New certification standards are expanding the options available to project developers and buyers, signaling the emergence of a more specialized, regional and diversified carbon market.

For many years, the answer to the question of who certifies carbon credits seemed relatively straightforward: Verra or Gold Standard.

There was good reason for that. Both organizations played a central role in building the infrastructure of the voluntary carbon market, establishing methodologies, validation and verification procedures, registries and rules that enabled emission reduction and removal projects to become tradable environmental assets.

But the market is changing.

A new generation of certification programs is gaining ground, bringing different approaches to the certification of climate projects and addressing specific technologies, geographies and types of environmental assets.

This is no longer a collection of small or experimental initiatives. As of September 2026, the Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market, ICVCM, lists programs including Isometric, Puro.earth, Cercarbono, Equitable Earth, Global Carbon Council and Rainbow as CCP Eligible, alongside established names such as Verra and Gold Standard.

The significance of this movement goes beyond the number of organizations involved.

The carbon market is evolving from a system dominated by a few major standards into a broader ecosystem in which different certification frameworks can serve different types of projects, technologies, geographies and climate solutions.

For developers and buyers, this changes an important question.

The issue is no longer simply which certification program is the largest or best known.

It is increasingly about which certification framework is best suited to a particular project.

 

Isometric: technology is reshaping certification

One of the clearest examples of this new generation is Isometric.

Founded in the United Kingdom, Isometric entered the market with a strong focus on science, technology and digital processes, initially concentrating on carbon removal.

Its expansion into Brazil has made this transformation particularly visible.

In 2026, Isometric announced the registration of Mombak’s reforestation projects on its platform. In July, the company issued its first reforestation removal certificates, including 21,771 certificates associated with Mombak’s Reforesting the Brazilian Amazon Project 1.

The significance of the case is not limited to the number of certificates issued.

It demonstrates that the diversification of certification programs is already influencing decisions made by project developers.

At the same time, Isometric has been developing methodologies for different carbon removal technologies, reflecting a broader shift toward certification systems designed around specific scientific and technological requirements.

As climate solutions become more diverse, certification frameworks must also become capable of addressing their different characteristics.

This creates space for standards that are not necessarily designed to certify everything, but rather to provide a strong framework for particular types of climate assets.

 

Puro.earth: when specialization becomes a competitive advantage

Puro.earth illustrates another dimension of this transformation.

The platform has built its identity around durable carbon removals, with methodologies covering solutions such as biochar and geological carbon storage.

Its approach demonstrates that a certification program does not necessarily need to cover every category of climate project.

Specialization can itself become a strategic advantage.

Brazil is already part of this market.

Puro.earth has certified Brazilian projects, including NetZero’s Lajinha facility in Minas Gerais, based on biochar production. The project has issued carbon removal credits under a methodology focused on durable carbon storage, with a stated durability of more than 100 years.

The relevance of this example goes beyond the individual project.

It shows how developers can increasingly select certification frameworks according to the technical characteristics of the underlying climate solution.

Puro.earth was also recognized as CCP Eligible by the ICVCM in December 2025, reinforcing its position within the evolving architecture of the voluntary carbon market.

 

Cercarbono: regional expertise matters too

The diversification of certification is not being driven exclusively by European or North American organizations.

Latin America has also developed its own carbon market infrastructure.

Cercarbono, established in Colombia, is an important example of a regional standard that has expanded internationally and developed methodologies applicable to a broad range of mitigation activities.

In August 2026, the ICVCM recognized Cercarbono as CCP Eligible for projects registered under version 4.5.2 or later of its protocol.

Its development highlights another important aspect of the changing market: geography can matter.

Projects operate within specific regulatory, environmental, land-use and socioeconomic contexts. Regional expertise can therefore contribute to methodologies and certification processes that are more closely aligned with local realities.

This does not mean regional standards need to replace global ones.

It means that the market can benefit from different certification structures capable of addressing different contexts.

And this is where the broader trend becomes particularly relevant to Brazil.

 

From dominant standards to a diversified ecosystem

The emergence of new certification programs does not mean that Verra and Gold Standard have become less relevant.

Quite the opposite.

They remain among the most established references in the global carbon market and have played a fundamental role in creating the methodologies and infrastructure on which the market has developed.

What is changing is the ecosystem around them.

In the early development of voluntary carbon markets, the priority was to establish common rules, methodologies and processes capable of supporting the creation and trading of carbon credits.

The challenge is now evolving.

How should fundamentally different climate solutions be certified appropriately?

A tonne associated with biochar does not present exactly the same methodological challenges as a tonne associated with forest restoration.

A technology-based carbon removal project does not necessarily involve the same monitoring, permanence or verification requirements as a forest conservation project.

And a project developed in Latin America may face land tenure, environmental and socioeconomic conditions that differ substantially from those encountered elsewhere.

