**As climate change accelerates, companies whose business depends on natural raw materials face an increasingly complex equation: securing their supplies while meeting rising regulatory, climate-related, and societal expectations. In this context, insetting is emerging as a major strategic lever—at the intersection of economic performance, operational resilience, and environmental impact.**

**Reforest’Action develops insetting projects designed to durably strengthen the resilience of agricultural and water supplies, at the very heart of corporate sourcing strategies and reporting frameworks, notably the [EUDR](https://www.reforestaction.com/en/magazine/european-law-deforestation) and [SBTi FLAG](https://www.reforestaction.com/en/magazine/sbti-flag-steering-transformation-agricultural-value-chains). More than a mechanism for environmental contribution, insetting is an integrated approach, designed to act directly within value chains—where the most material risks and opportunities are concentrated.**

## Supporting the transition to regenerative models

Today, more than a third of the Earth’s land surface is devoted to agriculture and livestock farming. Yet soil degradation, biodiversity loss, increasing water scarcity, and the growing frequency of extreme weather events are profoundly weakening global agricultural sectors. Strengthening the resilience of these value chains has become a strategic imperative.

Reforest’Action supports companies in transitioning their agricultural supply chains towards regenerative models. The impact is threefold: securing long-term sourcing, regenerating agroecosystems, and supporting the communities that depend on them. This approach rests on a strong conviction: the economic sustainability of supply chains is inseparable from the health of the ecosystems from which they originate.

At the core of this approach, agroforestry stands out as a multifunctional solution. Carbon sequestration, crop protection, improved soil fertility, natural pest regulation, enhanced water resilience, and additional income streams for farmers—its benefits are many. Implementation, however, requires in-depth expertise, both silvicultural and agronomic, including species selection, planting design, and adaptation to local farming practices. Combined with other levers of regenerative agriculture, agroforestry becomes a high-impact model, capable of transforming value chains over the long term.

Agroforestry experts since 2010, we deliver projects in Europe and tropical regions, across more than fifteen agricultural commodities, grounded in the operational realities of businesses.

## Structured programmes—from strategy to the field

To address the wide range of corporate challenges, we offer three complementary programmes.

The **Regenerative Agriculture Programme** develops end-to-end projects within companies’ value chains. It includes a pre-project study phase—diagnosis, design, and impact projections—followed by operational implementation and monitoring that combines field surveys with remote sensing tools. These projects are deployed in France, across Europe, and in tropical regions, with a clear objective: strengthening the resilience of agricultural supplies in the face of climate, economic, and environmental risks.

The **Monitoring and Support Programme** responds to growing needs around compliance, reporting, and impact valuation. It measures the tangible outcomes of insetting initiatives and integrates results into key reference frameworks such as SBTi FLAG, SBTN, the EUDR, and the CSRD. This approach is based on long-term analysis of forest and agricultural dynamics, impact measurement combining field and satellite data, and training local teams in data collection.

Lastly, the **Water Replenishment Programme** aims to strengthen water resilience for sites and production regions. At watershed scale, Reforest’Action identifies and implements forestry projects that durably improve water availability. These projects draw on recognised scientific models and are tracked through a combination of satellite indicators and field measurements.

## Measuring, steering, and showcasing impact

The long-term viability of regenerative models depends on the ability to measure impacts reliably and transparently. We are convinced that only a hybrid approach—combining the irreplaceable accuracy of field monitoring with the spatial and temporal coverage of remote sensing—can meet today’s requirements from companies and investors.

To that end, we have invested in developing our own impact measurement tools and in deploying a digital MRV (Measuring, Reporting and Verification) platform. It enables data visualisation, anticipation of regulatory requirements, and easier integration of results into corporate reporting and communications. This steering capability is a key factor in securing investments, demonstrating the credibility of actions undertaken, and strengthening stakeholder trust.

## Insetting in action: our flagship programmes

This vision is now embodied in a portfolio of strategic insetting programmes, illustrating our ability to deploy high-impact regenerative solutions—operationally secure and aligned with companies’ and investors’ performance and reporting requirements.

### Transforming a cotton supply chain in India

To address the increasing vulnerability of the cotton sector to climate and social risks, Kiabi chose to act directly within its value chain. Since 2023, the company has been deploying, with Reforest’Action, a regenerative agriculture project in the state of Odisha, India, integrated into its organic cotton sourcing.

The project is based on the introduction of agroforestry systems and agroecological practices on cotton plots cultivated by a partner producers’ cooperative. By combining trees, crops, and sustainable soil management levers, the initiative aims to strengthen farm resilience, improve soil fertility, and diversify agricultural incomes.

Deployed across 520 hectares and benefiting 1,250 producers, the project combines agronomic performance, secured raw material volumes, and measured environmental impacts. It contributes directly to Kiabi’s climate trajectory objectives by addressing land-use emissions and carbon sequestration within the value chain.

![Illu-2.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Illu_2_c94875f859.jpg)

### Adapting an aromatic supply chain to water scarcity in Morocco

In northern Morocco, in the Khémisset region, Reforest’Action supports Maison Francis Kurkdjian and its essential oils supplier in transforming their flower-to-fragrance production chain. In a context of growing water stress, the project’s central challenge is to ensure the long-term viability of crops that are particularly sensitive to water availability.

The intervention begins with an in-depth diagnostic of the farm, agricultural practices, and the value chain linked to essential oil distillation. Technical itineraries, energy needs, the use of residual biomass, and the hydrological functioning of the local ecosystem are analysed to identify the most relevant adaptation levers.

Based on this assessment, the project explores regenerative agriculture solutions suited to local constraints, notably the selection of water-efficient plant species and the integration of agroforestry designs compatible with resource scarcity. By planting 2,900 linear meters of protective hedges, which will take place over six years, the objective is to strengthen production resilience while durably securing upstream supply.

![Illu-5.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Illu_5_9479be08ba.jpg)

### Strengthening the resilience of a vineyard in France

In Champagne, Reforest’Action supports Maison Ruinart in rolling out a vitiforestry project at the heart of an exceptional vineyard facing significant climate, regulatory, and landscape constraints. Vitiforestry combines tree planting with viticulture to strengthen vine resilience while enhancing biodiversity.

Designed in close consultation with the vineyard’s technical teams, the project integrates operational realities, appellation requirements, and mechanisation constraints. Since 2021, it has been deployed progressively and experimentally, enabling planting designs to be refined according to each plot’s specificities. More than 20,000 trees have already been planted through diversified agroforestry systems.

Beyond the pilot site in Taissy, the approach is intended to expand across the Champagne region, through partnerships with other winegrowers, helping to structure a replicable model in support of vineyard resilience.

![Taissy-2.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Taissy_2_65724ba3d4.jpg)

### Supporting the transition of arable crop supply chains in France and Poland

Cargill is a leading global food, ingredients, agricultural solutions, and industrial products company to nourish the world in a safe, responsible, and sustainable way and believe change starts where the food system begins – at the farm. 

That’s why Cargill is working with farmers at every level of production, empowering them with the support and resources they need to adopt regenerative agriculture practices to produce the food the world needs sustainably while helping them improve their resilience through the Cargill RegenConnect® program. The program is grounded in conservation agriculture principles: reduced tillage, permanent soil cover, and adapted crop rotations. These practices help improve soil health and reduce the footprint of numerous agricultural commodities.

Building on this foundation, Reforest’Action supports Cargill in integrating agroforestry within arable farming systems (wheat, rapeseed, sunflower, barley, etc.) to strengthen the agronomic and environmental resilience of farms. Bringing trees back into fields helps restore functional biodiversity, improve on-farm water dynamics, limit exposure to climate stress (droughts, flooding, etc.), and enhance carbon storage within production systems.

Following two pilot years in France and Poland—combining field deployment with monitoring of carbon, water, and biodiversity impacts—the project is now entering a scaling phase. The aim is to extend this approach to downstream actors in Cargill’s value chain, fully aligned with an insetting logic. This program illustrates the ability of regenerative agriculture to reconcile economic performance, supply security, and measurable long-term environmental impacts.

