The global carbon credit market reached a clear turning point in 2025. Volumes declined. Prices rose. Buyer behavior shifted. Policy signals strengthened. At the same time, long-term commitments surged through record-breaking offtake deals.
These changes show a market moving away from scale at any cost. Instead, quality, integrity, and compliance eligibility now shape value. This article reviews the major trends that defined the carbon credit market in 2025 using various industry reports and explains what they mean for 2026 and beyond.
Why 2025 Marked a Turning Point for the Carbon Credit Market
For much of the past decade, growth in the voluntary carbon market was driven by volume. More credits were issued. More were retired. Prices stayed low. Quality concerns often came second.
That model no longer holds.
In 2025, total credit retirements fell to about 168 million tonnes, down 4.5% year on year, according to Sylvera report. New issuances also declined, reaching roughly 270 million tonnes, the lowest level since 2020. On the surface, this looks like a contracting market.
Yet market value moved in the opposite direction. Total spending on carbon credits rose to around $1.04 billion, up from about $980 million in 2024. The average price paid increased to roughly $6.10 per credit.
This shift matters. It shows that market growth is no longer tied to volume alone. Instead, it is driven by higher prices for credits seen as credible, durable, and compliant with future rules.
The reports point to two forces driving this change. First, buyers are paying more for higher-quality credits. Second, compliance-driven demand is starting to reshape the market. Together, these forces signal a transition toward a more structured and selective market.
Supply, Demand, Issuances, and Retirements: What Really Changed in 2025
The balance between supply and demand changed in important ways during 2025.
On the supply side, issuances declined across several major project types. Renewable energy credits saw the sharpest drop. These projects have long faced questions around additionality. Many buyers now see them as low impact. As a result, fewer new renewable credits entered the market.
Nature-based credits still dominate total volumes. Forestry and land-use projects remain the largest source of issued and retired credits. However, within this category, the mix is changing.
Buyers are moving away from older REDD+ projects and toward improved forest management, afforestation, reforestation, and agriculture-based projects. Allied Offsets data show the following mix:
On the demand side, retirements fell slightly, but this does not signal weakening interest. Corporate demand remained stable in terms of buyer count. What changed was how companies bought credits and what they were willing to pay.
Importantly, compliance use now accounts for about 23% of all retirements. Programs in California, Quebec, South Africa, and Chile contributed to this growth. This share is expected to rise as new compliance systems scale up.
Another key signal comes from inventory data. Credits rated BBB or higher have been in deficit since 2023. In 2025, this deficit continued for a third straight year. At the same time, lower-rated and unrated credits remained heavily oversupplied. Unrated credits alone added an estimated 88 million tonnes to inventory in 2025.
This split highlights a structural imbalance. The market does not lack the credits overall. It lacks the credits that buyers trust.
Nature, Tech, and Removals: The Credit Mix Evolves
The mix of credit types continued to rotate in 2025, reflecting buyer concerns about integrity and future eligibility.
-
Nature-based credits
Nature-based credits still make up the majority of market activity. However, not all nature credits are treated equally.
Legacy REDD+ projects lost market share. High-profile integrity concerns reduced buyer confidence. Prices weakened for lower-rated REDD+ credits. In contrast, well-rated afforestation and reforestation (ARR) projects gained ground. Buyers showed a clear preference for projects with stronger monitoring, permanence, and land tenure controls.
Agriculture-based credits also expanded. These projects often offer measurable co-benefits for soil health and livelihoods. Buyers increasingly value these attributes.
-
Technology-based avoidance credits
Credits from renewable energy projects continued to decline. Waste management, landfill gas, and industrial efficiency projects filled some of this gap. These projects often face lower additionality risks and clearer baselines.
-
Carbon removal credits
Carbon removal credits remain a small share of current retirements. In 2025, durable removals accounted for well under 1 million tonnes of issuances and retirements.
Yet removals are central to the market’s future. This is most visible in the forward market. Most large offtake deals focus on durable carbon removal, such as direct air capture, biochar, BECCS, and enhanced mineralization.
The CDR-focused report highlights why. Net-zero targets increasingly require removals to address residual emissions. Avoidance credits alone are not enough. This structural demand explains why removals command much higher prices and long-term commitments.
Prices, Quality Premiums, and What Buyers Are Paying For
Headline prices only tell part of the story.
In 2025, the average spot price was around $6.10 per credit. But actual prices varied widely by project type, rating, and co-benefits.
