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

## 2026 Changes the Way We Understand Wildfire Risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Every Forest Requires Its Own Adaptation Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## After the Fire: Restoring Forests Without Recreating Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

Financing Resilience: Why Businesses Have a Role to Play

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

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

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

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

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


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


large_Header-feux-forets.jpg

medium_Header-feux-forets.jpg

small_Header-feux-forets.jpg

thumbnail_Header-feux-forets.jpg

Header-feux-forets.jpg

Adapting Forests to a New Era of Wildfire Risk

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

## A partnership built for the long term

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Working with the forest's own dynamics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Ecological diversity as a foundation for resilience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Engaging companies through tangible forest action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


large_Header-Haute-Savoie.jpg

medium_Header-Haute-Savoie.jpg

small_Header-Haute-Savoie.jpg

thumbnail_Header-Haute-Savoie.jpg

Header-Haute-Savoie.jpg

Haute-Savoie: Tailoring Forest Restoration to Each Ecosystem

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

## Recognising Climate Responsibility During the Transition

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

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

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

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

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

## Reconciling Two Imperatives That Have Become Inseparable

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

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

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

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

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

## 2035: When Recognition Becomes Obligation

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

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

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

## A Gradual Ramp-Up?

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

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

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

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

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

## What Version 2.0 Means for Businesses

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

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

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

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

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

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

large_Header-SBTi-2.0.jpg

medium_Header-SBTi-2.0.jpg

small_Header-SBTi-2.0.jpg

thumbnail_Header-SBTi-2.0.jpg

Header-SBTi-2.0.jpg

SBTi V2.0: A Cautious Bet on Climate Contribution

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

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

## Recognizing Soil as a High-Value Ecological System

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

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

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

## Soil: The Invisible Infrastructure of Life

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

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

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

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

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

## Soils, Water and Climate: One Interconnected System

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

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

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

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

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

## A Vital Resource Under Severe Degradation

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

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

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

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

## Why Companies Must Address Soil Health

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

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

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

## From Compensation to Regeneration: A Paradigm Shift

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Measuring to Manage: The Credibility Challenge

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

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

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

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

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

## Structuring Collective Soil Governance

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

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

## Integrating Soils into Corporate Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

large_Tanzanie_20_75.jpg

medium_Tanzanie_20_75.jpg

small_Tanzanie_20_75.jpg

thumbnail_Tanzanie_20_75.jpg

Tanzanie_20_75.jpg

Soils at the Core of Ecological and Economic Resilience

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

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

## Benefit sharing in certified carbon projects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Direct contributions embedded in the project budget

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Carbon credit sharing: a complementary redistribution mechanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



large_IMG_4822.jpg

medium_IMG_4822.jpg

small_IMG_4822.jpg

thumbnail_IMG_4822.jpg

IMG_4822.jpg

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

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

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

## Agricultural systems under increasing pressure

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

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

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

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

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

## An agroforestry project to address land degradation

### Moving beyond soil depletion dynamics

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Activating biological soil fertility mechanisms

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

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

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

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

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

### Designing systems adapted to local uses and territories

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

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

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

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

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

## Community engagement as a driver of lasting transformation

### Farmers’ ownership of practices

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

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

### Scaling practices across territories

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

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

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

## A robust carbon performance framework 

### A methodology and tool validated by Bureau Veritas

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

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

### Carbon projections aligned with ESG strategies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


medium_Wawa4.jpg

small_Wawa4.jpg

thumbnail_Wawa4.jpg

Wawa4.jpg

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

**Across the landscapes of western Andalusia, forests unfold as a mosaic of clearings, grasslands and scattered trees, forming the distinctive silhouettes of the dehesas—Mediterranean agroforestry systems where human activity and ecological processes have long evolved in a delicate balance. Over recent decades, however, this equilibrium has begun to erode. Cork oak stands are ageing, natural regeneration is declining, while recurring droughts, pathogens and increasing browsing pressure from wildlife are accelerating the degradation of these forested landscapes. In this context, restoring a dehesa cannot be reduced to planting trees. The challenge lies in reactivating the biological processes that enable forest ecosystems to renew themselves and sustain their biodiversity. It is within this framework that the project led by Reforest’Action and our field partner Sylva Nova, at La Loma, in the heart of the Sierra de Hornachuelos Natural Park, takes shape. Spanning 176 hectares restored between 2023 and 2028, the ambition goes beyond re-establishing tree cover: it is about designing a restoration project in which biodiversity becomes the very foundation of ecological design, guiding every technical choice and field intervention.**

![LaLoma4.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/La_Loma4_1b726a776e.jpg)

## Dehesas: A Remarkable Yet Fragile Ecosystem 

### A High-Value Agroforestry System

La Loma is located within the Sierra de Hornachuelos Natural Park, a territory included in the Natura 2000 network and designated as a Special Protection Area for Birds (SPA). This status reflects the site’s ecological importance, as it hosts one of the most distinctive agroforestry landscapes in Western Europe.

The structure of dehesas is based on a semi-open system in which trees—primarily cork oaks and holm oaks—are interspersed with grazed natural grasslands. This configuration creates a mosaic of habitats highly conducive to biodiversity. The grasslands support a rich Mediterranean herbaceous flora composed of grasses, legumes and aromatic plants, providing the foundation for abundant pollinator communities and complex trophic networks.

Trees, in turn, play a structuring role within the ecosystem. They offer nesting sites, produce essential food resources and contribute to the microclimatic regulation of the landscape. The dehesas of the Sierra de Hornachuelos host a remarkable fauna, including species such as the southern shrike, several lark species and emblematic raptors such as the Spanish imperial eagle. Mammals are also well represented: genets, badgers, wild boar and deer inhabit these open environments, while high rabbit densities can occasionally attract the Iberian lynx, one of Europe’s most endangered felines.

This biological richness stems from an ecological balance shaped over centuries. Extensive agro-pastoral practices have helped maintain open landscapes and sustain habitat diversity. Yet this balance remains fragile.

