Petrobras and the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES) opened a public call for proposals under the ProFloresta+ program to buy 5 million high-integrity carbon credits tied to Amazon restoration. The move seeks to boost forest restoration in the Amazon. It will also set a clear price benchmark for restoration credits and aims to create jobs and attract finance in the restoration sector.
What Petrobras and BNDES Want from Developers
The public notice covers five contracts of 1 million carbon credits each. Each contract must be backed by ecological restoration on at least 3,000 hectares. Contracts will last for 25 years. They will focus on areas within the Amazon biome. This includes both private land and public land with forest concessions.
Key facts in brief:
- Five contracts × 1 million credits.
- Minimum 3,000 hectares per contract, restored and verified.
- 25-year crediting and monitoring horizon.
The tender comes at a time when Brazil’s voluntary carbon market is growing. According to market surveys, Brazil issued about 14–16 million voluntary credits per year from 2021 to 2023. ARR (Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation) credits accounted for about 10–15% of these total issuances.
The ProFloresta+ purchase of 5 million credits is a large amount. It’s much larger than the current supply of restoration credits.
Financing the Forest: How ProFloresta+ Unlocks Capital
Petrobras will buy the carbon credits through public tenders. Winning project developers may then get low-interest loans or financing from BNDES to cover upfront costs.
The Brazilian bank created tools to reduce financial risk for restoration companies and landowners. This pairing of long-term offtake and concessional finance is meant to make restoration projects bankable.
Over the past decade, carbon markets have shown that early funding is a barrier for landowners who want to begin restoration. BNDES’ model tries to fix this by offering credit lines with longer repayment periods and by supporting milestone-based contracts. Payments for credits are expected to follow a schedule tied to planting, survival rates, and verified carbon removals.
ProFloresta+ enters a market where ARR credits from the Amazon have sold for US$8 to US$18 per tonne. Prices vary based on quality, verification standards, and project risks. Petrobras hasn’t revealed its expected clearing price yet. However, the public tender sets a reference point for buyers and sellers to see.
The chart shows an indicative low, a broad nature-based market average, and an observed Brazil ARR average (USD per tCO₂e).
The Road to 50,000 Hectares
ProFloresta+ is framed as a multi-phase program. The initial phase targets about 15,000 hectares and 5 million credits, backed by roughly R$450 million (about US$77 million).
Over a longer horizon, the program states it can restore up to 50,000 hectares and sequester an estimated 15 million tonnes of CO₂. Organizers also expect thousands of local jobs in planting, maintenance, and monitoring.
Average CO₂ absorption rates help explain the numbers. Research on the Amazon biome shows that restoring native forests can remove 8 to 15 tonnes of CO₂ per hectare each year in early growth.
As the forests mature, they store even more CO₂ over the long term. Assisted natural regeneration can achieve similar rates in degraded lands that still have seed banks. These benchmarks support the program’s estimate of long-term removals.
Amazon deforestation trends also show why the program is urgent. INPE satellite data recorded nearly 13,000 km² of deforestation in 2021, which fell to around 9,000 km² in 2023 after new enforcement measures.
Scientists estimate that over 54.2 million hectares of the Amazon have been lost in 20 years and need active or assisted restoration. The ProFloresta+ restoration area is small compared with this total, but it can test large-scale finance models.
Officials estimate the pilot will create about 4,500 jobs. It will also set clear rules and prices for restoration credits. Past restoration programs in Brazil and Latin America usually create 2–4 jobs per hectare during planting.
For long-term monitoring and maintenance, they generate 1–2 jobs per hectare. These figures help explain how large-scale planting can support rural employment.
Why This Tender Could Redefine Brazil’s Carbon Landscape
The program marks one of the largest public tenders for restoration credits in Brazil. It links a major corporate buyer (Petrobras) with a development bank to deliver scaled restoration. This structure can do three things:
- It provides price clarity.
- It reduces financing gaps for projects.
- It builds market confidence for high-integrity, nature-based credits.
Brazil is now a leading supplier of forest-related credits worldwide. REDD+, ARR, and agroforestry methods back this growth. But ARR supply has grown more slowly because restoration is expensive and long-term.
The chart shows indicative ARR credit price trends from 2019–2024, starting with broader market averages due to limited early ARR data. Reliable ARR-specific prices were not published in 2019–2020, so the series begins in 2021 with broader voluntary carbon market averages.
Prices rise from about US$4/t in 2021 to over US$7/t in 2022, dip slightly in 2023, then jump sharply in 2024 as demand for high-integrity nature-based removals strengthens.
A project involving 3,000 hectares usually needs several million dollars in early investment. Public tenders like ProFloresta+ help bridge this gap.
Public tenders of this size are rare. Indonesia’s peatland and mangrove restoration programs have offered fewer large-volume restoration credit offtake tenders. In contrast, Congo Basin countries have emphasized REDD+ over ARR.
As such, ProFloresta+ is unique. It combines public procurement with development bank financing. It also includes long-term monitoring requirements.
Trust but Verify: How Brazil Will Track Every Tonne
The call requires robust verification and long monitoring periods. Projects must follow recognized restoration practices and provide measurable carbon removals.
BNDES and Petrobras require documentation, monitoring, and a 25-year contract to ensure credits are real, additional, and permanent.
Most Brazilian projects use international standards like Verra VCS or Gold Standard, alongside the national carbon registry, field audits, and remote sensing. Developers must follow restoration protocols, including native species, minimum density, and survival monitoring.
To ensure permanence, 10–20% of credits are often placed in a buffer pool, with some using insurance against fire, drought, or pests. Developers must submit baseline studies, restoration plans, and social-environmental safeguards, and undergo audits and reporting to qualify for credits and BNDES financing. Public tender results will be transparent.
Weighing ProFloresta+’s Impact
Proponents list several benefits of the program:
- It channels immediate demand and revenue to restoration projects.
- It uses public procurement to set market standards and prices.
- It couples purchases with concessional finance to lower project risks.
The program also aims to support social safeguards. Restoration in the Amazon often requires consent from local communities, Indigenous groups, and landholders. Many programs now include benefit-sharing rules, training, and local hiring. Monitoring includes checks on land use rights and social co-benefits.
But limits remain. Restoration takes time; carbon removals accrue over decades. Projects must manage risks such as fires, pests, land-use conflicts, and changing climate conditions.
Credit buyers and financiers need confidence that credits remain valid over long periods. Observers say the program will only prove effective if verification and long-term protection are strong.
A High-Stakes Test for Restoration at Scale
The public call opens the clock for proposals. Petrobras and BNDES will evaluate bids and award contracts. If the pilot goes as planned, the program can expand to more hectares and credits. This might also inspire other companies to start similar tenders. Many energy, aviation, and consumer goods companies in Brazil want to buy carbon credits. This shows that the market is growing.
The tender could strengthen Brazil’s restoration market by proving that public, transparent purchasing and concessional finance can bring large projects to scale. Success will depend on strong verification, durable finance, and effective on-the-ground management across the program’s long timeframe.
The post Petrobras and BNDES Launch a 5-Million Carbon Credit Push to Regrow Brazil’s Amazon 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.
