Carbon Credit Registries Permit Eucalyptus Despite Biodiversity Claims

Non-native monoculture plantations like Eucalyptus are explicitly permitted under the world's two largest carbon registries, Verra and Gold Standard, creating a systemic loophole that incentivizes fast-growing exotic species over native forest restoration.

his investigation reveals a stark gap between registries' stated biodiversity principles and their actual enforceable requirements. While American registries (ACR and CAR) mandate 95-100% native species, Verra reversed its monoculture ban in 2024 after industry pressure, and Gold Standard requires native species only in 10% of project areas. The result: industrial Eucalyptus plantations generate millions of carbon credits marketed as climate solutions while replacing biodiverse grasslands and native ecosystems.

Verra reversed its monoculture ban after timber industry pressure

Verra, operating the world's largest voluntary carbon standard (VCS), underwent a dramatic policy reversal on non-native species between 2023 and 2024. This shift reveals how industry interests can override biodiversity protections.

VCS Standard v4.5 (August 2023) initially banned non-native monocultures with clear language in Section 3.19.27(3): "For ARR and WRC activities the project shall not introduce non-native monocultures." This prohibition was scheduled to take effect for projects starting March 1, 2024.

VCS Standard v4.6 (March 2024) reversed the ban following a public consultation that received 600+ comments from 90 respondents across 23 countries—heavily weighted toward industry stakeholders. Verra's official announcement states: "Verra will permit the limited use of non-native monocultures in Afforestation, Reforestation, and Revegetation (ARR) and Wetlands Restoration and Conservation (WRC) projects." The justification explicitly acknowledges commercial interests: projects will "enable urgently needed climate mitigation... provision of pulp and paper, and firewood resources for local communities."

The key methodology document VM0047 (September 2023) contains no explicit requirement for native species. Independent analyst Renoster notes: "The methodology does not specify what species of trees can be planted inside the project... We would like to see this methodology require a majority component of native species planted in the project." This omission allows project developers complete discretion over species selection.

Verra's loopholes for non-native species include:

Verra has acknowledged this gap, stating in v4.6 documentation that version 5 will develop "a mechanism to differentiate between credits generated from plantation, agroforestry, and restoration activities"—admitting that currently, plantation credits are treated identically to native forest restoration credits.

Gold Standard allows single-species plantations across 90% of project area

Gold Standard, often perceived as more rigorous than Verra, explicitly permits non-native monocultures in its Land Use & Forests Activity Requirements (v1.2.1). Section 2.1.2 states without ambiguity: "A/R projects: (a) Can include planting trees, (b) Can include single-species plantations, (c) Can apply all silvicultural systems."

Native species requirements apply only to limited conservation areas, not main planting zones:

10% High Conservation Value area (Section 3.1.5): "A minimum of 10% of the total Project Area shall be identified and used to protect or enhance the biological diversity following High Conservation Value (HCV) approach." This leaves 90% of project area with no native species requirements.

15-meter buffer zones (Section 3.1.6): Native species required only in buffer zones around water bodies: "In case trees are being planted, these need to be native tree species."

Gold Standard's Safeguarding Principles use soft language that creates no enforceable mandate. Principle P.9.7.1 states projects should "utilise native species wherever feasible." The phrase "wherever feasible" allows economic considerations to override native species preference.

Critical loophole in invasive species definition: Gold Standard's Terms and Definitions (p.3) explicitly exempts commercially established species: "Invasive Species: An organism introduced by man... Note that species which are already locally established and of economic importance are excluded under this definition." Eucalyptus, commercially established across Africa, South America, and Asia, automatically qualifies for this exemption in most project regions.

A Springer journal article documenting Gold Standard projects in Costa Rica confirms non-native species in certified projects: "The area is reforested with different combinations of the native and naturalized tree species... including... Tectona grandis L. (teak)"—a species native to Southeast Asia, not Central America.

