evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Southern Cardamom REDD+ Project — Verified Forest-Carbon Payments and Contested Community Impacts (Cambodia)

Cambodia · Koh Kong · See the Cambodia profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 81% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Cambodia's largest REDD+ project has generated 27.6 million tonnes of Verra-verified avoided emissions across 465,000 ha of the Cardamom Mountains, but was suspended in 2023 after Human Rights Watch documented forced evictions of Indigenous Chong communities.

27.6 million tonnes CO2e
Verified avoided emissions (2015–present)
442,870 hectares
Forest protected inside national park (2015–present)
465,000 hectares
Project concession area (since 2015)
~14 months (June 2023–September 2024)
Verra credit-sales suspension (2023–2024)
Southern Cardamom REDD+ Project — Verified Forest-Carbon Payments and Contested Community Impacts (Cambodia)

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Wildlife Alliance / Cambodia Ministry of Environment
Period
2015–present (suspended June 2023–September 2024)
Keywords
forest carbon, REDD+, protected area management, indigenous rights

Context

The Southern Cardamom REDD+ project, jointly run since 2015 by the US-based NGO Wildlife Alliance and Cambodia's Ministry of Environment, covers a 465,000-hectare forest concession in the Cardamom Mountains of southwest Cambodia. Under the Verra VCS standard, the project sells carbon credits generated by avoided deforestation.

Results

The project reports 27.6 million tonnes of CO2e in verified avoided emissions to date and the protection of 442,870 hectares of forest inside a national park.

Conclusions

The project is also a documented cautionary case. In February 2024, Human Rights Watch published 'Carbon Offsetting's Casualties', an investigation finding that rangers and officials linked to the project had destroyed crops, dismantled homes and restricted land access for Indigenous Chong communities who have lived in the Cardamoms for generations. Verra suspended credit sales from the project on 19 June 2023 pending review, and reinstated it in September 2024 after a roughly 14-month suspension, but HRW's lead investigator publicly disputed the review's independence, stating Verra 'didn't interview a single victim of this project' and that its report 'simply restates the assertions of the Wildlife Alliance'. As of March 2025, Mongabay reported continuing tension between Indigenous residents and project management over unresolved land claims and restricted access. The case illustrates a recurring tension in forest-carbon PES: strong, third-party-verified emissions data can coexist with weak, contested safeguards for the communities whose land underpins the credits — a pattern this catalogue records honestly rather than omitting.

Implementation

Indicative cost
High (€500k–€5M)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Running since 2015, with an approximately 14-month credit-sales suspension from June 2023 to September 2024.
Staffing & skills
Wildlife Alliance (US-based NGO), Cambodia Ministry of Environment, Project rangers and officials

Conditions for success

  • Independent, third-party carbon verification (Verra VCS standard) providing market credibility
  • Joint NGO-government management structure

Common failure modes

  • Human Rights Watch (Feb 2024) documented rangers/officials destroying crops, dismantling homes and restricting land access for Indigenous Chong communities
  • Verra suspended credit sales for about 14 months (June 2023–September 2024) pending review
  • HRW disputed the independence of Verra's reinstatement review, and Mongabay reported continuing land-access tensions as of March 2025

Commonly funded by

LIFE Programme Own resources / municipal budget

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful