Yesterday, we discussed a paradox around methodologies and science. Today’s paradox deals with the Standards. 

Everyone agrees: Quality and integrity are key for carbon credits. Not surprisingly, there is an increasing demand for enhanced scrutiny, quality ratings, and additional levels of certification. 

But here is a twist: Stricter certifications, reviews, ratings and audits increase costs, add complexity, and slow down timelines. 

Moreover, Standards may yield varying results depending on the standard’s approach. A project can achieve a high rating according to one Standard, but completely fail according to another one – because they prioritise different criteria.

Paradoxically, while these additional layers of oversight appease some critics, they also draw fire for diverting funds from projects to paperwork.

Have you encountered the Standards Paradox in your own work? How can we strike the delicate balance between demanding full accuracy and avoiding the risk of overburdening project proponents?