### The Silent Decline of Mediterranean Cork Oak Woodlands

The dehesa landscapes are largely structured around the cork oak (Quercus suber), an emblematic species adapted to Mediterranean climatic conditions and the region’s poor soils. Trees on the La Loma site often reach 150 to 200 years of age, reflecting a forest heritage shaped by generations of human management.

Today, however, these cork oak woodlands are undergoing a gradual decline observed across the western Mediterranean basin. Recurrent droughts weaken the trees and intensify the dieback phenomenon known as seca. At the same time, xylophagous insects colonise trunks and lay their eggs in the bark, progressively weakening older individuals.

Meanwhile, natural regeneration is no longer sufficient to ensure stand renewal. High densities of deer and wild boar lead to massive acorn consumption and browsing of young shoots, preventing seedlings from surviving their most critical early years.

The consequence is gradual yet decisive: tree density declines and the ecological integrity of dehesas deteriorates. Restoring these landscapes therefore requires acting both on forest stands and on the ecological processes that govern their renewal.

![LaLoma2.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/La_Loma2_4f2b209475.jpg)

## The Design of the La Loma Project: Ecological Engineering in Service of Living Systems

### Ecological Interactions at the Core of Restoration

In ecosystems such as the dehesa, forests are not merely assemblages of trees but networks of interactions linking vegetation, fauna, soil microorganisms and human activities. Restoring the forest therefore means reactivating the ecological relationships that underpin ecosystem resilience.

At La Loma, biodiversity is conceived as the driving force of restoration: interactions among species play a decisive role in regenerating forest stands. Seed-dispersing birds actively contribute to natural regeneration, while pollinators support plant reproduction. Soil microorganisms enhance nutrient uptake by roots, and insectivorous bats help regulate insect populations. Restoration thus aims not to replace natural processes, but to support their expression by mobilising biodiversity as a lever for ecological regeneration.

### Genetic Selection and Cork Oak Regeneration

Within this framework, the La Loma project relies on a design combining three complementary regeneration strategies: sowing germinated acorns, planting nursery-grown young oaks, and promoting natural regeneration through seed dispersal by wildlife. The objective is to activate multiple renewal dynamics simultaneously, thereby enhancing both the resilience and genetic diversity of the stand.

A meticulous process of seed selection is first carried out. Acorns are collected from trees identified on-site as seed trees, selected for their ecological qualities: resistance to pests and pathogens, drought tolerance, cork quality and longevity. Part of these acorns is then raised in nurseries for one year to produce robust saplings for planting, while the remainder is used for direct sowing after germination.

In winter 2026, more than 3,200 germinated acorns were sown across the site at an average density of approximately 64 plants per hectare. In parallel, one-year-old nursery-grown saplings are planted to secure stand establishment. These are often installed near the stumps of dead trees, where existing root systems create favourable conditions for growth and enhance soil biological structure.

Restoration does not rely solely on these direct interventions. The project also harnesses natural seed dispersal processes. A feeding station installed on-site attracts Eurasian jays, whose behaviour of caching acorns in the soil promotes subsequent germination. This process of zoochory could generate up to 125 young trees per hectare, thereby contributing to natural regeneration.

### Managing Ecological Pressures

To better understand these ecological dynamics, camera traps have been installed across the site. They allow for monitoring wildlife activity and documenting the role of different species in regeneration processes.

Managing ecological pressures is another essential component of the project. Fencing has been installed to limit damage caused by wildlife, which represents one of the main barriers to natural regeneration.

In this Mediterranean landscape, characterised by hot and dry summers, fire prevention is also integrated into the project design. Firebreaks created through vegetation clearing have been established around restored areas to reduce the risk of fire spread.

### Restoring Ecosystem Functions

Restoring soil biological functioning is another key pillar of the project. Mycorrhizal fungi are introduced during planting to promote symbiotic relationships between roots and microorganisms. These associations improve nutrient uptake and increase plant resistance to environmental stress.

Vegetation diversification is also encouraged through the introduction of complementary species, such as wild pear, which enriches food resources for wildlife. The installation of bat boxes further supports insectivorous species that contribute to natural pest regulation.

### Preserving a Socio-Ecological System: The Cork Value Chain

The restoration of cork oak woodlands at La Loma also takes into account the long-term perspective of traditional uses associated with cork oak. The tree’s bark provides the raw material for cork, a renewable resource that has structured the rural economies of Mediterranean regions for centuries. Harvested periodically without felling the tree, typically on a nine-year cycle, cork extraction relies on careful forest management aimed at preserving tree vitality and stand sustainability.

By fostering cork oak regeneration and enhancing biodiversity, the La Loma project contributes to maintaining the ecological conditions necessary for the long-term viability of this local value chain. Biodiversity restoration and the sustainability of human activities thus appear deeply interconnected, reflecting the inherently socio-ecological nature of these Mediterranean landscapes.

Together, these actions reflect an approach in which biodiversity constitutes both the ultimate objective and the driving force of restoration.

![LaLoma1.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/La_Loma1_cfca28363a.jpg)

## Measuring Impact: The Global Biodiversity Standard

### The Need for Rigorous Biodiversity Assessment

The ecological design of the La Loma project is part of a broader ambition: to demonstrate, in a rigorous and measurable way, the real impact of restoration projects on biodiversity. As reforestation initiatives expand globally, the scientific evaluation of outcomes becomes increasingly critical. Tree planting may be the most visible indicator, but it fails to capture the complexity of ecological processes involved. Restoration requires the re-creation of functional habitats, the return of native species and the re-establishment of biological dynamics that ensure ecosystem resilience.

In this context, robust assessment tools are essential to ensure the credibility and effectiveness of restoration strategies. This is precisely the purpose of [The Global Biodiversity Standard](https://www.reforestaction.com/en/magazine/the-global-biodiversity-standard-reforestaction) (TGBS), the only international standard dedicated to evaluating the biodiversity impact of projects. Developed over several years with the contribution of an international network of botanists, ecologists and conservation experts, this certification provides a rigorous scientific framework for assessing the ecological quality of restoration projects. Officially launched at COP16 of the Convention on Biological Diversity, it is based on the in-depth analysis of habitats, species communities and site-specific ecological dynamics.

### Reforest’Action’s Role and the Audit of the La Loma Project

Reforest’Action contributes to the Global Biodiversity Standard by providing environmental analysis tools based on remote sensing, enabling a more refined understanding of ecological dynamics and the monitoring of restoration trajectories over time. The organisation also leads the [European Hub](https://www.reforestaction.com/en/magazine/reforestaction-european-hub-tgbs) of the standard, dedicated to deploying the certification across projects on the continent.

Within this framework, the La Loma project is currently undergoing an audit with a view to certifying its management plan under the Global Biodiversity Standard. By submitting the project to independent assessment by Preferred by Nature, Reforest’Action adopts a transparent scientific approach aimed at ensuring that restoration strategies effectively enhance local biodiversity and restore the ecological dynamics of dehesa landscapes. The La Loma project is set to become the first European project to achieve Global Biodiversity Standard certification.

### A Strategic Framework for Corporate Engagement

Beyond scientific evaluation, the Global Biodiversity Standard also represents a strategic tool for companies investing in restoration initiatives. By independently validating the biodiversity impact of forestry and agroforestry projects, it enables organisations to credibly demonstrate their contribution to ecosystem preservation and restoration.

In a context of growing expectations around transparency and environmental accountability, TGBS-certified projects provide a robust framework for structuring biodiversity commitments and strengthening the credibility of corporate sustainability strategies. They also offer strong complementarity with climate initiatives, particularly those aligned with international carbon standards. Healthy, functional ecosystems contribute both to climate change mitigation and to the adaptation of territories and societies to its impacts. The TGBS certification therefore enables companies to anchor their actions within a more integrated approach to climate and biodiversity, recognising the role of restoration projects in the long-term regeneration of ecosystems.

![LaLoma-Header.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/La_Loma_Header_7bce60fda0.jpg)

**The project in La Loma illustrates a profound shift in forest restoration practices. In a context marked by biodiversity loss and climate change, tree planting alone can no longer be considered sufficient. Restoration now requires a deep understanding of ecosystem functioning and the biological dynamics that underpin it. In this project, every intervention—from seed selection and mycorrhizal inoculation to seed dispersal by birds and protection against browsing pressure—is designed to support the natural processes that enable forests to regenerate. By placing biodiversity at the heart of project design, Reforest’Action demonstrates a demanding and scientifically grounded approach to restoring degraded forests. The objective is not merely to rebuild tree cover, but to restore ecosystems capable of sustaining themselves, evolving over time and supporting life in all its forms. In the Mediterranean landscapes of the Sierra de Hornachuelos, this ambition translates into the gradual reconstruction of a living system, in which the forest regains its capacity for renewal and biodiversity once again becomes the organising principle of the landscape.**

large_LaLoma-Header.jpg

medium_LaLoma-Header.jpg

small_LaLoma-Header.jpg

thumbnail_LaLoma-Header.jpg

LaLoma-Header.jpg

Spain: in La Loma, biodiversity is the cornerstone of restoration

In recent years, the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) has established itself as the leading framework for corporate climate strategies. More than 10,400 companies across over 100 countries and 50 sectors have already committed to this approach, which is aligned with the latest findings of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) and the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C.

The [SBTi Corporate Net-Zero Standard](https://sciencebasedtargets.org/net-zero) (CNZS) enables organizations to define a carbon emissions reduction pathway across their entire value chain (Scopes 1, 2 and often 3) by setting near-term and long-term targets, allowing them to reach net zero by 2050.

**While the SBTi places strong emphasis on emissions reductions, it has never limited corporate climate action to this single lever. From the outset, it has also recognized the importance of mobilizing finance for climate mitigation beyond companies’ value chains. Even with ambitious reductions, the transition to global net zero will require a large-scale deployment of emission avoidance and carbon removal solutions, including Nature-based Solutions (NbS), as highlighted by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).**

![SBTi guideline_EN.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/SB_Ti_guideline_EN_4c59468d44.jpg)

## BVCM: Climate contribution at the core of SBTi recommendations

One of the most frequently misunderstood aspects of the SBTi framework concerns the role and implementation of climate contribution mechanisms beyond companies’ value chains. Yet since the publication of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard in 2021, the initiative has actively encouraged companies to take such action through the [Beyond Value Chain Mitigation (BVCM) framework.](https://sciencebasedtargets.org/beyond-value-chain-mitigation)

### The BVCM framework promoted by the SBTi

BVCM refers to a company financing climate mitigation activities outside its value chain, while simultaneously implementing its validated emissions reduction pathway. This includes supporting projects that avoid emissions as well as projects that remove carbon from the atmosphere. Within this approach, Nature-based Solutions are highlighted by the SBTi as essential tools for climate change mitigation.

### A virtuous complement to emissions reduction targets

This mechanism is commonly referred to as carbon contribution. Its objective is straightforward: accelerate global climate action by channeling greater private finance toward high-impact – and often underfunded – climate solutions, while enabling companies to contribute to the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The SBTi also emphasizes that this approach brings strategic benefits for companies. Over time, it helps accelerate the global transition to net zero, defined as reducing 90 to 95% of a company’s emissions by 2050, combined with the full neutralization of residual emissions, notably through carbon removal projects.
Strategic climate finance can also help companies mitigate climate-related risks while strengthening their long-term financial resilience and value creation.

### A voluntary yet evolving framework

At this stage, the BVCM framework remains voluntary and is not subject to formal validation by the SBTi. However, the initiative encourages companies to structure their approach by:

- defining a clear beyond-value-chain commitment framework (objectives, timeline and scope)
- supporting projects that meet key environmental integrity criteria (additionality, permanence, and avoidance of double counting)
- prioritizing third-party verified projects based on standardized methodologies
- establishing measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) systems
- communicating transparently on supported projects and achieved impacts

The SBTi also encourages ambitious levels of engagement—for example, by supporting mitigation activities delivering emission reductions or removals equivalent to at least 50% of a company’s unabated emissions.

## OER: Toward greater corporate climate responsibility

The revision of the Corporate Net-Zero Standard, with a draft published in November 2025, suggests that beyond-value-chain climate contributions are likely to play an increasingly significant role. In this updated version of the standard, the SBTi introduces a more structured framework: Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER).

### From voluntary contribution to climate responsibility

While BVCM encouraged voluntary contributions, the proposed OER framework introduces a more structured approach. Companies are invited to take explicit responsibility for the emissions they continue to generate during their transition to net zero. This mechanism creates a clearer link between companies’ historical and ongoing emissions and their contribution to addressing the global climate crisis. The objective is to embed carbon contribution more firmly within corporate climate and financial strategies.

### Quantified targets and recognition mechanisms

Although the draft standard is currently being reviewed by the SBTi, it introduces several key developments:
 
- **recognition of corporate engagement** through two levels (“recognized” and “leadership”) designed to promote reputational incentives
 
- **quantified contribution targets,** expressed either in tCO₂e (Mitigation Impact Contributions) or financial contributions per tCO₂e (Climate Finance Contributions), enabling clearer comparison of commitments
 
- strong encouragement to **integrate climate contribution into corporate climate strategies,** notably through the implementation of an internal carbon price, and the possibility that the framework could become mandatory for certain companies by 2035
 
- a preference for **measurable and verified climate impacts,** often through certified carbon credits, although other projects may be accepted if they demonstrate credible and verifiable climate benefits

However, one fundamental principle remains unchanged as companies approach 2050: in order to achieve net zero, they must fully neutralize 100% of their residual emissions. 

The direction proposed in the Draft Corporate Net-Zero Standard V2.0 sends a strong signal to companies: contributing beyond their value chain is no longer merely a complementary action, but rather a strategic climate solution to be deployed alongside emissions reduction efforts.

Whether through the BVCM framework – already in place – or the currently under review Ongoing Emissions Responsibility (OER) framework, these mechanisms share a common objective: accelerating climate action today rather than waiting until the net-zero target year to mobilize the necessary solutions.

**In this context, financing carbon projects is increasingly emerging as a meaningful pathway to support a company’s SBTi trajectory, alongside the strict emissions reduction pathways implemented within its value chain.**

## Nature-based Solutions to support SBTi climate contribution strategies

[Nature-based Solutions](https://www.reforestaction.com/en/magazine/what-are-nature-based-solutions) (NbS) are particularly well suited to building high-integrity climate contribution strategies. In addition to enabling carbon storage – with forests representing the largest terrestrial carbon sink – they deliver essential co-benefits for biodiversity, soil health, water systems and local communities. Investing in NbS therefore allows companies to align climate strategy with broader ESG objectives, moving beyond a purely carbon-centric approach.

### Anticipating near-term SBTi targets

To date, more than 10,000 companies have committed to the SBTi with near-term targets covering a 5- to 10-year timeframe, many of which converge around 2030. In this context, climate contribution represents an actionable lever that companies can activate today to maximize their climate impact under the BVCM framework while continuing to implement emissions reduction pathways.

At the same time, new quality standards and integrity frameworks are emerging in the voluntary carbon market, contributing to a more robust ecosystem for climate projects. Despite these improvements, the supply of high-integrity projects remains limited, largely due to chronic underfunding. As a result, it is becoming strategically important for companies to secure their climate contribution commitments early.

**With this in mind, Reforest’Action develops Nature-based Solutions, particularly through forest ecosystem projects, to support companies in achieving their 2030 climate objectives.**

### A portfolio of solutions tailored to corporate needs

With over 15 years of experience in Nature-based Solutions, Reforest’Action offers a range of solutions designed to help companies secure climate contributions beyond their value chains. Through a diversified set of projects - including forest restoration, agroforestry and tropical forest conservation initiatives - certified or verified by recognized third parties and spanning different geographies and pricing levels, companies can build carbon project portfolios aligned with their operational constraints and climate objectives.

The **carbon units** generated by our projects are available for immediate mobilization and can therefore be integrated into short-term SBTi strategies:

- **REDD+ carbone credits:** Carbon credits certified under recognized standards (VCS, CCB) generated by projects that protect tropical forests threatened by deforestation or forest degradation. These projects contribute to biodiversity conservation while supporting sustainable economic opportunities for local communities.
-
- **Label bas-carbone credits:** Forestry projects developed by Reforest’Action and certified under France’s Label Bas-Carbone, contributing to the (re)forestation of French forests. The Label Bas-Carbone currently represents the only official certification framework for quantifying nature-based carbon removal in France, supporting the French National Low-Carbon Strategy (SNBC).

- **Carbon units from verified projects:** (Agro)forestry projects developed by Reforest’Action with 30-year carbon sequestration projections validated by Bureau Veritas, combined with an independent field audit after five years, ensuring transparency and environmental integrity.


As the SBTi evolves from voluntary climate contribution toward a more structured approach to corporate climate responsibility, beyond-value-chain contributions are becoming increasingly central to corporate climate strategies.
For companies, acting beyond the value chain does not mean acting in isolation from their core business. On the contrary, high-integrity climate action can be anchored locally, closely connected to territories, ecosystems and corporate stakeholders.

In this context, Nature-based Solutions offer a concrete opportunity to support companies in achieving their near-term SBTi targets while generating positive environmental and social impacts where they matter most.