![Illu-1.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Illu_1_ee678a17a9.jpg)

**As climate and water risks intensify, living-based supply chains are being called to transform in depth. Insetting is now emerging as a structuring response to these challenges, enabling companies to act directly where their commodities—and therefore their resilience levers—are concentrated.**

**Through its insetting and regenerative agriculture projects, Reforest’Action demonstrates that it is possible to reconcile value chain security, economic performance, and measurable environmental impacts. By relying on nature-based solutions designed to fit each supply chain and territory, insetting becomes a strategic steering tool in support of business model sustainability.**

**Beyond the projects themselves, a new way of envisioning the relationship between companies and ecosystems is taking shape: the possibility of moving from a logic of extractivism to a logic of regeneration. At a time when value chain resilience increasingly determines corporate competitiveness and credibility, investing in regenerative models is becoming a defining choice for the future.**

**Are you a company looking to evolve practices linked to the production of your raw materials? Our experts are here to discuss and support you in your thinking. [Get in touch.](https://www.reforestaction.com/en/contact)**



large_Header-AR.jpg

medium_Header-AR.jpg

small_Header-AR.jpg

thumbnail_Header-AR.jpg

Header-AR.jpg

Value Chain Resilience: Our Reference Programs in Regenerative Agriculture

**In February 2026, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) approved the _[Business and Biodiversity Assessment]_(https://www.ipbes.net/business-impact), the first global report specifically dedicated to the interactions between business activities and biodiversity. The result of three years of collective work by more than 79 experts from 35 countries, this publication responds to an explicit request from IPBES Member States to ground business–nature relations in a robust scientific framework, in support of political, financial and economic decision-makers. The challenge it addresses is unequivocal: the continuity of economic models relies on ecological functions whose degradation directly undermines value creation itself. At a time when international regulatory frameworks increasingly require companies to account for biodiversity-related risks and impacts — notably under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework — this assessment provides a precise analytical framework to inform corporate strategies in the context of the intertwined climate and biodiversity crises.**
 
## Biodiversity and the Economy: A Functional Interdependence

Biodiversity encompasses the diversity of species, ecosystems and biological interactions through which nature generates essential functions such as soil fertility, pollination, water regulation and carbon sequestration. These functions constitute a set of ecosystem services without which economic activity could not be sustained.

The IPBES analysis highlights the scale of value-chain dependencies — both direct and indirect — on these services provided by biodiversity. In the mapping presented by the report, the primary sector and agri-food systems appear on the front line, but exposure extends far beyond them. The pharmaceutical industry depends on genetic diversity; construction and infrastructure are embedded in territories whose ecological stability conditions long-term viability; and the financial sector holds portfolios whose value ultimately rests on ecologically vulnerable supply chains.

Biodiversity thus operates as a functional matrix underpinning economic activity. As ecosystems degrade, the functions they provide become increasingly unstable, more costly to replace, and in some cases irreplaceable. Economic trade-offs that long overlooked this dimension are now confronted with clear biophysical limits.
 
## Economic Pressures and the Transformation of Natural Systems

The Business and Biodiversity Assessment builds on earlier IPBES work, notably the 2019 Global Assessment, which identified five direct drivers of biodiversity loss resulting from human activities: changes in land and sea use, overexploitation of natural resources, climate change, pollution and the introduction of invasive alien species.

This new publication deepens the analysis of how economic activities contribute to these pressures. Globalised value chains, the intensification of agricultural systems, urban expansion, mining activities, deforestation and the standardisation of production systems — centred on a limited number of species, varieties and technical practices — are collectively reshaping natural environments.

The challenge, however, lies not only in the accumulation of localised impacts. The report describes cumulative dynamics in which habitat fragmentation, biological homogenisation and the structural impoverishment of ecosystems — marked by the loss of functional diversity and regulatory capacities — reduce their ability to adapt. This erosion of ecological resilience increases the vulnerability of territories and, by extension, of the economic activities established within or dependent upon them.

Moreover, long and complex supply chains dilute the perceived link between strategic decision-making and concrete ecological impacts. In 2023 alone, approximately USD 7.3 trillion was channelled towards activities with direct negative impacts on nature, including USD 4.9 trillion from private finance and USD 2.4 trillion in public subsidies supporting biodiversity-harmful activities. By contrast, only USD 220 billion was directed towards conservation and restoration efforts — barely 3% of harmful financial flows. Under current conditions, capital allocation continues to reinforce trajectories that are ecologically unsustainable.
 
## Reframing Risk in Corporate Strategy

One of the report’s major conceptual contributions lies in repositioning biodiversity among the major structural risks facing contemporary economies, alongside climate change and geopolitical tensions. Within this framework, biodiversity-related risks fall into three broad categories:
- **Physical risks**, reflecting the direct consequences of ecological degradation, such as water scarcity, unstable agricultural yields and heightened exposure to climate-related hazards amplified by the loss of regulating ecosystems.
- **Transition risks**, arising from rapid shifts in regulatory, financial and market frameworks, including transparency requirements, reporting standards and the growing integration of biodiversity considerations into risk analysis by investors and supervisors.
- **Systemic risks**, referring to cascading effects that can simultaneously affect multiple sectors. A regional ecological disruption may trigger supply shortages, influence commodity prices, weaken asset portfolios and lead to rapid financial adjustments.

Taken together, these risk dimensions underscore the need for companies to treat biodiversity not as a peripheral concern, but as a structural parameter of strategic decision-making and long-term performance management.
 
## From Impact Management to the Transformation of Economic Architectures

The assessment notes the growing number of voluntary corporate commitments, while also highlighting their limited impact in relation to the scale of observed trends. Strategies focused solely on marginal reductions in environmental footprints fail to alter the structural drivers of pressure on biodiversity.

The core issue identified by IPBES lies in the architecture of economic models themselves. The report points to the need to align economic incentives, public policies and financial flows with the objectives of the Global Biodiversity Framework, notably the restoration of degraded ecosystems and the substantial reduction of direct pressures by 2030.

Such transformation entails revisiting activity portfolios, strengthening supply-chain traceability, progressively internalising ecological costs and redirecting investment towards activities compatible with ecosystem regeneration. The report also emphasises cooperation with Indigenous Peoples and local communities, who hold critical knowledge and steward biodiversity-rich territories. Territorial governance emerges as a decisive lever in this transition.
 
## Finance and Governance: A Strategic Inflection Point

Financial actors occupy a structurally influential position in the IPBES analysis. Capital flows shape the trajectory of economic sectors and can either accelerate or hinder transformative change.

Integrating biodiversity into capital allocation, risk management and performance assessment represents a major inflection point. Boards of directors are called upon to embed these issues within governance mechanisms, set measurable objectives and ensure coherence between public commitments, investment strategies and operational practices.

Biodiversity thus emerges as a transversal strategic variable, intrinsically linked to competitiveness, resilience and long-term reputation.
 

**The IPBES _Business and Biodiversity Assessment_ establishes a demanding analytical framework: economic viability depends on the stability and regenerative capacity of living systems, and can only be pursued within ecological limits. Through this report, companies gain access to a diagnosis grounded in the best available scientific knowledge, a structured risk mapping, and a set of methodological frameworks and tools to integrate biodiversity as a core parameter of strategic decision-making. The ability to mobilise these levers will become a key determinant of long-term corporate resilience.**


large_Header-IPBES.jpg

medium_Header-IPBES.jpg

small_Header-IPBES.jpg

thumbnail_Header-IPBES.jpg

Header-IPBES.jpg

Biodiversity: is the corporate sector at the heart of the solution?

**The issue of reducing pesticide use has now emerged as a central challenge for agricultural systems worldwide. It crystallizes deep tensions between environmental imperatives, public health requirements, and the economic constraints faced by farms. Behind what may appear to be a technical debate lies a broader question concerning the very foundations of the agricultural production model and its ability to remain competitive in a context marked by increasing regulatory pressure, market liberalization, and the intensification of climate-related risks.
In many countries, discussions surrounding the regulation of plant protection products emphasize a legitimate concern: preserving producers’ competitiveness in a competitive environment characterized by disparities in standards and production costs. Yet this perspective raises a strategic long-term question: can economic performance sustainably rely on maintaining—or even reinforcing—a structural dependence on chemical inputs?**
 
## Reducing Pesticides: An Agronomic, Societal and Economic Imperative

The reduction of pesticide use is not driven solely by societal expectations or regulatory developments. It also reflects profound agronomic dynamics. The emergence of pest resistance, the simplification of crop rotations, and the erosion of functional biodiversity are progressively weakening productivist agricultural systems. This fragilization, compounded by the degradation of natural agroecosystem mechanisms, often leads to an even greater reliance on treatments in a cumulative logic that increases production costs without guaranteeing long-term yield security.

Moreover, dependence on chemical inputs—whose prices are often correlated with those of hydrocarbons—exposes farms to international price volatility and regulatory shifts, thereby increasing economic uncertainty. In this context, reducing pesticide use can be understood as a medium- to long-term risk mitigation strategy, aimed at restoring biological balances whose deterioration ultimately generates significant economic costs.
 
## Alternatives Based on Systemic Transformation

Alternatives to pesticides do exist, but they require systemic transformation rather than simple technical substitution. Lengthening and diversifying crop rotations disrupt pest life cycles and reduce parasitic pressure. The integration of cover crops improves soil structure, enhances water retention capacity, and stimulates biological activity, thereby strengthening crop resilience to stress.

The development of agroecological infrastructures—such as hedgerows and grass strips—encourages the presence of beneficial organisms and reactivates natural regulation mechanisms. These levers are complemented by biocontrol solutions and varietal selection adapted to local soil and climate conditions, enabling a reduction in chemical dependency while maintaining production levels compatible with market expectations.

These approaches are part of the broader framework of regenerative agriculture, whose objective is to restore the ecological functions of soils and agricultural ecosystems in order to enhance their productive resilience. Experience shows that, although this transition requires technical support and an adjustment period, it can ultimately lead to stabilized performance and a gradual decrease in input-related costs.
 
## Organizing the Financing of the Transition

The economic sustainability of this transformation remains a decisive condition for its success. Modifying farming practices entails investment, learning, and temporary risk-taking. It would be economically fragile to place the entire burden of this effort on farmers alone, particularly when the benefits generated—improved water quality, carbon sequestration, biodiversity preservation—extend far beyond the sphere of agricultural production.

A managed reduction in pesticide use therefore requires broader mobilization across value chains. Agri-food companies and retailers hold a structuring lever to support these shifts by integrating environmental criteria into their sourcing strategies and establishing long-term contractual relationships with producers.

Insetting approaches constitute an operational tool in this regard. By financing, within their own value chains, transition projects toward regenerative agriculture, companies help share the cost of transforming practices while securing their supply chains. This mechanism enables economic performance and environmental objectives to be aligned, embedding the transition within a logic of cooperation and shared value creation.
 
**Reconciling pesticide reduction with economic sustainability is therefore not a binary trade-off. It requires embedding agricultural performance within a long-term perspective grounded in the resilience of production systems and in a more balanced distribution of transition costs across value chains. Competitiveness cannot sustainably rely on chemical intensification alone; rather, it will depend on the capacity of agricultural and agri-food stakeholders to invest in more robust systems capable of maintaining productivity while meeting the environmental requirements that increasingly shape markets and public policy.**



large_Header-Pesticides.jpg

medium_Header-Pesticides.jpg

small_Header-Pesticides.jpg

thumbnail_Header-Pesticides.jpg

Header-Pesticides.jpg

Can the reduction of pesticides be reconciled with economic sustainability?

**Water is no longer merely a resource under stress. The Global Water Bankruptcy report published by the United Nations University – Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH) shows that, in a growing number of watersheds worldwide, hydrological systems are entering a phase of structural degradation. This “water bankruptcy” is redefining the conditions of ecological, territorial and economic stability. Reforest’Action analyses its underlying drivers and implications for businesses, and explores the levers for action that can help strengthen the water resilience of territories.**

## Water as a Condition of Life and a Driver of Systemic Stability

The availability of freshwater underpins all living systems. It determines ecosystem productivity, biodiversity maintenance, soil fertility, and the functioning of biogeochemical cycles, as well as food security, industrial production, energy generation, and the stability of human societies. When water becomes scarce or its quality deteriorates, it is not isolated uses that are affected, but the very organisation of territories — from the location of economic activities and the arbitration between competing uses to the ecological balances that sustain them.

For several decades, these tensions have been described under the generic label of a “water crisis.” Yet this expression suggests a temporary disruption, one that can be resolved through technical adjustments, infrastructure investments, or improved resource allocation. The Global Water Bankruptcy report introduces a major analytical shift: in many watersheds, the issue is no longer a cyclical or conjunctural crisis, but a structural degradation of hydrological systems.

The concept of water bankruptcy captures this shift. It refers to a situation in which water uses and pressures durably exceed the natural capacity of ecosystems to produce, store, filter and regulate the resource. In other words, the natural capital embodied in water systems is being depleted. This perspective calls for a reassessment of analytical and decision-making frameworks, particularly for companies whose operations depend on increasingly fragile territorial equilibria.

## From Crisis to Water Bankruptcy: A Shift in Analytical Framework

Water governance has historically been structured around a flow-based rationale. Public policies and industrial strategies have sought to secure available volumes, smooth seasonal variability, and offset temporary deficits through hydraulic infrastructure such as dams, reservoirs, transfer canals and diversion structures. While this framework remains relevant as long as natural systems retain their regulatory capacity, it becomes inadequate once withdrawals durably exceed renewable inputs.

As diagnosed by UNU-INWEH, water bankruptcy describes the moment when societies begin drawing down stocks accumulated over decades or even centuries: deep groundwater aquifers, soil moisture reserves, wetlands and glaciers. At the same time, the mechanisms that enable water to infiltrate, be stored and purified are degraded through soil sealing, deforestation, erosion and diffuse pollution. Water bankruptcy thus characterises a post-crisis condition in which water use exceeds long-term renewal capacity, causing irreversible or near-irreversible damage to the ecosystems that generate, store and regulate the resource.

In this regard, the economic analogy used in the UN report is particularly illuminating. A hydrological system functions much like a balance sheet. Precipitation and natural recharge constitute income; aquifers, soils and ecosystems form the assets; human withdrawals represent expenditures. Bankruptcy occurs when maintaining current uses requires degrading the assets themselves. At that point, the issue is no longer a quantitative imbalance, but a structural alteration of hydrological systems.

## Irreversibility as a Breaking Point

Water bankruptcy therefore marks a regime shift in which certain alterations of hydrological systems become partially irreversible. In many aquifers, prolonged pumping reduces pressure to such an extent that geological formations compact. This subsidence decreases the porosity of underground layers and, with it, their capacity to store water. Even if precipitation increases later, aquifers do not necessarily recover their initial storage capacity.

Comparable mechanisms operate in soils. The loss of organic matter, compaction resulting from intensive land use, or salinisation reduce infiltration and retention capacity. Water runs off more rapidly, intensifying erosion and flooding while diminishing groundwater recharge. The disappearance of wetlands eliminates key spaces of regulation and filtration that are essential to water quality and habitat preservation.

In such contexts, a return to previous conditions becomes uncertain, if not impossible, within economic and investment timeframes. Water management consequently shifts from a logic of optimisation to one of loss limitation and targeted restoration of ecological functions.

## A Dynamic Already Observable at the Global Scale

The Global Water Bankruptcy report documents the rapid expansion of such situations. Nearly 75% of the world’s population now lives in countries exposed to high water vulnerability. Approximately four billion people experience severe water scarcity at least one month per year. More than half of the world’s major lakes have seen declining levels since the 1990s, and around 70% of major aquifers show long-term depletion trends.

The United Nations distinguishes between climatic drought and anthropogenic drought. In the latter case, scarcity results primarily from land-use, production and consumption choices. Precipitation levels may remain close to historical averages, yet recovery fails to occur because storage and regulatory capacities have been degraded. Scarcity thus becomes chronic.

## From Water Vulnerability to Economic Risk

For businesses, water bankruptcy fundamentally alters the nature of risk. Water ceases to be a peripheral environmental parameter and becomes a structural constraint on operations. This constraint first manifests operationally. Withdrawal restrictions, increased flow variability, or deteriorating water quality directly affect production capacity, variable costs and supply chain reliability.

Beyond these direct effects, territorial dimensions come into play. In water-stressed basins, competition between agricultural, industrial and domestic uses becomes increasingly contentious. Decisions regarding the siting, expansion or continuation of industrial activities are progressively shaped by local water availability and by the social legitimacy of water use, in light of community needs and ecosystem requirements.

Water thus joins climate and biodiversity as a determinant of long-term value creation. According to CDP’s Global Water Report 2024, one in five companies already reports water-related risks within its supply chain that could have a significant financial impact.

## Reference Frameworks Structuring Corporate Action

In response to these challenges, a growing body of methodological and regulatory frameworks has emerged. Corporate Water Stewardship, promoted notably by the World Resources Institute (WRI), encourages companies to move beyond purely internal water management and adopt a basin-level, collaborative approach involving other water users and public authorities.

The Science Based Targets for Nature (SBTN) apply science-based target-setting to freshwater. They propose a sequenced methodology that includes assessing dependencies and impacts, geographically prioritising at-risk basins, and defining actions consistent with local ecological limits, integrating both quantity and quality dimensions.

CDP Water structures the disclosure of information relating to corporate water risks, opportunities, governance and performance. It has become a central assessment tool for investors by making previously fragmented data comparable.

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) further strengthen transparency requirements by imposing a “double materiality” analysis. Companies must assess both their impacts on water resources and ecosystems, and the financial risks arising from their degradation. Water is thus recognised as a cross-cutting issue at the intersection of ecological impacts and economic dependencies.
Taken together, these frameworks converge toward a common requirement: aligning corporate water strategy with the biophysical realities of the territories on which business activities depend.

## Water Resilience: Restoring the Hydrological Functions of Landscapes

Reforest’Action’s Water Resilience programme is designed for companies whose operations or value chains are exposed to significant water risks. It aims to strengthen watershed resilience through nature-based projects.

### The Watershed as the Appropriate Scale

A watershed is the territory within which rainfall and runoff converge toward a common outlet. It constitutes the physical unit within which hydrological flows, uses and impacts are structured. Any action on water — whether withdrawals, discharges or ecosystem restoration — necessarily takes place within this geography.

Acting at basin scale makes it possible to connect industrial uses with upstream and downstream dynamics, identify the most effective levers, and coordinate actors sharing the same resource. By contrast, a strictly volumetric approach disconnected from ecosystem functioning tends to displace pressures rather than resolve them.

### An Approach Grounded in Hydrological Processes

Our approach is based on a comprehensive hydrological diagnosis integrating soil characteristics, land cover and land use data, topography, precipitation regimes and water uses. Forestry and agroforestry projects are then designed to act on key water cycle mechanisms — notably infiltration, groundwater recharge, pollutant filtration and flow regulation — and implemented by our teams in close collaboration with local stakeholders.

Impacts are assessed and monitored using recognised methodologies such as the Volumetric Water Benefit Accounting (VWBA) framework developed by WRI, alongside monitoring systems combining field data and remote sensing. Results are consolidated within a Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) platform compatible with leading reporting standards.
Through this programme, Reforest’Action seeks to restore the hydrological functions of landscapes — improving natural water filtration, regulating flows, reducing flood risks and enhancing groundwater recharge — as a necessary condition for long-term water stability.

