The emergence of the global carbon market is transitioning from a phase of voluntary experimentalism to an era of regulatory rigor and technological demand. At the epicenter of this transformation, Brazil plays an essential role: as the holder of the planet’s largest carbon stock and as a laboratory for regulatory innovations, exemplified by the Brazilian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System (SBCE).

This B4 report delves into the structure that defines responsibility in the origination of carbon credits in the country, analyzes the technical certification requirements, and explores, in depth, the disruptive model proposed by B4, the world’s first Climate Action Exchange.

Unlike traditional European standards, B4 introduces its Accreditation Standard consisting of a multidimensional “score” system and continuous auditing (“now and later”), based on blockchain, which redefines the integrity of the sustainable asset through pillars such as inclusion, transparency, immutability, and real-time traceability.

1. The Architecture and Responsibility in Originating Carbon Credits in Brazil

The fundamental question of “who is entitled to carbon credits” has ceased to be a purely contractual issue and has become a pillar of Brazilian economic and environmental law with the advent of Bill No. 182/2024 (formerly PL 2,148/2015) and the establishment of the SBCE.

Legal certainty is the prerequisite for scale in the market, and Brazil has advanced in defining the responsibilities of sustainable assets.

1.1. Definition of Legal Nature: Sustainable Assets in Brazil and Carbon Credits

The carbon market operated for decades in a legal gray area. Would the credit be an environmental service? A security? An intangible asset?

The Brazilian regulatory framework (PL 182/2024) brought a definition that profoundly alters ownership dynamics: carbon credits, specifically those from forest preservation or reforestation projects, have the nature of “civil fruits.”¹

This classification is not semantic; it is structural. In Brazilian Civil Law, civil fruits are income that the main thing produces periodically, such as rent from a property or interest on capital.

•Ownership Implication: By defining the credit as a fruit, the law inextricably links the right to generate the credit to the ownership of the “main thing,” i.e., the land and the forest settled upon it. No one can sell the rent of a property they do not own; analogously, no one can trade carbon credits from a forest over which they do not hold real property rights or usufruct.

•Security against “Green Land Grabbing”: This definition directly attacks the practice of project developers who, in the past, tried to generate credits on public or third-party lands without proper land tenure. The fruit follows the principal.

In B4’s view, this is precisely why there is a clear separation between:

•Sustainable assets, representing access to carbon credits (Utility Tokens); and

•Digital Carbon Credit Certificates in NFT format.

It is established that:

•The guarantee of the sustainable asset is linked to the right of access it represents, whether through products or services.

•The backing of the carbon credit certificate in NFT format stems from the land, the corresponding carbon credit certificates, and the responsibilities assumed at the time of its distribution.

Finally, regarding legal certainty, those who acquire and perform the offset now hold the right to that offset, duly assisted by public faith, as it is a civil fruit.

1.2. The Spectrum of Ownership: Who are the “Originators”?

The SBCE and complementary regulations identify specific categories of actors with legitimacy to claim ownership of the credits.

1.2.1. Private Owners and Usufructuaries

The land title holder is the original owner of the credit. However, the law extends this right to the legitimate usufructuary.²

•Practical Scenario: A rural landowner may lease their land to a pulp company. If the lease agreement provides for the usufruct of the forest, the lessee company (usufructuary) may have the right to generate reforestation credits, provided this is explicitly stated contractually. Contractual clarity and registration in the notary’s office thus become certification requirements.

1.2.2. Indigenous Peoples and Traditional Communities

The treatment given to original peoples and traditional communities (quilombolas, riverside dwellers) is one of the most significant advances in Brazilian legislation compared to jurisdictions that ignore customary rights.

•Original Ownership: PL 182/2024 recognizes that, in indigenous lands and territories of traditional peoples, the ownership of carbon credits or CRVE (Verified Emission Reduction or Removal Certificate) originates from these peoples.² This means the State cannot appropriate these credits without the community’s consent.

