· 5 min read
If you ask me: “Andrea, which carbon project should I develop or invest in today?” my answer is the one that will still stand in ten years. Not removals vs. avoidance. Not voluntary vs. compliance. The real challenge is future-proofing.
Carbon projects take time, often seven to ten years from idea to maturity, while the rules can change in months. Methodologies are rewritten. Article 6 adds new obligations. Compliance systems layer on exclusions. Integrity frameworks like ICVCM or VCMI evolve. Entire rating agencies appear almost overnight. What looks safe today may be irrelevant tomorrow.
A few years ago, carbon credit ratings didn’t even exist. I still remember first hearing about one at COP26 in Glasgow. Suddenly, ratings became decisive. Today, a single BeZero or Sylvera score can make or break a project. AA-rated forestry credits sell for $9–10 per tonne, while C-rated ones trade for less than $3. Afforestation BBB-rated credits can reach $40–45, while C-rated hover at $3–12. A tool that didn’t exist before COP26 is now reshaping capital flows, investments, and strategies. Tomorrow’s tools will do the same.
So yes, removals are essential for net zero. Yes, avoidance remains critical for near-term mitigation. But the binary hides the real issue: a poor-quality removal will collapse under scrutiny, while a well-designed avoidance project can retain value for years. What matters is not the label, but whether the project can withstand scrutiny, regulation, and buyer expectations over time.
Of course, no “perfect” project exists. We cannot control every variable , rules, methodologies, and buyer expectations will always move faster than projects can. That’s why future-proofing is less about perfection and more about resilience. Above all, it means designing projects that can adapt when the rules shift, not trying to design the impossible “perfect” project.
And here lies the big surprise: despite all the uncertainty and scrutiny, I still see companies that want to act today not 2050, continuing to invest in consolidated project types. Over the last five years, the majority of carbon credits retirements have come from just three categories: Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU), Renewable Energy, and Energy Efficiency. These companies are not standing still. Instead, they combine investment in proven models like cookstoves, REDD+, or energy access with stricter due diligence, tougher quality checks, and better monitoring frameworks. In other words, they act now by improving what exists, rather than waiting endlessly for the “next big thing.”
Because if there is one sure way to fail in this market, it is waiting for the perfect rules and the perfect projects. In 20 years in this market, I have never seen clear or stable rules. Everything changes over time and it will be many years before we get anything close to consolidation. The big risk of perfection is paralysis: waiting, and waiting… until when? New rules will always emerge. New standards will always be written. New rating systems will always appear. If you wait for certainty, you may never move. The companies that succeed are those that act now ,investing where there is experience and track record, while continuously strengthening due diligence and adapting as the rules evolve.
From my own experience, the projects that lasted were never the ones chasing the latest compliance fad or shiny new category. They were the ones built bottom-up, with communities and local partners, in constant dialogue with authorities. I never worried first about the methodology or the standard. I worried about whether the project worked if it was economically sustainable, scalable, and meaningful for the beneficiaries. If you control what happens on the ground, you can manage risk, adapt, and improve over time.
Many traditional, community-based projects, “the backbone of the carbon market as we now today”, are now under intense scrutiny. Methodologies are being revised, and that is healthy. But the narrative has shifted: too often the message is “don’t buy those credits, they are too risky.” As a result, proven project types like cookstoves or forestry conservation are being sidelined in favour of newer, more fashionable categories, often extremely expensive or where real supply barely exists. Yet without carbon finance, who will fund clean cooking? Who will pay to protect forests? Turning away from these projects is not just a technical choice, it risks breaking trust with the very communities and landscapes that carbon finance was meant to support.
That’s why I find it almost absurd to see organizations suddenly pivot only to removals, or only to Article 6, or rushing to biodiversity credits and other new certificates. Too often, this pivot is used as a selling proposition, a way to differentiate an offering. But that is risky: instead of strengthening and scaling the market, it fragments it, with players competing against each other rather than building together.
Too often it feels like chasing the next “cool thing” rather than building what actually works. In my view, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. We need to do better what we’ve been doing for 20 years ,with more rigor, more transparency, and more resilience, while learning from past mistakes.
If you are developing or investing in a project today, don’t just ask removals or avoidance? voluntary or compliance? Ask instead: will this project survive the next decade of scrutiny? Because in the end, the winners won’t be those who picked the right category. They will be the ones who built on solid foundations from the start — projects that create real impact, are economically viable, and can scale over time. If you look at the most successful and resilient projects in terms of credit retirements, many were built years ago. They still hold strong ratings and steady traction in the market today. Those are the best projects, because they are able to secure long-term finance and commitment. Thanks to the stable revenues over time from carbon credits, these projects can remain consistent and resilient, guaranteeing support for communities, reinforcing trust, and enabling local development. In the end, the best project is not the newest or the “cool” one, it’s the one that lasts.
This article is also published on Substack. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
See how the companies in your sector perform on sustainability. On illuminem’s Data Hub™, access emissions data, ESG performance, and climate commitments for thousands of industrial players across the globe.