**Discover how Reforest’Action’s solutions can support your climate strategy.**


_Note: Activities and investments related to BVCM and OER frameworks are not accounted for within Scope 1, 2 or 3 emissions and do not contribute to value-chain emissions reduction targets. They therefore cannot replace corporate decarbonization efforts._



large_Header article SBTi.jpg

medium_Header article SBTi.jpg

small_Header article SBTi.jpg

thumbnail_Header article SBTi.jpg

Header article SBTi.jpg

Carbon contribution under the SBTi: The growing role of  Nature-based Solutions

**Today, water deficit is no longer an occasional hazard but a structural transformation of the hydrological cycle. In many agricultural regions, atmospheric demand now exceeds the capacity of ecosystems to retain and redistribute available moisture. This shift challenges a productive model historically built on climatic stability and the relative availability of water resources. How can the continuity of agricultural production be maintained when water becomes a structural limiting factor? Rethinking agricultural models therefore requires revisiting the biophysical mechanisms that govern water infiltration, storage, and availability across soils, crops, and territories, and repositioning the capacity of ecosystems to regulate water at the core of agronomic and territorial decision-making.**
 
## Water Deficit: A Systemic Transformation of the Agricultural Water Cycle

### The Intensification of Climatic Constraints

The sixth assessment report of the IPCC highlights the increasing frequency and intensity of agricultural droughts as a combined consequence of global warming and changes in atmospheric circulation. Rising temperatures increase potential evapotranspiration—that is, the amount of water that could be transferred from soil and plants to the atmosphere if water were available without limitation. This indicator reflects climatic water demand: the warmer, drier, and windier the air, the greater this demand becomes. Consequently, even when precipitation remains constant, an increase in potential evapotranspiration intensifies crop water stress, as the atmosphere demands more water than the soil–plant system can supply.

Water stress therefore arises from a structural imbalance between the actual supply of water—dependent on rainfall and the soil’s capacity to store it—and a rapidly increasing atmospheric demand. This tension alters cropping calendars, weakens sensitive phenological stages such as flowering or grain filling, and increases the variability of yields from one year to the next. In this context, productive stability becomes a central concern: a system’s capacity to absorb successive water shocks now determines economic viability as much as the yield levels achieved in favorable years.
 
### Blue Water and Green Water: A Strategic Framework

The work of Malin Falkenmark beginning in the mid-1990s, followed by research conducted with Johan Rockström in the early 2000s, profoundly reshaped hydrological analysis by distinguishing between blue water stored in rivers and aquifers and green water retained in soils and directly used by plants.

Rainfed agriculture—that is, production systems relying exclusively on natural precipitation rather than artificial irrigation—accounts for the majority of cultivated land worldwide. It depends directly on the moisture stored in soils following rainfall infiltration, in other words on green water. The hydrological performance of rainfed agriculture therefore depends on the soil’s ability to absorb precipitation, slow runoff, build a usable reserve within its active horizons, and release this water in line with the physiological needs of crops.

Water deficit thus reflects a failure of ecosystem regulation as much as a volumetric shortage. Such a perspective shifts attention toward the structural and biological quality of soils, as well as the spatial organization of agricultural landscapes, which determine how water circulates and how long it remains within territories.
 
### From Water Deficit to Water Bankruptcy

When these natural regulatory mechanisms deteriorate over time, a structural imbalance can emerge between needs and ecological capacity. At the scale of territories and value chains, such an imbalance corresponds to what the United Nations University report Global Water Bankruptcy describes as water bankruptcy: a tipping point at which water demand permanently exceeds the capacity of ecosystems to supply it, jeopardizing agricultural production, supply security, and the economic stability of entire sectors.
 
## Toward Water Sobriety: Restoring the Hydrological Capacity of Soils

### Vegetative Cover and Infiltration Dynamics

In agricultural systems, soils left bare between crops exhibit structural vulnerability to intense rainfall. The kinetic impact of raindrops breaks down surface aggregates; disaggregated silts and clays migrate toward the surface and clog soil pores—that is, the interstitial spaces through which water infiltrates and circulates—forming a surface crust that reduces infiltration capacity. Excess water then runs off across the surface, carrying away fine particles and nutrients while the replenishment of the soil’s plant-available water reserve remains limited.

Introducing cover crops fundamentally alters this sequence. Vegetative cover absorbs the impact of raindrops, root systems structure the soil at depth, and associated biological activity—earthworms, microorganisms, and root exudates—fosters the formation of stable aggregates. This biological architecture increases macroporosity, improves hydraulic continuity, and facilitates percolation toward active soil horizons.

Several meta-analyses conducted in temperate and Mediterranean agricultural systems—notably Basche & DeLonge (2017) and Blanco-Canqui et al. (2015)—demonstrate significant improvements in infiltration rates and reductions in runoff in most of the contexts studied, although results depend on climate, soil texture, and crop rotations. The magnitude of benefits therefore varies according to local conditions, requiring a contextualized agronomic approach. When coherently integrated into cropping systems, permanent soil cover increases the share of precipitation effectively stored in the soil and available for subsequent crops, transforming rainfall events into hydrological capital rather than transient flows.
 
### Soil Organic Matter and Water Retention

Soil organic carbon content is a key determinant of the structural architecture of agricultural soils. By promoting the formation and stabilization of aggregates, it directly influences the distribution and continuity of soil pores, and therefore the way water circulates and is stored within the soil profile. Studies such as Rawls et al. (2003) and Minasny & McBratney (2018) highlight a positive relationship between soil organic carbon and water-holding capacity, while emphasizing the context-dependent nature of this effect. Its magnitude depends strongly on soil texture and mineralogy: the impact is generally more pronounced in sandy or loamy soils, where biological structuring compensates for limited intrinsic storage capacity, than in clay-rich soils already characterized by high microporosity.

Increasing soil organic carbon stocks can therefore enhance the plant-available water reserve while improving structural cohesion and reducing vulnerability to erosion. Biological activity stimulated by this enrichment contributes to the formation of macropores and to improved hydraulic continuity within the soil profile. This more functional soil structure strengthens the soil’s capacity to buffer short- to medium-term water deficits, whose frequency is increasing in many temperate regions. In this sense, restoring soil carbon stocks emerges as both a hydrological and climatic lever, stabilizing production while contributing to emission mitigation.
 
### Conservation Agriculture and Hydraulic Continuity

Systems combining reduced soil disturbance, permanent soil cover, and diversified crop rotations profoundly reshape the pore architecture of surface horizons. No-till practices limit the mechanical disruption of aggregates, vegetative cover protects the soil surface and contributes carbon inputs, while diversified rotations encourage differentiated root structuring.
Analyses of conservation agriculture systems, including Pittelkow et al. (2015) and Blanco-Canqui & Ruis (2018), show significant improvements in infiltration and structural stability when these practices are implemented together. By contrast, the effects are more variable—and sometimes limited—when no-till is adopted without cover crops or crop diversification, highlighting the systemic nature of the approach.

Improved hydraulic continuity—that is, effective connectivity between soil pores—allows infiltrated water to percolate into deeper horizons rather than flowing across the surface, thereby reducing runoff losses. This structured pore network regulates hydrological flows by absorbing intense rainfall, facilitating water storage within the soil profile, and gradually releasing moisture during dry periods.

Hydrological performance therefore depends on the overall coherence of the cropping system: it results from the integration of multiple practices implemented together rather than from the isolated adoption of a single technique.
 
## Trees and Landscapes: Reconfiguring Agricultural Hydrology

### Agroforestry and Microclimatic Regulation

Agroforestry reintroduces vertical complexity into simplified agricultural systems—that is, fields dominated by a single vegetation layer, typically consisting of uniform annual crops. Introducing trees creates multiple vegetation strata that alter energy and water exchanges between soil, vegetation, and the atmosphere.

Trees intercept and redistribute solar radiation (radiative fluxes), reducing the energy reaching the soil surface and the crops beneath. This modulation of radiation lowers surface temperatures and limits excessive heating of the crop canopy. It is accompanied by reduced wind speed within the field, which in turn decreases water losses associated with atmospheric turbulence.

These microclimatic modifications attenuate instantaneous evaporative demand—that is, the amount of water the atmosphere can extract at a given moment from soils and plants when air conditions are hot and dry. During heat waves, this reduction in atmospheric demand can limit the intensity of water stress experienced by associated crops.

At the same time, the depth and diversity of tree root systems contribute to structuring the soil at depth and improving its porosity. Agroforestry design—tree density, row orientation, and species selection—determines the balance between competition and complementarity for water and light. Careful ecological design makes it possible to optimize these interactions between trees and crops in order to maximize the hydrological resilience of the ecosystem.
 
### Vertical Hydraulic Redistribution

Deep tree root systems, capable of exploring several meters of soil depending on species and pedological conditions, access water reserves beyond the reach of annual crops. This deep anchoring modifies the vertical distribution of water flows within the soil profile.

Ecohydrological research, from the pioneering observations of Richards & Caldwell (1987) to more recent syntheses by Neumann & Cardon (2012), documents processes of hydraulic redistribution—sometimes referred to as hydraulic lift—through which water absorbed at depth during the day may be released into upper soil layers when these layers become drier than deeper horizons. This moisture gradient allows water to move upward through the root system, particularly at night when reduced transpiration favors the reversal of hydraulic flows. In this way, the root network connects different soil layers and can, depending on moisture contrasts, help maintain residual moisture in surface horizons, benefiting fine roots of the tree itself and, in some contexts, associated crops and soil biological activity.

The magnitude of this process depends on rooting depth and density, soil physical properties, and the availability of water in deeper horizons. It therefore varies according to tree species, agroforestry design, and climatic conditions. By redistributing water vertically, trees actively contribute to regulating the local water cycle and to stabilizing the functioning of the soil–plant–atmosphere system.
 
### Functional Landscapes and Territorial Water Retention

The simplification of agricultural landscapes—the removal of hedgerows, clearing of woodlots, drainage of wetlands, and enlargement of fields—has profoundly altered water circulation at the territorial scale. By removing physical and biological obstacles that once slowed flows, these transformations have accelerated surface runoff and reduced water residence time within watersheds. An increasing share of rainfall therefore rapidly reaches drainage outlets, limiting diffuse infiltration and the gradual recharge of soils and aquifers.

Restoring ecological infrastructures such as hedgerows, grass strips, and wetlands acts simultaneously on several hydrological mechanisms. Vegetated hedgerows and embankments increase landscape roughness, slow runoff, and promote infiltration upstream. Grass strips intercept surface flows, reduce erosion, and enhance local percolation. Wetlands, whether natural or restored, function as hydrological buffers by temporarily storing water during rainfall events and releasing it gradually, thereby smoothing hydrological extremes.

Analyses by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre highlight the role of Nature-based Solutions in strengthening the hydrological resilience of agricultural territories, notably by increasing water retention time and moderating peak flows. These mechanisms do not replace technical infrastructures, but they alter their operating conditions by reducing flow variability.
Managing water deficit therefore extends beyond the scale of individual fields to that of the watershed. Regulating water flows requires coordination among farmers, public authorities, and economic actors. A territory’s ability to retain, infiltrate, and redistribute water thus becomes a collective asset upon which the hydrological stability of farms and value chains depends.
 
## Agronomic and Economic Adaptation to Water Risk: Transforming Production Systems

### Reconfiguring Cropping Choices in a Constrained Climate

By modifying the biophysical conditions in which crops develop, restoring the ecological functions of soils and landscapes constitutes a necessary condition for hydrological resilience. Yet the intensification of water deficits also requires a transformation of the very structure of agricultural production.

