Who Owns The Carbon?
- Eco Sustainability

- Sep 15
- 2 min read
When Eco Sustainability participated in Verra’s Version 5 consultation, one issue stood out: who actually owns the rights to carbon?
If ownership rules are unclear, projects stall, communities get sidelined, and buyers lose confidence. Verra’s proposed updates are a step forward. By tying ownership to national laws and requiring verifiable evidence, the proposals reduce confusion and disputes. But one big problem remains.
In many countries, politically connected brokers wedge themselves between communities and project developers. They claim rights without contributing to conservation, while the people actually protecting forests see little benefit. Ownership should only belong to legitimate rights holders like landowners or recognised communities. Transfers of rights must require direct community consent. And any project listing a broker as a “rights holder” should face extra scrutiny.
At the same time, new rules must not push Indigenous Peoples and local communities out of the market. Many don’t have legal deeds, but they are the ones safeguarding forests. Other forms of proof should count. In ASEAN, for example, Indonesia’s One Map Policy and AMAN map customary lands, the Philippines recognises ancestral domains through its NCIP, and Malaysia has PACOS Trust and SUHAKAM documenting Indigenous claims. These should be treated as valid evidence, not just formal land titles.
Where land rights are contested, credit issuance should be paused until real progress is made toward resolution. That protects rights holders without killing projects.
Carbon markets only work if people trust them. Clear rules on ownership protect communities, give buyers confidence, and strengthen the system. Version 5 is a chance to finally put that foundation in place.
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.


Comments