The first carbon credits approved under a new United Nations climate mechanism are facing serious scrutiny after civil society groups raised concerns about human rights risks in Myanmar and possible overstatement of climate benefits.
The project, which issues carbon credits for distributing efficient cookstoves in Myanmar, was approved under Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement framework. It is designed to reduce emissions by replacing traditional cooking methods with cleaner stoves. Around 650,000 credits were approved in February, marking an early milestone for the new UN carbon market system.
However, recent reports from the Global Forest Coalition and Carbon Market Watch have called for an investigation into the project. The groups argue that the programme may be linked to Myanmar’s military authorities and operating in areas affected by ongoing conflict, raising concerns about both ethical oversight and data reliability.
Myanmar has been in civil war since a military coup in 2021, with widespread reports of human rights violations, displacement, and violence. According to UN-linked human rights experts, the military government has been responsible for serious abuses against civilians. Critics say carbon projects operating under such conditions face major credibility risks.
The cookstove initiative originally began in 2018 under the Clean Development Mechanism, a previous UN carbon offset system. It was developed through cooperation between Myanmar’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation and a South Korean climate organisation, with support from private investors.
Despite the 2021 coup, the project continued to operate. At the time, the ministry was led by an official later sanctioned by the European Union for links to the military regime. The implementing organisation has said it continued engagement with authorities to avoid disrupting local households participating in the programme.
A key concern raised by researchers is whether emission reductions can be accurately measured in conflict zones. Large parts of Myanmar, including the central Dry Zone and Sagaing Region, have experienced heavy fighting and airstrikes, making field verification extremely difficult.
Under normal UN procedures, independent auditors are required to visit project sites, check stove usage, and verify emission savings. However, due to security conditions, auditors in this case were reportedly unable to conduct field visits and instead relied on remote assessments and online interviews.
Critics argue that this weakens the integrity of the carbon credit calculations. One expert involved in the analysis said the situation makes it “highly likely” that the emission savings are not reliably verified, calling for a suspension of credit issuance until independent inspections can be carried out.
The organisation behind the project says alternative verification methods were used under exceptional circumstances approved by UN rules. It argues that data collection still followed environmental safeguards and that the project continued to serve participating households in difficult conditions.
Beyond human rights concerns, the project has also come under fire for its climate accounting methods. Carbon Market Watch claims the emission reductions may be significantly overstated, arguing that the methodology does not properly account for “stove stacking,” where households continue using multiple cooking devices at the same time.
According to the group, this could mean the project is issuing far more credits than its real climate impact justifies. Researchers estimate that over-crediting could be as high as seven times compared with peer-reviewed scientific benchmarks. They say this undermines the credibility of the carbon market and risks weakening global climate goals.
Supporters of the project reject these claims, arguing that the methodology used has been approved under UN climate frameworks and adjusted to ensure more conservative estimates after transitioning from earlier systems. They say the crediting process still reflects real emissions reductions under international standards.
The carbon credits generated by the project are expected to be used by South Korean companies to meet emissions targets under their national trading system. Some credits may also count toward national climate commitments under the Paris Agreement, while Myanmar intends to use a portion to support its own climate goals.
The controversy highlights growing debate over the role of carbon markets in global climate action. While supporters say they provide essential funding for clean energy in developing countries, critics warn that weak monitoring and political instability can undermine both environmental integrity and human rights protections.
As the first major test of the UN’s new carbon credit system, the Myanmar project is now seen as a key case that could influence how future climate offset programmes are designed, verified, and regulated.