American registries mandate native species with enforcement mechanisms

In stark contrast to Verra and Gold Standard, the American Carbon Registry (ACR) and Climate Action Reserve (CAR) have mandatory native species requirements with consequences for non-compliance.

ACR's ARR Methodology states unambiguously: "Only native species that would occur under natural forest conditions are acceptable for planting." Section 1.4 (Applicability Condition II) specifies: "species planted are restricted to those likely to have occurred under historic natural forest conditions in the project area, per best available knowledge." The ICVCM's CCP approval explicitly limits coverage to "natural forest establishment/restoration activities... that plant native species on degraded lands" while noting that "risks related to the additionality of large-scale commercial ARR projects, particularly those involving monocultures or non-native species" were identified.

CAR's U.S. Forest Protocol (v5.0) establishes quantified requirements with enforcement:

Section 3.9.2 mandates: "All Forest Projects must promote and maintain a diversity of native species and utilize management practices that promote and maintain native forests comprised of multiple ages and mixed native species." Native forests are defined as "those forests occurring naturally in an area, as neither a direct nor indirect consequence of human activity post-dating European settlement."

Eucalyptus plantations cannot generate credits under either ACR or CAR. ACR's 100% native requirement and CAR's 95% threshold with demonstrated progress toward elimination effectively prohibit commercial non-native plantations.

Plan Vivo and SOCIALCARBON emphasize native species; CERCARBONO prioritizes them

Plan Vivo, the oldest voluntary carbon standard (since 1994), emphasizes "the use of native species, and biodiversity enhancement" as core principles, focusing on "restoring and protecting native forest and reintroducing native species in degraded areas." Its 2023 launch of PV Nature (Biodiversity Standard) requires at least 5 biodiversity indicators using a "basket of metrics" methodology. While not absolutely prohibiting non-native species, Plan Vivo's philosophy makes Eucalyptus monocultures inconsistent with certification.

CERCARBONO (Colombia-based, covering 200+ projects in 20+ countries) explicitly prioritizes native species in its CM-LU-002 methodology (March 2025): "This methodology actively champions native species to lead to more sustainable and impactful long-term outcomes." While acknowledging that "forestry and agricultural activity must often accommodate commercial plantations," the standard states "prioritizing native species in projects enhances ecological balance."

SOCIALCARBON (SMC0006 methodology) contains the strongest prohibition found: "Projects that convert the area to non-native habitats or land use will not be eligible under the methodology." Projects must outline "strategies for removing or managing invasive species." This effectively bars Eucalyptus plantation projects.

Documented Eucalyptus projects reveal systemic gaming of carbon credits

The Guanaré Forest Plantations Project (Uruguay) provides the clearest evidence of how non-native monocultures exploit carbon markets. This Verra VCS-certified project covers 21,000+ hectares of monoculture Eucalyptus and pine, has issued 7+ million carbon credits offsetting 5+ million tonnes of CO2, and was established by Harvard University's endowment fund (purchased 2006; sold 2017-2019 for $450 million).

Carbon credit rating agencies have eviscerated the project's credibility:

• Renoster Carbon rated Guanaré ZERO: "for every credit issued, it reduces 0 tons of carbon"
• BeZero Carbon gave it a "low" likelihood rating for achieving claimed emissions reductions

Major corporations purchased these credits for greenwashing campaigns: EasyJet, British American Tobacco (for "carbon neutral" Vuse vapes), Ernst & Young, Lavazza ("carbon neutral" coffee), Nivea ("100% climate-neutralized skincare"), and Aldi (German supermarket's "carbon neutral" milk). British American Tobacco faces a $5 million lawsuit (2025) alleging it marketed Vuse as carbon-neutral using "sham credits."

The project replaced biodiverse pampa grasslands containing up to 57 plant species per square meter—more diversity than the Amazon rainforest—with industrial timber plantation. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism documented that the project is "fundamentally unadditional"—Eucalyptus plantations would have been established anyway as timber operations.

