How Long Should a Carbon Credit Last? Not Forever.

Eco Sustainability participated in Verra’s Version 5 consultation on the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS). One of the central questions was how long projects should be credited before they must reassess their baselines. It might sound technical, but the answer directly affects how much confidence people can place in carbon credits.

Think about it this way: imagine a reforestation project that set its baseline 10 years ago, before drones, satellites, and AI made forest monitoring much more precise. If that project is still using the same outdated baseline today, it risks claiming credits for reductions that no longer reflect reality. Shorter crediting intervals prevent this problem by forcing regular updates, making sure numbers are based on the latest tools and science.

That is why Eco Sustainability supports Verra’s proposal for five-year crediting periods and reassessment cycles. The main benefit is stronger environmental integrity. The trade-off, of course, is higher costs and heavier admin work, especially for smallholder or community projects that lack access to data. To keep participation fair, Verra should design streamlined reassessment procedures and provide simple tools for project developers.

Between the two options Verra proposed, the 3×5-year structure (15 years total) strikes the best balance. It gives developers enough certainty for investment, while maintaining regular checks to prevent baselines from drifting.

There are limited cases where longer reassessment intervals can be justified. Certain AFOLU projects, like Improved Forest Management or long-rotation forestry, change very slowly. For these, the costs are high and the ecological shifts gradual. But even then, developers should prove that longer intervals will not compromise conservativeness.

We also suggested a hybrid approach for Afforestation/Reforestation and Rewetting and Restoration projects. Trees and wetlands take time to deliver measurable gains. An initial 10-year crediting period, followed by five-year intervals, makes more sense both ecologically and practically.

Dynamic baselines, indexed benchmarks, or sectoral trajectories may eventually help reduce the need for frequent updates, but only if they are conservative, transparent, and independently reviewed.

In short, shorter intervals make carbon credits more credible. Some flexibility is needed for projects that change slowly or face high costs, but integrity must remain the priority. Market confidence depends on it.

About Eco Sustainability

As a trusted advisor on sustainability and climate policy, Eco Sustainability is not only aligned with global standards - we help shape them by contributing to technical consultations and international standard-setting processes.