**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

**Biodiversity is both the foundation of ecosystem stability, the backbone of human economies, and an irreplaceable natural heritage. According to the [Global Risks Report 2024](https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/01/global-risk-report-2024-risks-are-growing-but-theres-hope/) published by the World Economic Forum, biodiversity loss ranks among the three most significant global risks facing society. In other words, the biodiversity crisis is now considered a major systemic threat, on par with climate-related extreme events and critical Earth system changes. Against the backdrop of escalating ecological urgency, chronic underfunding for nature protection, and growing expectations placed on businesses, a new international dynamic is emerging: the potential development of a market for so-called “nature credits”.** 

**For the past 15 years, Reforest’Action has been actively engaged in the restoration of forest ecosystems. In this context, the organisation has been appointed as a member of the European Commission’s Nature Credits Expert Group for the next five years. This strategic role reflects Reforest’Action’s commitment to supporting the development of a robust, credible and ambitious framework for these emerging biodiversity finance instruments. It also builds on the organisation’s ongoing engagement within the International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits (IAPB), which brings together scientific experts, public authorities and engaged organisations to define the principles and orientations required for the emergence of high-integrity biodiversity credit markets.**
 
## Biodiversity: Foundations, Ecosystem Services and a Heritage Under Pressure

Biodiversity refers to the variability among living organisms from all sources, including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and aquatic ecosystems, as well as the ecological complexes of which they are part. This includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems. Beyond its intrinsic value, biodiversity provides humanity with a wide range of essential ecosystem services, which can be grouped into several categories:
- **Provisioning services:** food, freshwater, fibres, bio-based materials, and pharmaceutical resources.
- **Regulating services:** climate regulation, pollination, disease regulation, erosion control, water purification and natural hazard mitigation.
- **Cultural services:** well-being, cultural heritage, spirituality, recreation and tourism.
- **Supporting services:** nutrient cycling, soil formation and biological productivity.

Taken together, these services represent economic value amounting to thousands of billions of euros each year. Yet over the past half-century, biodiversity has been declining at an unprecedented rate, driven by land-use change, climate change, pollution, overexploitation of natural resources and the spread of invasive species. According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), one million species are currently threatened with extinction. This trend disrupts ecological balances, amplifies systemic risks and undermines the very foundations of human development.

The financing needs required to halt and reverse this decline are substantial. The [Financing Nature](https://www.paulsoninstitute.org/conservation/financing-nature-report/) report published by the Paulson Institute (2020) estimates an annual biodiversity financing gap of between USD 722 and 967 billion to achieve global biodiversity objectives. It is within this context of structural underinvestment that new mechanisms aimed at mobilising private finance for nature protection and ecosystem restoration are gaining momentum.
 
## The Emergence of Nature Credits: A Dynamic Shaped by the Global Biodiversity Agenda

The concept of a “nature credits” market has emerged in the wake of recent international biodiversity negotiations, particularly the fifteenth and sixteenth Conferences of the Parties (COPs) to the Convention on Biological Diversity: COP15 held in Montreal (Canada) in 2022, and COP16 held in Cali (Colombia) in 2024.

COP15 culminated in the adoption of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which sets out several headline targets: protecting 30% of terrestrial, inland water, coastal and marine areas globally by 2030; restoring at least 30% of degraded ecosystems by the same date; and mobilising a minimum of USD 200 billion per year from all public and private sources combined. The international community also underscored the critical role of businesses in delivering this agenda, notably through enhanced transparency, reporting and investment mechanisms.

Against this backdrop, the notion of “nature credits” (or “biodiversity certificates”) has gained increasing visibility. These instruments aim to certify measurable biodiversity benefits generated through conservation or restoration activities and to enable their potential acquisition by companies or investors seeking to contribute to nature protection under clearly defined and regulated standards.
 
## A Landscape Still Taking Shape

Several initiatives have emerged globally, each offering a distinct approach to the development of biodiversity-related financial instruments.

### The European Commission’s Initiative

In July 2025, the European Commission confirmed its intention to explore the creation of a market for nature credits. The mandate entrusted to its newly established Nature Credits Expert Group — of which Reforest’Action is a member for a five-year term — focuses on defining the methodological, scientific and operational foundations required for such a market to emerge. These include:
- the types of eligible activities,
- measurement, monitoring and verification requirements,
- environmental and social integrity criteria,
- market governance and operating rules,
- and interactions with existing European policies (biodiversity, climate, agriculture and sustainable finance).
The overarching objective is to ensure that any future market-based instrument meets the highest scientific standards and delivers genuine benefits for nature.

### The International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits (IAPB)

The International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits (IAPB) plays a key structuring role in shaping the future global market for biodiversity credits. Established to support the emergence of high-integrity mechanisms, the IAPB brings together scientific experts, public institutions, civil society organisations and economic actors to define guiding principles, methodological frameworks and quality criteria for credible and transparent biodiversity credits. Its Framework for High-Integrity Biodiversity Credit Markets provides essential reference points to clarify use cases, measurement requirements and safeguards needed to ensure that voluntary biodiversity credit markets align with international conservation priorities.

### The Global Biodiversity Standard (TGBS)

Founded by Botanic Gardens Conservation International and introduced in 2022, the Global Biodiversity Standard (TGBS) recognises and promotes the protection, restoration and enhancement of biodiversity. In a context marked by the growing number of forest and agroforestry ecosystem restoration projects, the standard seeks to promote best practices that generate positive biodiversity outcomes, notably through species diversification and the integration of native species into project design. Over the long term, TGBS aims to place biodiversity at the heart of initiatives that contribute both to climate change mitigation and to the improvement of local livelihoods.
In addition to its role as an impact management expert, Reforest’Action officially represents the European hub of the Global Biodiversity Standard, with the objective of scaling this certification framework across Europe. While TGBS does not constitute a biodiversity credit market as such, it provides a robust methodological foundation that may inform future international standards.

### The Organization for Biodiversity Certificates (OBC)

Adopting a more operational approach, other initiatives are seeking to design concrete certification systems that recognise biodiversity gains. This is the case of the Organization for Biodiversity Certificates (OBC), launched in 2022 and co-founded by aDryada, Le Printemps des Terres, Carbone 4 and the French National Museum of Natural History. The OBC brings together companies, NGOs and scientific experts around a shared objective: developing a biodiversity certificate system capable of assessing, valuing and formally recognising local biodiversity gains generated by conservation and restoration actions. To this end, it leads an applied research programme aimed at defining technical protocols and operational rules that ensure the credibility of these certificates, drawing on rigorous scientific approaches and field-based experimentation.
 
## Biodiversity Credits and Carbon Credits: Two Distinct Logics

While the concept of nature credits may echo the model of carbon credits, fundamental differences exist between the two mechanisms.

### Ecological Scale and Complexity
Carbon is a homogeneous, physicochemical unit that can be measured consistently across contexts. Biodiversity, by contrast, is multidimensional, encompassing species richness, abundance, habitat condition, ecological interactions and ecosystem functions. This inherent complexity requires multiple indicators tailored to specific biogeographical contexts and makes universal equivalence particularly challenging.

### Distinct Objectives
Carbon credits, whether issued under compliance or voluntary schemes, aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or enhance carbon sequestration, encouraging companies to decarbonise their operations or invest in mitigation projects. Biodiversity credits, on the other hand, primarily seek to improve ecosystem health: restoring natural habitats, strengthening resilience, protecting threatened species and reconnecting ecological corridors.
While both mechanisms contribute to collective efforts to address environmental degradation, they operate at different scales and rely on fundamentally different metrics.

### Corporate Use
A key distinction lies in their use by companies. Carbon credits are sometimes employed within corporate net-zero strategies, whereas future biodiversity credits are increasingly framed as instruments for delivering a net positive contribution to nature rather than as compensation mechanisms. Regulators and standard-setting bodies emphasise this distinction in order to mitigate greenwashing risks.
 
## Objectives and Expected Benefits of a Nature Credits Market

The emergence of a structured nature credits market serves several strategic objectives:
- **Mobilising private finance at scale**: Given the magnitude of the biodiversity financing gap, market-based mechanisms can complement public funding by directing private capital towards projects with measurable and credible impacts.
- **Accelerating ecosystem restoration**: By assigning economic value to ecosystem regeneration, nature credits can support locally relevant projects, including rewilding, forest restoration, agroecology, wetland rehabilitation, ecological corridors and species conservation.
- **Enhancing transparency and scientific measurement**: Any credible market depends on robust methodologies. Harmonised measurement frameworks improve project quality, standardise practices and strengthen investor confidence.

For companies — which have a critical role to play in the ecological transition — a nature credits market could provide a concrete means to contribute to biodiversity objectives, support projects aligned with responsible investment expectations, anticipate future reporting requirements (TNFD, CSRD), and reinforce sustainability positioning and communication.
For investors, certified frameworks offer access to projects characterised by transparent impact measurement, managed risk through independent verification, and social co-benefits anchored at the local level.
 
## Reforest’Action at the Heart of the Emerging European Framework

By joining the European Commission’s Nature Credits Expert Group, Reforest’Action has entered a select group of organisations tasked with informing European decision-making. This role offers several key opportunities:
- contributing to the definition of scientific and technical criteria underpinning the future framework,
- promoting a demanding vision of ecological restoration grounded in quality, durability and measurable impact,
- leveraging field experience gained through hundreds of projects across more than 40 countries,
- anticipating regulatory developments and supporting the emergence of a credible European nature credits market aligned with the objectives of the European Green Deal.

For Reforest’Action, this appointment represents both recognition of its expertise and a responsibility: to advocate for an ambitious vision of ecosystem restoration and to ensure that future nature credits genuinely support a deep and lasting transformation of ecosystems.
 

**The creation of a nature credits market represents a major development in biodiversity finance. Although still in an exploratory phase, this dynamic responds to an urgent need: mobilising economic actors at scale to restore the living world. At the intersection of ecological science, sustainable finance and public policy, this emerging market will need to rest on high standards, rigorous methodologies and uncompromising transparency. By joining the European Commission’s expert group, Reforest’Action positions itself at the heart of this transformation and will actively contribute to the emergence of an international framework capable of delivering integrity, impact and ambition for biodiversity.**



large_Header-Credits-Biodiv.jpg

medium_Header-Credits-Biodiv.jpg

small_Header-Credits-Biodiv.jpg

thumbnail_Header-Credits-Biodiv.jpg

Header-Credits-Biodiv.jpg

Nature Credits: A Strategic Market for Biodiversity Finance?