Afforestation and reforestation credits traded anywhere from $2 to over $50. Half of the ARR credits fell between $5 and $25. REDD+ credits showed similar dispersion but at lower levels. Quality became the main driver of these differences. For the first time, ratings were clearly embedded in pricing.
ARR projects rated BBB or higher averaged about $26 per credit. Lower-rated ARR projects averaged closer to $14. Unrated projects traded even lower. A similar pattern appeared in REDD+ credits.
Co-benefits added another layer. Projects with strong biodiversity or community outcomes earned clear price premiums. Buyers were willing to pay more for credits that delivered visible social and environmental value beyond carbon.
In the forward market, prices looked very different. Offtake agreements signed in 2025 implied average prices of around $160 per credit. These prices reflect the high costs and limited supply of durable removals, not spot market conditions.
The result is a two-tier market. One tier is a fragmented spot market with wide price ranges. The other is a concentrated forward market built around high-integrity removals.
Investments and Movers: Who’s Driving the Market
Private investment in carbon removal companies between 2021 and 2025 reached approximately $3.6 billion, with direct air capture (DAC) attracting the largest share of capital over that period.
However, investment activity contracted in 2024 and continued into 2025, even as offtake deals expanded. This highlights a gap between commercial commitments and early‑stage funding scaling.
Major Corporate Buyers and Retirees
Corporate engagement shapes much of the 2025 retirement landscape. Several household names emerged as significant purchasers and retirees:
- Microsoft remained the single largest buyer of carbon removal credits, accounting for over 90% of removal volume in the first half of 2025.
- Energy and utility firms accounted for a sizable portion of total retirements, as indicated in broad market data on retiree sectors.
- While comprehensive ranked data for all major buyers in 2025 is not fully disclosed publicly, MSCI analysis of prior data indicates that energy companies, transport firms, and services sectors have historically been among the top retirees when disclosure is available.
Regional retirements also suggest significant corporate participation from Asia, Europe, and North America. This reflects global corporate climate commitments.
Offtake Spotlight: Forward Deals Speak Louder Than Volumes
Offtake agreements were one of the clearest signals of future market direction in 2025.
The total value of offtake deals announced during the year reached about $12.25 billion, up from roughly $4 billion in 2024. This is more than 12 times the value of credits retired in the spot market.
Yet the volumes involved remain modest. These deals are expected to deliver around 10 million credits per year through 2035. That is less than 10% of current annual retirements.
This gap matters. It shows that buyers are willing to commit large sums to secure limited volumes of high-quality supply. A small group of buyers dominates this space. Microsoft alone accounted for the vast majority of durable removal offtake volume in 2025.
These agreements serve two purposes. They secure future supply in a tight market. They also send strong price signals. If even a fraction of spot market demand shifts toward similar quality thresholds, total market value could grow significantly without higher volumes.
Integrity Meets Policy: Compliance and Ratings Reshape Value
Integrity concerns shaped much of the market’s evolution in 2025.
Buyers are no longer satisfied with claims alone. Ratings, improved methodologies, and third-party assessments now influence decisions. This shift is reinforced by policy.
Compliance and voluntary markets are converging. Credits that can meet compliance rules often command higher prices. This is especially true for credits eligible under CORSIA or aligned with ICVCM’s Core Carbon Principles.
In 2025, nearly half of all credits issued came from methodologies potentially eligible for CORSIA. This share continues to rise. At the same time, Article 6 moved from theory to practice. Twenty new bilateral deals were signed in 2025, bringing the total to over 100 agreements.
Moreover, corresponding adjustments emerged as a central issue. Credits with a corresponding adjustment are now clearly differentiated from those without. This distinction affects pricing, eligibility, and long-term demand. Some analysts expect corresponding adjustments to become a tradable element of the market.
Policy signals also strengthened corporate demand. Draft updates to the SBTi Net-Zero Standard clarified how credits can be used alongside emissions reductions. This reduced uncertainty for buyers planning long-term strategies.
The Outlook for 2026 and Beyond
The near-term outlook points to a tighter and more complex market.
In 2026, supply constraints for high-quality credits are likely to persist. New issuances are not rising fast enough to meet demand for BBB+ credits. Prices for trusted nature-based projects are likely to remain firm or increase.
Compliance demand will continue to grow. Modeling suggests compliance use could exceed voluntary demand as early as 2027, driven by CORSIA Phase 1 and expanding domestic systems. By the mid-2030s, domestic compliance markets could become the largest source of demand.
