The recent dispute involving Netflix, Meta, and the Maasai herders in Kenya highlights some deep-rooted issues in the voluntary carbon market (VCM). When major carbon projects unravel due to overlooked community rights and poor stakeholder engagement, it becomes clear that the problem isn’t just with emissions; it’s with how we approach offsetting in the first place.
What many corporations fail to grasp is that carbon projects aren’t just about trees, soil, or carbon sequestration — they’re about people, ecosystems, and deep-rooted cultural ties to land. Forests and grasslands are not static carbon sinks to be fenced off and commodified; they’re living environments shaped by generations of human stewardship and biodiversity. When communities like the Maasai are displaced or sidelined in favour of external conservation models, the result is not just a legal blowback but a loss of legitimacy for the entire market.
That’s why education and transparency around carbon projects are critical. At CFP, we’ve made this our mission from day one. In Argentina, over 50 local people, many of whom never had access to long-term employment, are now full-time employees on a restoration project that has been over two years in the making. Before issuing a single credit, we invested in extensive due diligence with local governments, landowners, forestry experts, and community leaders to ensure the project delivers not only carbon impact but genuine social and ecological value.
The problem lies upstream. The responsibility for flawed credits doesn’t sit solely with companies like Meta or Netflix — it begins with the traders who sold them the credits. In today’s market, 99% of trading companies have no real involvement in the projects they promote. They source credits from databases or brokers, apply a markup, and pass them along to unsuspecting buyers. There's no due diligence, no site visits, and no real accountability.
This transactional model is undermining trust in the VCM at a critical moment. Major corporations are questioning the credibility of the system, not because carbon projects are inherently flawed, but because the gatekeepers are unqualified to vouch for their integrity.
This is where CFP stands apart. We are not just a trading company; we are collaborators and long-term stakeholders in the nature-based projects we support. We take on 100% of the risk because we believe it’s the only sustainable way to build a credible carbon market. We work face-to-face with communities, governments, and experts.
But the VCM won’t stabilise until international policy catches up. Governments must regulate the market and weed out rogue traders. Until then, it’s on companies like CFP to set a higher standard — and to show that a responsible, community-first model is not only possible but necessary.