**From 10 to 21 November 2025, the 30th Conference of the Parties on climate (COP30) was held in Belém, Brazil. Located in the heart of the Amazon, the summit was expected to be the COP of “implementation”. After fifteen days of negotiations, mobilisations and scientific or civic initiatives, the outcome is mixed: tangible progress in some areas, but also missed opportunities and an overall level of ambition deemed insufficient in light of the climate emergency. What are the key structural takeaways for the years ahead? Discover our full analysis.**

![COP30-Belem-25.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/COP_30_Belem_25_481f038a96.jpg)

## Notable Advances and Persistent Blind Spots

### A Global Financial Objective Consolidated Between Baku and Belém

COP30 builds on the work initiated at COP29: the objective of mobilising USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035, formulated in Baku as part of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) on climate finance, was confirmed and further structured in Belém.

This objective aims to align global financial flows with the real needs of the transition. It does not refer to a single fund, but to a global effort involving public, multilateral and private finance, as well as innovative financial instruments. It covers the full spectrum of climate priorities — mitigation, adaptation, loss and damage, nature-based solutions and the energy transition — and responds to a clear finding of the Global Stocktake: current climate finance remains far below needs, estimated at several trillion dollars per year by 2030.

### Tripling Finance Dedicated to Adaptation

One of the most consequential announcements of COP30 concerns adaptation. States agreed to triple adaptation finance by 2035 to support territorial resilience, protect vulnerable populations and develop climate-resilient infrastructure. This decision is fully consistent with the USD 1.3 trillion per year objective: it strengthens one of the most underfunded dimensions of the transition, which is essential to support the resilience of the most vulnerable countries.

For investors and financial institutions, this development opens new perspectives: deeper integration of physical climate risk into investment strategies; a rise in territorial resilience projects; growing opportunities in green infrastructure, water resource management and ecological restoration.

This commitment reflects a reality that is now widely acknowledged: adaptation has become a central pillar of global climate strategy, on an equal footing with mitigation of climate change.

### New Initiatives to Accelerate Implementation

These financial ambitions are part of a broader framework designed to accelerate the implementation of commitments made by States. Two core instruments form its backbone:
- **The Global Implementation Accelerator**, which aims to provide concrete support to countries in delivering their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and national adaptation plans, through reinforced technical assistance and better access to finance;
- **The Belém Mission to 1.5°C**, an international action platform designed to structure international cooperation led by the COP29–COP31 Troika, strengthen climate ambition and mobilise the investments needed to maintain a trajectory compatible with 1.5°C.

These two initiatives were created, named and officially launched as part of the Belém Political Package adopted at COP30. They are intended to narrow the gap between ambition and action by aligning financial orientation, implementation capacity and international cooperation.

### The Launch of the Tropical Forests Forever Facility

COP30 was also marked by the official announcement of the **Tropical Forests Forever Facility** (TFFF), a mechanism intended to become a global fund for the preservation of tropical forests. Led by Brazil, the facility aims to provide financial incentives for countries with extensive tropical forest cover to ensure their long-term conservation, by mobilising up to USD 125 billion through a hybrid structure combining public and private finance.

The TFFF “Launch Declaration” received the support of 53 countries, including 19 potential sovereign investors — essentially governments and public institutions — among them Norway, Brazil, Indonesia, France and the Netherlands. Several major announcements have already been made, such as Norway’s pledge of nearly USD 3 billion, providing an initial financial backbone for the facility.

However, many parameters still need to be clarified. The TFFF is based on a still-novel model — endowed foundation, payments conditional on conservation — and its governance, monitoring, traceability and involvement of local and Indigenous communities must still be consolidated. Thus, while the TFFF represents a significant symbolic step forward for the protection of tropical ecosystems, its success will depend on its ability to rapidly demonstrate operational credibility to investors, forest countries and stakeholders on the ground.

According to Stéphane Hallaire, President of Reforest’Action, “the fund’s greatest impact may come from its investments—if they truly drive a regenerative economy. With $125 billion, TFFF could help beneficiary countries transition toward an economic model that respects planetary boundaries, provided it doesn’t overlook the root causes of deforestation and the essential shift needed in agricultural practices.”

### Loss and Damage Fund: A Mechanism Still in a Fragile State

Politically created at COP27 and made operational at COP28, the **Loss and Damage Fund** is intended to support the most vulnerable countries in addressing the irreversible impacts of climate change — those that go beyond adaptation capacity, such as the destruction of infrastructure, loss of land or forced displacement. Despite its strategic importance, this mechanism remains fragile: its access modalities, governance and sources of funding are still being consolidated.

COP30 highlighted a twofold reality. On the one hand, the resources mobilised so far remain far below estimated needs — international assessments indicate that loss and damage in vulnerable countries could reach USD 290–580 billion per year by 2030. On the other hand, vulnerable countries continue to stress the complexity of procedures and ongoing uncertainty regarding the fund’s real accessibility and long-term viability.

In the absence of substantial new commitments and a fully stabilised architecture, the fund remains under-sized and operationally limited, even as loss and damage intensify. For both public and private actors, this situation illustrates one of the major challenges of climate governance: ensuring fast, predictable and adequate financing to respond to impacts that are steadily increasing.

 ### Fossil Fuels: A Persistent Deadlock

Despite the climate emergency reiterated in scientific reports and the findings of the Global Stocktake, COP30 did not succeed in reaching consensus on a timetable for phasing out fossil fuels. While many countries — particularly small island States, several European countries and part of the financial sector — advocated for an explicit reference to “phasing out”, negotiations were slowed by the opposition of powerful producer countries and deepening geopolitical tensions.

The outcome is a weakened text on this point: it reaffirms the importance of the energy transition without translating it into binding commitments. This deadlock highlights the persistent gap between trajectories compatible with 1.5°C and current political choices, and sends a signal to economic and financial actors that, for now, the transformation of the energy system will rely more on market dynamics, technological innovation and evolving investment strategies than on a fully defined international framework.

## Clarifying International Priorities: Structural Axes for the Years Ahead

### Strengthening Indicators, Transparency and Governance of Commitments

COP30 marks the beginning of a cycle in which the value of a climate commitment is no longer measured by its declarative ambition, but by its capacity to be delivered. The final decision explicitly calls for a strengthened revision of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) from 2026 onwards, with significantly higher expectations in terms of precision, quantified trajectories and sectoral coherence.

For both States and companies, this evolution entails three major shifts:
- **A move towards standardised, comparable indicators.** Negotiators highlighted the need to build a common methodological baseline to assess real impact rather than solely declared effort. In the coming years, States, public banks, private investors and donors will therefore require companies to provide much more precise, detailed and verifiable climate data as a condition for accessing certain forms of finance.
- **Increasing regulatory pressure.** The progressive alignment between national frameworks and international regulations (CSRD, ISSB, TNFD) will require organisations not only to document their emissions, but also their dependencies on ecosystems, exposure to physical risk, impacts on ecosystem services and resilience under different climate scenarios. Finance, legal and sustainability departments are now jointly responsible for climate compliance.
- **Reinforced governance and strategic climate steering.** States are encouraged to introduce tighter control mechanisms: audits, regular reporting, national monitoring committees, results-based obligations and corrective measures. For private actors, this translates into the need for a dedicated climate committee at board level, science-based targets (SBTi) to ensure credibility, quantified transition plans with associated budgets, and comprehensive traceability covering scopes 1, 2 and 3, as well as biodiversity and physical risk.

### Territories, Communities and Governance: Towards a Just and Inclusive Transition

COP30 reaffirms the essential role of territories and communities in climate implementation, stressing the importance of land rights, local knowledge and shared governance that fully involves Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the design, decision-making and oversight of projects.

Given the diversity of climate vulnerabilities, the local scale is becoming a lever of operational effectiveness, capable of identifying specific risks, prioritising tailored solutions and anchoring climate action in socio-economic realities. For projects to be perceived as credible and acceptable, they must therefore meet both international standards and territorial expectations.

Finally, COP30 reiterates that the climate transition can only succeed if it is just and inclusive, which implies a fair distribution of value, protection of the most exposed populations and the development of local skills — requirements that are now central for investors and decisive for stakeholder trust.

### Climate Finance: Credibility, Traceability and Internalisation of Risk

Climate finance remains the central bottleneck of global climate governance. Nevertheless, COP30 has clarified expectations and sent clear signals to the financial sector:
- **The need to make financial commitments credible.** The tripling of adaptation finance must be accompanied by a precise definition of allocation rules, eligibility criteria and performance metrics. For financial actors, climate finance can no longer be merely declarative; it must demonstrate quantifiable, verifiable and comparable impact.
- **The emergence of a new paradigm: valuing physical risks.** COP30 confirms a major shift: the physical impacts of climate change are no longer considered secondary uncertainties, but key drivers of financial performance. They now directly affect project profitability and the ability of actors to maintain solvency over time.
- **Transparency and the fight against greenwashing.** Pressure is increasing to put an end to unfounded climate claims. Investors will have to demonstrate the traceability of their investments, the robustness of their impact models, the integrity of the projects they support and compliance with international frameworks (ICVCM, VCMI, TNFD). Regulatory trends point towards increasingly stringent demands for documented evidence.

### Confirming the Strategic Role of Nature-based Solutions

The Amazonian setting of the COP catalysed discussions on Nature-based Solutions (NbS). Their role is now fully recognised in national strategies and in both voluntary and regulatory decarbonisation pathways. NbS are expected to sequester carbon, strengthen territorial resilience to climate shocks, preserve biodiversity and durably stabilise soils and water resources. Their contribution is substantial, but remains complementary: even deployed at scale, NbS alone cannot offset the continued increase in fossil fuel emissions.

This is why the transition requires a hybrid approach that simultaneously combines three pillars: operational decarbonisation, relying on energy efficiency, renewables and industrial innovation; ecological restoration, which is essential to reinforce natural carbon sinks and ecosystem resilience; and carbon capture and storage technologies, necessary to address the most difficult-to-abate residual emissions. This triptych, widely confirmed at COP30 in Belém, forms the foundation of climate trajectories compatible with international targets.

To be fully effective, these levers must be integrated coherently into public policies and corporate strategies. This implies explicit inclusion of NbS in NDCs, agricultural policies, adaptation plans, urban planning strategies and international certification frameworks. On the private sector side, the challenge is to move beyond ad hoc approaches and build investment programmes anchored in territories, aligned with high integrity standards and delivering measurable climate, social and economic benefits. Only such alignment between national ambition, local dynamics and industrial strategies will enable the transition to accelerate at the necessary scale.

For Reforest’Action, this dynamic confirms a core conviction: Nature-based Solutions are an essential climate and economic lever, but they must be deployed with rigour and transparency.

![Amazonia-COP30.png](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Amazonia_COP_30_89c41adfca.png)

**COP30 has not met all expectations, but it does mark a major turning point: the start of a decade in which value will be measured by real impact, adaptive capacity and the credibility of commitments. For Reforest’Action, this COP confirms several strong convictions:**

- **nature is an indispensable pillar of the climate response;**
- **project quality and integrity are non-negotiable prerequisites;**
- **transparency and impact measurement are fundamental to building trust;**
- **the articulation between mitigation, adaptation and biodiversity must guide climate action.**

**In a context of rapid transformation, we reaffirm the importance of a scientific, rigorous and locally anchored approach to ecosystem restoration. The future will depend not only on the commitments made, but on our collective ability — States, investors, companies and local stakeholders — to turn them into reality.**



large_Amazonia-header-COP.jpg

medium_Amazonia-header-COP.jpg

small_Amazonia-header-COP.jpg

thumbnail_Amazonia-header-COP.jpg

Amazonia-header-COP.jpg

COP30: Structural Pathways to Accelerate the Transition?

**On the island of Sumba in Indonesia, the landscapes still bear the marks of long-standing deforestation. Starting in the late 19th century, under Dutch colonial rule, local forests rich in sandalwood were heavily exploited and converted into farmland. Deforestation—occurring within a hilly landscape subject to a climate prone to droughts and extreme rainfall—led to erosion and soil degradation. Today, the island is composed of vast stretches of limestone savannas cut through by deep ravines, where sparse vegetation, mainly grasses, serves as pasture for cattle and horse herds. The project led by Reforest’Action in Sumba aims to reverse this ecosystem degradation. Currently undergoing certification by the international Verra (VCS) standard via methodology VM0047, the project seeks to combine carbon sequestration, food security, and the creation of sustainable value chains.**

![Sumba-web-3.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Sumba_web_3_eb44f5aae2.jpg)

## A Project Design Tailored to the Environmental and Social Context

### Restoring Degraded Lands and Agricultural Productivity

Developed by Reforest’Action in partnership with CIFOR-ICRAF (Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry) and two Indonesian NGOs, the project addresses two main challenges: on the one hand, restoring soil fertility on Sumba through the creation of forests on previously deforested land and the development of diversified agroforestry systems; and on the other hand, strengthening the food and economic security of local communities, currently weakened by declining agricultural productivity.

To achieve this, an integrated landscape management model will be deployed to enhance ecosystem sustainability and resilience through adaptive, inclusive, and integrative strategies. By combining 37 tree species—including 20 native species—and five planting models adapted to the environmental and social context of the villages, the project aims to sequester 6.4 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent over 40 years while restoring key ecosystem functions such as water retention, erosion control, soil enrichment, and biodiversity preservation.

### A Project Design Serving Ecological and Economic Resilience

Within the project design, each model contributes to a balance between environmental restoration and economic value creation.

The project aims to:

- recreate productive forests, notably composed of timber species and sandalwood, on degraded lands far from inhabited areas, to enable sustainable long-term timber production;
- restore natural secondary forests on community lands to strengthen ecosystem services without timber exploitation.

The design also includes three agroforestry system models:

- integration of fruit and forest trees in multi-strata systems near villages, enhancing food production and short-term economic resilience;
- planting coffee fields under the shade of diverse trees to improve yields and quality thanks to vegetation cover that regulates temperature and humidity;
- development of alley-cropping systems that enrich conventionally cultivated fields by combining fruit and forest trees with annual crops.

While generating certified carbon credits, the project therefore supports local economic stability as well as measurable ecosystem and social impacts.

![Sumba-web-2.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Sumba_web_2_f43142aa0f.jpg)

## A Holistic Strategy Serving Ecological and Economic Resilience

### Embedding Sandalwood into a Sustainable Value Chain

Sandalwood (Santalum album) is an emblematic Indonesian species historically at the heart of Sumba’s economy. Overexploitation of this precious wood during the colonial period (from the late 19th century until Indonesia’s independence in 1945) drastically reduced natural populations, making sandalwood a species now classified as vulnerable by the IUCN.

The project aims to reintroduce sandalwood sustainably into local agricultural and forestry systems. This species is hemiparasitic—unable to absorb soil nutrients on its own—and requires a host plant to grow, which justifies its integration into mixed agroforestry systems.

Its reintroduction will help rebuild an exportable economic resource while ensuring its sustainable management through a plan regulating harvesting practices. Because heartwood, which contains the essential oil, forms only after 10 to 15 years of growth, optimal harvesting occurs from year 20 onward. A local governance mechanism will therefore be established to plan these cycles fairly, ensuring ecological sustainability of the resource and economic stability for beneficiary communities. As a native species, sandalwood will also help restore local biodiversity.

### Promoting Community Empowerment and Governance

The project’s success relies on the direct involvement of local communities in every phase—from preparation to planting activities, maintenance, and plot management.

The local team, already active in 25 partner villages, supports farmer groups in a collective implementation approach: each group, made up of around 30 households, works in a coordinated manner on the plots, supported by village facilitators who ensure compliance with technical protocols.

Community nurseries supply the project with seedlings, while a training program aims to strengthen the technical and organizational capacities of farmers involved in the project (nursery management, soil fertilization techniques, pest control, water management, tree pruning, financial management, participatory governance…).

A community forest management plan is developed jointly with local authorities, ensuring long-term ownership of the project.

Benefits from the sale of carbon credits will also be partially redistributed to cooperatives, farmer groups, and women’s associations under an equitable and transparent governance model.

### Developing Local and Sustainable Value Chains

The project includes an economic strategy to develop local value chains around products with high potential: sandalwood, cashew nuts, coffee, candlenuts, teak, and mahogany. Designed according to the principles of the circular bioeconomy, these sectors aim to create stable market opportunities and additional income for producers, while promoting local processing and commercialization of commodities and building community expertise.

This model supports inclusive growth and lays the groundwork for progressive economic independence for communities. Income diversification will strengthen household resilience and reduce reliance on subsistence crops. Women, in particular, will benefit from improved access to these opportunities through the development of small local businesses and women’s cooperatives.

### Embedding Gender Equality in Project Governance

Gender equality is a central pillar of the Sumba project. The project is designed for women—both in its conception, by intentionally involving them in consultations and contracts, and in its implementation, by taking into account their specific constraints.

Targeted training programs aim to strengthen women’s entrepreneurial, financial, and organizational skills. These programs will also emphasize leadership and public speaking to ensure that women’s contributions are fully recognized by the community. The project will engage male leaders to ensure broad community support while respecting traditional structures.

An inclusive recruitment policy further guarantees women’s participation in decision-making roles, especially within village committees and project governance structures.

By fostering women’s leadership, the project strengthens social sustainability within local governance while enhancing the economic performance of agricultural operations.

![Sumba-web-1.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Sumba_web_1_fd32dd8982.jpg)

**Designed to meet the high-integrity requirements of international carbon certification standards, particularly Verra (VCS), the Sumba project represents a high-impact investment opportunity for funders. It guarantees traceability and independent verification of emission reductions, additionality and permanence of sequestration activities, and alignment with ESG principles and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 1, 4, 5, 8, 12, 13, and 15).**

**Over a 40-year period, it will enable the sequestration of 321 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per hectare, totaling 6.4 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. Beyond its climate impact, the project will help restore natural ecosystems and island biodiversity, improve food security and rural incomes, and strengthen local capacities in sustainable natural resource management.**

**The Sumba project thus illustrates the ability of high-integrity carbon projects to generate multiple co-benefits beyond carbon sequestration. For investors, it represents an opportunity to engage in a measurable, verifiable approach aligned with international ESG standards. By supporting the project, financial partners contribute to ecosystem restoration, preservation of an emblematic tree species, and the construction of a resilient and inclusive rural economy. Interested in seizing this impact investment opportunity? [Contact us to discuss your needs!](https://www.reforestaction.com/en/contact)**


large_Header-Sumba.jpg

medium_Header-Sumba.jpg

small_Header-Sumba.jpg

thumbnail_Header-Sumba.jpg

Header-Sumba.jpg

Sumba: Investing in a Carbon Project with Socio-Economic and Environmental Impact

**The high-Andean restoration project led by Reforest’Action in Colombia illustrates the ability of Nature-based Solutions to generate measurable benefits for the climate, biodiversity, and local communities. Developed through a rigorous approach, the project is now undergoing independent verification by Bureau Veritas and certification by The Global Biodiversity Standard (TGBS). These recognitions attest to the project’s alignment with international carbon quantification standards (ISO 14064-3:2019) and biodiversity restoration standards, as well as with the requirements of major corporate regulatory and reporting frameworks (CSRD, SBTi, CDP). They strengthen the environmental credibility of the Nariño project and provide funders with an essential framework of transparency and accountability for their climate and sustainability strategies.** 

![Narino-2025-3.png](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Narino_2025_3_a3fc01ec66.png)

## Restoring the Páramos in Colombia: A Project Rich in Fundamental Benefits 

### The Need to Restore High-Andean Ecosystems

Located between 3,300 and 4,700 meters above sea level in the high plateaus of the Andes in Colombia, the Páramos are the world’s richest mountain ecosystems in floristic biodiversity. They are increasingly threatened by the conversion of land into pastures and agricultural plots, leading to a dramatic collapse of local biodiversity.

![Narino-2025-2.png](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Narino_2025_2_2c68086c22.png)

In the project area, the regeneration of the Páramos follows a demanding design aimed at restoring biodiversity through the integration of 76 different native species, prioritizing access to water, and ensuring the long-term economic stability of local producers.
Launched in 2021, the project—developed by Reforest’Action and implemented on the ground by a local NGO—consists of five models that generate fundamental benefits for the climate, biodiversity, the soil–water system, and local communities:
- A Páramo restoration model  
- A riparian forest restoration model  
- A watershed reforestation model  
- An agroforestry model integrating trees around and within pastures  
- A living-hedge agroforestry model creating hedgerows around grazing areas

### Carbon Sequestration

The Páramo restoration activities directly contribute to increasing the carbon stored in these ecosystems. Reforestation of riverbanks to prevent soil erosion and provide habitat for local fauna, creation of forest islands through watershed reforestation, and restoration of high-Andean forests at the borders of the Páramos—all play a key role in climate mitigation by creating carbon sequestration compartments in both trees and soils.

### Water Resource Preservation

The peat soils of the Páramos retain water and supply up to 60% of Colombia’s water resources through downstream valleys. Their degradation has led to increasingly frequent shortages, especially in the department of Nariño. Field audits and testimonies from project beneficiaries indicate that water flow in irrigation channels (acequias) has improved since restoration actions began—restoring long-awaited water reserves previously compromised by deforestation.
 
### Silvopastoralism and Ecosystem Services

Agroforestry and silvopastoralism are integral to the project’s design and its goals of preserving the Páramos while maintaining sustainable economic activities for local communities.

By creating dense hedgerows composed of diverse native species around pastures and agricultural plots, these practices support animal well-being—offering cattle shade from intense sunlight, protection from cold winds, and increasing milk production (+13% to +25% per cow).

They also provide a wide array of ecosystem services: forage and timber production, natural soil fertilization, biodiversity restoration, improved livelihoods, medicinal and melliferous plants, and ecological corridors that connect habitats for numerous species.

### Inclusion of Local Communities and Socioeconomic Benefits

Alongside environmental actions, the project benefits 570 people from local communities and the Pastos Indigenous people—including 140 cattle farmers—through the development of income-generating activities (community beekeeping, medicinal plant processing…).

A broad awareness and training program has also reached 1,296 people (843 women and 437 men), promoting the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices across the region.

![Narino-2025-1.png](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Narino_2025_1_2379b4ef3b.png)

## Carbon Projection Verification by Bureau Veritas

### Why Model the Carbon Sequestration of a Project?

Since 2023, Reforest’Action has relied on a method and simulator for ex-ante carbon sequestration modeling (before the sequestration actually occurs) to estimate the carbon storage potential of projects over 30 years. This projection helps optimize project design to maximize climate impact.

The method and tool were validated by Bureau Veritas Certification in October 2023. They comply with key voluntary carbon market criteria, based on international standards also required under Article 147 of the French Climate and Resilience Law. Bureau Veritas is authorized to verify ex-ante calculations produced by the Reforest’Action simulator, providing third-party credibility.

Using field and remote-sensing data, a post-implementation audit (minimum 5 years after planting) will verify that actual sequestration aligns with initial estimates. This ex-post evaluation is also conducted by Bureau Veritas.

### The Nariño Project: A Verified Carbon Projection

In autumn 2025, Bureau Veritas verified the 30-year carbon sequestration projection for the Nariño project.

The audit verified:
- **Quantification**: Carbon is quantified using a tool verified by Bureau Veritas in 2023, in accordance with ISO 14064-3:2019.  
- **Additionality**: Sequestration would not occur without the project, confirmed through comparison with a baseline scenario.  
- **Permanence**: A risk mitigation plan and a 20% buffer ensure long-term carbon storage.  
- **Verifiability**: Data transparency is guaranteed.  
- **Sustainability**: A multifunctional design maximizes environmental and socioeconomic benefits.  
- **Uniqueness**: The project is recorded in an internal registry ensuring traceability.

The audit confirmed the initial projection of 36,000 tCO₂ sequestered over 30 years for two planting seasons (2022–2024).

After five years, an independent third-party audit will verify on-the-ground implementation, ecosystem health, and project durability.

### What Is the Benefit for Project Funders?

Parce que les actions de séquestration carbone ne se limitent pas à l’achat de crédits sur le marché volontaire, les Solutions fondées sur la Nature dont les actions génèrent des séquestrations additionnelles peuvent être comptabilisées dans la contribution au pilier C de la Net Zero Initiative, à condition que leur impact puisse être quantifié via des méthodes robustes.

**With a 30-year carbon projection validated by Bureau Veritas, an independent audit planned at 5 years, and co-benefits for biodiversity and communities, the Nariño project fully meets transparency and ESG reporting needs (CSRD, SBTi, CDP…) within voluntary climate contribution strategies.**

![Narino-2025-4.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Narino_2025_4_7e075db785.jpg)

## Biodiversity Impact Certification by The Global Biodiversity Standard

### Why Certify a Biodiversity Restoration Project?

High-quality forest and agroforestry projects generate strong co-benefits for biodiversity, climate, soil health, water resources, and local communities. The Global Biodiversity Standard (TGBS) is currently the most robust international standard assessing biodiversity and ecosystem integrity improvements. Certification ensures that biodiversity considerations are fully integrated into ecosystem restoration projects.

### L’exemple du projet Nariño : un projet à l’impact biodiversité certifié

In early 2025, a “pilot” area of the Nariño project entered the TGBS certification process—first through remote analysis using satellite tools, then through an on-site audit conducted by a certified auditor and three local or partner experts (specialized in fauna, flora, and socioeconomic impact).

Assessment included:
- Measurement of biodiversity changes using the Ecological Regeneration Wheel (Society for Ecological Restoration).  
- Evaluation of adaptive management measures (UN Decade standards).  
- Assessment of protection levels (aligned with IUCN categories).  
- Evaluation of socioeconomic impacts (SER Social Benefits Wheel).

The pilot area received a score of 6.84/10 (with the certification threshold at 5), earning TGBS certification in January 2025. The full project area will be eligible for certification after 5 years of activity.

### What Is the Benefit for Project Funders?

Healthy ecosystems help mitigate climate change and enable human societies to adapt to its consequences. TGBS certification is not an end in itself but a means to restore ecosystems. It is only awarded to projects that bring about a real improvement in the ecosystem compared to its initial state, and not just to initiatives that have an impact on biodiversity.
 
In this regard, it is fully in line with Reforest'Action's mission to ensure, through its impact management process, that projects contribute to the stability and sustainability of restored forest and agroforestry ecosystems.