Carbon removal credits will remain scarce in the short term. Actual retirements will lag commitments. However, investment and offtakes signal strong long-term growth. As methodologies mature and costs fall, removals will play a larger role in both voluntary and compliance settings.
The carbon credit market in 2025 did not collapse. It restructured.
For the market as a whole, the direction is clear. Volume alone no longer defines maturity. Quality, integrity, and policy alignment do. Buyers became more selective and prices began to reflect integrity. Policy moved closer to implementation. Offtake deals revealed long-term expectations.
The carbon credit market of 2026 and beyond will likely be smaller in volume than past projections, but higher in value, more regulated, and more closely tied to real climate outcomes.
- FURTHER READING: Top Carbon Credit Companies to Watch in 2026
The post The Carbon Credit Market in 2025 is A Turning Point: What Comes Next for 2026 and Beyond? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Insetting program design starts with your supplier map. The carbon claim comes much later.
Consider a coffee procurement team that funds a farm intervention before checking its sourcing data. The supplier aggregates coffee lots from several regions. The buyer lacks farm-level traceability. Another purchaser expects to report the same outcome. A more attractive project brochure solves none of these problems.
If the distinction between a value-chain intervention and a purchased credit is still open, read CCC’s Insetting vs Offsetting guide before you set the brief.
Insetting program design begins with the purchasing relationship and works outward. You need to decide 1) where an intervention belongs, 2) what business problem it addresses, 3) who pays for it, 4) how results will be measured, and 5) what the evidence will let you say about them. This five-step playbook turns that sequence into a procurement plan.
Step 1: Insetting program design starts with supplier mapping
Start with the commodities that matter most to your Scope 3 inventory and sourcing continuity. Ask finance for spend by supplier, sustainability for the emissions baseline, and category managers for origin and volume records. Then identify which suppliers can trace material to a jurisdiction, sourcing region, producer group, or individual land-management unit.
The level of traceability affects what you can account for. Under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, the spatial boundary for purchased land-based products depends on the traceability associated with each volume. Farm-specific factors or removals require physical traceability through an acceptable chain-of-custody model. A contract with a tier-one trader, by itself, does not establish a link to the farms behind its deliveries.[1]
Build a first-pass table with five columns: commodity and annual volume; supplier and origin; current traceability level; land-use and production risks; and the business owner who can change the purchasing terms. Mark missing data plainly. A blank cell is cheaper to fix before a program starts than after a claim is drafted.
If your company sets an SBTi Forest, Land and Agriculture target (FLAG), keep its land-related target boundary separate from energy and industry emissions. The current FLAG guidance also requires relevant companies to assess primary deforestation-linked commodities in their value chains.[2]
Step 2: Choose a commodity and jurisdiction for a pilot
Select one supply corridor where the sourcing connection can be established and procurement has a reason to stay. A useful pilot has repeat purchases, suppliers willing to share records, an intervention matched to a diagnosed problem, and a defined plan to measure the result. Carbon potential alone is a poor selection rule if the supplier cannot deliver the crop your business needs.
Compare candidate regions on land-use risk, supplier concentration, local rights and tenure, the availability of baseline data, and exposure to drought, erosion, or forest conversion. Check the relevant legal requirements separately. A nature project does not satisfy a due-diligence obligation merely because it has a carbon method attached.
Consider a coffee buyer sourcing from two districts. In the first, producer-group records identify the farms, while recent dry seasons have increased rejected green coffee lots. In the second, deliveries pass through several intermediaries and farm origins are unknown. Pilot shade management in the first district, with local agronomic advice and quality checks built into the plan. The buyer can trace purchases there and test the intervention against a defined sourcing problem.
Use a short decision memo to record why the selected corridor beats the alternatives, what remains uncertain, and what would stop the pilot. That memo is the first control against a project drifting toward whatever happens to photograph well.
Step 3: Design the supplier engagement and commercial model
The intervention needs an owner on each side of the contract. Decide who supplies planting material or training, who maintains the practice, who bears the cost if a harvest disappoints, and how long the buyer expects to purchase from participating suppliers. Where smallholders participate, budget cash flow and technical support for practices that offer a later return.
