The global carbon market is changing fast in 2026. The latest insights from Sylvera’s State of Carbon Credits report show a clear shift. Volumes are falling, but value is holding steady. This means buyers now focus more on quality than quantity.
Furthermore, the market is splitting into two clear segments. High-quality credits are in demand and sell at higher prices. Older or lower-quality credits are losing interest. This divide is growing stronger and shaping how the market will evolve in the coming years.
Shell’s Sharp Cut Pulls Down Market Volumes
Carbon credit retirements reached 51 million in the first quarter of 2026. This is down from 55.3 million in the same period last year. The total market value also fell slightly to $290 million, compared to $309 million a year ago.
Despite this decline, prices did not weaken. The average price per credit increased to $5.69 from $5.60. This shows that buyers are willing to pay more for credits they trust.
Interestingly, a major reason for the drop in volumes was reduced activity from Shell. The company sharply cut its purchases. It retired just 494,000 credits in Q1 2026, compared to 6.7 million in Q1 2025 and 5.6 million in 2024. This single change had a large impact on the overall market.
Value Now Drives the Market
The carbon market now runs on a simple idea. Value matters more than volume. Buyers want credits that deliver real environmental impact. They prefer projects with clear data, strong verification, and proven results.
High-quality credits now define the market. These credits meet strict standards and often align with compliance systems. Because of this, they command higher prices and stronger demand.
This shift is also linked to the rise of compliance markets. Programs like CORSIA are increasing demand for reliable credits. As a result, voluntary buyers and compliance buyers now compete for the same supply.
Experts expect this trend to grow stronger. Compliance demand could surpass voluntary demand by 2027. This will increase pressure on supply and push premium credit prices higher.
The report highlighted that, investment-grade credits (BBB+) now command an average of $20.10 per credit in Q1 2026, up from $18.10 in Q1 2025, as shown in the image below:
Recap of 2025 Carbon Market
Compliance programs made up 24% of total retirements in 2025. According to Sylvera, this share is rising fast. It is expected to go beyond voluntary demand by 2027. This growth is mainly driven by CORSIA Phase 1 rules and the expansion of domestic carbon markets.
This means compliance demand is set to change the carbon market in a big way. Soon, both voluntary buyers and regulated systems will compete for the same high-quality credits. This is already making supply tighter and more competitive.
At the same time, international trading under Article 6 gained momentum. In 2025, around 20 new bilateral agreements were signed, and the first large-scale carbon credit trades took place. This shows that global carbon transfer systems are now becoming active in practice.
However, the system is also becoming more complex. One key factor is “corresponding adjustments,” which now decide whether a credit is fully acceptable in compliance markets. In addition, countries like China, Japan, Brazil, and Indonesia are building their own domestic carbon systems.
These systems are expected to create strong new demand, but they also add more rules and complexity to the market.
Supply Crunch Becomes the Key Challenge
However, Sylvera has flagged a different scenario for his year. Supply is now the biggest issue in the market. High-quality credits are becoming harder to find. Many credits exist, but not all meet strict requirements.
Furthermore, the main bottleneck is coming from approvals under Article 6. These rules govern international carbon trading. Delays in approvals mean many credits cannot yet enter the market. Now this creates a gap. Supply looks strong on paper, but usable supply remains limited. This shortage keeps prices firm and supports premium credits.
CORSIA Supply Expands, But Not Enough
There has been progress in aviation supply. Eligible credits under CORSIA reached 32.68 million. This is more than double last year’s level.
These credits come from major registries like Verra, Gold Standard, and ART TREES. However, supply still falls short in practice. Not all credits meet full compliance standards. This keeps the market tight and competitive.
Moving on, the question is what’s driving market growth.
Cookstoves Drive Market Growth
Cookstove projects are growing quickly. Their share increased from 17% in 2025 to 26% in Q1 2026. Africa leads this segment. Around 80% of the supply comes from the region. Most of these projects also meet compliance requirements under CORSIA.
