**FAO’s [The State of the World’s Forests 2026](https://openknowledge.fao.org/items/3758005c-1267-40be-a267-75d442633f62) underscores the scale of the challenge: 460 million hectares of forests and other wooded land are degraded. Funding for restoration remains below a quarter of estimated annual needs. Increasing these financial flows is essential. Equally important is ensuring that they support the long-term recovery of ecological functions.**

![Info-FAO-2026-RA-EN.png](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Info_FAO_2026_RA_EN_55a4aff796.png)

The fundamental question is which functions need to be restored, and how to sustain them in a changing climate. Re-establishing vegetation cover alone does not demonstrate that an ecosystem has regained its ecological functions. Its capacity to regulate water, support biodiversity and regenerate over time must also be assessed. The number of hectares is a useful indicator of the scale of action; on its own, it tells us little about the quality of restoration.

At Reforest’Action, we believe this quality must be built into a project from the outset. It requires an understanding of the landscape’s ecological needs, land uses and local communities’ expectations. It also requires anticipating climate change: ecosystems restored today will need to function under different temperature and rainfall patterns.

This perspective has direct implications for project financing. Restoration requires upfront capital, alongside resources to maintain, monitor and adapt interventions over time. Its economic model must account for this time horizon and for the conditions that enable local stakeholders to sustain their involvement.

Carbon credits can help structure financing for projects whose climate benefits can be quantified and certified. Direct contributions to Nature-based Solutions can also support restoration needs, including those related to water and biodiversity, for which carbon certification may not provide a viable funding model. The suitability of financing should be assessed against its ability to meet the project’s needs and sustain its outcomes over time.

**The next phase of global restoration must bring together three requirements: more funding, locally grounded project design and evidence of outcomes. For Reforest’Action, resilience must become a core criterion in financing decisions, from project design through implementation.**


large_State-World-Forests.jpg

medium_State-World-Forests.jpg

small_State-World-Forests.jpg

thumbnail_State-World-Forests.jpg

State-World-Forests.jpg

Forest restoration: resilience must guide financing

**On 17 September 2026, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) published the fifth edition of its [State of Global Water Resources report](https://library.wmo.int/records/item/69923-state-of-global-water-resources-2025), assessing the state of global water resources in 2025. Based on fifteen hydrological variables – including river discharge, groundwater, soil moisture, lakes, snow, glaciers and terrestrial water storage – this latest edition also provides a retrospective analysis of the past five years. It highlights recurring hydrological anomalies across many regions of the world, simultaneously affecting water flows, available reserves and their distribution over time and space. For businesses, the challenge is therefore no longer simply to assess the current availability of water resources, but to understand to what extent economic activities can remain resilient when hydrological conditions repeatedly diverge from historical reference conditions.**

## Repeated departures from historical reference conditions

To assess the state of water resources, the WMO compares values observed in 2025 with historical reference periods. One of the report’s most significant findings concerns river discharge. In 2025, around 36% of the world’s watershed area experienced river discharge below the reference range, while 36% remained within it. Globally, 2025 therefore ranked among the driest years in terms of river discharge over the past 35 years.

Taken in isolation, such a result could simply reflect year-to-year variability. However, the WMO’s retrospective analysis reveals that these anomalies have been recurring: over the past seven years, the share of global watershed area with river discharge within the historical reference range has remained between 34% and 38%, compared with an average of 46% over the 1991–2020 period. Recurring deficits have notably been observed across North America, the Amazon and La Plata watersheds, Central and East Africa, Central Asia and the Middle East.

For businesses, repeated departures from historical reference conditions now make it essential to better integrate hydrological variability into investment, location, sourcing and risk management decisions.

## Water availability depends on more than precipitation

The amount of rainfall received by an area does not, in itself, determine the actual availability of water. This also depends on the capacity of water to be stored in soils, groundwater, lakes, snow and glaciers, and then released over time.

The report examines Terrestrial Water Storage (TWS), which encompasses these different reserves. Unlike river discharge, which responds relatively quickly to changes in precipitation and snowmelt, this indicator captures slower developments such as groundwater depletion, declining reserves and ice loss.

Since 2014–2016, the WMO has observed a persistent decline in terrestrial water storage, with a growing proportion of land areas recording levels below their historical reference conditions. Overall, the report finds that the world’s land areas are now holding less freshwater than they did previously.

Groundwater provides further evidence of these pressures. In 2025, among monitoring stations with usable data, 65% recorded average annual groundwater levels outside the reference range, while 34% reported below- or much-below-normal levels. Persistent deficits were observed in particular across Central and Eastern Europe, the United States, Mexico, Chile, Brazil, South Africa, India and Australia.

Changes in the cryosphere add another dimension. Between 2023 and 2025, glaciers worldwide lost around 1,400 billion tonnes of water. 2025 was the fourth consecutive year in which every major glaciated region recorded a net loss of mass. Some regions may even have already passed peak water – the point at which the contribution of glacier meltwater reaches its maximum before beginning to decline.

## From water stress to hydrological variability

The report also highlights a broader reality: water risk is not limited to water scarcity. The past five years have certainly been marked by major multi-year droughts in the Amazon and La Plata watersheds, the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. At the same time, severe flooding has repeatedly affected West and Central Africa as well as South-East Asia.

These contrasts were particularly evident in 2025. While Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East experienced severe drought, several regions of Africa and Asia faced extreme rainfall and major flooding.

Between 2021 and 2025, around 1,500 water-related extreme events were recorded in the EM-DAT database, causing at least 62,500 deaths. Asia and Africa alone accounted for almost half of all recorded events and more than 80% of associated deaths.

Water risk therefore also encompasses excess water, rainfall seasonality, variations in river flow, the state of water reserves and the alternation between dry and wet periods. For businesses, these different dimensions can affect operational continuity, the availability of certain raw materials, infrastructure performance and the resilience of the areas on which their value chains depend.

## The watershed: a key scale for understanding risk

Water is inherently local. An economic activity does not depend on water availability at a global or even national level, but on the functioning of a particular watershed: rainfall patterns, the condition of soils and groundwater, seasonal river flows, competing uses and the ability of the landscape to retain and release water. Two sites withdrawing similar volumes of water may therefore face very different levels of risk depending on their hydrological context.

This calls for an approach to water management that goes beyond volumes alone. Measuring withdrawals, reducing consumption and improving process efficiency remain essential, but are not sufficient to characterise the water vulnerability of an activity. Businesses also need to understand where water is withdrawn, when it is withdrawn, the condition of the area’s different water reserves and how the local hydrological cycle is evolving. The watershed therefore provides a particularly relevant scale for connecting economic dependencies with ecological realities.

## Strengthening territorial resilience in the face of increasing water variability

The WMO report is deliberately scientific and retrospective: its primary purpose is to provide a knowledge base that can inform strategies, public policy and investment decisions. Its findings nevertheless point to the need to rethink how water risk is understood.

When departures from historical reference conditions become recurrent, the challenge can no longer consist solely in securing a given volume of water at a particular point in time. It also becomes necessary to strengthen the capacity of territories to absorb both periods of deficit and excess, while preserving the functions that enable water to infiltrate, be stored and circulate over time.

From this perspective, Nature-based Solutions can complement water-efficiency measures and water-management infrastructure by supporting the ecological functioning of watersheds. Soil and ecosystem restoration, vegetation cover and agroforestry practices can therefore be designed not as generic responses, but according to the specific vulnerabilities of each area and the hydrological functions that need to be strengthened. This approach requires a shift from a model focused solely on the immediate availability of water resources towards one centred on territorial water resilience.

The WMO concludes its retrospective analysis with three questions: how are water resources changing globally? Do the observed changes reflect variability, emerging trends or more structural shifts? And do we have sufficient data to determine the answer? For businesses, a further question arises: are their strategies prepared for a context in which departures from historical hydrological reference conditions recur – sometimes in opposite forms – across the areas on which they depend?

large_Header-OMM.jpg

medium_Header-OMM.jpg

small_Header-OMM.jpg

thumbnail_Header-OMM.jpg

Header-OMM.jpg

Water cycle disruption: businesses facing water risk

**Published on 2 September 2026, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report [_Limiting Overshoot_ ](https://www.unep.org/resources/limiting-overshoot-navigating-exceedance) examines the consequences of the expected overshoot of 1.5°C and the conditions under which temperatures could eventually return below this threshold. It underscores the urgency of cutting emissions to net zero—an essential milestone before sustained net-negative emissions can enable temperatures to decline—while simultaneously strengthening adaptation. For companies and investors engaged in Nature-based Solutions, the report highlights ecosystem resilience as a prerequisite for their long-term contribution to climate action. Drawing on these findings, Reforest’Action more broadly advocates for Nature-based Solutions to be designed, assessed and financed with the long-term durability of their climate, ecological and social benefits firmly in mind.**

## 1.5°C: Limiting the Magnitude and Duration of Overshoot

UNEP finds that efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have not been sufficient to avoid global warming exceeding 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, with this overshoot now expected within the next few years. This is no longer simply a matter of individual years temporarily exceeding 1.5°C: long-term global warming, measured over multiple decades, is now expected to cross this threshold.

The objective of limiting global warming to 1.5°C nevertheless remains critical. Every fraction of a degree avoided and every year by which overshoot is shortened can reduce impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, infrastructure and human societies. Nor would a subsequent decline in global warming erase all the damage incurred: some biodiversity losses and ecosystem transformations would be irreversible, while sea-level rise would continue over the long term.

The report therefore proposes viewing the crossing of 1.5°C as a trajectory that could unfold over several decades: exceedance, peak warming, followed potentially by temperature decline and stabilization. The magnitude of the peak and the length of exposure to higher temperatures will determine the severity of the impacts. The prospect of returning below 1.5°C, meanwhile, remains deeply uncertain. The report estimates that around 220 GtCO₂ of cumulative net-negative emissions would be required to lower global temperatures by approximately 0.1°C. Even if net-negative emissions reached 10 GtCO₂ per year, cooling would amount to only around 0.05°C per decade. In other words, the warming accumulated over one decade at the current rate could take several decades to reverse, even under highly ambitious assumptions for carbon dioxide removal. UNEP therefore reiterates that carbon dioxide removal must complement deep emissions reductions, not substitute for them.

In this context, mitigation and adaptation must advance together. Limiting warming reduces future risks but does not eliminate the need for adaptation; strengthening resilience, in turn, helps preserve the conditions required to sustain climate action.

This interdependence should also inform the companies financing Nature-based Solutions. Whether they contribute directly to ecosystem restoration or support certified carbon projects, the same question arises: how should these projects be designed, financed and supported so that the intended benefits can materialize and endure in a changing climate?

## Safeguarding the Contribution of Ecosystems in a Changing Climate

UNEP notes that the most ambitious scenarios envisage substantial volumes of net-negative emissions in the second half of the century, even as global warming may weaken natural carbon sinks. The ecosystems relied upon to mitigate climate change and support territorial adaptation are themselves vulnerable to its impacts: drought, heat stress, wildfires and pests can reduce their capacity to absorb carbon and trigger the release of previously stored carbon.