**Water bankruptcy signals a regime shift. It reveals the limits of volume-centred management and calls for a systemic approach grounded in the restoration of ecological functions and territorial governance. For businesses, the challenge is no longer merely to secure immediate access to water, but to contribute to the resilience of watersheds upon which their activities depend. In a context of growing constraints, the ability to integrate water as a strategic, ecological and territorial factor becomes a major determinant of long-term performance, while contributing to the preservation of hydrological equilibria essential to all life.**

large_iStock-2172917273.jpg

medium_iStock-2172917273.jpg

small_iStock-2172917273.jpg

thumbnail_iStock-2172917273.jpg

iStock-2172917273.jpg

Rethinking corporate strategy in the age of water bankruptcy

**As climate disruption intensifies and regulatory and scientific frameworks continue to evolve, companies are now faced with heightened expectations regarding the maturity and robustness of their climate strategies. The unequivocal priority remains the rapid and deep reduction of greenhouse gas emissions across the entire value chain. Yet, however essential this transformation may be, it cannot deliver immediate or comprehensive results. In the interim, a significant share of emissions remains unavoidable. It is within this space that voluntary climate contribution takes shape—more specifically, the support of climate projects beyond a company’s direct operational perimeter.**

## When Climate Risks Become Economic Risks

The increasing frequency and severity of climate-related events, the growing scarcity of natural resources, the loss of essential ecosystem services, and the weakening of agricultural and water systems constitute systemic shocks capable of eroding productivity, disrupting supply chains, and weighing heavily on global economic growth in the decades ahead.

Recent scientific reviews and institutional analyses converge on a shared conclusion: risks linked to climate inaction and accelerating biodiversity loss now represent a major source of macroeconomic instability. Central banks have emphasized that environmental crises can disrupt traditional economic cycles and undermine financial stability and growth. National economic simulations published by INSEE suggest that, absent a planned transition, climate inaction could cost several points of GDP in certain economies by the end of the century. Likewise, international organizations such as the OECD identify biodiversity loss and climate change as long-term threats to economic activity, societal well-being, and financial stability.
The challenge therefore lies in the ability of economic actors to significantly increase their positive contributions—both direct and indirect—by channeling capital at the scale required toward solutions capable of restoring ecosystems and strengthening territorial resilience.

## From Compensation to Structured Climate Contribution

Offsetting has long been understood as a corrective mechanism, deployed after the fact to “neutralize” residual emissions. This interpretation—now largely outdated—no longer reflects scientific realities nor the growing expectations around climate credibility. Driven by evolving scientific standards and increasing societal scrutiny, offsetting is progressively being reframed as a more structured form of climate contribution, fully complementary to science-aligned decarbonization pathways and consistent with the objectives of the Paris Agreement.

In this context, financing climate projects—without necessarily relying on carbon credits—constitutes a critical lever for territorial transformation, delivering climate, ecological, and socio-economic benefits.

## Nature-Based Solutions as a Cornerstone of Climate Contribution

Within the spectrum of carbon contribution options, nature-based solutions occupy a strategic position. Forest restoration, afforestation, and agroforestry projects serve a dual imperative: contributing to climate change mitigation while enhancing the resilience of ecosystems and the communities that depend upon them.

Beyond carbon sequestration, such projects generate decisive co-benefits for biodiversity, soil health, hydrological regulation, and local socio-economic development. At a time when investment in nature must triple by 2030 to meet global climate targets, directing private financial flows toward these solutions represents a powerful lever for scaling impact.

## What Companies Stand to Gain
For companies, this approach offers several structural advantages at the intersection of climate performance, economic resilience, and long-term value creation.

### Contributing to Collective Mitigation Efforts

By supporting climate projects beyond their value chain—under the logic of BVCM (Beyond Value Chain Mitigation)—companies can contribute meaningfully to global mitigation efforts through quantifiable and verifiable outcomes, independently of the often lengthy transformation cycles of operations and supply chains.

### Strengthening Resilience to Climate and Economic Risks

By channeling capital toward ecosystem restoration and protection projects, companies help mitigate growing macroeconomic risks linked to climate disruption and biodiversity erosion—risks that directly threaten market stability, supply chain continuity, and long-term value creation.

### Enhancing the Credibility and Robustness of Climate Commitments

Supporting high-integrity projects—grounded in rigorous methodologies and independent verification mechanisms—enables companies to demonstrate a structured and demanding approach to climate contribution, aligned with stakeholder expectations and international reference frameworks.

### Embedding Climate Strategy Within a Long-Term Value Creation Logic

By integrating climate contribution into a long-term investment perspective rather than a purely compensatory logic, companies reinforce the alignment between climate performance and positive impacts on biodiversity, water resources, and local communities—responding to growing expectations around integrated climate-nature strategies and extra-financial performance.

_>> Taken together, these levers make climate contribution beyond the value chain a genuine strategic choice for companies. By voluntarily directing capital toward ecosystem restoration projects, businesses participate in financing essential global commons—climate stability, territorial resilience, and the preservation of ecosystem services—upon which both economies and societies ultimately depend. In a context where public financing remains insufficient relative to the scale of the challenge, private sector engagement becomes a decisive accelerator of the transition toward pathways compatible with planetary boundaries. Climate contribution thus extends beyond corporate interest alone and becomes part of a broader public interest dynamic._

## Reforest’Action Added Value: Enabling High-Integrity Carbon Contribution

Our approach to offsetting is grounded in a strong conviction: only a rigorous and demanding climate contribution, built on multifunctional projects, can generate durable impacts commensurate with today’s climate and environmental challenges.

### Fifteen Years of Experience in Ecosystem Restoration

For over fifteen years, we have developed ecosystem restoration projects across France, Europe, and tropical regions. These initiatives encompass a wide range of typologies—afforestation and reforestation, agroforestry, hedgerow restoration, mangrove rehabilitation—and are designed within a multifunctional framework that simultaneously addresses climate mitigation, biodiversity enhancement, soil-water system dynamics, and local socio-economic development.

### Robust Methodologies Ensuring Project Integrity

The robustness of this approach rests first and foremost on the quality of the methodologies deployed. Carbon quantification relies on recognized standards and independent certification or verification processes—both in France and internationally—in compliance with Voluntary Carbon Market criteria (additionality, measurability, permanence, uniqueness). This methodological rigor provides companies with strong guarantees regarding traceability, measurability, and the long-term durability of impacts generated.

### Supporting Both Short- and Long-Term Contribution Horizons

Reforest’Action further distinguishes itself through its ability to support companies across all contribution horizons:
- In the short term, by providing access to certified or independently verified (agro)forestry projects;
- In the longer term, by structuring portfolios of carbon sequestration projects currently under development, enabling companies to anticipate future net-zero requirements and secure access to high-integrity nature-based solutions.

### Territorial Anchoring as a Guarantee of Project Durability

Territorial anchoring is a central pillar of our approach. Projects are designed and implemented in direct collaboration with local partners, within territories where ecological, social, and economic dynamics are carefully integrated. The presence of locally based Project Officers and governance frameworks involving stakeholders ensures rigorous operational execution and value-sharing rooted within communities.

By combining sectoral expertise, methodological rigor, and strong field presence, Reforest’Action supports companies in building climate contribution strategies aligned with the most demanding scientific frameworks—strategies capable of delivering lasting territorial impact beyond carbon sequestration alone.

**In light of the scale of climate and ecological challenges, transforming value chains—while essential—cannot suffice on its own. Supporting climate projects beyond one’s operational perimeter has become a critical complementary lever, enabling companies to combine immediate impact, long-term risk management, and credibility of commitments. When grounded in high-integrity projects, anchored in territories and built on robust methodologies, climate contribution becomes a genuine tool of transformation—serving ecosystem resilience and the transition toward regenerative economic models.** 

_Are you a company seeking to act for the climate beyond your value chain by supporting high-quality, certified or independently verified (agro)forestry projects? [Contact one of our experts](https://www.reforestaction.com/en/contact) to explore how we can support your strategy._


large_Header-Offsetting.jpg

medium_Header-Offsetting.jpg

small_Header-Offsetting.jpg

thumbnail_Header-Offsetting.jpg

Header-Offsetting.jpg

Beyond Value Chain Mitigation : a strategic lever for climate action

**In a context of increasingly stringent reporting requirements and rising expectations for credibility from investors, companies’ ability to measure, disclose, and manage their greenhouse gas emissions has become a strategic imperative. Developed by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the GHG Protocol is now established as the international methodological reference for greenhouse gas accounting.**

## A Common Architecture Based on Scopes 1, 2 and 3

The GHG Protocol is built on a harmonised approach to emissions accounting, structured around Scopes 1, 2 and 3, which respectively cover direct emissions, emissions associated with purchased energy, and all other indirect emissions across the value chain. This architecture enables data comparability and underpins the consistency of the main climate action frameworks.