The choice of species and varieties becomes a strategic parameter. Differences in physiological responses to water stress—rooting depth, stomatal regulation capacity, phenological plasticity—directly influence a crop’s ability to maintain productive potential under constraint. Adapting crop rotations to regional climate projections therefore amounts to a structural repositioning of agricultural systems in relation to their future environmental conditions.

Crop diversification constitutes a second lever. Highly specialized systems concentrate exposure to water risks on a limited number of productions. By contrast, more diversified rotations distribute risks, reduce dependence on water-intensive crops, and enable more precise adjustment of cropping calendars to critical climatic periods identified through data.
Transforming production systems therefore requires reconsidering the coherence between regional climate conditions, crop physiology, and the organization of crop rotations.
 
### Embedding the Transition within Value Chains

These agronomic transformations unfold within value chains whose structure strongly influences decisions at the farm level. Introducing new crops, modifying rotations, or reducing dependence on certain productions requires not only technical adjustments but also commercial and contractual adaptations.

The durability of these transitions depends on the capacity of economic actors to integrate water constraints into their sourcing criteria and long-term commitments. When market outlets are secure and risks are shared, producers gain greater room to adapt their systems. Conversely, rigid economic frameworks tend to maintain production models that are increasingly misaligned with emerging climatic realities.

Water risk is therefore not merely an environmental variable; it affects supply continuity, volume stability, and cost predictability. As episodes of tension become more frequent, the ability of value chains to anticipate these dynamics becomes a determining factor in their economic resilience.

**Water deficit highlights a now-central interdependence between climate, ecosystems, and agricultural models. A territory’s capacity to produce under constraint depends first and foremost on the functionality of its soils and landscapes: infiltration, storage, and redistribution of water form the physical foundation of productive stability. Yet ecological restoration alone is insufficient without parallel changes in cropping choices and economic frameworks. Aligning production systems with regional climate trajectories and structuring value chains accordingly becomes a condition for long-term viability. Technical infrastructures—irrigation systems, storage facilities, and monitoring tools—can complement these dynamics. Their effectiveness, however, remains closely tied to the hydrological quality of the ecosystems in which they operate. Rethinking agricultural models in the face of water deficit therefore implies a change of scale: from field to watershed, from annual yield to multi-year stability, from water management to the transformation of production systems. The future of agriculture will depend on this articulation between restoring living systems and reorganizing value chains within an increasingly uncertain hydrological regime.**


large_iStock-1352512170.jpg

medium_iStock-1352512170.jpg

small_iStock-1352512170.jpg

thumbnail_iStock-1352512170.jpg

iStock-1352512170.jpg

Rethinking Agricultural Models in the Face of Water Deficits

**The leather sector occupies a distinctive position within textile and fashion value chains. Often regarded as a by-product of the meat and dairy industries, bovine hides in fact embody a significant share of the environmental impacts associated with livestock production. Behind every processed hide lie systemic challenges: greenhouse gas emissions, imported deforestation linked to animal feed, growing pressure on water resources, soil degradation, and biodiversity loss. According to the FAO, livestock accounts for approximately 14.5% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the majority of which are attributable to cattle. In this context, leather sustainability cannot be limited to improvements in industrial processing: it requires a profound transformation of agricultural practices. It is precisely at this upstream level that regenerative agriculture offers structuring levers to reshape the sector’s sourcing models.**

## Leather Supply Chains: Understanding the Underlying Agricultural Challenges

### Cattle Farming: A Sector Struggling to Align with Sustainability Pathways

Converging analyses from the FAO, the IPCC and INRAE highlight that cattle farming remains one of the most complex agricultural sectors to align with climate trajectories, due to its significant share of enteric methane emissions and its structural link to deforestation dynamics driven by animal feed production.

Dominant intensive systems rely heavily on external inputs, including mineral fertilizers, agrochemicals and imported feed concentrates. In many European regions, landscape simplification and the progressive disappearance of traditional agroforestry systems—such as the historic bocage landscapes of Normandy—have weakened the ecological resilience of farms.

This situation is all the more critical as farmers are on the frontline of climate change impacts. Recurrent droughts, extreme weather events and declining pasture productivity are undermining farm economic stability. At the same time, the agroecological transitions expected of the sector require significant technical and human investment: rethinking grazing management, diversifying cropping systems, restoring soil fertility and reducing input dependency. These transformations carry short-term risks, particularly in terms of yields and financial stability, which many farmers cannot shoulder alone.

The absence of sufficiently strong financial incentives therefore constitutes a major barrier to engagement in the transition. Without structured support, sustainability is too often perceived as an additional constraint rather than a resilience strategy.

### Animal Feed and Deforestation: A Strategic Blind Spot

Among the key drivers of leather’s environmental footprint, animal feed occupies a central role. A significant share of the plant proteins consumed by European cattle is imported, particularly soy grown in South America. This dependency directly contributes to deforestation and the conversion of natural ecosystems, notably in the Amazon.

The European Union itself acknowledges its responsibility in imported deforestation, estimated at nearly 10% of the global total associated with international trade. In this context, strengthening feed self-sufficiency at farm level emerges as a major strategic lever. Producing a greater share of livestock feed locally—through diversified and resilient cropping systems—not only reduces farms’ carbon footprint but also helps break the structural link between cattle farming and deforestation.

## Agricultural Levers for Transformation: Towards Regenerative Leather

To address these challenges, Reforest’Action builds its approach on three complementary pillars of regenerative agriculture applied to cattle farming: regenerative soil and crop management, silvopastoral systems, and rotational grazing.

### Restoring Soils to Reinvent Agricultural Performance

Regenerative soil and crop management forms the foundation of the transition. It relies on a coherent set of practices designed to restore soil biological functions: reduced mechanical tillage, the use of cover crops, extended and diversified crop rotations, the development of polycultures, and the progressive reduction of mineral fertilizer use.

These practices fundamentally transform agroecosystem functioning. By increasing soil organic matter, they enhance carbon storage while reducing emissions linked to mineral fertilizers and field operations. Better-structured soils improve water infiltration, limit runoff and erosion, and strengthen resilience to drought.