The issue extends beyond carbon. The report also highlights that some ecosystem-based adaptation measures could reach their limits beyond 1.5°C. Shifting climatic conditions suitable for individual species may drive their redistribution and reshape ecological communities, requiring existing protection frameworks to be reconsidered and ecological connectivity across landscapes to be strengthened. The ability of Nature-based Solutions to deliver durable outcomes therefore depends on the resilience of the ecosystems on which they rely.

## Project Robustness Starts with Ecological Relevance

A sequestration potential, a habitat restoration objective or an ambition to protect water resources must be assessed in light of the territory in which the project is embedded, the risks that could compromise delivery, and the measures in place to address them. For a project developer, this means identifying which ecosystems should be protected or restored, anticipating climatic and hydrological constraints, and accounting for local land uses. The project response should emerge from this diagnosis rather than from an acreage or sequestration target defined independently of the territory.

From this perspective, biodiversity and water-resource conservation, as well as socioeconomic impacts for communities, should not be viewed solely as co-benefits associated with a carbon sequestration project. These different dimensions can constitute the primary purpose of a contribution and be recognized and valued in their own right.

The same attention to project context must extend to governance. UNEP emphasizes that equity is integral to the feasibility and legitimacy of climate pathways. At project level, participation in decision-making, the protection of rights and benefit-sharing should therefore be embedded from the outset.

Project design consequently requires clarity on the impacts being pursued, an understanding of how they interact, and safeguards to ensure that pursuing one objective does not undermine other ecosystem functions.

## Taking a Long-Term View of Financing

Time is a critical dimension of ecosystem-based adaptation. Many measures require long lead times to reach maturity, even as exposure to climate hazards increases. Delaying their implementation reduces both their effectiveness and their feasibility. Financing decisions must therefore enable sufficiently early action while reflecting the specific time horizon of each project.

For companies financing these projects, this means looking beyond the initial intervention. Maintenance, management, results monitoring and any necessary adjustments must be anticipated from the design stage, together with the resources and responsibilities associated with them. They are part of the conditions required both to deliver the intended benefits and to sustain them over time.

This long-term perspective must also be accompanied by rigorous impact measurement. Each project should be monitored against its own objectives, distinguishing activities undertaken from effects actually observed. For carbon, this means, in particular, differentiating projected removals from those actually achieved and verified. For ecological restoration, monitoring may focus on changes in habitats, ecological functions or ecosystem services, using appropriate indicators. Different project purposes therefore call for tailored monitoring approaches, underpinned by the same requirement for transparency.

Finally, a long-term perspective requires projects to be designed with the capacity to adjust. Who monitors evolving risks? Who can decide that practices need to change? What resources can be mobilized if conditions diverge from initial assumptions? In this respect, UNEP stresses the need to connect observation, learning and the revision of decisions so that action can evolve alongside changing knowledge and conditions. The objective is not to demand risk-free projects, but projects in which risks are made explicit and actively managed.


**UNEP’s report highlights both the lasting consequences of overshooting 1.5°C and the profound uncertainty surrounding any eventual return below this threshold. Yet the decisions taken today remain decisive in limiting the magnitude and duration of overshoot and reducing the resulting damage. Rapid emissions reductions, the protection of natural carbon stocks, the responsible development of carbon dioxide removal capacity and stronger adaptation remain complementary levers. For actors involved in Nature-based Solutions, the challenge is to fully embed ecosystem resilience into project design, financing and monitoring. Accounting for the risks to which ecosystems are themselves exposed is essential to preserving their capacity to make a lasting contribution to both mitigation and adaptation.**



large_iStock-2168932729.jpg

medium_iStock-2168932729.jpg

small_iStock-2168932729.jpg

thumbnail_iStock-2168932729.jpg

iStock-2168932729.jpg

Overshooting 1.5°C: How Can We Safeguard Ecosystem Resilience?

**In the Brazilian state of Acre, deep within the Amazon rainforest, forests have come under increasing pressure in recent years as powerful economic forces continue to drive rapid land-use change. Against this backdrop, French footwear company VEJA, founded in 2004, has spent nearly two decades building a native rubber supply chain that helps keep the forest standing while supporting local livelihoods. To expand the impact of this long-standing commitment, VEJA has partnered with Reforest'Action,the Brazilian NGO SOS Amazônia and the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ) to launch HABITAR, a pilot restoration initiative that is restoring 115 hectares of degraded land through Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR).**

![Habitar1.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Habitar1_23f3dcd072.jpg)

## Preserving Forests While Securing Livelihoods

### Deforestation continues to accelerate across the Amazon

Over the past five years, deforestation in the Brazilian state of Acre has become an increasingly pressing environmental challenge, reflecting broader trends across the Brazilian Amazon. Forest loss intensified dramatically, reaching record levels: in 2021 alone, approximately 1.3 million hectares of tropical rainforest were cleared across the Brazilian Amazon – the highest level recorded since 2006.

According to Brazil's PRODES monitoring programme (INPE), approximately 153,865 hectares of forest were lost in Acre between 2019 and 2023, including nearly 20,700 hectares in 2023 alone.

Behind these figures lie powerful economic drivers. Growing demand for agricultural land and timber continues to reshape landscapes throughout the region, making forest conversion an enduring structural challenge.

### The economic forces behind deforestation: cattle ranching and agricultural expansion

Cattle ranching remains one of the primary drivers of deforestation in Acre. As throughout much of the Amazon Basin, vast areas of native forest have been converted into pasture in response to sustained domestic and international demand for beef. Soy cultivation is also expanding rapidly across the state. Driven by growing global demand, particularly for animal feed in China and Europe, soy production continues to push agricultural frontiers into previously forested landscapes.

### A cycle of land degradation that becomes increasingly difficult to reverse

At the local level, these economic dynamics are compounded by land management practices that progressively degrade soil health, including repeated slash-and-burn agriculture and short-cycle shifting cultivation (capoeira).

Over time, this system exhausts soil fertility, creating a low-productivity agricultural model in which secondary forest is periodically burned to temporarily restore nutrient availability.
The long-term consequences are severe. Once forest cover disappears, ecosystems deteriorate rapidly. Rather than creating productive agricultural land, deforestation exposes nutrient-poor, silica-rich parent material that is highly vulnerable to erosion and surface runoff.

These degradation processes are already visible across the landscape, with expanding areas dominated by erosion-indicator species, increasingly sediment-laden waterways and accelerating ecosystem decline.

### Making forests a long-term economic asset

Against this backdrop, protecting primary forests is not only an environmental imperative – it is also an economic one. Old-growth forests constitute irreplaceable living infrastructure, delivering a wide range of ecosystem services, including soil stabilisation, water regulation, carbon storage and biodiversity conservation.

Ensuring that these forests remain standing also requires strengthening economic value chains that depend directly on healthy forest ecosystems. Native rubber is a compelling example. When sustainably harvested and fairly valued, it creates a direct economic incentive to conserve forests while providing resilient livelihoods for local communities.
The quality of latex produced by the rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis) is itself closely linked to the unique characteristics of intact Amazonian forest soils, which are naturally acidic, biologically distinct and rich in partially decomposed organic matter.

Within these demanding ecological conditions, rubber trees produce latex with enhanced protective properties as a defence against pathogens. The more complex and challenging the surrounding ecosystem, the more sophisticated this biological response becomes – and the richer and more resilient the latex tends to be. In other words, the quality of native rubber is intrinsically tied to the health of the forest that sustains it.

![Habitar2.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Habitar2_0936c66087.jpg)

## A Nature-Based Response: The HABITAR Project

### A long-standing supply chain serving forest conservation

In contrast to extractive production models, VEJA has built a distinctive relationship with the Amazon since its inception through its native rubber supply chain.

Although Hevea brasiliensis is now cultivated across many tropical regions, it is in its original Amazonian habitat that the species reaches its full biological potential, producing latex renowned for its exceptional quality.

Today, VEJA sources its rubber directly from seringueiros – traditional rubber tappers – who harvest latex using techniques that preserve both the trees and the surrounding forest. The company pays above-market prices, complemented by an additional premium, creating stronger economic incentives for sustainable harvesting.

This model helps secure local livelihoods while reinforcing the economic value of standing forests. It also relies on partnerships with local cooperatives such as COOPERACRE, which play a central role in ensuring that value is distributed more equitably across participating communities.

## HABITAR: restoring 115 hectares while strengthening community resilience

Building on this long-term commitment, VEJA now seeks to go one step further by helping reverse local deforestation trends. The HABITAR project aims to restore 115 hectares of degraded land through Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR) while creating new long-term economic opportunities for participating families.

The initiative reflects a broader ambition to develop robust, scalable Nature-based Solutions (NbS), supported by Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) mechanisms.

## Accelerating nature's own capacity to regenerate forests

Assisted Natural Regeneration is founded on a straightforward principle: enabling forests to recover by harnessing their own natural regenerative capacity while removing the barriers that prevent this process from occurring. These barriers include livestock grazing, recurrent fires and competition from invasive vegetation.

The approach combines three complementary interventions:
- protecting regeneration areas from fire and grazing; 
- carrying out regular maintenance, including selective weeding and site management; 
- introducing enrichment planting where natural regeneration alone is insufficient. 

Rather than recreating forests through systematic planting, ANR seeks to restore ecosystems that closely resemble their natural state, promoting higher levels of biodiversity while requiring significantly lower implementation costs.

Research conducted by WRI Brasil highlights ANR as one of the most promising and scalable restoration approaches for the Amazon, provided that appropriate implementation and monitoring frameworks are in place.

Equally important, the model is deeply rooted in community participation. Local families are directly involved in seed collection, planting and the ongoing maintenance of restored areas.

The philosophy deliberately remains low-tech and locally driven. Instead of relying on industrial-scale nurseries, restoration is designed around locally available resources, practical field knowledge and community-led stewardship.

![Habitar4.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Habitar4_a5d938dff2.jpg)

## From Concept to Proof of Impact: Deploying a Pilot Project

Before scaling up, HABITAR is being implemented as a pilot initiative designed to validate both the methodology and the operational conditions required for long-term success. Working within carefully selected territories and in close partnership with seringueiro families, this initial phase will refine implementation protocols, adapt restoration practices to local realities and establish a robust monitoring framework. The lessons generated by the pilot will directly inform future deployment and the project's long-term scaling strategy.

### Implementation across three priority landscapes

The project is being implemented in the Brazilian state of Acre across three priority areas:
- the Chico Mendes Extractive Reserve; 
- the Cazumbá-Iracema Extractive Reserve; 
- and the Campo Alegre Settlement Project (Projeto de Assentamento Campo Alegre). 

These territories were selected for their environmental and socio-cultural significance, accessibility, restoration potential and exposure to ongoing deforestation pressures.

### Local communities at the heart of the project

The pilot programme is supporting 64 rubber-tappers families, selected through partner cooperatives and committed to restoring degraded forest areas. Their participation is fundamental to the project's success.

Families are responsible for removing invasive vegetation, protecting restoration sites from grazing, collecting seeds, planting enrichment species, preventing wildfires, maintaining restored plots and, where necessary, providing supplementary irrigation.
Dedicated technical support accompanies each participating family throughout the process, helping ensure successful implementation while reducing the risk of project abandonment.

### Restoring degraded landscapes through economically valuable species

The pilot focuses on restoring capoeira plots – secondary forest areas left fallow after short agricultural cycles. Each participating family contributes a plot of approximately two hectares, representing a total restoration area of around 115 hectares. The project targets an indicative planting density of 350 seedlings per hectare, amounting to approximately 35,000 seedlings across the pilot. Restoration activities are being carried out in two implementation phases between December 2024 and March 2026.