## The Foundation of Regulatory and Voluntary Frameworks

As such, the GHG Protocol provides the operational basis for key frameworks such as the CSRD, which governs regulatory climate disclosures in Europe, the SBTi, which validates science-based emissions reduction targets, and, more broadly, the implementation of the objectives set out in the Paris Agreement at the organisational level.

## A New Standard for the Land Sector and Carbon Removals

In line with this effort to strengthen methodological consistency, the GHG Protocol has recently published its first standard dedicated to the land sector and carbon removals (Land Sector and Removals – LSR). This new framework addresses a long-standing gap by introducing robust, science-based rules for accounting for emissions from agriculture and CO₂ removals associated with land use—an essential yet until now insufficiently structured lever of climate transition pathways.

## A Progressive Evolution

Developed through a rigorous, transparent and inclusive five-year process, the LSR Standard enables companies to access more comparable and decision-useful information to manage and assess progress toward net-zero pathways. However, it does not yet include specific requirements related to forest carbon accounting, which will be addressed through future work and stakeholder consultations. This progressive evolution illustrates how climate reference frameworks are increasingly and carefully integrating issues related to living systems and ecosystems.

**As methodological frameworks continue to mature and gain precision, the credibility of climate strategies increasingly depends on their ability to combine emissions reductions with a robust consideration of the role of nature. Nature-based solutions, particularly those linked to terrestrial ecosystems, represent a critical lever for climate action, provided they are implemented within transparent, scientifically robust frameworks aligned with international best practices. In this context, Reforest’Action develops and implements high-integrity regenerative agriculture and carbon sequestration projects, offering companies concrete solutions to structure and secure their climate contribution over both the short and long term, in line with the evolving reference frameworks and growing expectations for credibility and measurable impact.**


large_Header-GHG.jpg

medium_Header-GHG.jpg

small_Header-GHG.jpg

thumbnail_Header-GHG.jpg

Header-GHG.jpg

The GHG Protocol publishes a new standard dedicated to the land sector and carbon removals

**While carbon credit markets have long been shaped by a wide range of private standards, the European Union is now seeking to establish a common language around an issue that has become central to climate neutrality: projects contributing to the reduction and removal of CO₂ in Europe. In this context, the Carbon Removal Certification Framework (CRCF) represents a major structural milestone. Adopted in its core principles in 2024, this European framework aims to harmonise how certain carbon removal and storage activities are measured, certified, verified and monitored, in order to strengthen the comparability and credibility of the results claimed. For companies and investors, the stakes are immediate. As requirements for transparency, monitoring and impact measurement continue to rise, the ability to clearly distinguish between what constitutes emissions reductions and what qualifies as carbon removals has become a key credibility factor. The CRCF does not merely acknowledge the role of removals; it seeks to define the conditions under which they can be demonstrated, framed over time, and made intelligible to stakeholders.**

## A European framework to certify carbon removals

Climate neutrality rests first and foremost on a massive reduction of emissions across scopes 1, 2 and 3. However, long-term pathways also recognise the need to scale up carbon removals—whether nature-based or technological—particularly to address a share of residual emissions that are difficult to eliminate. In this context, the challenge is to ensure that the removals mobilised meet sufficiently robust integrity criteria, supported by explicit and coherent accounting rules.

This is precisely the ambition of the CRCF: to create a European certification infrastructure—voluntary yet structuring—designed to reduce fragmentation, raise the level of requirements, and make results comparable, traceable and verifiable.

## Three categories of activities, one shared logic

The CRCF is intended to frame the certification of three main categories of activities.
First, so-called permanent removals, which refer to forms of storage designed to last over long time horizons, often associated with industrial or geological solutions. Second, carbon farming activities, which encompass nature-based practices aimed at increasing carbon storage in biomass and soils. Finally, the framework covers carbon storage in products, where carbon is incorporated into materials or goods with a significant lifetime.

This structuring marks an important shift: the focus is no longer solely on carbon units in the traditional sense, but on certified activities under a European framework, supported by a harmonised approach to verification and monitoring. By defining the conditions under which CO₂ removal can become a demonstrable and durable result, recognised through a common methodology, the CRCF will enable the issuance of carbon credits within the European Union under a shared standard recognised by both EU institutions and Member States.

## Turning carbon removal into a verifiable result

At the core of the CRCF lies the central role of evidence. For a carbon removal to become a trusted instrument, it must be based on robust quantification, explicit measurement rules, and the ability to be audited. This requirement goes beyond the headline volume: it also applies to the conditions that underpin credibility—additionality, storage duration, management of reversal risks, data transparency, and long-term monitoring.

Quality thus becomes a demonstrable attribute, grounded in methodology and governance, rather than a purely declarative label.

## A framework under construction

The CRCF is currently in its operationalisation phase. The general framework adopted in December 2024 sets out the architecture, but its practical implementation depends on the development of methodologies, verification rules and registries capable of translating principles into fully executable requirements, depending on project types (agricultural, forestry, technological, etc.).

This process is already visible through draft delegated acts—legal instruments through which the European Commission specifies certain elements of a regulation, under a mandate from the legislator, in order to make its application operational—two of which have already circulated in view of their adoption. The delegated act covering certain nature-based projects (including agroforestry and afforestation) is currently subject to public consultation, with publication expected in spring 2026.

These draft texts illustrate an already highly structuring evolution: the European Union does not treat nature-based solutions as a homogeneous block, but advances through distinct methodologies tailored to the realities of specific practices. Two carbon farming approaches are detailed in particular: agroforestry and plantation (afforestation). Without prejudging their final versions, these documents confirm the overall direction of the CRCF: a certification framework grounded in evidence, requiring a scientifically based baseline definition, demonstration of additionality, explicit quantification rules, and long-term monitoring, with heightened attention to permanence and reversal risk.
I
n other words, Europe is not merely encouraging nature-based removals; it is seeking to define the conditions of their robustness, in order to make these results more comparable and more credible for economic actors.

## What this could change for companies and investors

For companies and investors alike, the CRCF carries a central implication: it makes carbon reduction and removal projects more legible by establishing a European standard recognised by public institutions. The credibility of a climate strategy will no longer hinge solely on the existence of a budget allocated to sequestration or removal projects, but on the ability to clearly explain the nature of the certified activity, the quantification methodology, the duration of storage, the associated safeguards and the monitoring arrangements.

This is a decisive point for net-zero strategies. It encourages early clarification between emissions reductions—which must remain the foundation—and the mobilisation of removals as a complementary instrument, whether as a contribution or as a means of addressing residual emissions, depending on the reference frameworks adopted. By progressively harmonising and auditing methodologies, the CRCF raises expectations around evidence and documentation, directly influencing project selection criteria as well as the formulation of public commitments.

For investors, the CRCF signals a maturing landscape. It opens the way to a more structured environment for certified removals, with improved visibility on risks related to quality, monitoring and permanence—without, however, eliminating the need for thorough due diligence.

## Reforest’Action’s approach: high-integrity, nature-based projects

Corporate climate contributions are most meaningful when they rely on projects capable of delivering demonstrable results, monitored over time and aligned with increasingly demanding frameworks. Reforest’Action operates within this dynamic by developing and implementing high-integrity, nature-based carbon sequestration projects, with a rigorous approach to measurement, traceability and transparency—offering organisations concrete solutions to structure their climate contribution over both the short and long term.

**The CRCF marks a major shift. Europe is no longer merely acknowledging the role of carbon removals; it is actively creating the conditions for their certification and comparability. By establishing a common, structuring framework, the CRCF raises the bar on evidence, monitoring and durability of certified results, and accelerates a transformation already underway: the transition from a fragmented landscape to a more legible, harmonised and auditable reference system. For companies and investors, understanding this framework becomes a strategic advantage—not only because it clarifies the conditions under which a carbon removal action can be considered credible by the European Union, but also because it reshapes market expectations. Tomorrow, the value of a carbon project will lie not merely in the results announced, but in the robustness of its methodologies, the transparency of its safeguards, and the coherence of its uses within the European regulatory context.**

large_Header-CRCF.jpg

medium_Header-CRCF.jpg

small_Header-CRCF.jpg

thumbnail_Header-CRCF.jpg

Header-CRCF.jpg

CRCF: the first European framework for carbon reduction and removal projects

**International carbon markets are entering a decisive phase of clarification. Long shaped by a wide range of approaches and uses, they are now being pulled toward higher expectations of consistency, transparency and traceability. In this context, Article 6 of the Paris Agreement stands out as a structuring text: beyond its technical nature, it frames international cooperation on carbon mechanisms and places accounting integrity at the core of the system, notably to prevent double counting of emission reductions. For companies and investors, the stakes are immediate. Article 6—and in particular its 6.4 mechanism—could accelerate the structuring of international carbon markets around more harmonised rules, while raising the bar on evidence, governance and reporting. Reforest’Action’s expertise is grounded in a demanding reading of Article 6, with the aim of shedding light on this evolving framework and its implications for economic actors.**

## Article 6 within the architecture of the Paris Agreement

### A historic agreement, now a framework for action
Ten years after its adoption, the Paris Agreement is no longer merely a diplomatic horizon: it is increasingly shaping the transformation pathway of economies. Its architecture is built on a fundamental principle: each country defines a national contribution to the collective effort—its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC)—and reports regularly on progress. In other words, climate action becomes a matter of public steering: measured, compared, reviewed, and designed to increase in ambition over successive cycles.

### The distinctive role of Article 6
Within this architecture, Article 6 occupies a particular place. It enables countries to cooperate voluntarily in order to meet their climate objectives and enhance overall ambition, notably through market-based approaches. It also introduces a requirement that changes the game: accounting integrity, understood as the ability to track, allocate and prevent double counting of emission reductions. When mitigation outcomes are transferred from one country to another, the logic of the Paris Agreement requires that the same tonne of CO₂ not be counted twice in two different places. Article 6 therefore frames these transfers and предусматривает the use of corresponding adjustments, designed to preserve the consistency of national accounts when units are transferred—particularly under Article 6.2 (transfers between two countries).

### Toward a more institutionalised market
This marks a clear shift in paradigm. Carbon markets—long perceived as a heterogeneous landscape that can be difficult to navigate—are progressively moving toward a more institutionalised and more tightly framed system, where credibility depends as much on the quality of projects as on the accounting, traceability and reporting rules that surround units. This is precisely why Article 6 has become a central topic for economic actors. Beneath the surface, the debate is evolving: the question is no longer only about acquiring “high-quality” credits, but about credits embedded in an increasingly structured climate accounting system at both national and international levels.

### Three cooperation pathways in support of climate objectives
Cooperation between countries under Article 6 can take three forms, commonly referred to by their respective paragraphs: 6.2, 6.4 and 6.8—while the other paragraphs primarily set out the principles, requirements and cross-cutting modalities of the framework. The UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) presents these as the three components of Article 6: an accounting framework for international transfers (6.2), a central crediting mechanism under UN supervision (6.4), and a channel for non-market cooperation (6.8). While Article 6 covers all forms of cooperation between countries in support of their climate targets—and is therefore not limited to carbon markets—these markets remain among its most visible and most structuring expressions for economic actors.

![Schema-Article-6-RA-EN.png](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Schema_Article_6_RA_EN_c611607fbb.png)

## The three pillars of Article 6

### Article 6.2: transfers between countries
The first pillar, Article 6.2, governs “cooperative approaches” that allow countries to use internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs) toward their NDCs. This is where a logic of intergovernmental exchanges emerges: a country that overachieves on its targets may transfer part of those outcomes to another country. In practice, this enables bilateral or plurilateral cooperation, with requirements on monitoring, transparency and accounting consistency. The UNFCCC describes this pillar as an accounting and reporting guidance framework governing the use of ITMOs toward NDCs.

### Article 6.4: the UN crediting mechanism
The second pillar, Article 6.4, is the one that attracts particular attention from the private sector. It establishes a crediting mechanism under UN governance—the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism (PACM)—designed to frame the generation and issuance of units resulting from verified emission reductions or removals, as part of international cooperation. The UNFCCC describes this mechanism as a system that “can be used to trade high-quality carbon credits”, often presented as a new step beyond the mechanisms created under the Kyoto Protocol.
For companies, Article 6.4 has the potential to become a structuring reference point—more harmonised, more readable, and better aligned with countries’ climate objectives. In return, it implies higher requirements on project traceability and governance, as well as on the methodological compliance of issued units, from impact demonstration through to long-term monitoring and reporting. Many methodologies covering the diversity of carbon projects are currently being developed under the oversight of a UN supervisory body.

### Article 6.8: non-market cooperation
The third pillar, Article 6.8, opens a different space: non-market approaches. Here, the goal is not to issue or exchange carbon units, but to enable international cooperation through financing, technology transfer and capacity-building, in support of countries’ implementation of climate objectives (both mitigation and adaptation). The UNFCCC presents this pillar as complementary to the two previous ones, focused on non-market cooperation to deliver NDCs and to support countries—particularly those most affected by climate change—in achieving mitigation and adaptation goals through voluntary public or private finance.

### A lens for the private sector
Understanding this three-part structure is essential to avoid a common confusion: not everything under Article 6 is necessarily linked to carbon markets, yet Article 6 provides the most structuring framework for understanding how international cooperation connects to national climate accounting—and, indirectly, to the credibility of instruments used by private actors. As such, the three pillars of Article 6 are a clear marker: climate contribution is entering a phase where requirements are no longer only ethical or voluntary, but structural. Environmental integrity, transparency and accounting consistency are becoming market attributes.

## Toward the structuring of international carbon markets

### Article 6.4 as a driver of market structuring
Article 6.4, in particular, could accelerate the structuring of international carbon markets around more harmonised rules. Designed first and foremost as an intergovernmental instrument serving countries, it may nonetheless generate units that can later be mobilised by other actors, within regulatory frameworks or for voluntary uses, depending on applicable authorisations and accounting conditions.

### Different use scenarios for carbon credits
Under Article 6, a carbon credit is no longer simply a unit that is “bought” or “used”: its pathway depends on how it is recognised and accounted for within the architecture of the Paris Agreement. At the outset, a project generates verified emission reductions or removals. Depending on the host country’s choices, these outcomes can then lead to distinct uses.
In a first scenario, units are not transferred internationally under Article 6: they may then be mobilised as a form of climate contribution, provided that their use is described transparently and without claiming attribution of the reduction at the expense of the host country’s national accounting.
In a second scenario, if the host country authorises the transfer and accepts the associated conditions, units can become transferable mitigation outcomes. They then fall under an Article 6 logic where accounting consistency is central, notably through corresponding adjustments designed to prevent double counting. The same tonne cannot simultaneously serve the host country’s national pathway and another actor’s claim: its use is defined by the framework that accompanies it.
In practice, Article 6 opens a landscape that is both more differentiated and more standardised: some units may circulate as credits recognised within an internationally traceable framework, while others will remain mobilisable through contribution approaches outside of transfers.

### A framework still under construction
Beyond these different use scenarios, the intention of the 6.4 mechanism is also to channel finance toward projects capable of delivering climate outcomes, while in some cases strengthening the resilience of ecosystems and local communities. In reality, Article 6.4 is still being operationalised progressively: part of the technical work aims to translate principles into executable modalities able to frame projects and ensure their robustness. For project developers—particularly those working with nature-based solutions—this momentum opens a stronger pathway to recognition, but it also comes with heightened requirements, especially around impact demonstration, monitoring and permanence.

## What does this mean for corporate net-zero strategies?

### Credibility: carbon credits become a governance decision
Because the operationalisation of Article 6.4 is changing the conditions of credibility and traceability around carbon credits, companies are increasingly encouraged to better articulate their overall climate neutrality strategy. The purchase and use of credits can no longer be treated as a simple act of “offsetting”. It is a structuring decision that directly affects the credibility of a company’s climate trajectory.

### Traceability: clarifying the guarantees behind a credit
Concretely, the value of a credit depends not only on the project it finances, but also on the guarantees that surround it: traceability, the rules governing its issuance and monitoring, the conditions under which it can be transferred or claimed, and how it relates to countries’ climate accounting. Article 6 is not a guarantee in itself: it strengthens the framework, but credibility still rests on rigorous diligence—impact demonstration, additionality, permanence, governance and data transparency. This is particularly true for nature-based projects, which carry strong expectations (biodiversity, resilience, adaptation, territorial impacts) alongside heightened evidentiary requirements.

### Net zero: reduce first, contribute second
For companies and investment funds, the challenge is now to build climate strategies that can deliver on three promises at once: real transformation (emissions reductions across scopes 1, 2 and 3), the robustness of the instruments mobilised (quality, traceability, governance), and the clarity of disclosed commitments, supported by verifiable evidence. In this context, climate contribution is most meaningful when it is anchored in high-integrity projects, tracked over time and backed by demonstrable outcomes.
This is precisely where Reforest’Action’s expertise sits: developing and implementing high-integrity, nature-based carbon sequestration projects, and offering companies concrete solutions to structure and secure their climate contribution in both the short and long term. Through a demanding approach to measurement, traceability and transparency, Reforest’Action enables organisations to rely on robust projects—delivering strong climate and biodiversity outcomes—monitored over time and aligned with the growing strength of international frameworks.