Quality is improving in this category. Developers are moving away from older methods. They now use stronger, data-driven approaches. This shift improves trust and attracts more buyers.
Other projects:
- REDD+ Regains Trust: Forestry projects under REDD+ are making a comeback. Their share of retirements rose to 25% in Q1 2026. These projects faced heavy criticism in the past. However, new rules and better standards are restoring confidence. Updated methodologies have removed weaker credits. This has improved the overall quality of supply. Global policy clarity has also helped. Buyers now have more confidence in using REDD+ credits in compliance markets. This has supported demand.
- Waste management projects: They are growing in importance, and their share reached 10% of total retirements, the highest so far. Landfill methane projects are leading this growth. These projects are easier to measure and verify. They also meet compliance standards. Buyers are now exploring options beyond traditional sectors. Waste projects offer a reliable and practical solution.
New Credit Types Expand the Market
Several new project types are growing fast. They are adding fresh supply and attracting new buyers.
- Clean water projects have seen strong growth in recent years. They now produce millions of credits annually. Marine and mangrove projects are also gaining attention. They offer strong environmental benefits and long-term carbon storage.
- Industrial projects focused on nitrous oxide reduction are expanding as well. These projects are highly measurable and align well with compliance systems. At the same time, regenerative agriculture is growing at the fastest pace. It has moved from almost no activity to millions of credits in a short time.
These new categories are helping the market grow. However, quality remains the key factor that drives demand.
Buyers Shift Toward Better Credits: Regional Analysis
Buyer behavior is changing across regions. The United Kingdom is leading the move toward high-quality credits. Companies are under pressure to show real climate action. This has pushed them to choose better credits.
The United States and Canada are also improving. Buyers prefer projects that meet both voluntary and compliance standards. This supports demand for high-quality supply.
North America Sets the Benchmark
North America sets the benchmark for quality. A large share of its credits meets high rating standards. This strong quality supports higher prices. The average price reached $14.80, the highest globally. Strong domestic demand and strict standards drive this trend.
On the other hand, South America is seeing strong demand but limited new supply. This creates pressure in the market. Prices have slightly declined to $11.50. However, the quality mix is improving. Waste projects are helping fill the gap left by falling forestry supply.
- Europe remains the largest market by volume. However, the quality mix is still uneven. Some buyers continue to use lower-rated credits.
- Japan and South Korea focus on lower-cost options like hydropower. This keeps their share of high-quality credits low. In Latin America, buyers often choose local projects. Limited regulatory pressure keeps the quality demand weaker.
- Africa is moving toward better quality. High-rated supply is increasing, while low-rated supply is falling. As explained before, cookstove projects are the main driver. At the same time, lower-quality forestry projects are declining. This improves the region’s overall market position.
- Asia faces weaker market conditions. Supply has dropped sharply due to fewer renewable energy projects. The average price stands at $5.30, the lowest globally. Demand remains steady but lacks strong growth. This keeps prices under pressure.
Indonesia Stands Out in Asia
Indonesia is a bright spot in the region. Credit prices have risen strongly in the past year. High-quality peatland projects are driving this growth. International deals under Article 6 are also adding value. These factors attract buyers looking for reliable credit.
This shows how strong quality and supportive policies can boost market performance.
Final Take: Quality Defines the Future
The carbon market in 2026 is clear and focused. Quality now drives demand, pricing, and growth. Buyers are becoming more selective. They want credits that are verified, reliable, and compliant.
Supply remains tight, especially for high-quality credits. At the same time, compliance markets are growing. This increases competition and pushes prices higher.
The gap between high- and low-quality credits will continue to widen. In simple terms, the market is no longer about how many credits exist. It is about how good they are.
- READ MORE: Top Carbon Credit Companies to Watch in 2026
The post Carbon Market 2026: Supply Squeeze Pushes Premium Carbon Credit Prices Up, Sylvera Finds appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