### Enhancing Assisted Natural Regeneration with economically valuable native species

To complement natural regeneration, the project introduces a carefully selected mix of tree species with long-term economic potential–including non-timber forest products, valuable timber species and perennial crops. This enrichment strategy is designed to generate sustainable sources of income while strengthening local support for restoration among participating families and partner cooperatives.

The selected species combine key structural components of Amazonian forests with species offering recognised commercial or subsistence value. They include rubber (Hevea brasiliensis), Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa), jatobá (Hymenaea courbaril), cumaru (Dipteryx odorata), ipê (Handroanthus albus), copaíba (Copaifera langsdorffii), mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla), amarelão (Buchenavia tetraphylla), native cacao (Theobroma cacao), native açaí (Euterpe precatoria) and Spanish cedar (Cedrela odorata).

### Payments for Ecosystem Services: creating long-term incentives for restoration

Restoring degraded land requires significant investments of both time and labour while limiting alternative land-use opportunities. To address these constraints, HABITAR incorporates a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) mechanism – implemented here as a Payment for Restoration Services (PRS) – to compensate participating families for both:
- restoration costs, including labour, fencing and site maintenance; 
- opportunity costs associated with foregoing alternative land uses. 

Payments begin during the first year of implementation and are designed to provide long-term financial support until economically valuable species begin generating income – typically after four years.

By reducing the economic risks associated with restoration, the mechanism helps align conservation objectives with the financial realities faced by rural households.

### Monitoring and evaluation: measuring outcomes, generating knowledge and improving practice

The monitoring framework is designed to assess both implementation performance and long-term project impacts. On the one hand, it evaluates whether restoration commitments have been fulfilled and planned activities effectively implemented. On the other, it measures the broader environmental and socio-economic outcomes generated by the project, including biodiversity recovery, carbon sequestration, soil health and community resilience.

To achieve this, the programme combines field-based monitoring with satellite remote sensing, establishing a robust baseline against which changes can be measured over time while generating the evidence required to continuously refine restoration practices.

![Habitar3.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Habitar3_e343db36da.jpg)

## Reforest'Action's Contribution: Measuring Impact and Enabling Scale

Reforest'Action supports the HABITAR project as a strategic partner across two complementary dimensions.

### Building a robust, scalable and replicable monitoring framework

One of the project's key ambitions is to develop field-based monitoring methodologies for environmental and socio-economic indicators–including biomass, biodiversity and soil health–that are both scientifically robust and operationally scalable. These methodologies are intended to support future expansion from 64 participating families to several thousand, and from 115 hectares to landscape-scale restoration programmes.
Reforest'Action also contributes to identifying sufficiently robust correlations between field measurements and remote sensing indicators, enabling monitoring systems that remain scientifically credible while becoming increasingly cost-effective at scale.

### Supporting an economic model grounded in local realities

Beyond technical expertise, Reforest'Action contributes to strengthening the project's economic model. Its role includes supporting the design of performance indicators, contributing to project evaluation, providing independent technical review of restoration methodologies and implementation strategies, and preparing the conditions required for future scaling with partners pursuing comparable landscape restoration ambitions.


**Through the HABITAR project, which Reforest'Action is supporting alongside VEJA and SOS Amazonia in Brazil, the ambition is twofold. From an environmental perspective, the project seeks to restore degraded land, enhance biodiversity, contribute to carbon sequestration and reduce pressure on primary forests by helping rebuild functional landscapes. From a socio-economic perspective, it aims to strengthen the livelihoods of participating families, promote forest-compatible economic activities and reinforce a value chain that delivers fairer remuneration for seringueiros. As such, the pilot is intended to demonstrate that nature-based restoration can become a powerful driver of long-term territorial resilience by reconciling conservation with sustainable development.**

**More broadly, HABITAR contributes to a wider reflection on a fundamental question: how can restoration be implemented in ways that are both effective, measurable and socially equitable, while strengthening the economic value chains that make standing forests economically viable?**

**By combining a low-intervention restoration model based on Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR), a long-term incentive mechanism through Payments for Restoration Services (PRS), and a rigorous monitoring framework integrating both field observations and satellite remote sensing, HABITAR offers a practical pathway towards reconciling ecosystem conservation with community resilience.**

**Over time, the lessons generated by the pilot may help inform larger-scale restoration initiatives across the Brazilian Amazon, supporting more resilient landscapes and the communities that depend on them.**


large_Header.jpg

medium_Header.jpg

small_Header.jpg

thumbnail_Header.jpg

Header.jpg

How Native Rubber Helps Keep the Amazon Standing: A Regenerative Landscape Model in the Brazilian Amazon

**In July 2026, the wildfires that swept through Die and the Fontainebleau Forest revealed a new dimension of wildfire risk in France. After a record-breaking spring and three episodes of extreme heat since May, the question is no longer simply how to restore burned areas. It is also how to adapt landscapes, forests and the places that depend on them to a future shaped by more frequent climate extremes and natural hazards. This is not solely a challenge for public authorities or forest managers. It is increasingly becoming a strategic issue for businesses.**

## 2026 Changes the Way We Understand Wildfire Risk

The spring of 2026 was the warmest ever recorded in France, with temperatures averaging 1.7°C above the seasonal norm and rainfall 30% below average. Three episodes of extreme heat followed in less than two months. In June alone, temperatures were 3.8°C above normal, while rainfall remained almost 50% below seasonal averages. By early July, severe soil moisture deficits affected virtually the whole of mainland France and Corsica. 

Yet it is important to distinguish what ignites a wildfire from what allows it to escalate. In France, around 90% of wildfires are caused by human activity, whether accidental or deliberate. Preventing risky behaviour therefore remains essential. But high temperatures, prolonged drought, low atmospheric humidity, strong winds and increasingly dry vegetation largely determine how fast and how intensely a fire spreads.

Climate change does not ignite most wildfires. It does, however, multiply the conditions in which a single spark can escalate into a major crisis.
Nearly 4,400 hectares burned in the Diois region. Almost 2,000 hectares were affected in the Fontainebleau Forest—around 10% of this emblematic forest massif. At the peak of the emergency, close to 1,000 firefighters, supported by four Dash aircraft and two Canadair water bombers, were deployed in what became the largest aerial firefighting operation ever conducted in the Paris region.

The geography of these two fires is almost as significant as their scale. One developed in the mountains of the Drôme, an area already experiencing increasingly Mediterranean climate conditions. The other struck one of France's most iconic forests, on the doorstep of Paris. Between these two events, dozens of fires affecting forests, heathlands, scrubland and agricultural land mobilised emergency services across much of the country.

## Wildfire Risk Is No Longer Confined to the Mediterranean, the Summer Season or Isolated Events

The Fontainebleau wildfire should be seen as a watershed moment. Météo-France projections show that, in a +4°C France, high meteorological wildfire risk could extend across the entire country. Regions stretching from the Loire Valley to the Paris Basin could experience frequencies of high wildfire danger comparable to those currently observed in the Mediterranean hinterland.
The challenge is not only that wildfire risk is expanding geographically. It is also becoming increasingly simultaneous.

When several large wildfires break out at the same time, firefighting aircraft, helicopters, specialised units and mutual aid resources must be deployed across multiple fronts. National response capacity remains indispensable. But it cannot replace local preparedness.
That preparedness includes wildfire prevention infrastructure such as forest access tracks, water supply points, fuel breaks, the management of the wildland–urban interface, surveillance systems, evacuation planning and business continuity arrangements.

Because the impacts of a wildfire rarely stop at the forest edge.
Smoke degrades air quality. Burned soils become more vulnerable to erosion and runoff. Roads, railways, utilities, tourism and access to natural resources can all be disrupted. The consequences are ecological, but equally economic, social and public-health related.
Wildfire risk has therefore become a systemic territorial risk.

## From Plot-Scale Management to Landscape-Scale Resilience

Eliminating fire entirely is neither realistic nor desirable when extreme drought, high temperatures and strong winds converge. The objective is instead to reduce the likelihood of high-severity, recurrent or uncontrollable wildfires capable of overwhelming both ecosystem recovery and emergency response capacity.

Fire severity and the interval between successive fires are among the most important determinants of forest regeneration. When wildfires recur before young trees have reached reproductive maturity, natural recovery can be permanently compromised.
This means that the relevant scale for action is no longer the individual forest plot. It is the forest landscape, and more broadly the wider landscape in which it is embedded.

At that scale, resilience depends on combining multiple management approaches: reducing fuel continuity, maintaining open areas or agricultural land where appropriate, improving emergency access, managing forest edges, supporting silvopastoral practices, implementing targeted thinning, managing understory vegetation and, where carefully planned and appropriately governed, using prescribed burning.
None of these measures replaces fire prevention or emergency response. Rather, they increase the time and operational space available for firefighters to contain a wildfire before it escalates.

Above all, they require collective governance, bringing together public and private forest owners, land managers, farmers, local authorities, fire services, scientists, civil society organisations and local communities.

## Every Forest Requires Its Own Adaptation Strategy

There is no universal blueprint for wildfire resilience. Adapting a forest begins with understanding its history, species composition, ecological functioning and the specific vulnerabilities of the landscape in which it is rooted.

Increasing diversity—in species, age classes and forest structure—is an important lever for strengthening resilience to drought, storms, pests and disease. It also enhances the ecological functions on which healthy forests depend. But diversity should never become a principle applied indiscriminately.

A 2024 study published in Scientific Reports, based on nearly 2,800 burned forest stands across Spain, found that while some species mixtures improved resistance to wildfire, others had the opposite effect. Species identity, relative abundance, biological traits and local environmental conditions all proved to be decisive.

The same principle applies to forest structure. Multi-layered forests can provide important ecological benefits, retain more moisture and support greater biodiversity. Yet poorly managed vertical continuity can also allow flames to climb from the forest floor into the canopy.

The objective, therefore, is not to maximise structural complexity for its own sake. It is to design forest mosaics that interrupt both horizontal and vertical fuel continuity while preserving the ecosystem functions that underpin long-term resilience.

Every silvicultural strategy should therefore begin with a site-specific diagnosis, taking into account future climate conditions, soil characteristics, topography, stand history, water availability, land use and long-term management capacity.

The projects supported by Reforest'Action illustrate why context matters.

- In the Plaine des Maures (Var), the priority is to prevent the dense natural regeneration of maritime pine from recreating the same homogeneous, highly combustible forest that burned in 2021, while encouraging the return of cork oak. 
- In Punta di Basi (Corsica), a wildfire nearly forty years ago left behind an extremely dense maquis that is now difficult to access. Opening strategic access corridors, improving access for firefighters and supporting naturally regenerating cork oaks help fragment fuel continuity, facilitate emergency response and reinforce ecological recovery already underway. 
- On the Causse Méjean (Lozère), a 1,200-hectare forest dominated by Austrian black pine and affected by widespread decline is gradually being transformed into an uneven-aged, mixed continuous-cover forest. 

These examples illustrate a reality that is often overlooked: restoring a forest does not always mean planting trees. Depending on local conditions, it may involve selective thinning, releasing naturally regenerating trees, opening access routes, protecting natural regeneration or gradually transforming forest stands over several decades.