**While Article 6 of the Paris Agreement may be seen as a technical topic reserved for negotiators, it is in fact one of the most structuring political frameworks for the decade ahead. As it is progressively operationalised, it raises the level of requirements for economic actors by clarifying the conditions under which international carbon cooperation mechanisms (transfers and crediting) can be mobilised credibly. This evolution—from a still fragmented market to a more standardised and traceable framework—is precisely what makes Article 6 a priority issue for companies and investors.**
**For companies, Article 6 underscores an essential distinction: on the one hand, internal emissions reductions across scopes 1, 2 and 3, which remain the core of a net-zero pathway; on the other, climate contribution, based on complementary financing. In this context, credibility rests less on stated intent than on the ability to document and demonstrate: project quality, unit traceability, conditions of use, accounting consistency and reporting transparency. These requirements directly shape operational choices (project selection criteria, long-term monitoring) as well as external communications, which must make explicit the role of credits within the trajectory and the evidence that supports it.**
**Ultimately, the challenge is no longer only to acquire units, but to anchor them within a clear and verifiable framework, consistent with a net-zero pathway—supporting stronger risk management and more robust investment decisions.**



large_Header-Article-6.jpg

medium_Header-Article-6.jpg

small_Header-Article-6.jpg

thumbnail_Header-Article-6.jpg

Header-Article-6.jpg

Article 6: A structuring framework for international carbon markets

**The transformation of agricultural systems represents one of the most powerful levers available to companies to reduce their carbon footprint and strengthen the resilience of their supply chains. As organizations seek to align with science-based decarbonization pathways, the SBTi FLAG framework—specifically dedicated to sectors linked to land use—has emerged as a structuring reference. Understanding its implications and knowing how to apply it in practice has become an essential step for any company dependent on agricultural and forest-based raw materials.**

## Understanding SBTi FLAG: a structuring framework for supply chains

### What are the SBTi and its sector-specific guidance, SBTi FLAG?

The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) is today the leading international framework enabling companies to adopt greenhouse gas reduction pathways aligned with the objectives of the Paris Agreement. Drawing on IPCC recommendations and a rigorous methodological foundation, the SBTi provides both guidance and validation of corporate climate commitments, ensuring their credibility and alignment with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

Within this overarching framework, the SBTi FLAG (Forest, Land and Agriculture) sector-specific guidance occupies a distinct position. It translates SBTi principles to the specific context of emissions arising from land use, with particular relevance for sectors such as forest and paper products—including forestry, timber, pulp and paper, and rubber—as well as crop and livestock production, agri-food processing, food distribution, and the tobacco industry. While these sectors are among the most directly concerned, the determining criterion remains the share of FLAG emissions within a company’s overall emissions inventory.

By integrating the biological specificities of these sectors and their unique capacity to sequester carbon, the SBTi FLAG framework provides companies with a dedicated methodological approach, enabling them to define ambitious trajectories that remain grounded in the realities of their value chains.

### A framework designed to address the specificities of land-related emissions

Whereas companies previously focused their carbon reporting primarily on emissions from fossil fuel consumption and land-use change—defined as the conversion of one ecosystem into another through human activity, such as deforestation or the conversion of permanent grasslands into cropland—they must now broaden their analytical scope. Carbon accounting now includes emissions linked to land use itself, understood as the management of land for agricultural production. This broader approach enables a more comprehensive assessment of carbon footprints by accounting for changes in carbon stocks within soils and biomass, whether through depletion or additional storage.

Under the SBTi FLAG framework, organizations whose activities rely on land use are therefore required to set science-based reduction targets over a five- to ten-year time horizon. Moreover, companies operating outside these core sectors, but for which FLAG emissions represent more than 20% of total greenhouse gas emissions, must also establish specific FLAG targets. This requirement ensures comprehensive coverage of land-related impacts, regardless of a company’s primary activity.

Companies whose FLAG emissions account for less than 20% of their total carbon footprint are not required to set SBTi FLAG targets, but may choose to do so voluntarily, provided that the objectives defined are rigorous, measurable, and credible.

### A mandatory dual objective: reduce and sequester

The distinctive feature of SBTi FLAG lies in its dual requirement to both reduce absolute emissions and increase carbon sequestration within the value chain. Companies concerned are expected to achieve at least a 30% reduction in FLAG emissions by 2030 under the default pathway—unless a commodity-specific pathway is available—while simultaneously investing in agricultural or ecosystem-based practices that enhance carbon stocks in soils and biomass. This dual requirement reflects the hybrid nature of agriculture as both a source and a sink of carbon, and calls for a profound transformation of practices.

### An imperative of permanence and robust monitoring

SBTi FLAG does not merely require results; it also mandates that these results be maintained over time. Sequestration gains may be reversed through changes in practices, soil disturbance, or ecosystem degradation. Companies must therefore commit to robust monitoring, based on measurement, reporting, and verification systems adapted to living systems. This requirement fosters a new type of relationship with producers, grounded in long-term partnership.

![SBTi FLAG EN.png](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/SB_Ti_FLAG_EN_bd27cd482d.png)

## Putting SBTi FLAG into practice: key levers for action

### Building a robust approach based on measurement, partnerships, and financing

To ensure the credibility of a FLAG trajectory, companies must begin with a detailed understanding of emissions associated with their raw materials and the geography of their sourcing. This mapping exercise helps identify high-risk areas, priority practices for transformation, and opportunities for sequestration. On this basis, co-construction with farmers becomes essential. Shared diagnostics, technical training, innovative contractual arrangements, payments for ecosystem services, and co-financing of agroforestry projects all help create a conducive framework for transition.

SBTi FLAG also requires the implementation of reliable monitoring and tracking systems. Field data, digital tools, and independent verification methods must be mobilized to document changes in practices and ensure the permanence of achieved gains. Finally, the agricultural transition requires financing commensurate with the scale of the challenge. Companies must design risk-sharing mechanisms, economic incentives, and remuneration models capable of encouraging producers to transform their practices sustainably.

### Reducing emissions at source through changes in agricultural practices

Reducing emissions within agricultural value chains first requires better control of inputs, both in terms of quantity and type. Nitrogen fertilization is a central issue, not only because of the nitrous oxide emissions it generates in the field, but also due to the high carbon footprint associated with the production of mineral fertilizers, whose industrial processes are particularly energy-intensive. By optimizing nitrogen applications, adapting fertilizer forms, and diversifying crop rotations—especially through the introduction of nitrogen-fixing crops—it is possible to significantly reduce emissions while improving agronomic and economic performance.

In livestock systems, emission reductions also rely on a combination of complementary levers. Adjusting feed rations, improving herd genetics—through the selection of animals that convert feed into useful energy more efficiently, thereby reducing relative methane emissions—and valorizing manure through anaerobic digestion all help lower the climate footprint of livestock production. In all cases, implementing these changes requires close technical support and a durable relationship of trust with producers, which is essential for the effective transformation of practices.

### Increasing on-farm carbon storage through agroecological practices

Soil carbon sequestration constitutes a second major pillar of strategies aligned with SBTi FLAG. Agroecological practices—such as permanent soil cover, diversified rotations, reduced tillage, and organic matter inputs—gradually increase soil organic matter and, consequently, stored carbon. Although their effects materialize over several years, these approaches strengthen soil fertility, resilience, and biodiversity.

Agroforestry fully embodies this dynamic by combining two complementary sequestration levers: carbon storage in soils and carbon accumulated in tree biomass. By integrating trees within agricultural plots, these systems enable long-term carbon capture in both aboveground and belowground biomass—including wood, branches, and root systems—while enhancing organic matter flows into the soil. Scientific research increasingly demonstrates that transitioning from conventional agricultural systems to agroforestry significantly enhances overall carbon storage. 

A [meta-analysis](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10457-017-0147-9) published in Agroforestry Systems, synthesizing several dozen studies across diverse pedoclimatic contexts, highlights a substantial increase in soil organic carbon stocks following the introduction of trees into agricultural plots. These findings confirm that agroforestry contributes durably to biological carbon sequestration, both in soils—particularly in topsoil layers—and in tree biomass, while delivering agronomic, microclimatic, and economic benefits for farms.

### Restoring natural ecosystems to preserve carbon sinks

Adopted in 2022 for application as of 31 December 2026, the [European Union Deforestation Regulation](https://www.reforestaction.com/en/magazine/european-law-deforestation) (EUDR) requires companies to demonstrate, on a product-by-product basis, the absence of deforestation after 31 December 2020. In this context, strengthening traceability, integrating strict purchasing criteria, and contractualizing sustainable management practices with suppliers becomes indispensable. These approaches may be complemented by programs to restore degraded agricultural or forest landscapes within sourcing territories, contributing both to carbon sequestration and regulatory compliance.

For many companies, protecting ecosystems located within or upstream of their value chains therefore represents a major impact lever, particularly when sourcing raw materials from regions exposed to deforestation or land conversion risks. By reorienting sourcing strategies toward land preservation and sustainable ecosystem management, companies can simultaneously meet the requirements of the EUDR and SBTi FLAG, while reinforcing the environmental and social resilience of the territories on which their activities depend.

As deforestation remains one of the primary sources of FLAG emissions, recent evolutions of the SBTi FLAG framework further clarify corporate commitments in this area. Companies now have up to two years after the validation of their FLAG targets—and no later than 31 December 2030—to achieve deforestation-free supply chains. In addition, commitments must cover the seven commodities defined by the EUDR—cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soy, and timber—whenever each represents at least 5% of a company’s gross FLAG emissions. This evolution, opened for consultation at the end of 2024, strengthens coherence between SBTi FLAG and European regulatory requirements, facilitating convergence across compliance systems.

## Reforest’Action supports companies in the agricultural transition

Reforest’Action provides companies with tailored support to integrate regenerative agriculture directly into their value chains. Drawing on more than 15 years of expertise in agroforestry, we design projects adapted to local contexts and to corporate strategic objectives, whether to secure supplies, reduce carbon footprints, or enhance land resilience. Our approach unfolds in four key stages—feasibility assessment, project engineering, implementation, and long-term monitoring—to ensure tangible and lasting results.