This is where specialization becomes increasingly relevant.

More certification programs do not necessarily mean greater fragmentation. They can mean greater suitability.

 

Certification is becoming a strategic decision

For project developers, certification is no longer simply an administrative step.

The selected framework can influence methodology, data requirements, monitoring systems, verification procedures, timelines, costs, registry requirements and, ultimately, the economic structure of the project.

The choice also matters to buyers.

The certification framework helps establish how a carbon asset was generated, which methodology was applied, what was monitored and how validation and verification were conducted.

As the ecosystem expands, developers and buyers gain an important opportunity:

to evaluate certification programs based on their suitability for the underlying climate asset, rather than relying solely on market recognition.

This is where new standards can find their place.

And it is also where a Brazilian initiative such as LuxCS becomes particularly relevant.

 

LuxCS: certification built around the Brazilian context

LuxCS represents a different proposition within this evolving ecosystem.

Rather than creating a generic framework intended to accommodate every type of climate project, the organization has developed methodologies focused on specific environmental and market contexts in Brazil.

One of them is LCS003, Conservation of Native Brazilian Forests on Private Land.

Launched in November 2024 and currently in version 2.0, the methodology was designed for conservation projects involving privately owned native forests across Brazil’s different biomes.

Its objective is to structure projects associated with the conservation of these forests, reducing real emissions resulting primarily from deforestation and forest degradation.

One aspect deserves particular attention.

The methodology does not focus exclusively on future carbon removals.

It also places economic value on the carbon stock already present in standing forests, while incorporating biodiversity, ecosystem services and co-benefits related to communities and water resources.

This creates a direct connection between carbon certification and one of Brazil’s most important conservation challenges.

 

Turning conservation into an economic asset

Keeping a forest standing generates environmental benefits that extend far beyond the boundaries of an individual property.

Yet those benefits do not always have an economic value capable of competing with alternative land-use opportunities.

This is one of the central challenges of conservation.

A carbon methodology specifically designed for native forests on private land can help translate part of this environmental value into an asset that is measurable, monitorable and tradable.

In this context, carbon credits do not need to be viewed solely as a mechanism for compensation.

They can also function as an economic instrument for financing conservation.

This perspective is particularly relevant in Brazil, where private properties play a fundamental role in maintaining native vegetation and ecosystem services.

 

A methodology is more than a carbon calculation

Another relevant aspect of LCS003 is that the methodology goes beyond defining how carbon is quantified.

The framework published by LuxCS includes procedures and documents covering project development, feasibility assessment, validation, project documentation, verification, third-party auditing, double-counting commitments and conservation commitments.

This creates a broader certification architecture around the underlying environmental asset.

Independent third-party auditing is also part of this structure.

Projects disclosed by LuxCS, including Fazenda Santana and Fazenda Lote 20 in Pará, involve project development and third-party auditing alongside feasibility and validation procedures.

The proposition, therefore, is not simply to create another registry for carbon credits.

It is to establish a methodology and certification process capable of translating a specific environmental reality into a certified climate asset.

 

The future does not need a single certification program

Perhaps this is the most important transformation now taking place.

The future of carbon certification does not need to be a race to identify the next Verra.

Nor does it require the disappearance of the standards that helped build the market.

What is emerging may be more valuable: an ecosystem in which different certification programs can coexist and compete on their ability to provide the most appropriate framework for different types of projects.

Isometric demonstrates how technology and scientific infrastructure can reshape certification processes.

Puro.earth shows how specialization around durable carbon removals can create a distinct market position.

Cercarbono demonstrates that regional standards can achieve international recognition.

And LuxCS represents a Brazilian initiative focused on a specific environmental reality: the conservation of native forests on private land.

This diversity can strengthen the carbon market.

The objective should not be to find one certification program that works for everything.

It should be to build an ecosystem in which different climate solutions can find the certification structure that best reflects their nature, geography and intended impact.

 

The 369 EcoCredits perspective

At 369 EcoCredits, we see this transformation as a natural evolution of the carbon market.

More certification alternatives create opportunities for developers and buyers, but they also increase the importance of technical analysis.

Knowing the name of a certification program is not enough.

It is essential to understand its methodology, certification procedures, quantification approach, monitoring and verification requirements, asset ownership structure and suitability for the underlying project.

This analysis allows buyers to determine whether a particular carbon asset is appropriate for a particular objective.

And this is precisely why the diversification of certification programs matters.

A market with more alternatives requires more knowledge, but it also creates more possibilities.

As new approaches to carbon removal, conservation and emission reduction continue to emerge, certification is likely to become increasingly specialized as well.

The carbon market may therefore be entering a new phase.

A phase in which the most relevant question is no longer simply:

Who certifies the credit?

But rather:

Which certification structure best captures the climate and environmental value of the project?!