Global meta-analyses based on field data indicate that introducing cover crops can increase soil carbon stocks by approximately 0.3 to 1 tonne of CO₂e per hectare per year, depending on pedoclimatic conditions and management practices. In livestock systems—where soils already represent a major carbon sink—such gains are decisive in improving leather’s overall carbon footprint.

### Silvopastoral Systems: Reconnecting Trees and Livestock

Silvopastoral systems occupy a central role in Reforest’Action’s approach. By reintroducing trees, hedgerows and wooded alignments into pasturelands, these systems reconnect with historically rooted agricultural models while adapting them to contemporary challenges.

Trees play a multifunctional role. Scientific research on agroforestry consistently shows that integrating trees into agricultural systems significantly increases carbon stocks, both in above-ground biomass and in soils, compared to treeless systems. Although the magnitude of sequestration varies according to climate, planting density and management practices, its contribution is sufficiently well documented to be integrated into farm-level carbon accounting.

Trees also play a decisive role in soil protection. When topsoil erodes, fundamental soil functions deteriorate: rooting depth declines, water retention capacity weakens, and nutrients become less accessible to crops. The FAO notes that in cases of severe erosion, the degradation of soil ecological functions can result in substantial yield losses, reaching up to 50% in the most extreme situations. By slowing runoff, stabilizing surface horizons and strengthening soil structure through root systems, agroforestry systems offer a strategic lever to preserve long-term land productivity.

From a hydrological perspective, reduced runoff and improved infiltration help protect the quality of surface and groundwater. Trees also provide essential microclimatic regulation: agroforestry trees can reduce wind speed over distances several times their height, helping stabilize production conditions in the face of climate variability.

In certain contexts, trees can also contribute directly to livestock feeding. Some fodder tree species produce leaves and young shoots that can be consumed by ruminants, particularly during summer periods when pasture productivity declines. This complementary resource—often rich in minerals and sometimes in protein—can strengthen farm feed autonomy. However, not all tree species are suitable for this purpose, and the potential for fodder valorization depends on species selection, management practices and the specific needs of the livestock involved.

For animals, the presence of trees provides essential shade during heatwaves, improves thermal comfort and contributes to overall herd welfare. At farm scale, silvopastoral systems also create opportunities for economic diversification through the valorization of tree-based products such as timber, fruit or biomass.

### Rotational Grazing: A Key to Ecological Pasture Productivity

Rotational grazing constitutes the third pillar of the transition. By dividing pastureland into multiple paddocks and regularly moving livestock, this practice prevents overgrazing and allows vegetation sufficient time to regenerate.

Its benefits are both agronomic and environmental. Soils experience less compaction, root systems develop more extensively, and organic matter gradually accumulates. Denser vegetative cover protects soils from climatic stress and supports biodiversity.

From an economic and environmental standpoint, rotational grazing improves the efficiency of forage resource use. By reducing reliance on fertilizers and purchased feed, it lowers production costs while mitigating deforestation risks associated with imported feed. It also enhances animal health and productivity by reducing parasite pressure and providing more favorable grazing conditions.

## Measuring to Transform: A Transition Grounded in Robust Indicators

The credibility of regenerative leather supply chains depends on the ability to accurately measure environmental and socio-economic impacts. The framework developed by Reforest’Action relies on a structured methodology ranging from baseline assessment to trajectory verification, including medium-term projections and ongoing monitoring.

Indicators cover all key dimensions of sustainability. They include enteric methane emissions, emissions linked to manure management, mineral nitrogen use, emissions per unit of output, as well as carbon storage in soils and biomass. These climate-related metrics are complemented by biodiversity indicators, water quality metrics, economic performance measures and feed autonomy indicators.

Alignment with the French Low Carbon Label (Label Bas Carbone) ensures institutional and methodological recognition of the results achieved. The certification of emission reductions and carbon sequestration—materialized through carbon units—constitutes a key economic lever to secure the transition phase and encourage long-term adoption of regenerative practices by farmers.

However, transformation cannot stop at the farm gate. Valorizing leather derived from regenerative practices also requires coordination with slaughterhouses to ensure identification, segregation and traceability of hides at the point of processing. This intermediary link is decisive: without logistical organization across the value chain, environmental benefits generated upstream risk remaining invisible and unrecognized in the market.

## Reforest’Action: Architect of Regenerative Leather Supply Chains

With over fifteen years of experience designing and implementing ecosystem regeneration projects worldwide, Reforest’Action has established itself as a structuring actor in the agricultural transition, mobilizing hundreds of economic partners around the sustainable securing of raw materials.

Through its regenerative agriculture programs, Reforest’Action develops support frameworks combining agroforestry expertise, supply chain structuring and robust carbon accounting methodologies. Its approach is based on long-term farmer engagement, integrating initial diagnostics, transition planning and ongoing environmental and economic performance monitoring.

By aligning environmental performance, economic viability and carbon traceability, Reforest’Action positions itself as a true architect of regenerative supply chains, capable of meeting the growing expectations of brands and territories alike.



**The sustainability of leather supply chains is not determined solely in processing facilities, but in the agricultural landscapes where raw materials are produced. Pastures, crop rotations, hedgerows and livestock feeding systems ultimately shape the sector’s climate footprint, its dependence on imported deforestation, and the resilience of rural territories. Combining feed autonomy, soil restoration, silvopastoral systems, rotational grazing and rigorous impact measurement makes it possible to transform the leather sector at its roots. At a time when the European Regulation on Deforestation-Free Products (EUDR) is redefining traceability and compliance requirements for raw materials, organizing regenerative leather supply chains has become a strategic imperative as much as an environmental one. By structuring regenerative supply chains, Reforest’Action is paving the way for leather that is compatible with planetary boundaries, while strengthening the long-term resilience of farmers and territories.**


Actualités et décryptages