By combining soil restoration, agroecological practices, agroforestry, ecological monitoring, and support for local communities, our approach delivers multiple benefits: carbon storage, enhanced biodiversity, improved soil health, water quality protection, yield security, and positive socio-economic impacts. For companies, this represents not only a concrete response to SBTi FLAG requirements, but also a structured contribution to the environmental and social sustainability of their production chains.

**Meeting SBTi FLAG requirements is not merely a matter of adopting an additional methodology. It represents a paradigm shift that entails a profound transformation of agricultural practices, commercial relationships, and territorial investments. By acting simultaneously on emission reductions, biological carbon sequestration, and ecosystem restoration, companies can not only meet scientific criteria, but also strengthen the resilience of their supply chains and create a lasting competitive advantage. SBTi FLAG thus emerges as a major opportunity to anchor climate action at the very heart of agricultural landscapes and contribute to the regeneration of living systems.**

**Are you a company looking to evolve practices related to the production of your raw materials? Our experts are available to discuss your challenges and support your strategic thinking. [Contact us.](https://www.reforestaction.com/en/contact)**

## RESOURCES

[White paper: Regenerative agriculture.](https://info.reforestaction.com/white-paper-regenerative-agriculture) This white paper provides a comprehensive overview of why initiating an agroecological transition is essential to ensure the long-term sustainability of your activities and create value for your company. Discover why and how to implement a regenerative agriculture project that will help you achieve your SBTi FLAG objectives.



large_Header-SBTI-Flag.jpg

medium_Header-SBTI-Flag.jpg

small_Header-SBTI-Flag.jpg

thumbnail_Header-SBTI-Flag.jpg

Header-SBTI-Flag.jpg

SBTi FLAG: Understanding and Steering the Transformation of Agricultural Value Chains

**As the voluntary carbon market continues to mature and transparency requirements increase, the demonstration of additionality has become a decisive criterion for ensuring the integrity of carbon sequestration projects. In the field of Nature-based Solutions, where biophysical and socio-economic dynamics vary significantly from one territory to another, this requirement translates into the need for robust methodological tools capable of distinguishing the intrinsic effect of a project from the natural evolution of ecosystems. The VM0047 methodology developed under the Verra standard addresses this need by introducing the performance benchmark, a mechanism designed to assess the actual contribution of a reforestation project to carbon sequestration.**

**Reforest’Action has developed an ambitious operational application of this benchmark, relying on remote sensing data to strengthen the rigor of the assessment. By anchoring the analysis in the observed dynamics of vegetation, this approach makes it possible to establish the additionality of carbon sequestration achieved by projects and thereby provide companies and investors with a high level of assurance regarding their climate impact.**

## A Central Mechanism for the Integrity of ARR Projects

### The Requirement for Demonstrable Additionality

Additionality is a core determinant of the integrity of a carbon project. A carbon credit can only deliver environmental value if it corresponds to carbon sequestration that would not have occurred in the absence of carbon finance.

For forest projects—which may span tens of thousands of hectares, encompass multiple land-use types, and be influenced by a wide range of local socio-economic, political, and regulatory factors (such as agricultural land profitability, public policies supporting reforestation, or local land tenure dynamics)—demonstrating additionality represents a particular challenge.

Assessing each situation individually may lead to heterogeneous evaluations and difficult-to-compare arbitration across projects. To address this complexity while ensuring a consistent and coherent assessment framework, the VM0047 methodology under the Verra standard, which applies to afforestation, reforestation, and revegetation projects, relies on a standardized reference mechanism: the performance benchmark.

### Defining the Project’s Actual Contribution to Carbon Sequestration

Within VM0047, the performance benchmark serves as a reference threshold to determine whether a project is genuinely additional. In other words, it aims to quantify the actual contribution of a project to carbon storage at the parcel level over time, taking into account changes in land use across the project area. The contribution of a forest project to increased carbon sequestration is not the same in a region experiencing agricultural abandonment and the expansion of fallow land as it is in a region subject to agricultural intensification.

“The performance benchmark makes it possible to compare the overall regional trend in carbon sequestration with that of the implemented project,” explains Hugo Treuil-Dussouet, Geomatics and Remote Sensing Analyst at Reforest’Action. “This method allows us to determine the level of contribution a project makes to carbon sequestration on the parcels concerned. For example, in a parcel that has been reforested at 100% as part of a carbon project, the project may in fact only contribute to 70% of the carbon sequestration, given that the remaining 30% would have been sequestered through vegetation development even in the absence of the project.”

### Applying the Performance Benchmark at Reforest’Action

In line with the Verra methodology, Reforest’Action relies on remote sensing to observe vegetation dynamics. A donor area is first defined in order to delineate a sufficiently large zone characterized by legal, ecological, and management conditions similar to those of the project area. Within this zone, control plots are identified, which together constitute a dynamic baseline representing the natural evolution of vegetation cover in the absence of a reforestation project.

The comparison between the sequestration trajectories of project plots and those of control plots is based on a Stocking Index, specifically the Normalized Difference Fraction Index (NDFI). This indicator, derived from spectral unmixing, makes it possible to assess biomass levels, forest cover, and vegetation density. Observed at multiple points in time, it is used to establish an average trajectory reflecting vegetation dynamics.
When the sequestration curve of the project plots exceeds that of the control plots, the additional sequestration can be attributed to carbon finance.

This analysis is updated every five years, in line with the verification cycles required under VM0047, in order to ensure that the benchmark remains aligned with actual field conditions and accurately reflects project performance over time.

## A Response to Market Expectations

The approach developed by Reforest’Action to apply the performance benchmark under VM0047 directly contributes to strengthening the environmental and methodological integrity of certified projects. By relying on a robust biophysical proxy and regular updates, this method provides essential safeguards for the high integrity of the carbon credits generated through our projects.

### Reducing Uncertainty and Ensuring Transparency

Defining a donor area and control plots anchors the benchmark in a real, rather than theoretical, representation of vegetation evolution in the absence of a project. This approach offers two key advantages: it avoids biases associated with models or economic assumptions that often underpin ex ante additionality analyses, and it provides a dynamic baseline based on vegetation trajectories observed through remote sensing, thereby reducing scientific and methodological uncertainty. Reforest’Action thus strengthens the credibility of reported sequestration and limits the risk of overestimation.

The use of the NDFI, an indicator derived from spectral unmixing, ensures a standardized measurement of biomass and vegetation density. This tool offers several key benefits for carbon integrity:
- it relies on satellite data that are accessible, traceable, and verifiable;
- it enables continuous and consistent measurement of project performance;
- it enhances objectivity by removing reliance on declarative or subjective interpretations.

The use of a stable and recognized spectral proxy increases the transparency of the MRV (Monitoring, Reporting & Verification) process and facilitates the reproducibility of results by third-party auditors.

### Demonstrating the Impact of Carbon Finance

By comparing the sequestration curves of project plots with those of control plots, it becomes possible to demonstrate in a tangible way that the project’s sequestration trajectory exceeds the natural dynamics of local vegetation, and that this additional performance is directly attributable to carbon finance. This makes it possible to move from presumed additionality—typical of ex ante projection approaches—to additionality demonstrated through observed data. This distinction is critical for strengthening the credibility of carbon credits in the eyes of companies and investors.

### Integrating Environmental and Socio-Economic Changes

Updating the benchmark every five years, in line with the Verra standard’s verification cycles, ensures that the assessment remains aligned with real-world conditions. This periodic update prevents outdated or non-representative trajectories from continuing to serve as references, allows for the integration of changes in climate, land use, and management practices, and enhances the accuracy of sequestration estimates over the full life of the project. The benchmark is therefore not static; it is adaptive, which increases the robustness of the MRV framework and limits the risk of cumulative overestimation.

### Providing a Framework Aligned with Current Market Expectations

Reforest’Action’s approach fully addresses the growing expectations of the carbon market:
- environmental integrity, through real and verifiable measurements;
- comparability between projects, through a reproducible and standardized methodology;
- robust governance, through process auditing and transparency of the data used.

In a context where financial actors and companies require high levels of assurance before committing to sequestration projects, this approach represents a significant strategic advantage.


**Integrating the performance benchmark within VM0047-certified projects represents a key lever for ensuring their integrity and credibility. By mobilizing an approach based on the observation of vegetation trajectories and the regular updating of data, Reforest’Action enhances the precision of sequestration monitoring and demonstrates in a tangible manner the additional impact of carbon finance. This methodological rigor, supported by the use of a spectral proxy and dynamic control plots, is fully aligned with the evolution of international standards and responds to the growing expectations of economic actors engaged in the climate transition.**

**In a market where trust is built on the ability to measure, verify, and compare climate benefits, the approach developed by Reforest’Action provides a structured, transparent, and scientifically grounded framework. It also confirms the central role that remote sensing technologies can play in improving the quality of Nature-based Solutions, paving the way for safer, more ambitious, and truly transformative investments for ecosystems and the climate.**

large_Header-PB.jpg

medium_Header-PB.jpg

small_Header-PB.jpg

thumbnail_Header-PB.jpg

Header-PB.jpg

The Performance Benchmark in the Verra VM0047 Methodology: A Lever for Integrity in ARR Projects

Actualités et décryptages