•Autonomy and Partnerships: The legislation guarantees the autonomy of these peoples to enter into partnerships with private developers (companies, NGOs) for the technical management of projects. However, rigorous safeguards are applied to avoid leonine contracts that harm the community.

•The Right of “Opt-out” (Exclusion): A crucial mechanism of sovereignty is the right to exclude jurisdictional programs. Often, state governments create REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) programs that encompass the state’s entire territory (“jurisdictional”). PL 182/2024 guarantees indigenous peoples the right to request, at any time and unconditionally, the exclusion of their areas from these state programs.²

•Impact Analysis: This allows an indigenous community to choose to develop a private “nested project,” where it can have greater control over commercialization and resource flow, instead of depending on state bureaucracy for benefit sharing. This avoids double counting (the same carbon being sold by the State and the community) and economically empowers the territories.

1.2.3. Concessionaires of Public Forests

Companies holding forest management concessions in public forests (federal or state) are also eligible, provided the concession notice and contract provide for ownership over environmental services and carbon credits.² This is an expanding market where timber ceases to be the only economic asset of the concession.

1.3. The Structure of Assets in the Regulated Market (SBCE)

To understand who is entitled, it is vital to distinguish the assets created by the SBCE, as each has a distinct allocation rule:

Asset Type	Definition	Who is Entitled?
CBE (Brazilian Emissions Quota)	Right to emit 1 tCO2e in the regulated market. Fungible asset.¹	Allocated by the State (free of charge or for a fee) to regulated operators (emitting industries).
CRVE (Verified Reduction/Removal Certificate)	Asset generated by projects that reduce or remove emissions within the system.¹	Project generators (owners, indigenous peoples) who register their projects in the SBCE.
Carbon Credit (Voluntary Market)	Autonomous tradable asset, generated outside the limits of the SBCE emissions cap.¹	Private entities or communities that develop voluntary projects following accepted methodologies.

2. Requirements and Certification Process: The Brazilian “Standard”

Certification is the process that transforms a standing forest or an industrial reduction into a tradable financial asset. In Brazil, this process is evolving from a passive acceptance of international norms to the construction of national methodologies adapted to the tropical reality.

2.1. The Certification Life Cycle (General Pattern)

In both the current voluntary market and the future regulated market, the process follows logical steps of integrity verification:

1.Conception and Feasibility: Technical analysis of carbon potential and legal analysis of land ownership.

2.PDD Development (Project Design Document): Preparation of the master document describing the methodology, baseline (what would happen in the absence of the project), and additionality calculation.

3.Validation (Third-Party Audit): An independent Validation and Verification Body (OVV) audits the PDD to ensure it complies with the chosen methodology’s rules.³

4.Registration: The project is registered in a registration system (Blockchain) for publicity and prevention of double counting.

5.Monitoring: The developer collects real data over time (e.g., satellite monitoring of deforestation).

6.Verification: New external audit on the monitored data on a continuous basis.

7.Issuance: The sustainable assets that provide access to the issued carbon credits are programmed for distribution according to the quantity determined in the certification and performed in that period and transferred to the account of the official project manager.

2.2. Criticism of Generic European Standards

B4 and certified companies view methodologies as a value proposition construction based on a technical critique of hegemonic global standards (such as Verra and Gold Standard), which, while robust, often carry a Eurocentric or industrial bias that does not perfectly adapt to the land tenure complexity, Amazonian biology, and especially the Brazilian territory.

2.2.1. The Problem of Projections (Ex-ante vs. Ex-post)

Many international REDD+ (Avoided Deforestation) methodologies operate based on future projections. They estimate how much deforestation would occur in 10 or 30 years and issue credits in advance or based on these modeled projections.

•The Failure: If the projection is wrong (overestimated), “phantom credits” (hot air) are generated, which do not correspond to a real climate benefit.

•The Brazilian Solution by the Climate Action Exchange: B4 prioritizes 100% Ex-post (Real Verification) methodologies. Carbon credits may even have a forecast under future counting according to the characteristics of the origination area, but they are only distributed to the market after physical proof that the carbon was stored or emission avoided in a past period (i.e., duly performed).⁴ This eliminates the risk of future modeling uncertainty. “We do not allow offsetting based on conservation promises; we allow climate action projects to offset tons that have been duly performed.”