## After the Fire: Restoring Forests Without Recreating Vulnerability

Back in 2022, Reforest'Action argued that post-fire recovery should not automatically begin with immediate replanting. The priority is first to secure affected sites, protect soils and assess the forest's natural capacity to regenerate. That principle remains entirely valid. What recent experience has added, however, is another imperative: do not recreate the very conditions that allowed the wildfire to spread in the first place.
Post-fire decisions should be guided by the actual severity of the damage, the presence of surviving trees and seed sources, soil condition, erosion risk, natural regeneration dynamics and projected future climate conditions.

Where natural regeneration is sufficient, it can be protected and supported. Where it proves absent, excessively homogeneous or poorly suited to future conditions, targeted enrichment planting or carefully designed reforestation may be required.

France's Label Bas-Carbone already reflects this approach by allowing restoration projects to be financed between two and five years after a wildfire. This period makes it possible to observe natural regeneration before deciding whether to support it or intervene through planting where forest cover fails to recover spontaneously.

But the speed of restoration should never become the primary measure of success. A site may quickly recover tree cover while recreating a dense, homogeneous and highly combustible forest. Restoring a forest means restoring ecological functions: protecting soils, improving water infiltration, providing habitat for biodiversity, storing carbon, regulating water cycles, enabling natural regeneration and strengthening resilience to multiple disturbances over time.

Financing Resilience: Why Businesses Have a Role to Play

As wildfire risk evolves, so too must the way forests are financed.
Today, carbon finance remains one of the most powerful mechanisms for supporting forest restoration. But it is not designed to fund every measure needed to build wildfire resilience.

Many of the actions that strengthen landscapes before a fire occurs—fuel management, strategic thinning, the restoration of ecological mosaics, improvements to forest access, support for silvopastoral systems or the maintenance of firebreaks—often generate little or no measurable carbon benefit. As a result, they frequently fall outside the scope of carbon-crediting methodologies.

Building resilient landscapes therefore requires blended financing, combining carbon finance with public funding, biodiversity finance, water-related investment, philanthropic capital and private-sector contributions. For businesses, this shift is more than a question of corporate responsibility.

Forests underpin water security, agricultural production, supply chains, climate resilience and biodiversity. As climate risks intensify, investing in healthier and more resilient landscapes is increasingly becoming an investment in the long-term stability of the economic systems on which businesses themselves depend.

This is precisely where companies can play a transformative role.
Beyond financing carbon sequestration alone, they can help support integrated adaptation strategies that strengthen forest resilience, reduce future wildfire risk and deliver lasting benefits for ecosystems, local communities and the broader economy.


**The wildfires of 2026 are not an isolated event. They signal a structural shift in France's wildfire risk. As climate change reshapes the conditions under which fires ignite and spread, adaptation can no longer focus solely on restoring what has been lost. It must also reduce the vulnerability of the landscapes that remain. That means moving beyond short-term responses and embracing long-term resilience. It means recognising that planting trees is only one of many tools available—and not always the most appropriate one. It means designing forests that are better able to withstand future disturbances, while managing landscapes as interconnected socio-ecological systems rather than isolated parcels. Ultimately, adapting to wildfire is not simply about protecting forests. It is about safeguarding the ecological functions, economic activities and human communities that depend on them.**


large_Header-feux-forets.jpg

medium_Header-feux-forets.jpg

small_Header-feux-forets.jpg

thumbnail_Header-feux-forets.jpg

Header-feux-forets.jpg

Adapting Forests to a New Era of Wildfire Risk

**In Haute-Savoie, the mid-mountain forests and Alpine foothills face the combined impacts of climate change, storms and silvicultural legacies inherited from the past, much like forests elsewhere in France. In Fillière and La Roche-sur-Foron, Reforest'Action is supporting the Groupement Forestier du Chesnet in a long-term forest restoration journey, built around an approach that responds to the specific ecological dynamics of each forest stand. Since 2021, the projects developed through this partnership have embodied a demanding vision of forest restoration: preserving natural regeneration processes already at work, enhancing forest diversity, and planting only where the ecosystem genuinely requires it.**

## A partnership built for the long term

Since 2021, the collaboration between Reforest'Action and the Groupement Forestier du Chesnet has led to the implementation of twelve restoration projects across the municipalities of Fillière and La Roche-sur-Foron, covering 79 hectares and supporting the restoration or planting of more than 113,000 trees. Today, the maturity of this partnership is reflected in the gradual integration of projects certified under France's Label Bas-Carbone, demonstrating a shared commitment to embedding selected initiatives within a recognised methodological framework for quantifying and monitoring their climate benefits.

The continuity of this partnership is one of its greatest strengths. Rather than delivering isolated interventions, it makes it possible to build a genuine long-term restoration strategy across an entire privately owned forest estate. For companies seeking to support high-impact environmental projects, this long-term perspective is essential: it ensures that their contribution becomes part of a coherent territorial strategy, led by committed local forest managers and monitored over time.

The Groupement Forestier du Chesnet embodies this philosophy. Established as a family-led initiative, it does not view the forest as a simple financial asset, but as a living heritage to be protected, improved and passed on to future generations.

This vision is reflected in a constant presence on the ground. Monitoring stand dynamics, identifying future crop trees, assessing the outcomes of silvicultural interventions, or engaging neighbouring forest owners to encourage more coherent landscape-scale management are all integral parts of their daily work.

Here, forest restoration is not managed from behind a desk. It is shaped season after season, through continuous observation and close engagement with the forest itself. This hands-on approach is one of the key drivers of the partnership's success: restoring forests requires not only sound ecological knowledge, but also the ability to commit to long-term stewardship.

As the Groupement Forestier du Chesnet puts it:
"Our ambition is to pass on forests that are healthier than those we inherited. Sometimes that means planting; sometimes it means supporting natural regeneration. But it always means managing forests in a way that respects their natural functioning while preparing them for the challenges ahead."

![Haute-Savoie-RNA-3.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Haute_Savoie_RNA_3_5c5a4db439.jpg)

## Working with the forest's own dynamics

The projects carried out in Fillière and La Roche-sur-Foron extend far beyond individual forest plots. They form part of a broader effort to progressively restore a privately owned forest landscape. Year after year, the Groupement Forestier du Chesnet brings together neglected or under-managed parcels, gradually restoring management coherence while strengthening the resilience of the wider forest landscape.

Across both sites, mature Norway spruce and broadleaved trees dominate the canopy. Beneath it, however, a diverse new generation of trees has already established itself naturally. Their development is often constrained by limited light availability and competition from overstorey trees. The objective of silvicultural intervention is therefore not to replace this natural process, but to unlock its potential.

Every intervention begins with a detailed assessment of the existing stand. Rather than starting from scratch, the objective is to support naturally regenerated seedlings and saplings, enabling them to develop under more favourable conditions.

This is precisely the role of Assisted Natural Regeneration (ANR). Rather than introducing new trees systematically, ANR focuses on helping naturally established regeneration thrive. Forest managers create the conditions required for young trees to grow by improving access to light and space through carefully targeted silvicultural operations tailored to the characteristics of each stand.

One of the projects carried out in La Roche-sur-Foron illustrates this approach particularly well. More than 29,000 naturally regenerated trees are being supported, while 1,000 nursery-grown trees are being planted to complement the existing regeneration where they provide additional ecological value—whether by increasing species diversity, enriching specific areas or strengthening the long-term resilience of the stand.

Planting therefore remains an essential restoration tool. It is simply used where ecological assessments demonstrate that it will deliver the greatest benefit. This complementarity between Assisted Natural Regeneration and targeted enrichment planting reflects Reforest'Action's broader philosophy: adapting restoration methods to the actual needs of each forest, rather than applying a single solution to every situation.

![Before-After.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Before_After_6b9681165f.jpg)

## Ecological diversity as a foundation for resilience

In a context of climate change, increasingly frequent droughts, pest outbreaks and natural disturbances, forests composed of only a limited number of tree species are inherently more vulnerable. By contrast, diversity—in terms of species composition, stand structure and age classes—helps spread risk and enables forests to maintain their ecological functions over time.

Strengthening this diversity is therefore one of the core objectives of the projects carried out in Fillière and La Roche-sur-Foron. Forest management focuses on encouraging naturally underrepresented species to establish themselves within the stand, allowing a richer and more balanced forest ecosystem to develop.

Assisted Natural Regeneration plays a central role in this process by favouring species that are already well adapted to local environmental conditions. Naturally regenerated seedlings are themselves the result of successful establishment within the site. They have developed under the combined influence of local soils, exposure, moisture availability and competition from surrounding vegetation. Supporting their growth means recognising this adaptive potential and enabling it to flourish.

Beyond the individual trees themselves, Assisted Natural Regeneration also helps preserve a locally adapted genetic heritage. Originating from the existing forest stands, these young trees are the product of natural selection processes operating over successive generations. Preserving this local genetic diversity strengthens the forest's capacity to cope with climate change, emerging pests and diseases, and the many uncertainties that will shape tomorrow's forests.

Where natural regeneration proves insufficient, or where the stand would benefit from greater diversity, carefully targeted enrichment planting complements these natural processes. Trees are planted selectively within canopy gaps, either in small clusters or discrete planting groups depending on the characteristics and management objectives of each area.

Across Fillière and La Roche-sur-Foron, natural regeneration is primarily composed of silver fir, European beech, Norway spruce, oak and hornbeam. Enrichment planting introduces complementary species—including sweet chestnut, wild cherry, rowan, maple, lime, cedar, Douglas fir and larch—to broaden the ecological diversity of the forest.

The objective is not to set natural regeneration and planting against one another, but to use each where it delivers the greatest ecological value. Together, they contribute to diversifying species composition, strengthening stand structure and enhancing the forest's capacity to adapt to a changing climate.

Over time, this progressive diversification should also lead to the development of uneven-aged forest stands, making continuous-cover forestry possible without resorting to clear-cutting.

Ultimately, the ambition is not simply to increase the number of trees. It is to develop forest ecosystems that are more diverse, more stable and better equipped to sustain the wide range of ecosystem services on which society depends: carbon storage, biodiversity conservation, soil protection, water regulation, the sustainable production of timber, and the preservation of living forest landscapes.

![Haute-Savoie-1.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Haute_Savoie_1_3833964c25.jpg)
 
## A shared ambition for the future of forests

The strength of these projects also lies in the quality of the partnership between Reforest'Action and its local implementation partner. The Groupement Forestier du Chesnet brings deep knowledge of the land, long-term stewardship and the practical capacity to carry out restoration work on the ground. Reforest'Action contributes strategic support, funding, rigorous project oversight and the ability to mobilise companies around high-impact forest restoration initiatives.

This complementarity is essential. High-integrity forest restoration cannot be designed remotely. It depends on detailed field assessments, informed silvicultural decision-making, a thorough understanding of local ecological dynamics and continuous monitoring throughout implementation.

Conversely, forest managers' ambitions require financial resources, technical structuring and long-term visibility if they are to be implemented at the scale needed to maximise their ecological impact.

In the case of the Groupement Forestier du Chesnet, Reforest'Action's support enables the acceleration of initiatives that the owners had long intended to undertake: increasing species diversity, supporting natural regeneration, strengthening climate resilience and restoring degraded forest areas.

