Carbon is becoming a market design question - not just a tonne of CO₂

At C-nery, we believe the carbon market is entering a new phase.

For years, many carbon projects were evaluated through one central question:

How many tonnes of CO₂ can this project generate?

That question still matters. But it is no longer sufficient.

The more relevant question today is becoming:

Where can this tonne of carbon value actually be used — credibly, economically, legally and strategically?

This shift is especially important for anyone developing forest, land-use, carbon farming, biogenic carbon, carbon removal or carbon storage projects in Europe.

Because the market is no longer moving towards “one carbon market”.

It is fragmenting into different layers of value.

Some tonnes may be relevant for voluntary climate claims. Some may be relevant for Scope 3 interventions. Some may fit into insetting strategies. Some may become relevant under Article 6 or compliance-like systems. Some may create value through product carbon, low-carbon materials or procurement. Some may qualify under emerging EU certification frameworks.

And some may simply not be claimable in the way project developers originally expected.

That is why we see carbon project development increasingly as a question of market architecture.

Not only: can we measure the carbon?

But also: who can use it, for what purpose, under which framework, and with what level of confidence?

The European context is becoming more structured

From a European perspective, several frameworks are now shaping how carbon value will be created, recognised and monetised.

The first is the Science Based Targets initiative Corporate Net-Zero Standard. Its direction is clear: companies must prioritise deep emission reductions within their own operations and value chains. Carbon credits are not a substitute for decarbonisation.

But this does not mean carbon credits become irrelevant.

It means their role becomes more specific.

High-quality removals, value-chain interventions and environmental attributes may still play a role, but companies will need to be more careful about the type of claim they make, the timing of the use, the quality of the unit and the relationship between the credit and their own emissions profile.

For project developers, this creates an important signal: future demand will not only depend on the volume of credits available. It will depend on whether those credits help a buyer solve a specific accounting, strategic or reputational problem.

CRCF gives Europe its own carbon removal language

The EU Carbon Removal and Carbon Farming framework is another major development.

The CRCF creates a voluntary EU certification framework for carbon removals, carbon farming and carbon storage in products. This is highly relevant for projects linked to forests, soils, biochar, biogenic materials, long-lived wood products and carbon storage in construction materials.

CRCF does not automatically create a guaranteed price. It does not magically turn every land-use project into a premium carbon asset.

But it does something important: it creates a European language around quality, monitoring, reporting, verification and certification.

That matters.

Because in fragmented markets, shared standards reduce uncertainty. And in carbon markets, lower uncertainty usually means higher trust.

For C-nery, CRCF is therefore not only a certification instrument. It is also a market signal. It tells project developers that carbon farming, removals and product-based carbon storage are moving from the margins into a more formal European policy architecture.

Accounting is becoming part of the value proposition

Another key piece of the puzzle is the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals guidance.

For companies, the question is not simply whether a carbon credit exists. The question is whether a land-based intervention, removal or biogenic carbon flow can be reflected correctly in their greenhouse gas accounting.

This is particularly relevant for forests, agricultural soils, biomass, biogenic CO₂, harvested wood products and carbon storage in products.

In other words: project developers need to understand not only carbon certification, but also corporate carbon accounting.

A project may be scientifically strong and ecologically valuable. But if the buyer cannot understand how it relates to Scope 1, Scope 2, Scope 3, removals, land-use change, biogenic carbon or product carbon accounting, its commercial value may be limited.

The buyer is no longer only buying a tonne.

The buyer is buying confidence that the intervention can survive accounting scrutiny.

Scope 3 and insetting are becoming strategic drivers

We also see strong momentum around Scope 3 and insetting.

Many companies have the majority of their emissions in their value chain. For them, the most relevant carbon opportunities may not be traditional offsetting, but interventions within supply chains, sourcing regions or production systems.

This is where frameworks such as Verra’s Scope 3 work, the Social Carbon Insetting Framework and others become relevant.

They point towards a market where carbon projects are not only external compensation tools, but part of supplier engagement, landscape investment, agricultural transition, forest protection, regenerative sourcing and material substitution.

For forest and land-use projects, this is a major opportunity.

A company sourcing wood, fibres, food, biomass, construction materials or agricultural commodities may have a stronger strategic reason to invest in a landscape project than a company simply looking for generic offsets.

This means some of the most valuable carbon projects may be those embedded in real economic systems.

Not isolated tonnes.

But interventions that improve resilience, reduce emissions, increase removals, support suppliers and strengthen future access to low-carbon materials.

CBAM reinforces the economic value of carbon data

The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism is not a voluntary carbon market mechanism. It is not designed to create demand for carbon credits.

But it is part of the same broader transition.

CBAM puts a price signal on embedded emissions in imported goods such as cement, steel, aluminium, fertilisers, electricity and hydrogen.

This matters because it reinforces a wider economic logic: carbon intensity is becoming a commercial variable.

