Firms urged to "stop being apologetic about offsets"

Firms that buy carbon offsets should stop apologising and instead seek to better promote the benefits the voluntary carbon market is delivering to poorer communities in the developing world.

That is the conclusion of a new report due to be released tomorrow by sustainable development charity Forum for the Future, which argues that while some concerns remain about the credibility of the voluntary carbon market, the potential for it to deliver positive benefits, particularly for people in poorer countries, have been "largely overlooked".

"We urge individuals and institutions to reassess their approach to the voluntary carbon market," said report author Alice Chapple. "Of course the first priority must be to reduce emissions, but people should also stop being apologetic about offsets and should engage actively in the debate about how to support offset activities that directly benefit the poor."

Edward Hanrahan, spokesman for carbon offset trade association ICROA, agreed that firms should look to publicise their support for carbon reduction projects. "If your offsetting policy is as robust and well managed as your internal carbon reduction strategy, there is no reason why you should not be shouting about it," he said.

The report, which was commissioned by the UK's Department for International Development, was based on interviews with 33 experts from across the voluntary carbon market and concluded that concerns over the practice of carbon offsetting are unduly overshadowing the benefits that investment in carbon reduction measures are having in the developing world.

The study comes at a crucial time for the voluntary carbon market as the government prepares to launch its own standard for voluntary carbon offset projects.

Earlier this year, the government said only carbon reduction projects that meet criteria set out by UN and EU-backed offset schemes would be eligible to carry the government's "quality mark". This prompted criticism from many offset providers which claimed such stringent criteria would exclude a large number of legitimate small-scale projects, such as initiatives to reduce deforestation and carbon emissions by providing communities in the developing world with more efficient coking stoves.

The Forum for the Future report argued that while clear standards were needed to bolster the credibility of the offset market, these standards should not be "rigid and mechanical" and should allow room for projects that are rigorous in their delivery of emission reductions and those "more innovative and experimental" that also aim to deliver development benefits.

Hanrahan welcomed the report's findings, insisting that any government standard should not exclude small-scale community projects. "Tackling climate change and tackling poverty are absolutely intertwined," he said. "Delivering community-scale projects that aid development should be one of the key goals of the voluntary carbon market and it is entirely legitimate that any government standard supports that."