This capacity to accelerate action is fundamental. By providing committed forest managers with the resources to move faster and further, Reforest'Action helps deliver ecological, climatic and social benefits to local territories sooner than would otherwise be possible.

![Header-Haute-Savoie.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Header_Haute_Savoie_ce188a1aee.jpg)

## Engaging companies through tangible forest action

The projects carried out with the Groupement Forestier du Chesnet also play an important role in raising awareness. Several participatory field days have been organised with companies contributing to the projects, including Kiabi and Veolia. These events have enabled employees—and, in some cases, their children—to gain first-hand insight into forest ecosystems and actively participate in restoration activities.

These experiences provide a tangible understanding of the complexity of forest restoration. Participants discover how a forest stand is assessed, how naturally regenerated trees are identified and selected, how light, soil and vegetation interact, and why restoring a forest is not synonymous with planting trees.

For companies, this experience goes well beyond symbolic environmental engagement. It demonstrates that supporting a forest restoration project is not simply about financing a given number of trees. It is about contributing to a scientifically grounded ecological approach, implemented by experienced forest managers, rooted in a specific landscape and designed to generate lasting environmental benefits.

This perspective is particularly relevant for business leaders facing growing expectations regarding the credibility of their environmental commitments. Forest projects can no longer be viewed as standalone communication initiatives. They must form part of a coherent climate and biodiversity strategy, supported by robust, traceable projects that respond to the ecological realities of each territory.

![Haute-Savoie-RNA-4.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Haute_Savoie_RNA_4_39b965ceef.jpg)
 
## Embracing the complexity of forest restoration

The projects implemented in Fillière and La Roche-sur-Foron illustrate a fundamental principle: effective forest restoration is not about applying a single solution everywhere, but about selecting the right intervention for each ecological context.

Where natural regeneration already exists, it should be identified, protected and supported. Where it is insufficient, targeted planting can complement natural processes. Where forest diversity is lacking, interventions should encourage a broader range of species. And where forest stands have become degraded, they must be reintegrated into a coherent long-term management strategy.

Such an approach requires far greater precision than restoration based solely on tree planting. It demands continuous field presence, a deep ecological understanding of forest dynamics and strong relationships built on trust between all stakeholders.

This is precisely what the partnership between Reforest'Action and the Groupement Forestier du Chesnet makes possible: a shared vision of the forest as a living, multifunctional, productive, resilient and enduring ecosystem.
 
## Looking beyond individual projects

The projects carried out in Haute-Savoie demonstrate that high-integrity forest restoration is never about applying a single solution. It is a long-term endeavour, led by forest managers who know their stands intimately, observe their evolution over time and continuously adapt their management to the ecological realities of each site.

Through its partnership with the Groupement Forestier du Chesnet, Reforest'Action champions an approach to restoration built on scientific rigour, long-term commitment and deep local expertise. In this model, planting remains an essential tool—but only one among many. Assisted Natural Regeneration, targeted enrichment planting and continuous adaptive management each have a role to play, depending on the ecological needs of the forest.

**Ultimately, restoring forests is not about maximising the number of trees planted. It is about rebuilding resilient ecosystems capable of adapting, evolving and continuing to provide the ecological, climatic and social benefits on which our societies depend. It is this philosophy—grounded in long-term stewardship, trust and ecological understanding—that lies at the heart of the partnership between Reforest'Action and the Groupement Forestier du Chesnet, and of every forest they are helping to restore together.**


large_Header-Haute-Savoie.jpg

medium_Header-Haute-Savoie.jpg

small_Header-Haute-Savoie.jpg

thumbnail_Header-Haute-Savoie.jpg

Header-Haute-Savoie.jpg

Haute-Savoie: Tailoring Forest Restoration to Each Ecosystem

**With the release of Version 2.0 of its Corporate Net-Zero Standard on 11 June 2026, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has done more than update one of the most influential climate frameworks for businesses. It has also sought to answer a question that has gradually moved to the centre of corporate net-zero strategies: what responsibility does an organisation bear for the emissions it continues to generate during its transition? Even when companies follow pathways aligned with climate science, they continue to emit greenhouse gases for many years. Between the decarbonisation of their operations and the achievement of net zero lies a space that has long remained insufficiently defined: the question of ongoing emissions and the responsibility they entail.**

## Recognising Climate Responsibility During the Transition

The most significant innovation introduced by Version 2.0 is the concept of Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER).

The idea rests on a simple observation. Even when a company follows a reduction pathway consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, it continues to generate greenhouse gas emissions whose effects on the climate persist. The challenge, therefore, is no longer solely one of emissions reduction; it is also one of responsibility for those ongoing emissions.

The introduction of OER marks an important shift in the way corporate climate action is conceived. Until now, discussions have often been framed as a relatively binary choice: reduce emissions on the one hand, offset them on the other. The SBTi now proposes a more nuanced perspective. Between value-chain decarbonisation and the neutralisation of residual emissions lies a third area of action: climate contribution associated with emissions that remain during the transition. Such contribution can take different forms, ranging from financing carbon removal projects to supporting ecosystem protection and restoration initiatives beyond a company's value chains.

Importantly, this recognition does not alter the fundamental architecture of the standard. Carbon credits cannot be used to meet Scope 1, 2 or 3 emissions reduction targets. A tonne of CO₂ financed through an external project does not reduce a tonne accounted for in a company's greenhouse gas inventory. Emissions reductions therefore remain at the heart of any credible net-zero pathway and continue to serve as the primary measure of climate performance.

Precisely because this principle remains intact, the evolution introduced by Version 2.0 is so significant. The SBTi does not blur the distinction between reduction and contribution; rather, it makes it more explicit and more structured. Climate contribution mechanisms are no longer relegated to the margins of net-zero strategies. They now occupy a clearly defined place within the conceptual architecture of the standard, without being conflated with decarbonisation efforts.

## Reconciling Two Imperatives That Have Become Inseparable

This new version can be understood as an attempt to strike a balance between two imperatives that have sometimes appeared to be at odds in net-zero debates.

The first is the preservation of environmental integrity. Since its inception, the SBTi has maintained that companies must prioritise reducing emissions at source and transforming their business models. Any use of carbon credits that risks slowing those transformations is viewed as a threat to the credibility of corporate climate commitments.

The second imperative is more operational in nature. Achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement requires not only reducing global emissions, but also mobilising large-scale investment in solutions capable of storing or removing carbon from the atmosphere. Whether through ecosystem restoration, forestry projects, regenerative agricultural practices or engineered carbon removal technologies, these solutions require substantial investment, often years before their climate benefits can be fully realised.

Version 2.0 of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard does not choose between these two imperatives. Instead, it seeks to reconcile them. By maintaining a strict separation between emissions accounting and the financing of climate action, it preserves the primacy of reductions. By simultaneously recognising responsibility for ongoing emissions, it acknowledges that a company's climate responsibility extends beyond both its carbon inventory and its ultimate net-zero target.

This shift is far from insignificant. It reflects the growing maturity of the climate debate, which is no longer centred on whether carbon credits have a role to play in corporate climate strategies. The real question now concerns their purpose, their timing and how they should be articulated alongside decarbonisation efforts.

## 2035: When Recognition Becomes Obligation

While the introduction of Ongoing Emissions Responsibility is the most visible evolution in the standard, the most consequential change may well lie in the provisions scheduled to take effect from 2035 onwards.

From that date, large companies will be required to finance carbon removals equivalent to at least 1% of their annual carbon footprint. This requirement will increase progressively over time until it ultimately covers all residual emissions on the pathway to net zero.

For the first time, the SBTi is embedding an explicit obligation to support carbon removal solutions before net zero has been reached. This decision reflects a reality that is now widely acknowledged: residual emissions will continue to exist for decades and will ultimately need to be addressed through mechanisms capable of durably removing carbon from the atmosphere. In this respect, Version 2.0 recognises that carbon removals are no longer a marginal or speculative topic. They have become a structural component of long-term climate pathways.

## A Gradual Ramp-Up?

This evolution sends a strong signal about the destination. It remains more cautious, however, about the pace required to get there. Responsibility for ongoing emissions relies primarily on voluntary recognition mechanisms. Companies may choose to act today, but they are not required to do so.

This caution is understandable. Since its creation, the SBTi has been built around a core conviction: the credibility of net zero depends first and foremost on emissions reductions. The standard therefore seeks to avoid a situation in which premature obligations encourage organisations to prioritise the purchase of carbon credits over the transformations required within their own operations and value chains.

Yet this balance raises a fundamental question. If companies will require substantial volumes of carbon removals in the 2040s and 2050s, how can the economic conditions needed to develop those solutions at scale be created today?

This is where the central debate surrounding Version 2.0 emerges. For some, the explicit recognition of climate contribution and the gradual integration of removals into net-zero pathways already provide a meaningful signal for both companies and investors. For others, such institutional recognition will remain insufficient unless accompanied by stronger near-term financing requirements. Carbon sequestration and removal projects are built over decades. They require robust methodologies, long-term visibility and sufficiently clear demand signals to justify the investments involved.

In other words, Version 2.0 clarifies the destination, but leaves the question of timing largely unresolved. It acknowledges the role that removals will need to play in achieving net zero, while effectively betting that gradual recognition will be enough to mobilise the market before mandatory requirements come into force in 2035.

## What Version 2.0 Means for Businesses

For companies, Version 2.0 does not create an immediate financing obligation. What it does change is the strategic framework within which climate contribution initiatives are considered.

By explicitly recognising responsibility for ongoing emissions and the legitimacy of actions undertaken beyond corporate value chains, the standard gives greater legitimacy to approaches that have, until now, remained largely voluntary. The question is therefore no longer whether such mechanisms have a place within a corporate climate strategy, but when organisations choose to embrace them.

## A New Stage in the Maturity of Net-Zero Strategies

Beyond its technical provisions, the publication of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 reflects a deeper evolution in the way companies understand their role in the climate transition. Until recently, discussions focused primarily on emissions reductions and the credibility of climate targets. These issues remain essential. Yet a broader question is now emerging: how should companies assume responsibility for their climate impact during the years required to transform their business models?

The introduction of Ongoing Emissions Responsibility offers an initial answer. By recognising that ongoing emissions deserve consideration in their own right, the SBTi opens a new space within corporate climate strategies—one that sits between decarbonisation and the neutralisation of residual emissions.

Whether this recognition will be sufficient to mobilise the financing required for carbon sequestration and removal solutions over the coming decades remains to be seen. That may ultimately be the central lesson of Version 2.0: the debate is no longer about whether climate contribution mechanisms belong within net-zero pathways, but about whether companies, investors and project developers can bring forward, early enough, the solutions upon which future net-zero ambitions will depend.

large_Header-SBTi-2.0.jpg

medium_Header-SBTi-2.0.jpg

small_Header-SBTi-2.0.jpg

thumbnail_Header-SBTi-2.0.jpg

Header-SBTi-2.0.jpg

SBTi V2.0: A Cautious Bet on Climate Contribution

**Long regarded as little more than a medium for production, soils are now emerging as living ecosystems at the intersection of climate, water, agricultural and economic challenges. Their degradation weakens value chains, intensifies physical risks and places productive systems under growing strain. Conversely, their regeneration opens new pathways for resilience, performance and long-term value creation. As the third edition of the World Living Soils Forum approaches on June 2–3, Reforest’Action calls for soils to be recognized as a strategic lever upon which the long-term viability of economic models increasingly depends.**

![iStock-687716000.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/i_Stock_687716000_a856e8c881.jpg)

## Recognizing Soil as a High-Value Ecological System

For decades, soils were treated as scenery: the surface on which to produce, build, plant and cultivate. Their value was measured primarily through yield potential, load-bearing capacity or land availability. That perspective is now obsolete. Soils are neither inert substrates nor resources that can be renewed in the short term. They are complex ecosystems — slow to form, quick to degrade, and deeply interconnected with the fundamental balances that sustain life.