2.2.2. Land Tenure Blindness of Global Standards

Global standards focus intensely on carbon and, sometimes, superficially on land tenure, accepting declarations that may not withstand a deep notary analysis in Brazil.

•National Approach: Methodologies focused on Brazil (such as GL-M-001) have mandatory Legal and Land Compliance modules (GL-MS-007).⁴ This requires a chain of title analysis that foreign certifiers often lack the expertise to perform, mitigating the risk of overlapping areas (overlap) and land conflicts.

3. The B4 Methodology: Pillars of Construction of the Accreditation and Climate Integrity Standard

B4, the First Climate Action Exchange, does not position itself basically as a business counter, but as a technology and governance infrastructure (ReFi – Regenerative Finance). For B4, carbon credit is the tip of the iceberg of a complex evaluation and traceability system. A project’s “score” is not a static number, but the result of a multifactorial analysis based on pillars of constancy, permanence, and PROJECT quality.

Below, we detail some of the pillars that make up the integrity assessment of projects applying for listing on B4.

3.1. Impact Social Projects and Co-benefits are a Priority

In B4’s philosophy, carbon dissociated from social impact is a low or lower quality asset.

•Requirement: It is not enough to sequester CO2; the project must generate positive externalities for the local community.

•Evaluation: B4 requires the project to be linked to the UN SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals).⁵

3.2. Originator Engagement

The “Originator” is the central figure. B4 evaluates not only the project but who is behind it.

•Engagement Metric: The originator must demonstrate proactivity in managing the sustainable asset. “Orphan” projects or those managed at a distance by financial intermediaries have a lower score and tend to run the risk of delisting. Physical presence, knowledge of the area, and direct interaction with stakeholders are evaluated weekly.

•Responsibility: The originator assumes a public commitment to use resources according to the development plan. B4 monitors whether the originator is actively participating in the project’s governance or is just a passive owner.⁷

3.3. Corporate Governance

The institutional maturity of the proponent is crucial to mitigate the risk of project discontinuity.

•Budgetary Transparency: B4 imposes a “mandatory budget dedicated to transparency.”⁷ The project must have funds earmarked for audits and communication.

•Signatories: Adherence to global pacts, such as the UN Global Compact, is a corporate governance validation criterion listed in the application form.⁵ Companies with structured boards, compliance policies, and whistleblowing channels score higher.

3.4. Additionality

This is the sine qua non technical criterion.

•Definition: Proof that the emission reduction would not occur in a “business as usual” scenario.

•B4 Rigor: B4 uses methodologies that require robust counterfactual scenarios. Conservation projects in areas without deforestation pressure (where the forest is not at risk) would have low additionality and, therefore, would be rejected or have a low score throughout their useful life. Methodologies like GL-MS-002 focus specifically on this calculation.⁴

3.5. Documentation and Certifications

The bureaucratic basis of integrity.

•Mandatory Registration: The listing process requires delivery of Inventories, Technical Reports, Negative Certificates, and Proof of Ownership today and during the project’s useful life.⁵

•Cross-Validation: B4 does not accept documents just “pro forma.” Documentary integrity is verified (Due Diligence) to ensure that the certifications presented (whether from its own or third-party methodology) are current and were issued by accredited auditors.

3.6. Audits (The 3-Party Model)

B4 has institutionalized a three-party audit model to eliminate conflicts of interest:

1.First-Party Audit: The technical team that designs the carbon footprint and origination inventory.

2.Second-Party Audit: An independent second party that validates the methodology and certifications.

3.Third-Party Audit: Finally, a third team checks the entire project development.

3.7. Traceability and Blockchain

Technology is the guarantor of trust (“Trustless Trust”).

•Decentralized Networks: B4 uses various blockchain networks like Polygon to register each stage of the credit’s life cycle.

•Web 3.0 Traceability Document: Each project generates an immutable public record. Any buyer can trace the credit’s origin to the exact GPS coordinate and moment of issuance. This prevents “double counting” and “double spending” (selling the same credit to two buyers), chronic problems of the analog market.⁶

•Carbon Credit and Climate Action Certificates: They are immutable assets like NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens), ensuring uniqueness, transparency, and traceability.

3.8. Transparency (The Money Trail)

Transparency at B4 goes beyond showing where the tree is; it shows where the money is.

•Financial Tracking: The system monitors whether the resource paid by the final buyer is reaching the originator and being invested in conservation. The transparency score is constantly updated.

3.9. Social Media and Press Relations

This innovative pillar recognizes that reputation is a security asset.

•Sentiment Monitoring: B4 evaluates the project’s digital presence. A project that is the target of complaints from local communities on social media or that suffers investigative criticism in the press represents a reputational risk for the credit buyer and updates its score.

•Active Communication: Projects that communicate their progress, educate the public, and maintain open channels with the press demonstrate a greater commitment to truth. Silence or communicative obscurity are seen as risk factors in the rating.⁷

3.10. Risk Rating

The synthesis of all previous factors results in a Risk Rating.

•Classification (AAA to C): Similar to the financial market, assets receive grades.

•Price Impact: Data indicates that high-quality credits (Rating BBB or higher) orient the investor about the security of future delivery and the past integrity of the asset.

3.11. Service Provision and Market Maturity

B4 evaluates the operational capacity of the project’s ecosystem.

•Supply Chain: Starting in April 2025, B4 will require its own service providers to present carbon inventories.⁹ This creates compliance pressure throughout the chain. A project whose developer or auditor does not have its own climate maturity will have its score affected.

•Professionalization: It is evaluated whether the project has a qualified technical team, legal and accounting consultancy, indicating maturity to operate in the long term.

4. Continuous Auditing: The “Now and Later” Paradigm

The sophisticated investor’s question is: “Is the project good today, but will it remain good tomorrow?”. The traditional audit model is static (a photo every 5 years). B4 proposes a dynamic model (“Now and Later”).

4.1. Audit in the “Now” (Pre-Listing)

Initially, the audit focuses on documentary compliance and the physical existence of the carbon stock. Blockchain technology ensures that, at the moment of the transaction (“Now”), the sustainable asset exists, is unique, and belongs to the seller. Smart Contracts allow traceability of each transaction and the issuance of the carbon credit certificate in NFT format.

4.2. Audit in the “Later” (Post-Listing and Perpetual Monitoring)

The great differentiator is continuity.

•Integrated Monitoring: Remote satellite monitoring tools feed data into the blockchain. If a preserved area suffers deforestation (fire or clear-cutting) months after the credit is issued, the system can detect the anomaly in real-time, allowing better predictability and project maintenance, reducing risks.

•Dynamic Responsibility: If the “Public Originator Plan” is not fulfilled (e.g., the school promised to the community was not built), this is recorded on the blockchain, monitored by audits, and the project management must respond immediately.

•Immutability of Failures: In the traditional model, an originator could try to hide a bad year. At B4, the failure is recorded forever in the project’s history.

•Consequences: Failure to meet goals in the “later” can lead to the automatic delisting of the project or an immediate downgrade of its Risk Rating, alerting the entire market in real-time. This forces the originator to maintain quality consistency over decades, not just at the time of sale.⁷

5. Technical Priority: Brazil vs. Generic Standards

B4 adopts a posture of “Tropical Climate Sovereignty.” Instead of just translating European standards, it recognizes methodologies that reflect the local bioeconomy with companies certified on the Climate Action Exchange focusing on scientific and technical methods.