**Under The Global Biodiversity Standard, the Nariño project strengthens funders’ credibility, demonstrates genuine biodiversity commitment, and provides a competitive environmental responsibility advantage.**

![Narino-2025-6.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Narino_2025_6_dea07c7da0.jpg)

**By combining a carbon modeling approach validated by Bureau Veritas with TGBS biodiversity certification, the Nariño project stands out as a model of rigor and integrity in ecological restoration. It demonstrates Reforest’Action’s ability to design and manage projects grounded in verifiable data, integrating multiple benefits for the climate, ecosystems, and local communities. For companies committed to Net Zero pathways, supporting the Nariño project represents a strategic opportunity: contributing to a project aligned with international frameworks means investing in measurable, long-lasting climate action and taking part in an exemplary voluntary carbon-contribution strategy. Continuing the restoration of the Páramos now requires new funding to reinforce the positive impacts already demonstrated. [Contact us!](https://www.reforestaction.com/en/contact)**



large_Narino_Header.jpg

medium_Narino_Header.jpg

small_Narino_Header.jpg

thumbnail_Narino_Header.jpg

Narino_Header.jpg

Colombia: a project verified by Bureau Veritas and certified by The Global Biodiversity Standard

**After four years of suspension, Indonesia is finally reopening the door to international carbon credit trading. This major regulatory shift could position the country as a strategic hub of the global carbon market—at the crossroads of sovereignty, transparency, and ecological transition. The timing is particularly significant for Reforest’Action’s carbon project on the island of Sumba, Indonesia.**

## Indonesia’s carbon market: a gradual structuring

### A moratorium to regain control

In 2021, Indonesia decided to suspend all carbon credit exports. Behind this move lay a clear political intention: to regain control over a booming market where some projects—particularly those linked to avoided deforestation (REDD+)—had raised concerns regarding their integrity and the fair distribution of benefits.
The moratorium, presented as a temporary measure, was designed to give the government time to develop a robust domestic regulatory framework.

### Building a domestic market, step by step

In the years that followed, Indonesian authorities began structuring a national carbon market. Initially designed around the compliance market, this framework provided little visibility for actors in the voluntary carbon market (VCM) or for project developers seeking to rely on international standards such as Gold Standard or Verra.

The launch of the Indonesian carbon exchange, IDX Carbon, in January 2025 marked an important milestone. For the first time, international actors were allowed to participate—although trading remained limited to “tech-based” credits from emission reduction technologies such as renewable energy or energy efficiency. 

### Mutual Recognition Agreements: the key to openness

From spring 2025 onwards, the Indonesian government accelerated its efforts. A series of Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) signaled a new direction: opening up to international standards, but under controlled conditions.

A Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) is a formal understanding between a country and an international carbon certification standard such as Verra or Gold Standard. In practice, it allows the state to officially recognize credits certified under these standards, while requiring projects to be registered on the national platform. It is therefore both a cooperation and oversight tool—facilitating international credit trade while maintaining the host country’s regulatory sovereignty.

In 2025, Indonesia signed several MRAs—first with Gold Standard in May, then with Verra in October. These agreements mark a paradigm shift: Indonesia is choosing regulated cooperation over administrative isolation.

## Lifting of the Indonesian moratorium: a turning point for the carbon market

### October 2025: A Decisive Step Forward

On October 10, 2025, a new presidential regulation revoked the 2021 decree and once again authorized international sales of carbon credits. The new regulation officially opens the Indonesian market to the voluntary sector, recognizes international standards, and—most notably—allows for optional use of Corresponding Adjustments depending on project type.
Corresponding Adjustments (CAs) are an accounting mechanism stemming from Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. They aim to prevent double counting of emission reductions: when a country exports a carbon credit, it must subtract that reduction from its own climate commitments, ensuring that the same credit is not counted twice (once by the seller country and once by the buyer). By allowing optional CAs, Indonesia now enables both state-to-state and private-sector transactions—offering flexibility while remaining aligned with international transparency principles.

Ahead of COP30, further guidelines are expected, particularly regarding the Verra agreement. By October 2026, additional regulations will define fiscal regimes, buffer mechanisms, and other technical parameters.

### A thriving market and a strong signal to investors

The reopening of Indonesia’s carbon market has generated strong international enthusiasm. Investors view this as a sign of regulatory maturity and a strategic opportunity: a major forested country, rich in biodiversity, is opening to global cooperation while establishing strong safeguards.

For Indonesia, the stakes are twofold: attracting the international financing needed to meet its climate goals, while ensuring equitable benefit-sharing with local communities and ecosystems.

For actors in the voluntary reforestation market, this evolution opens new horizons. Project developers can now pursue hybrid approaches—combining international certification with local transparency and monitoring requirements.

Buyers, in turn, benefit from improved traceability and stronger regulatory security—two essential pillars for market credibility.


**Indonesia today exemplifies a broader global trend: that of Global South countries reclaiming ownership of their natural resources while actively engaging in international carbon markets.
This strategy of “sovereign openness” could inspire other forest nations ahead of COP30 and help redefine the long-term rules of the global carbon market.
Reforest’Action offers a high-integrity carbon project on the island of Sumba, Indonesia, adaptable to multiple investment models to best align with your climate strategy. [Discover the project’s full added value by contacting one of our experts.](https://www.reforestaction.com/en/contact)**

Actualités et décryptages