Apple's Restore Fund projects demonstrate ongoing exploitation. Projects in Paraguay (Forestal Apepu: 1,855 ha eucalyptus; Forestal San Pedro: 6,270 ha) and Brazil (BTG Pactual Project Alpha: 24,000 ha in the Cerrado) are generating credits purchased by Apple, Microsoft (8 million tonnes), TSMC, and Murata. Cerrado ecologists have condemned these projects. Lucy Rowland (University of Exeter) stated: "Under no circumstances should planting eucalyptus ever be considered a viable project to receive carbon credits in the Cerrado." Giselda Durigan (Environmental Research Institute of São Paulo) added: "They are planting entire watersheds. The rivers are dying."

Suzano, operating 1.4 million hectares of Eucalyptus plantations with $2.8 billion in 2023 net profit and opening the world's largest pulp factory, claims its 38,000-hectare Eucalyptus project "wouldn't exist without carbon credit income"—a claim the World Rainforest Movement calls "a blatant lie."

Fast-growing species create perverse economic incentives

Carbon accounting methodologies systematically favor fast-growing non-native species through four mechanisms:

Speed of credit issuance: Eucalyptus reaches commercial maturity in 7 years; native restoration requires decades. Credits issued annually over crediting periods mean faster growth equals faster revenue. A 2019 Nature analysis found 45% of carbon removal projects worldwide involved single-species tree farms; in Brazil, the figure was 82%.

Predictability and measurement: Eucalyptus has decades of scientific study with, as MIT Technology Review notes, "exacting growth curves." Native species are unpredictable—they "may grow slowly, or twist in ways that make their wood unprofitable, or suddenly and inexplicably die." Robin Chazdon (University of Sunshine Coast) observes: "It fits a corporate model very well, and it fits the verification model very well."

Cost efficiency: Land-based carbon projects "are expanding rapidly in the Global South, because of warmer temperatures that result in rapid tree growth, as well as the availability of cheap labour and cheap land." Eucalyptus plantations minimize operational costs while maximizing credit generation.

Baseline gaming: Renoster analyst Elias Ayrey notes: "It's been recognized for a while that a new methodology is needed because most Verra ARR projects are issued credits for unadditional timber plantations." The VM0047 methodology still lacks requirements around "conservation or restoration of diverse native forests."

Oxford Environmental Change Institute researchers warn: "Current and new policy should not promote ecosystem degradation via tree plantations with a narrow view on carbon capture." A Nature Communications study (2024) confirms that plant species diversity significantly enhances carbon storage, while monocultures "could be detrimental to biodiversity and carbon storage over the long-term."

Summary comparison reveals regulatory divide

Conclusion

The investigation reveals a fundamental divide in carbon registry approaches to native species. Verra and Gold Standard—which together dominate the voluntary carbon market—permit non-native monocultures through explicit allowances (Verra) or limited native species requirements (Gold Standard's 10% rule). Their methodology language creates a veneer of biodiversity protection while actual enforceable requirements allow industrial Eucalyptus plantations to generate credits indistinguishable from native forest restoration.

ACR, CAR, and SOCIALCARBON demonstrate that stringent native species requirements are technically feasible and enforceable. Their methodologies prove that registries can mandate 95-100% native species with real consequences for non-compliance.

The systematic failure is not accidental. Verra's 2024 reversal of its monoculture ban—explicitly citing "pulp and paper" industry needs—demonstrates that voluntary carbon markets respond to industry pressure over ecological integrity. The 21,000-hectare Guanaré project rated zero by independent analysts yet generating 7+ million credits for corporate greenwashing exemplifies the outcome: a system where maximizing carbon credit revenue through fast-growing Eucalyptus directly conflicts with biodiversity conservation, ecosystem health, and climate effectiveness.

For project developers seeking to plant Eucalyptus monocultures, Verra and Gold Standard provide permissive pathways; for those seeking registries with genuine native species protections, ACR, CAR, SOCIALCARBON, and Plan Vivo offer meaningful constraints. The choice of registry determines whether "reforestation" means ecological restoration or industrial timber plantation with a carbon credit label.