviewed in the investigation

Only 8 of 29 projects reduced emissions; baselines were overstated by 406% on average.

SourceMaterial
Standard-setters and registries
Verra

Called the investigation and two of the three studies “patently unreliable”.

Verra

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

  • Over a billion credits to the highest standards

Recorded

  • Most rainforest credits likely without real reductions
  • Average baseline overstatement: 406%
  • Standard-setter income tied to credit volume

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
Verra annual revenue (2022–2025 average)$30m
About 96% from registration fees.
Currency: USD · Window: per year. All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.

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.

Projects with real reductions
8 / 29
In two studies

What we don't know

Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
No court caseUnder standard-setter review

Nature

  • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.
  • Disputed Do rainforest offset credits stand for real emission cuts?

Court

Record

  • None on record Verra disputes the studies' methods; no court has examined them.

Did the harm stop?

Methodology revised in 2023. Credits issued under the old method remain in circulation.

Who paid?

Not quantified.

Sources

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

Government and regulators

  1. Verra Form 990 filings
    ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer · 2024

Press and investigations

Standard-setters and registries

  2. Verra CEO to step down
    Verra · 2023-05-22

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

Baseline
The projected scenario of what would have happened without a project, such as an expected rate of deforestation. Credits are issued for the difference between the baseline and what actually happened, so an inflated baseline produces more credits.
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.

Law and courts

Arbitration
A private dispute process in which an appointed arbitrator, instead of a court, decides the case.

Insurance

Underwriter
An insurer, or a person at an insurer, who assesses a risk and decides whether and on what terms to insure it.