According to the FAO, it can take up to 1,000 years to generate just 2 to 3 centimeters of soil, while erosion and unsustainable practices can compromise fertility within a single generation. Economically, the stakes are immense: more than half of global GDP — approximately $44 trillion in economic value — depends moderately or highly on nature and its services, including living soils, water, pollination and climate regulation.

Against a backdrop of climate instability, increasing water scarcity, mounting pressure on agricultural resources and tightening regulatory requirements, soil health is becoming a governance issue in its own right. It directly affects supply continuity and water resilience, while also shaping climate trajectories, biodiversity outcomes and, more broadly, companies’ ability to secure their business models in a world increasingly exposed to ecological disruption.

## Soil: The Invisible Infrastructure of Life

A living soil is an organized system. It combines mineral matter derived from weathered rock, organic matter in transformation, water, air, roots, fungi, bacteria, microfauna and macrofauna. Its functioning is based on interactions: between organic matter and minerals, roots and microbiota, porosity and infiltration, vegetation cover and thermal regulation, underground biodiversity and aboveground productivity.

Soil biodiversity remains largely invisible, yet it is decisive. The FAO estimates that soils host more than 25% of the planet’s biodiversity, while over 40% of living organisms in terrestrial ecosystems are connected to soils during their life cycle. This underground biodiversity enables essential functions: nutrient cycling, soil structuring, water availability for plants, degradation of certain contaminants, pathogen resistance, fertility and agricultural productivity.

Soil health therefore cannot be reduced to a carbon content measurement or a one-off chemical analysis. It depends on a soil’s capacity to simultaneously maintain its physical, chemical and biological functions. The Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils defines soil health as the ability of soils to sustain the productivity, diversity and environmental services of terrestrial ecosystems.

This definition fundamentally changes the way restoration must be approached. Restoring soil does not simply mean enriching it. It means recreating the conditions that allow ecosystems to function: permanent soil cover, plant diversity, erosion control, organic matter inputs, reduced disturbance, improved porosity, restored ecological connectivity, the reintroduction of trees into agricultural landscapes and long-term stewardship.

![Sols-RA-1.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Sols_RA_1_e2d4f64365.jpg)

## Soils, Water and Climate: One Interconnected System

Soil health is inseparable from the water cycle. At the scale of an ecosystem, rainfall may infiltrate the ground, be temporarily stored in the soil’s available water reserve, be absorbed by plants, evapotranspired, recharge aquifers or run off across the surface. The balance between these flows depends on soil texture, structure, depth, vegetation cover, organic matter content, topography and rainfall intensity. Reforest’Action has already documented this interdependence between soils and water: healthy soils can promote infiltration, reduce runoff, support vegetation during periods of water stress and limit erosion risks.

This issue becomes increasingly critical in the context of climate change. More intense rainfall events falling on bare, compacted or degraded soils are more likely to result in runoff, mudslides, fine particle loss, nutrient leaching and declining water quality. Conversely, covered, structured and organic-rich soils are better able to absorb and retain water, slow its circulation and support vegetation during dry periods. Organic matter plays a central role in this process: it helps retain water and nutrients, improves water availability and reduces erosion and leaching.

Soils also lie at the heart of the carbon cycle. Soil organic carbon represents the largest terrestrial carbon reservoir; globally, the top 30 centimeters of soil contain more carbon than the atmosphere and vegetation combined. This makes soils both a major climate lever and a critical point of vigilance. A soil can store carbon when organic inputs exceed losses caused by decomposition, erosion or runoff — but it can also release carbon when degraded, drained, left bare or intensively tilled.

For companies, this reality requires moving beyond a siloed carbon approach. Soil carbon is a valuable indicator, but it cannot be separated from biodiversity, water, productivity, the permanence of practices, soil depth or pedoclimatic context. High-integrity projects must therefore seek multifunctional ecosystem improvement rather than the optimization of a single metric.

![Sols-RA-3.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Sols_RA_3_df9cb2d27b.jpg)

## A Vital Resource Under Severe Degradation

The soil crisis is global. The Global Land Outlook 2022, relayed by the FAO, indicates that up to 40% of the planet’s land is degraded, directly affecting half of humanity. The FAO also estimates that erosion removes between 25 and 40 billion tonnes of topsoil every year, reducing agricultural yields and undermining soils’ capacity to store and recycle carbon, water and nutrients.

In Europe as well, the issue is gaining scale. The European Commission estimates that 60% to 70% of soils in the European Union are in an unhealthy state, threatened by erosion, compaction, organic matter loss, contamination, salinization, artificialization and biodiversity decline. The entry into force of the first European Soil Monitoring and Resilience Law on December 16, 2025 marks a turning point: Member States will be required to establish monitoring and assessment systems for soil health within a framework aimed at achieving healthy soils across Europe by 2050.

This regulatory signal is significant. For decades, air, water and climate benefited from more structured governance frameworks than soils. Soils are now becoming an object of measurement, public policy, reporting, investment and governance. For companies exposed to agricultural, forestry, food, cosmetics, textile, energy or land-related value chains, this evolution turns soil health into a strategic issue.

![iStock-1324721430.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/i_Stock_1324721430_3520046779.jpg)

## Why Companies Must Address Soil Health

For businesses, the issue is no longer merely environmental. It is first and foremost operational, because soil degradation undermines the productivity of agricultural systems. Eroded, compacted, organic-poor or biologically depleted soils become more vulnerable to droughts, excess water, disease, fertility loss and yield volatility. In sectors already exposed to climate shocks, this vulnerability affects supply security, raw material quality and procurement costs.

It is also financial, as dependencies on nature — and the risks associated with their degradation — are becoming increasingly visible to investors, insurers and regulators. The TNFD encourages companies and financial institutions to assess, disclose and act upon their nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities. Within the European Union, biodiversity and ecosystem-related requirements are also embedded in the ESRS standards, particularly regarding the identification of material impacts and risks.

Finally, it is reputational. Corporate commitments related to climate, biodiversity, water and regenerative agriculture are subject to growing scrutiny. Companies must demonstrate that their actions are localized, additional, measurable, credible and adapted to territories. When it comes to soils, credibility lies less in commitments themselves than in the effective transformation of practices, restoration trajectories, the robustness of indicators and the ability to monitor impacts over time.

## From Compensation to Regeneration: A Paradigm Shift

Restoring soils requires transforming production systems in ways that strengthen their capacity to regenerate. This is the essence of regenerative agriculture: reorganizing agricultural systems around the functioning of living ecosystems by restoring the biological, vegetative and hydrological balances that underpin fertility.

The levers are well known, though their relevance depends on local contexts: permanent soil cover, diversified crop rotations, reduced mechanical tillage where possible, integration of legumes, organic amendments, agroforestry, hedgerows, grass strips, grazing management, wetland restoration, assisted natural regeneration, erosion control and watershed-scale hydrological management.

Agroforestry occupies a particularly important place in this transition. By reintroducing trees into agricultural systems, it simultaneously supports multiple functions: carbon storage in biomass and soils, microclimate regulation, protection against wind and erosion, support for functional biodiversity, water infiltration, economic diversification and farm resilience. Reforest’Action highlights that agroforestry and forestry projects can help reduce runoff, promote infiltration, limit pollutant transfers into river systems and improve both water quality and water availability at watershed scale.

This approach is all the more strategic because it reconnects climate, water, biodiversity and business objectives. Where environmental strategies have sometimes remained fragmented, soils force organizations to think systemically. A living soil does not serve a single indicator; it supports the stability of an entire productive landscape.

![Tanzanie_20_75.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Tanzanie_20_75_fd33e64bf4.jpg)

## Acting at the Right Scale: Plot, Value Chain and Watershed

Soil restoration often begins at the plot level, but its effects extend far beyond it. Better-covered and better-structured soils influence water infiltration, runoff, pollutant transfer into waterways, local temperatures, biodiversity, productivity and sometimes even the resilience of an entire watershed. This is why soil strategies must operate across three interconnected scales.

The first is the farm or forestry operation itself. This is where practices change concretely: cover crops, tillage practices, crop rotations, agroforestry, input management, hedgerows, organic matter management and erosion control.

The second is the value chain. At this level, companies can secure supply chains, support producers, structure economic incentives, finance the transition, absorb part of the risk and integrate results into their climate and nature strategies.

The third is the watershed. Water-related issues in particular cannot be addressed site by site. Reforest’Action therefore deploys a water resilience program designed for companies with significant water footprints or operating in watersheds exposed to scarcity, water stress, flooding or declining water quality. The approach consists of designing targeted forestry and agroforestry projects at watershed scale through diagnostics, identification of priority areas and hydrological impact projections.

This multi-scale intervention logic is decisive. It determines not only the effectiveness of the actions undertaken, but also their coherence over time and space. A soil never regenerates in isolation: it belongs to a broader system of flows — water, carbon and biodiversity — that extends far beyond the boundaries of a single plot or operation. This raises a fundamental question: how can such complex, distributed and evolving systems be managed, and how can organizations ensure that the actions undertaken generate real and lasting impacts?

![iStock-2213951731.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/i_Stock_2213951731_233eb5d5d3.jpg)

## Measuring to Manage: The Credibility Challenge

Soil restoration raises a decisive question: how can its effects be measured over time? Soil is a slow, heterogeneous and highly localized system. Two neighboring plots may display radically different dynamics depending on land-use history, texture, slope, vegetation cover, depth or moisture conditions. Certain practices may rapidly affect infiltration, vegetation cover or erosion, while impacts on organic carbon, biodiversity or deep soil structure may take much longer to emerge. Measurement systems must therefore combine multiple approaches: field diagnostics, soil analyses, agronomic indicators, hydrological monitoring, satellite data, modeling, producer surveys and longitudinal monitoring.

This is precisely where Reforest’Action seeks to differentiate itself. Since 2010, the company has designed and deployed reforestation and regenerative agriculture solutions rooted in local territories, aligned with business challenges and intended to generate measurable and lasting impacts. Across its projects, impact is approached in a multifunctional way, integrating climate, biodiversity, water, soil and socio-economic dimensions.

Reforest’Action also mobilizes modeling tools to better understand and project the impacts of agroforestry and forestry projects on the soil-water system. Its approach notably relies on recognized frameworks such as the Volumetric Water Benefit Accounting methodology developed by the World Resources Institute, as well as tools designed to estimate hydrological dynamics at territorial scale. At the same time, its MRV platform aims to collect, analyze and report reliable data on project implementation and impacts by combining field data with satellite imagery.

