Welfare of Wild Animals in Carbon Credit Forestry Schemes

Carbon offset forestry and reforestation programs create habitat that can benefit wildlife, but poorly designed schemes can also harm existing wildlife communities in the areas they target.

Key Facts

Global carbon credit forestry programs cover an estimated 500 million hectares under various standards
Monoculture tree plantations used for carbon offsetting have significantly lower biodiversity value than natural forest
Some carbon forestry schemes have displaced Indigenous communities and the wildlife-friendly land use they practice
Grassland conversion to tree plantations under carbon schemes harms grassland-specialist species with nowhere else to go
High-integrity carbon forestry that protects and restores diverse native vegetation benefits wildlife significantly

Welfare Considerations

Carbon offset forestry presents a welfare paradox: programs that appear green can harm the wildlife they implicitly promise to protect. Monoculture plantations of fast-growing non-native trees replace biodiverse grasslands or degrade existing wildlife habitats while generating carbon credits. The animals who depended on that grassland — skylarks, hares, invertebrates adapted to open habitat — lose their homes to what is marketed as an environmental benefit. High-integrity carbon programs that restore diverse native habitats are genuine wildlife welfare investments; monoculture plantation schemes may be worse than the baseline.

What You Can Do

Research the habitat type and biodiversity standards of any carbon offset program you use
Support only carbon forestry schemes that restore diverse native vegetation rather than monoculture plantations
Advocate for biodiversity co-benefit standards to be required in all carbon credit forestry schemes
Choose carbon offset providers independently verified to deliver genuine biodiversity and wildlife welfare benefits