The Four Corners investigation examined how NIHT Inc, a company with roots in the timber industry, transitioned into selling carbon credits based on promises to halt destructive logging and protect forests in New Ireland Province. The project was presented as a nature-based climate solution that would both conserve rainforests and deliver financial benefits to customary landowners. Carbon credits generated under this scheme were sold to buyers in Australia, including institutions that believed they were supporting genuine emissions reductions and forest protection.

However, according to the Four Corners investigations, journalists visiting the project areas documented that commercial logging was still taking place inside the forests that were meant to be protected under the carbon credit scheme. In some cases, logging appeared to be occurring with official permits from Papua New Guinea authorities, directly contradicting the project’s claims that deforestation had been halted. This called into question the fundamental premise of the carbon credits being sold: that emissions were being avoided through forest conservation.

The investigation also revealed serious concerns about how landowners were engaged. Many local people had signed agreements related to the carbon project without access to independent legal advice or a full understanding of how carbon markets functioned. Community members interviewed by reporters described confusion about the contracts and dissatisfaction with the benefits received. Individuals reported payments of around 200 kina, equivalent to roughly AU $80, which they described as negligible compared to the value of the credits being sold internationally.

A lack of transparency was also highlighted in the investigation surrounding the financial flows associated with the project. NIHT declined to disclose how much revenue had been generated from carbon credit sales or how payments to landowners were calculated. This lack of disclosure made it difficult to assess whether benefits were being shared fairly or whether profits were concentrated among project developers.

Certification and oversight mechanisms also appeared strained. The international carbon standard Verra was alerted to the ongoing logging and temporarily suspended the project’s ability to trade credits. It is clear in this case that certification systems relied heavily on information provided by project developers and may have struggled to detect on-the-ground realities in remote forest areas without stronger independent verification.

In the absence of clear rules, strong oversight, and robust community protections, carbon markets can create incentives that risk undermining both environmental integrity and social justice.

The experience in Papua New Guinea demonstrates the need to integrate anti-corruption safeguards into carbon market governance, including stronger due diligence by buyers, independent verification of project claims, clear land tenure protections, and meaningful community consent processes.