For decision-makers, this measurement requirement is critical. Regeneration cannot remain merely declarative. It must be managed as an operational transformation: baseline diagnosis, reference scenarios, territory-adapted design, impact indicators, long-term monitoring, adaptive management, local governance and reporting.

![Sols-RA-4.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Sols_RA_4_20e7f63ec9.jpg)

## Structuring Collective Soil Governance

As soil regeneration strategies become more structured across value chains and territories, one reality is becoming increasingly clear: they cannot be carried forward by isolated actors alone. They require frameworks for cooperation, knowledge sharing and cross-sector alignment. The World Living Soils Forum fits precisely within this dynamic. Created in 2022 by Moët Hennessy and co-organized with ChangeNOW, the Forum positions itself as an international gathering dedicated to soil preservation, health and regeneration. Its third edition will take place on June 3–4, 2026 at LUMA Arles, bringing together scientists, farmers, businesses, investors, NGOs, startups and institutional stakeholders around knowledge, innovation and field experience in support of the agricultural and viticultural transition. Yet such collective frameworks can only generate lasting effects if they translate concretely into corporate decision-making.

In this context, Reforest’Action’s contribution is rooted in a strong conviction: soils must be repositioned at the heart of corporate strategies, as the point of convergence between climate, water, biodiversity, agriculture and the economy.

## Integrating Soils into Corporate Strategy

For companies, the challenge is no longer understanding why action is needed, but how to concretely integrate soils into strategic decision-making. This first requires mapping dependencies across value chains, identifying areas of vulnerability and prioritizing key watersheds and supply regions. It also means financing and supporting the transition toward regenerative practices, then measuring their impacts in order to integrate them into strategic steering mechanisms.

This transformation also requires acknowledging that soil restoration operates on a long timescale. Biological cycles, organic matter accumulation, horizon structuring, biodiversity recovery and hydrological improvement do not follow the short-term rhythm of annual communications. Credibility therefore depends on duration, transparency and alignment between economic objectives and ecological trajectories.

Reforest’Action operates precisely at this interface: between corporate strategy and territorial realities; between climate, nature and water objectives and agricultural or forestry practices; between transition commitments and impact measurement. Its regenerative agriculture, monitoring and water resilience programs reflect a common approach: designing projects tailored to local contexts, deploying nature-based solutions, monitoring their effects over time and creating value for both businesses and ecosystems.

![Tanzanie_20_49.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Tanzanie_20_49_871b071dc4.jpg)

**The long-term viability of economic models depends on ecological balances of which soils constitute one of the foundations. In the years ahead, the most resilient organizations will be those that understand that the robustness of their business model also depends on the health of the ecosystems upon which they rely. Soils are among these invisible infrastructures. Their degradation is a risk; their regeneration, an investment. This is where a decisive part of the living economy will be shaped.**

large_Tanzanie_20_75.jpg

medium_Tanzanie_20_75.jpg

small_Tanzanie_20_75.jpg

thumbnail_Tanzanie_20_75.jpg

Tanzanie_20_75.jpg

Soils at the Core of Ecological and Economic Resilience

**How can we ensure that projects generating certified carbon credits also create tangible value for the territories that host them? In ecosystem restoration projects, long-term success depends not only on effective carbon sequestration, but also on the engagement of local communities and the creation of sustainable economic opportunities. This is precisely the purpose of benefit sharing. Today, this principle has become a structural condition for the credibility and durability of carbon projects. At Reforest’Action, it is embedded from the project design phase and supported by a rigorous evaluation framework to ensure that carbon finance genuinely contributes to local development.**

![Benefit-sharing-1.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Benefit_sharing_1_73dbcf5a19.jpg)

## Benefit sharing in certified carbon projects

### A principle of equity at the core of carbon finance

Within projects certified under international standards such as Verra (VCS) or Gold Standard, benefit sharing refers to the set of mechanisms designed to distribute the benefits generated by a project equitably among its stakeholders, particularly [local communities and Indigenous peoples](https://www.reforestaction.com/en/magazine/include-local-communities-to-develop-adapted-sustainable-project). At a time when the social integrity of projects has become central to the credibility of voluntary carbon markets, these mechanisms play a structuring role in both project design and governance. This approach acknowledges that the success of a carbon sequestration project depends on a broader ecosystem of actors and activities, and that benefits must be distributed fairly to ensure long-term sustainability.

### Carbon standards and national frameworks: towards stronger regulation of benefit sharing

While they do not impose a universal percentage of benefit sharing applicable to all projects, carbon standards have progressively strengthened the governance of benefit sharing by incorporating specific requirements into their methodological frameworks and social and environmental safeguard systems.

Under Verra’s VCS 5.0 standard, the benefit-sharing mechanism must be co-designed with land rights holders, local communities, and Indigenous peoples prior to project implementation, and subsequently implemented and monitored throughout the project lifecycle. These stakeholders are thereby recognized as full participants in the benefit sharing mechanism.

The standard also requires a high level of financial transparency. Project developers must disclose to participants, at the design stage, projected revenues and expected costs, and subsequently provide annual updates on operational costs and actual or projected revenues.

The mechanism itself must be formalized and contextualized: it must specify the nature of benefits (monetary, in-kind, or a combination), their distribution timeline, and be adapted to the local context, communicated through culturally appropriate means, and aligned with applicable national regulations. It must also remain accessible to stakeholders and include provisions to account for revenue variability, particularly in relation to carbon market fluctuations.

Finally, Verra introduces a critical distinction between activities necessary for project implementation and the benefits actually shared. Project operational costs, infrastructure required for implementation, worker salaries, and environmental risk mitigation measures cannot be considered part of benefit sharing. This clarification strengthens both the transparency and credibility of benefit-sharing mechanisms.

In parallel, several countries have recently introduced more prescriptive national frameworks on benefit sharing, explicitly defining value distribution mechanisms—and in some cases, the share of revenues allocated to local communities. This trend, particularly visible in East Africa and the Indian Ocean region, reflects a broader movement toward stronger regulation of benefit sharing within carbon markets.

### Benefit sharing as a condition for the success of restoration projects

In ecosystem restoration projects, benefit sharing is not merely a methodological requirement associated with carbon standards—it is also an operational condition for the success and long-term sustainability of initiatives on the ground.

These projects are embedded in complex territorial dynamics and rely on long-term commitments from local communities. Agroforestry projects, in particular, involve gradual changes in agricultural practices, the long-term integration of trees into production systems, and the collective management of new natural resources. Their success therefore depends directly on the engagement of local stakeholders and their ability to adopt and sustain these transformations over time. Active community participation thus becomes a key determinant of project viability, as it conditions both the adoption of introduced practices and their long-term continuity beyond the initial support phases.

In this context, benefit sharing plays a structuring role. By ensuring a fair distribution of the value generated by the project, it helps align economic incentives across stakeholders and strengthens local ownership. Capacity building for farmers, the inclusion of women in productive systems, and the structuring of collective initiatives at the territorial level all play a central role in sustaining implemented practices and amplifying environmental and socio-economic impacts.

However, benefit-sharing mechanisms often remain insufficiently structured. The report Beyond Beneficiaries – Fairer Carbon Market Frameworks by The Nature Conservancy highlights that some local communities bear costs that are not fully accounted for in project economic models, or receive only a marginal share of the value generated. Asymmetries in access to information, land rights, or negotiation capacity may also lead to situations of value capture to the detriment of local actors. These findings are driving a shift in benefit-sharing approaches toward more inclusive governance models and the recognition of communities as full partners rather than passive beneficiaries.

![Benefit-sharing-2.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Benefit_sharing_2_958345a3b4.jpg)

## Reforest’Action’s approach: structuring benefit sharing from project design

While international standards provide a framework for benefit sharing, its concrete implementation largely depends on project developers’ methodological choices. At Reforest’Action, this dimension is structured from the design phase to ensure sustainable local value creation.

### Direct contributions embedded in the project budget

Our evaluation of benefit sharing is grounded in a principle of transparency: clearly distinguishing the resources required for project implementation from those allocated to benefit sharing with local communities. This distinction avoids any confusion between investments necessary for generating carbon impact and mechanisms designed to redistribute value.

Accordingly, financial resources directly mobilized for project implementation (such as purchasing seedlings or operating nurseries), and contributing directly to carbon sequestration, are not considered part of benefit sharing.
Benefit sharing instead concerns co-benefits—contributions that directly improve living conditions and economic prospects for local communities—taking several complementary forms:

- Direct monetary contributions: communities participating in projects may receive direct financial compensation linked to their involvement, for instance for maintaining planted trees or transitioning agricultural practices over the long term. Monetary benefits are carefully structured: payments are targeted and regulated to avoid disrupting local economies or social dynamics. They may take the form of partial compensation for labor provided during project establishment, combined with an in-kind contribution from farmers. This approach recognizes participant engagement while preserving intrinsic motivation beyond financial incentives. 
- Direct non-monetary contributions: projects may also provide equipment, tools, and agricultural inputs to improve practices and productivity. 
- Community-level contributions: part of the project’s benefits is allocated to collective initiatives (often via village funds), such as building wells, improving local infrastructure, or supporting agricultural cooperatives. 

These contributions are embedded in the project’s initial budget and delivered from the early years of implementation. This reflects an expanded vision of benefit sharing: value creation for communities does not depend solely on future carbon revenues, but begins from the earliest project stages, supporting local economic dynamics, building trust, and ensuring sustained engagement.

### Value creation through agricultural value chains and practice transformation

In agroforestry projects in particular, value creation extends beyond financial redistribution mechanisms. The integration of trees into agricultural systems enables diversification of income sources—through fruit production, non-timber forest products, or other commodities—while also improving yields through ecosystem services and fostering the development of local value chains for processing and commercialization.

Such projects become drivers of territorial development and catalysts for sustainable agricultural activity even before generating their first carbon credits. In this model, most of the value generated is captured locally, with carbon revenues acting as a complementary stream.

### Carbon credit sharing: a complementary redistribution mechanism

Finally, benefit sharing includes a mechanism for distributing carbon credits generated by the project, whereby a portion is allocated to local communities. These revenues fall into a specific category: market-dependent benefits derived from the issuance, trading, and sale of carbon credits on voluntary markets. They constitute an additional income stream complementing other value-creation mechanisms.

The distribution of these revenues depends on the institutional and legal context in which the project operates. It may involve multiple stakeholders—land or carbon rights holders, communities, developers, investors, or public authorities—depending on national frameworks and governance structures. Increasingly, these mechanisms are regulated through legal or policy frameworks defining allocation rules and recognition of carbon rights.

By nature, the economic value of carbon credits remains variable. It depends not only on project performance and verified outcomes, but also on broader market dynamics, including price trends, demand levels, regulatory changes, and geopolitical context. In other words, these revenues are partly determined by factors external to the project itself.

At Reforest’Action, allocating a share of carbon credits to communities integrates these market dynamics into a territorial redistribution logic. The revenues generated can support village funds financing locally defined collective projects—such as infrastructure, agricultural initiatives, or community programs—thereby strengthening local development dynamics. This mechanism creates a durable alignment of interests: the greater the project’s measurable environmental impact and market value, the greater the resources redistributed to communities. However, it remains a complementary lever. By nature delayed and dependent on market conditions, these revenues arrive too late to support initial community engagement and practice adoption, and therefore cannot replace other value-creation mechanisms.

### Structuring benefit sharing over time: between immediate incentives and long-term alignment

Taken individually, each of these mechanisms addresses a specific dimension of benefit sharing. Their effectiveness, however, depends on how they are articulated over time. An approach relying solely on carbon revenues is not operationally viable. The time required to generate and monetize credits—often several years—does not meet the immediate economic needs of communities nor support early-stage engagement.

Benefit sharing therefore relies on a combination of complementary mechanisms: non-conditional short-term benefits, essential to generate interest, facilitate recruitment, and support transitions in practices (including in cases of temporary income loss), and performance- or impact-based benefits, which operate over the medium to long term to ensure sustained alignment of stakeholder interests.

![Benefit-sharing-3.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Benefit_sharing_3_570d913ceb.jpg)

**Benefit sharing is now a cornerstone of the integrity of carbon projects. By ensuring an equitable distribution of the value created, it strengthens both environmental credibility and social legitimacy. At Reforest’Action, this approach is grounded in a simple conviction: the success of ecosystem restoration projects depends on the prosperity of the territories that sustain them. By embedding benefit sharing at the heart of project design and rigorously evaluating its implementation, carbon finance can, beyond its contribution to climate mitigation, fully support sustainable development pathways at the local level.**



large_IMG_4822.jpg

medium_IMG_4822.jpg

small_IMG_4822.jpg

thumbnail_IMG_4822.jpg

IMG_4822.jpg

From Carbon to Local Value Creation: Our Approach to Benefit Sharing

**In West Africa, where agriculture is largely based on smallholder family farms highly dependent on climatic conditions and local resources, restoring degraded agricultural land cannot rely on isolated technical interventions. It requires a profound transformation of both farming practices and ecological balances. It is within this context that the Wawa project, developed by Reforest’Action and APAF in Togo, takes shape. Built on in-depth fieldwork, grounded in the observation of local agricultural practices and continuous dialogue with communities, the project leverages agroforestry as a driver of soil regeneration, production diversification, and increased farm resilience. By combining agronomic expertise with strong local anchoring, it proposes an approach in which ecosystem restoration is intrinsically linked to improving rural livelihoods.** 

![Wawa6.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Wawa6_3cd527c2bf.jpg)

## Agricultural systems under increasing pressure

In West Africa, agriculture is a cornerstone of territorial stability. It employs nearly 60% of the workforce and provides the vast majority of food consumption, with local production covering around 90% of caloric intake, according to the French Committee for International Solidarity. This dual economic and food security role places agricultural systems at the heart of rural stability.

However, this central role exists within structurally constrained systems. The agricultural landscape is dominated by small-scale family farms, often under five hectares. This fragmentation limits investment capacity, market access, and the ability to adapt to shocks, while also slowing the large-scale adoption of sustainable practices.

These structural constraints are compounded by the progressive degradation of natural resources. Soils subjected to intensive use cycles or extensive practices such as slash-and-burn agriculture quickly lose fertility. Limited storage and processing infrastructure further exacerbates post-harvest losses and reduces locally captured value. As a result, farmers operate in an environment marked by high economic and social vulnerability.

Climate change intensifies these pressures. Increased rainfall variability, more frequent droughts, and extreme weather events directly affect both subsistence and cash crops. Already under strain, agricultural systems must now contend with growing uncertainty.
In this context, the challenge goes beyond improving yields. It lies in rethinking agricultural systems to ensure their long-term viability, their capacity to absorb shocks, and their ability to maintain both productive and social functions. This transformation requires restoring soils, diversifying production, and reintroducing ecological mechanisms capable of sustaining fertility and resilience.

![Wawa4.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Wawa4_3ed5f01e71.jpg)

## An agroforestry project to address land degradation

### Moving beyond soil depletion dynamics

Slash-and-burn agriculture, historically widespread in Togo and within the Wawa project area, is a form of shifting subsistence farming based on alternating cultivation cycles. It involves clearing small forest plots by cutting vegetation and then burning the dried biomass to produce a layer of ash. This ash temporarily enriches the soil, enabling the cultivation of local food crops such as maize, yams, taro, squash, and okra.

Within systems characterized by low land pressure, this practice historically contributed to a certain agronomic balance, particularly when fallow periods allowed sufficient soil and vegetation regeneration. However, current dynamics—population growth, limited access to land, and intensified land use—are significantly reducing these fallow periods.

As a result, the rapid leaching of ash and nutrients, combined with weed invasion, leads to accelerated soil degradation. After two to three cropping cycles, yields decline sharply, forcing farmers to abandon cultivated plots. These lands are then left fallow under conditions that no longer ensure full regeneration before reuse.

![Wawa5.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Wawa5_71cad8708f.jpg)

In this context, developing soil fertility strategies based on biological processes—such as agroforestry—rather than fire or chemical inputs has become a key lever for land restoration. More broadly, it is essential to enable communities to access sufficient, healthy, and sustainable agricultural production.

In Togo, the Wawa project embodies this approach. Deployed across 594 hectares through our local partner APAF (Association for the Promotion of Fertilizer Trees), it builds on traditional African agricultural practices, reinterpreting and adapting them to current climatic conditions. The project involves 15 villages across the Wawa, Akébou, and Kloto prefectures, where access to food security and sustainable incomes remains closely tied to the restoration of degraded agricultural land.

### Activating biological soil fertility mechanisms

Agroforestry is one of the core pillars of the Wawa project. By integrating trees and crops within the same agricultural plots, it offers a viable alternative to conventional farming systems. It contributes to land restoration, biodiversity conservation, food production, and crop support, while enabling diversification of agricultural systems. In doing so, it strengthens resilience and adaptive capacity in the face of climate change.

The selection of species is critical, and it is precisely here that the project’s approach stands out. Since agricultural productivity depends on the soil’s ability to regenerate its fertility, the project design incorporates species capable of biologically fixing nitrogen—such as Fabaceae—as well as mobilizing and recycling essential nutrients like phosphorus and potassium, while producing significant biomass.

These “fertilizer trees,” as defined by Hugues Dupriez and Philippe De Leener in 1993, do not compete with the food or cash crops grown beneath their canopy. Their value lies in their ability to enrich topsoil layers, improve soil texture, and enhance soil structure.

These natural processes reduce reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers while improving both the quality and quantity of agricultural production.

![Wawa3.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Wawa3_fba4c18c30.jpg)

### Designing systems adapted to local uses and territories

As part of a broader transition in agricultural practices, the project deploys several agroforestry models based on a diversity of species—fertilizer, fruit, and forest trees—tailored to local agricultural uses and ecological dynamics.

In subsistence crop systems (maize, yams, taro, okra), integrating trees helps restore natural resources, strengthen ecological balances, and enhance resilience to climate impacts. Species complementarity supports production diversification, improves nutritional quality, and stabilizes incomes, while reducing dependence on external inputs through natural soil fertilization.

In perennial cash crop systems (cocoa, coffee, cashew), agroforestry plays a key role in regulating growing conditions. Trees provide essential shade and humidity, protect soils from direct sun exposure, and mitigate the effects of drought. When properly managed, shade also contributes to pest regulation by limiting both fungal diseases associated with excessive humidity and insect proliferation linked to the absence of tree cover.

Additionally, the establishment of woodlots on communal or public land—representing around 10% of planted trees—addresses complementary needs. These areas provide timber and fuelwood resources while integrating fruit species for local consumption, supporting both sustainable resource management and community income generation.

![Wawa2.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Wawa2_363058ea36.jpg)

## Community engagement as a driver of lasting transformation

### Farmers’ ownership of practices

The Wawa project is built on strong community involvement at every stage of implementation. Farmers receive training in agroforestry practices and actively participate in integrating trees into their production systems, fostering rapid and lasting ownership of the proposed models.

Field observations conducted during Reforest’Action’s second audit mission in January 2025 highlight strong beneficiary engagement. Farmers report high satisfaction with the project and its early impacts, particularly in terms of improved soil fertility and crop performance. Some have gone further by independently replacing dead seedlings or extending agroforestry practices beyond initial project plots.

### Scaling practices across territories

This ownership translates into a gradual transformation of agricultural practices at the territorial level. In several villages, farmers report reduced reliance on slash-and-burn practices and growing interest in tree-based systems.

By combining capacity building, strong engagement, and observable changes in practices, the project creates the conditions for the long-term diffusion of agroforestry models. This dynamic is essential to securing impacts over time and enabling the scaling of more resilient agricultural systems.

![Wawa7.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Wawa7_de843f8add.jpg)

## A robust carbon performance framework 

### A methodology and tool validated by Bureau Veritas

Since 2023, Reforest’Action has developed a methodology and simulation tool for ex-ante carbon sequestration, providing estimates of a project’s carbon storage potential over 30 years. This approach enables optimization of project design to maximize climate impact.

The methodology and tool were validated by Bureau Veritas Certification in October 2023. They comply with the core standards of the voluntary carbon market, aligned with international frameworks and regulatory requirements, including Article 147 of France’s Climate and Resilience Law. Bureau Veritas is authorized to verify ex-ante carbon calculations, ensuring third-party credibility.

### Carbon projections aligned with ESG strategies

In August 2025, the Wawa project’s 30-year carbon sequestration projections were verified by Bureau Veritas through an audit assessing:

- **Quantification**: Carbon storage calculated using a verified tool aligned with ISO 14064-3:2019 and international standards 
- **Additionality**: Demonstration that sequestration would not occur without the project, through comparison with a baseline scenario 
- **Permanence**: Risk mitigation strategies and a 20% buffer applied 
- **Verifiability**: Full transparency of data 
- **Sustainability**: Multifunctional design maximizing environmental and socio-economic benefits 
- **Uniqueness**: Registration in an internal registry ensuring traceability 

The audit validated the project’s initial estimate of 92,243 tCO₂ sequestered over 30 years for the 2021–2022 planting season.

After five years, a field verification audit—also conducted by Bureau Veritas—will assess actual implementation, ecosystem health, and compliance with project conditions.

The Wawa project fully meets corporate requirements for transparency and ESG reporting (CSRD, SBTi, CDP) within a voluntary carbon contribution framework.

![Wawa1.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Wawa1_4ea6ef2397.jpg)

**Restoring agricultural land requires a fundamental transformation of production systems, grounded in the reactivation of ecological processes that sustain long-term productivity. In Togo, the Wawa project exemplifies this approach by leveraging agroforestry to move beyond soil depletion dynamics, restore fertility, and align agricultural practices with local realities.
Through this project, Reforest’Action demonstrates its ability to design and deploy integrated agroforestry systems based on a deep understanding of agronomic and social contexts, while anchoring implementation in strong territorial dynamics. The combination of scientific expertise, local engagement, and rigorous carbon performance frameworks provides a robust foundation for delivering credible and lasting impact.
At a time when the resilience of agricultural systems has become a strategic global challenge, projects like Wawa offer concrete, scalable solutions. They pave the way for models that reconcile ecosystem restoration, food security, and long-term value creation—while enabling companies to engage in measurable, transparent, and standards-aligned climate and nature strategies.**


medium_Wawa4.jpg

small_Wawa4.jpg

thumbnail_Wawa4.jpg

Wawa4.jpg

Restoring agricultural land in Togo: agroforestry as a foundation for sustainable transformation

Actualités