Low-carbon materials, reliable emissions data, biogenic carbon storage, alternative construction materials and lower-carbon supply chains may become more valuable in markets where carbon exposure affects cost, competitiveness and procurement decisions.

For C-nery, this shows that carbon value is not limited to the sale of credits.

Carbon value may also appear in product markets, material choices, procurement decisions, industrial partnerships and carbon cost avoidance.

A tonne of carbon stored in a construction material may not follow the same market logic as a forest offset. But it may still have economic value if it helps reduce product carbon, support low-carbon building strategies or strengthen a company’s position in a carbon-constrained economy.

Compliance markets: not a silver bullet, but a growing pull factor

Another driver is the growing role of compliance and quasi-compliance markets.

Recent market analyses show that carbon pricing systems, emissions trading schemes, carbon taxes, crediting mechanisms and Article 6-related markets continue to develop globally.

This does not mean that all voluntary carbon credits will suddenly become compliance assets.

They will not.

Compliance markets usually apply strict eligibility rules. They often define which project types, methodologies, vintages, geographies, registries and claims are acceptable. In Article 6 contexts, issues such as authorisation, corresponding adjustments, double counting, host country approval and registry integrity become crucial.

But this does create a new market reality.

Some credits may remain purely voluntary. Some may support corporate value-chain claims. Some may become eligible in domestic carbon pricing systems. Some may be used in Article 6 transactions. Some may become strategically valuable because buyers expect future compliance relevance.

That distinction matters enormously.

In a market with quality concerns and price pressure, compliance eligibility or compliance proximity can become a major differentiator.

At C-nery, we do not see compliance markets as a simple replacement for voluntary markets. We see them as an additional layer of demand — one that will likely reward projects with stronger governance, clearer accounting, more robust MRV and better legal traceability.

The key message is this:

Compliance markets will not absorb every carbon credit. But they may help define which credits become strategically valuable.

The future carbon market will be layered

Our view is that the future carbon market will not be one single market with one single price.

It will be a layered market.

There will be credits for voluntary climate claims. There will be removals for net-zero strategies. There will be value-chain interventions for Scope 3. There will be insetting models for supply chains. There will be CRCF-certified activities in Europe. There will be product carbon and carbon storage in materials. There will be Article 6 transactions. There will be compliance-eligible credits. There will be carbon value embedded in procurement, construction, agriculture, forestry and industrial sourcing.

This means that the economic value of a project will depend less on the abstract statement that “one tonne equals one tonne”.

It will depend on the context in which that tonne can be used.

Is it a reduction or a removal? Is it temporary or durable? Is it inside or outside the buyer’s value chain? Can it support a Scope 3 strategy? Is it compatible with GHG Protocol logic? Could it be certified under CRCF?Could it become relevant under Article 6 or compliance-like systems? Does it support product carbon or low-carbon procurement? Are the claims legally and reputationally defensible?

These questions will increasingly determine value.

Designing carbon projects backwards from demand

For forest, land-use and carbon project developers, this creates both complexity and opportunity.

The complexity is obvious. There are more frameworks, more accounting rules, more claim restrictions and more scrutiny.

But the opportunity is just as important.

Projects designed with the end market in mind can become more valuable.

A forest project that only generates generic voluntary credits may face price pressure. A forest project connected to a company’s Scope 3 strategy, sourcing region or biodiversity commitments may have a stronger buyer case.

A carbon farming project aligned with CRCF and corporate supply chains may have more strategic relevance. A biogenic carbon storage project linked to construction materials may create value beyond traditional offsetting. A removal project with strong MRV, durability and clear ownership may attract buyers seeking high-integrity net-zero solutions.

The strategic question is therefore no longer only:

How many credits can this project generate?

It is:

Which market layer is this project designed for?

At C-nery, we believe carbon projects should increasingly be designed backwards from future demand.

That means starting with the buyer’s problem.

Does the buyer need removals? Scope 3 reductions? Supplier engagement? Low-carbon materials? CRCF-compatible carbon farming? Product carbon data? Exposure to future compliance-grade assets? A defensible climate claim?

Only after answering these questions can we properly design the project, the monitoring system, the certification pathway, the data architecture and the commercial model.

Our conclusion

Carbon is no longer only a climate metric.

It is becoming a strategic asset, an accounting challenge, a procurement signal, a compliance consideration and a product attribute.

For forest, carbon farming, biogenic carbon and carbon storage projects, this creates a new reality.

The winners will not necessarily be the projects that produce the most tonnes on paper.

The winners will be the projects that produce carbon value that buyers can actually use.

Credibly. Transparently. Legally. Economically. And strategically.

At C-nery, this is how we believe carbon projects should be designed: not only around tonnes of CO₂, but around the market context in which those tonnes become valuable.

Because in the next carbon market, the key question will not be:

How much carbon is there?

It will be:

What can this carbon do?

‍