The Voluntary Carbon Market Company (VCM) and Enowa, NEOM’s energy and water arm, have struck a landmark deal to deliver at least 30 million tonnes of high-integrity carbon credits by 2030. This long-term agreement shows Enowa’s promise to offset its unavoidable emissions. It also supports global climate action. This is especially true for projects in the Global South, which gain stable, long-term funding. The first delivery occurred in December 2024.
VCM launched Saudi Arabia’s first carbon credit exchange in November 2024. It was founded by the Public Investment Fund (PIF) with 80% ownership and the Saudi Tadawul Group with 20%.
The platform offers top-level carbon trading, clear price discovery, global registry access, and aims to support Islamic finance structures. It also operates an auction system and will introduce spot trading in 2025.
This agreement highlights the growing demand. The global voluntary carbon market is expected to rise from $2 billion in 2020 to $250 billion by 2050. This growth is fueled by both companies and projects.
A Game-Changing Carbon Credit Pact
The VCM–Enowa agreement is a big step in voluntary carbon markets. It moves from one-time purchases to a long-term approach. Under the deal, Enowa will secure 30 million tonnes of high-quality carbon credits by 2030—about 3 million tonnes annually. This steady volume helps stabilize the market for everyone. It also unlocks vital funding for climate projects worldwide.
For developers, especially in the Global South, such long-term offtake agreements mean:
- Reduce risk,
- Support scalability, and
- Allow for better project planning.
As VCM CEO Riham ElGizy noted:
“The long-term agreement between VCM and Enowa to facilitate the delivery of over 30 million tons of carbon credits by 2030 marks a significant moment in Saudi Arabia’s journey to drive growth in global voluntary carbon markets. It helps Enowa compensate for today’s emissions while creating sustainable infrastructure for the long term.”
Enowa, already active in previous VCM auctions, becomes the first company in Saudi Arabia to enter such a long-term deal. Acting CEO Jens Madrian said it reflects their commitment to NEOM’s goal of 100% renewable energy. NEOM’s green infrastructure vision aligns closely with Enowa’s emissions management strategy.
This deal is huge: 30 million tonnes over ten years equals the yearly emissions of a mid-sized industrial country. This sets a high standard for corporate climate action in the area.
Building a Mature Carbon Market in Saudi Arabia
The VCM–Enowa deal also strengthens Saudi Arabia’s growing carbon trading ecosystem. Launched in November 2024, VCM’s voluntary carbon exchange is the Kingdom’s first institutional-grade platform. It provides key market tools such as auctions, RFQ features, block trades, and a new spot market. These tools improve price transparency, boost liquidity, and give access to a global registry.
Through successful auctions in 2022, 2023, and 2024, VCM has transacted over 4.7 million tonnes of carbon credits with buyers from 15+ countries. Projects include reforestation, soil carbon, clean cookstoves, and renewables. These show a strong demand for quality credits in many regions.
VCM stands out by aligning with both international standards and regional needs. It is creating Shariah-compliant infrastructure. This allows more MENA-based investors to use ethical finance tools. Its support ecosystem helps project developers in Africa and the Middle East. It includes advisory services and registry integrations. This way, developers can gain visibility and find long-term buyers.
This platform arrives as voluntary carbon markets face scrutiny over credibility. Backed by PIF and Tadawul, VCM provides a transparent, high-integrity marketplace. As ICVCM and COP29’s Article 6.4 advance global standards, VCM is positioning itself to lead regionally and globally.
Saudi Arabia aims to replicate its energy market leadership in climate finance. VCM’s success could channel billions into emerging economies and close the climate finance gap—estimated at $1.5–$2 trillion annually by the UN and World Bank. Voluntary carbon markets are increasingly vital to this mission.
Enowa and NEOM: A Blueprint for Net Zero
Enowa, the energy and water subsidiary of NEOM, plays a central role in advancing Saudi Arabia’s carbon neutrality goals. As part of the futuristic NEOM development, Enowa is building a 100% renewable-powered energy system that relies on solar, wind, green hydrogen, and cutting-edge digital infrastructure. This carbon-free framework is central to NEOM’s ambition to become a global model for low-emission urban living.
Enowa’s long-term agreement with VCM reflects its strategy to tackle unavoidable emissions through high-integrity carbon credits, complementing its broader sustainability efforts.
The company is actively involved in deploying smart grid technologies and water recycling systems that support circular economies. Its approach aligns with international net-zero frameworks, aiming to drastically reduce operational emissions while fostering innovation in climate resilience.
$250B and Counting: Why Voluntary Carbon Markets Are Booming
Voluntary carbon markets are set for explosive growth. Reports predict an increase from $2 billion in 2020 to $250 billion by 2050, with interim estimates ranging from $45 billion to $100 billion by 2030.
MSCI forecasts market expansion from $1.4 billion in 2024 to potentially $35 billion in high-demand scenarios by 2030. Around the world, projects that cut or eliminate carbon are getting more funding through voluntary carbon credits. There is strong demand for credits that also support community development and protect biodiversity.
Why Corporate Commitments Demand Certainty
Companies—especially those in tech, energy, and manufacturing—seek reliable offsets to meet net-zero goals. Long-term purchase agreements like VCM–Enowa’s offer greater credibility and transparency than spot buys.
They make sure that top-quality credits come from projects in developing countries. This aligns emissions cuts with sustainable development. In turn, these agreements help build carbon market capacity in the Global South.
Challenges and the Path to Integrity: Fixing Trust in Carbon Credits
However, voluntary carbon markets face credibility issues. High-profile cases, such as problems in Kenya’s Northern Rangelands project—backed by Meta and Netflix—have sparked concerns. With Verra reviewing the project amid legal and environmental scrutiny, trust in carbon credits has taken a hit.
New rules from COP29’s Article 6.4 and efforts like ICVCM’s framework seek to enhance market integrity and transparency.
VCM’s institutional focus, long-term contracts, and integration with recognized standards are designed to reduce these risks by ensuring quality and oversight.
Saudi Arabia’s Big Carbon Bet Has Global Stakes
Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s move through VCM positions it at the forefront of voluntary carbon market expansion in the Middle East. Globally, Asian and South American countries are also scaling their own platforms and frameworks. Deals involving multinational firms and sovereign or semi-sovereign buyers lend scale and legitimacy to these markets.
This shift supports climate finance goals:
- Global climate funding currently stands at roughly $120 billion annually for low‑ and middle‑income countries, well short of the $300 billion yearly target by 2035 agreed at COP29.
Carbon markets like VCM can help fill that gap, particularly in driving private investment.
The VCM–Enowa agreement sets a new standard in voluntary carbon trading—long-term, high-volume, and high-integrity. Voluntary markets will likely grow a lot in the coming decades, and deals like this build trust and stability. They also provide financial security for climate projects in developing economies. With improved standards in place, voluntary carbon credits can become a powerful tool in global efforts to reach net-zero.
The post Saudi Arabia’s Carbon Ambition: NEOM’s Enowa and VCM Ink 30M Tonnes Carbon Credit Deal 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