A Canadian carbon management company, DevvStream Corp., and a United Arab Emirates (UAE) investment platform have joined forces to launch a new climate investment vehicle. The goal of the partnership is to build a US$100 million fund by the end of 2027 to invest in environmental assets. These include carbon solutions, decarbonization, and technologies that support the global energy transition.
The new vehicle, called the Fayafi x DevvStream Investment Platform, seeks to bring in capital. It will help scale impactful projects in various carbon and climate initiatives. DevvStream’s carbon asset know-how and Fayafi’s financial strength will team up. They will build a global investment engine for environmental infrastructure and carbon solutions.
Inside the Fayafi–DevvStream Investment Platform
DevvStream and Fayafi Investment Holding Limited, based in the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC), have signed an investment agreement. They will create a jointly governed special purpose vehicle (SPV).
The SPV’s main objective is to pursue scalable, high-impact decarbonization opportunities. It is targeted to reach $100 million in capital commitments by 2027, though this remains a non-binding target rather than a guarantee.
The vehicle will focus on several areas, including:
- Environmental infrastructure,
- Carbon credit solutions and monetization,
- Climate-related technologies
Fayafi is expected to hold 80% of the economic interest in the SPV, while DevvStream will hold 20%. Most profits from investments and carbon credit revenues are expected to go to Fayafi. The rest will be distributed to DevvStream.
An Investment Committee with representatives from both partners will review and approve funding decisions. A Fayafi representative will serve as Chair of this committee. DevvStream will charge a one-time setup fee once the platform is approved. It will also receive ongoing consulting fees based on a percentage of assets used in the fund.
Why This Deal Matters for Carbon Markets
The launch of the Fayafi x DevvStream Investment Platform comes at a time when carbon markets and environmental assets are gaining traction. More companies, governments, and investors want to fund climate solutions. They are looking for options beyond just cutting emissions. Projects related to carbon capture, carbon markets, clean energy, and decarbonization infrastructure are drawing interest from a wider set of financial players.
DevvStream itself specializes in handling, aggregating, and monetizing environmental assets such as carbon credits and renewable energy certificates. This lets the company handle and create climate investments within larger sustainability plans.
Carbon credits are units that represent a reduction or removal of greenhouse gas emissions. They can be bought and sold in voluntary and compliance markets.
Carbon credit demand is set to rise. Companies aim for net-zero targets, and regulators are tightening rules on climate reporting and carbon offsets.
The chart shows the projected global carbon credit market size from 2025 to 2050. The green range shows lower and upper bounds, reaching $50–$250 billion by 2050 (2024 prices). Growth depends on demand: high demand with loose supply drives the market to the upper bound, while low demand with loose supply results in the lower bound.
Another projection says it could reach up to $270 billion by 2050. This prediction of market growth reflects the rising corporate demand for nature-based and technology-based environmental asset solutions. DevvStream and Fayafi are building platforms to tap into this growing market. They focus on linking finance with clear climate results.
DevvStream’s Expanding Role in Climate Assets
DevvStream started in 2021. It focuses on carbon management and monetizing environmental assets. The company works across three strategic domains:
- Carbon offset portfolios: including nature-based, tech-based, and carbon sequestration credits for sale to corporations and governments.
- Project investment and acquisition: helping to extend its reach into broader environmental markets.
- Project development services: where it structures and manages eligible climate and sustainability activities in exchange for a percentage of generated credits.
This model allows DevvStream to provide full support, from project development to monetization. By teaming up with Fayafi to scale investments, the company can boost its opportunities and increase steady revenue from advisory and asset management roles.
DevvStream has also been active in other strategic moves. In late 2025, it teamed up with Southern Energy Renewables and agreed to merge into a Nasdaq-listed company. This new company will focus on producing low-cost, carbon-negative fuels like sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) and green methanol.
The plan features a $402 million bond allocation for a biomass-to-fuel facility in Louisiana. This move will boost the company’s role in carbon-negative industries.
Market Forces Powering Climate Capital
Many market trends are shaping the launch of climate investment vehicles that DevvStream and Fayafi are creating.
Corporate net-zero commitments are a major driver. Many multinational companies now aim to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner. To meet these goals, they mix direct emissions cuts with clean energy buying. They also purchase environmental assets like carbon credits. This corporate demand boosts liquidity. It also supports investment platforms that create and manage climate-aligned assets.
Policy changes and ESG reporting standards are also pushing growth. Governments and regulators in developed and emerging markets are improving climate reporting rules. This trend increases the demand for verified environmental assets that help firms demonstrate progress toward emissions targets.
Another key trend is the rise of carbon markets themselves. Both compliance markets (such as the EU Emissions Trading System) and voluntary markets are expanding. Voluntary markets have challenges with pricing and standardization.
Still, they are vital for companies looking to offset and eliminate residual emissions. Research shows that the ecosystem for environmental asset investment is growing. This growth opens doors for financial products that blend climate impact with returns.
Climate Finance Market: Size, Trends, and Outlook
Global climate finance continues to expand, but it still falls short of what is needed. In 2024, global climate finance flows reached over $1.8 trillion in 2023 and will surpass $2 trillion in 2024, based on Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) data. Most of this funding goes to clean energy, transport, energy efficiency, and climate-resilient infrastructure. Private investors now provide more than half of total climate finance.
Despite this progress, the funding gap remains large. Analysts estimate that annual climate investment must rise to $5 trillion to $7 trillion by 2030 to meet global climate goals. This means current funding would need to increase several times within the next few years.
Carbon markets form a smaller but growing part of climate finance. Most future growth is expected in emerging markets, where mitigation costs are lower but access to capital is limited. This has increased interest in structured climate investment vehicles.
In this context, initiatives like DevvStream’s joint platform targeting $100 million by 2027 reflect a broader push to channel private capital into scalable carbon mitigation projects and close global climate finance gaps.
What This Deal Means for Climate Finance
The Fayafi x DevvStream Investment Platform will target:
- Environmental infrastructure
- Carbon solutions
- Technologies that support climate goals
This initiative fits with the growing trend in sustainable investing. Corporations, governments, and financial firms are putting more money into environmental assets. They aim to meet net-zero goals. Though achieving a $100 million target is still a forecast, this partnership is a big step in climate finance growth.
The post DevvStream and UAE Platform’s Alliance Targets $100M Carbon Investment by 2027 appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits