**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.**


large_Filiere-cuir.jpg

medium_Filiere-cuir.jpg

small_Filiere-cuir.jpg

thumbnail_Filiere-cuir.jpg

Filiere-cuir.jpg

Leather Supply Chains: What Agricultural Levers Can Strengthen Sustainability?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


large_Header-IPBES.jpg

medium_Header-IPBES.jpg

small_Header-IPBES.jpg

thumbnail_Header-IPBES.jpg

Header-IPBES.jpg

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

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

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

## Supporting the transition to regenerative models

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

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

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

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

## Structured programmes—from strategy to the field

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

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

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

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

## Measuring, steering, and showcasing impact

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

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

## Insetting in action: our flagship programmes

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

### Transforming a cotton supply chain in India

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

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

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

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

### Strengthening a natural rubber supply chain in Brazil

In the Brazilian Amazon, Reforest’Action supports an international company engaged in sourcing natural rubber from traditional forest-based systems. In a context of increasing deforestation and progressive land degradation—particularly linked to cattle ranching—the project aims to deploy a rubber production model that is both sustainable and economically attractive for rubber tappers, offering a more compelling alternative to cattle ranching and thereby contributing to the preservation of the surrounding Amazon forest.

The initiative is based on the restoration of degraded land and supports the development of productive agroforestry stands, using the Assisted Natural Regeneration method. This approach combines plot protection, targeted interventions, and enrichment planting with locally adapted productive species offering strong economic potential.

Deployed across several priority areas in the state of Acre, the project is implemented with the direct involvement of rubber-tapper families, placed at the heart of the approach. A payment for ecosystem services mechanism secures their engagement and helps offset transition costs and the opportunity cost of not converting land.

Impact monitoring combines field observations and satellite analysis, with the objective of consolidating a replicable model that reconciles supply chain security with local economic resilience.

![Illu-rubber.jpg](https://backoffice.reforestaction.com/uploads/Illu_rubber_89ff885d11.jpg)

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

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

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

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

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

### Strengthening the resilience of a vineyard in France

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



large_Header-AR.jpg

medium_Header-AR.jpg

small_Header-AR.jpg

thumbnail_Header-AR.jpg

Header-AR.jpg

Value Chain Resilience: Our Reference Programs in Regenerative Agriculture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



large_Header-Pesticides.jpg

medium_Header-Pesticides.jpg

small_Header-Pesticides.jpg

thumbnail_Header-Pesticides.jpg

Header-Pesticides.jpg

Can the reduction of pesticides be reconciled with economic sustainability?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

## Irreversibility as a Breaking Point

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

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

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

## A Dynamic Already Observable at the Global Scale

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

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

## From Water Vulnerability to Economic Risk

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

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

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

## Reference Frameworks Structuring Corporate Action

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

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

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

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

## Water Resilience: Restoring the Hydrological Functions of Landscapes

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

### The Watershed as the Appropriate Scale

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

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

### An Approach Grounded in Hydrological Processes

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

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

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

large_iStock-2172917273.jpg

medium_iStock-2172917273.jpg

small_iStock-2172917273.jpg

thumbnail_iStock-2172917273.jpg

iStock-2172917273.jpg

Rethinking corporate strategy in the age of water bankruptcy

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

## When Climate Risks Become Economic Risks

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

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

## From Compensation to Structured Climate Contribution

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Contributing to Collective Mitigation Efforts

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

### Strengthening Resilience to Climate and Economic Risks

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

### Enhancing the Credibility and Robustness of Climate Commitments

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

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

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

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

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

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

### Fifteen Years of Experience in Ecosystem Restoration

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

### Robust Methodologies Ensuring Project Integrity

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

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

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

### Territorial Anchoring as a Guarantee of Project Durability

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

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

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

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


large_Header-Offsetting.jpg

medium_Header-Offsetting.jpg

small_Header-Offsetting.jpg

thumbnail_Header-Offsetting.jpg

Header-Offsetting.jpg

Beyond Value Chain Mitigation : a strategic lever for climate action

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

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

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

## The Foundation of Regulatory and Voluntary Frameworks

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

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

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

## A Progressive Evolution

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

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


large_Header-GHG.jpg

medium_Header-GHG.jpg

small_Header-GHG.jpg

thumbnail_Header-GHG.jpg

Header-GHG.jpg

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

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

## A European framework to certify carbon removals

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

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

## Three categories of activities, one shared logic

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

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

## Turning carbon removal into a verifiable result

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

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

## A framework under construction

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

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

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

## What this could change for companies and investors

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

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

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

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

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

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

large_Header-CRCF.jpg

medium_Header-CRCF.jpg

small_Header-CRCF.jpg

thumbnail_Header-CRCF.jpg

Header-CRCF.jpg

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

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

## Article 6 within the architecture of the Paris Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

## The three pillars of Article 6

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

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

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

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

## Toward the structuring of international carbon markets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



Actualités et décryptages