Put these terms in a supplier agreement or pilot addendum. It should cover eligible farms and volumes, consent to data collection, access for monitoring, any land or carbon rights that matter, benefit sharing, and what happens if the purchasing relationship ends. Ask local counsel and producer representatives to review the arrangement. The Accountability Framework is a useful reference for supply-chain work involving forests, ecosystems, and human rights.[3]
Avoid assigning an automatic carbon benefit to the buyer. The contract should say which party has the right to report each outcome, how overlapping claims will be checked, and how any issued credits will be handled. A reduction reported in a buyer’s inventory cannot simply be sold for someone else’s offset claim without an accounting review. SBTi FLAG guidance excludes purchased credits used as offsets from near-term FLAG target achievement.[2]
Set commercial measures beside environmental ones: delivered volume, rejection rate, supplier retention, and procurement cost. They tell you whether the program works as a supply-chain investment, even if carbon accounting takes longer to resolve.
Step 4: Build monitoring, reporting, and verification before rollout
Agree on the baseline and data flow before paying for a full rollout. Identify the land units or sourcing regions in scope, the practices that change, the records suppliers already keep, and the additional measurements the program requires. Decide which data can come from field visits, transaction records, or remote sensing, and who checks each source.
For carbon, separate three questions. Did the practice happen? Did emissions or removals change under an applicable method? Can the buyer attribute a defensible share to its purchased goods without double counting? The GHG Protocol’s 2026 guidance includes dedicated chapters on spatial boundaries, data and methods, evaluating actions, credited outcomes, and assurance.[1] These are distinct jobs. A photograph of a planted tree answers only part of the first.
CCC’s MRV and Additionality article explains the separate evidence questions a project reviewer will ask.
Create an evidence file for every reporting period: dated supplier and farm records, purchase volumes, methods and emission factors, uncertainty, quality checks, and changes from the baseline. Specify who can challenge the data and how corrections are recorded. If a project also seeks credit certification, keep project accounting and corporate inventory accounting separate. The GHG Protocol says its land standard focuses on entity-level inventories and does not set the rules for credit certification.[4]
Start with the minimum viable measurement design that can survive review. Add complexity when the pilot tells you which data actually changes a decision.
Step 5: Decide what can be reported and claimed
Insetting program design needs reporting rules before the marketing copy. Procurement, sustainability, finance, and legal should agree on four distinct outputs: operational performance; observed land or nature outcomes; inventory effects, if the accounting criteria are met; and any separately issued credits. One dashboard can display them, but they should not share a single unqualified headline.
SBTi FLAG guidance allows certain land-based removals within a company’s operations or supply chain to contribute to FLAG pathways, subject to criteria including permanence, traceability, data quality, and allocation. It does not allow purchased offsets to meet near-term FLAG targets.[2] Eligibility therefore depends on evidence and the applicable target rules, not on calling an activity “insetting.”
Draft a claims register. For each proposed sentence, record the period, boundary, data owner, calculation method, reviewer, and whether the result is measured, estimated, or still a goal. If the evidence supports only “we funded a pilot with 200 farms,” say that. Do not turn a funding fact into a verified emissions reduction.
What good looks like by year three
Treat year three as a review point, not a promised payback date. A mature pilot should have mapped participating supply volumes, a stable supplier agreement, a repeatable data collection process, and a comparison of commercial and environmental results against the baseline. It should also have a documented answer for outcomes that cannot be included in the buyer’s inventory.
Scale only where the pilot improves a sourcing decision and the evidence can follow the product. If neither condition holds, redesign the intervention or change the corridor. A disciplined program can conclude that a site is unsuitable. That is useful procurement intelligence.
Discuss your insetting program with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital designs nature-based supply chain investments around sourcing needs and measurable sustainability outcomes. Schedule a consultation with our carbon and sustainability experts to map your tier-one supplier network, FLAG exposure, and first pilot decision.
Sources
[1] GHG Protocol, Land Sector and Removals Standard, version 1.1, and companion Guidance, June 2026: https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-standard ; https://ghgprotocol.org/land-sector-and-removals-guidance
[2] Science Based Targets initiative, Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, especially pp. 16–17, 37, and 41: https://sciencebasedtargets.org/resources/files/SBTiFLAGGuidance.pdf
[3] Accountability Framework initiative, Accountability Framework and guidance for companies: https://accountability-framework.org/
[4] GHG Protocol, Frequently Asked Questions: Land Sector and Removals Standard, questions 10 and 18: https://ghgprotocol.org/blog/frequently-asked-questions-land-sector-and-removals-lsr-standard
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.