5.1. Comparison of Approaches

Dimension	Generic European/Global Standard	B4 Accreditation Standard (Recognition of National Methodologies)
Scientific Basis	Focused on industrial models and statistical forest projections (Ex-ante).	Focused on tropical biomes and performed physical verification (100% Ex-post).⁴
Land Tenure Perspective	Often superficial regarding the chain of title in developing countries.	Mandatory module for Brazilian legal and land compliance (Law 6,015/73).⁴
Technology	Centralized registries (SQL database). Dependence on periodic and manual human audit.	Decentralized Blockchain registration (like the public Polygon network) and continuous audit and monitoring via Autonomous Smart Contracts under Starten Inc. methodology.⁸
Social Adaptation	Generic public consultation.	Co-benefits aligned with the reality of Brazilian traditional communities.

5.2. The Competitive Advantage of National Methodology

By prioritizing the look at Brazil, B4 mitigates the “Brazil Risk” (legal uncertainty) by transforming it into a technical control variable. A carbon credit generated under “Tupiniquim” (Brazilian) methodologies, validated by certified companies and tracked on B4, offers global buyers a guarantee of origin that no carbon credit from a traditional market standard generated, for example, in the Amazon, will possess the due local land tenure diligence, technical, and monitoring. B4 has the view that technical specificity generates value (premium) over generality.

6. Conclusion

The Brazilian carbon credit ecosystem, under the aegis of the new regulatory framework and driven by a Climate Action Exchange like B4, is redefining the concept of environmental integrity. Responsibility and legal certainty, previously diffuse, now have the backing of “civil fruit,” protecting owners and buyers with public faith.

B4, by operationalizing this new reality, establishes that certification is not a bureaucratic stamp, but a living process of reputation building. The “score” on the Climate Action Exchange is the vector sum of corporate governance, proven social impact, technical excellence (ex-post additionality), and radical transparency via blockchain.

For the market, the message is clear: the era of “shit carbon credits” based on future promises is being replaced by the era of verifiable sustainable assets, where auditing happens “in the now and in the later.”

Brazil, far from being just a passive supplier of environmental commodities, assumes technological and methodological leadership, exporting not only carbon but trust backed by science and immutable data on immutable and decentralized public networks.

Cited References

1.The Brazilian Carbon Market Bill – Lefosse, accessed February 12, 2026, https://lefosse.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Guia-Ambiental_PL-Carbono.pdf

2.Bill regulating the carbon market in Brazil is…, accessed February 12, 2026, https://www.mattosfilho.com.br/unico/senado-aprova-pl-carbono/

3.Verra and Gold Standard: Understanding the Main Carbon Standards – Diego D. Dias, accessed February 12, 2026, https://diego-dias.com/2025/09/01/verra-e-gold-standard-entendendo-os-principais-padroes-de-carbono/

4.Brazil gains its own methodology for carbon credits – Portal B4, accessed February 12, 2026, https://portalb4.capital/noticia/187/brasil-ganha-metodologia-propria-para-creditos-de-carbono/amp

5.Listings of Sustainable Assets at B4 – b4.capital, accessed February 12, 2026, https://b4.capital/pt/listagens-b4/

6.B4 lists first Biodiversity Credit: SOS Vida Silvestre, accessed February 12, 2026, https://b4.capital/pt/b4-lista-primeiro-credito-de-biodiversidade-sos-vida-silvestre/

7.B4: sustainable commitment goes beyond carbon – Portal B4, accessed February 12, 2026, https://portalb4.capital/noticia/241/b4-compromisso-sustentavel-vai-alem-do-carbono/amp

8.Carbon credits live a new era with focus on quality – Portal…, accessed February 12, 2026, https://portalb4.capital/noticia/324/creditos-de-carbono-vivem-nova-era-com-foco-na-qualidade

9.Official Announcement – b4.capital, accessed February 12, 2026, https://b4.capital/pt/comunicado-oficial/

Start your Climate Action Project at B4 today!

https://bolsa.b4.capital

About B4 — The First Climate Action Exchange

Official Website: https://b4.capital/

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/b4.capital/

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/empresa-b4-capital/

Email: contato@b4.capital

About Agente do Clima

Agente do Clima is B4’s artificial intelligence system that performs carbon footprint assessments based on the GHG Protocol, delivering results in less than 24 hours.

Access now: https://agentedoclima.com